COLA to be replaced by rent subsidy

[Ludwig]

It would have been more appropriate if someone still working for the AFL came out and said something.

I think everyone on the inside really knows the score on this, but they are either pandering to their fan base, local audiences, or shielding themselves from criticism as to why they haven't been as perspicacious as the Swans in their list management.

[chalbilto]

I think diplomatic. He cannot be too partisan

Hey Reggi,

Diplomatic or not it was pretty lukewarm as Meg said. Yes he did acknowledge that the Swans were paying 9.8% to all players but he found in incongruous that a player on a base of $60,000 received 9.8% (roughly $6,000) and someone on $8000,000 received $80,000 (roughly) for cost of living expenses. He was inferring and rightly so that the player on $60,000 was worse off. However, the rule stated that the COLA was 9.8% to all players. It wasn't stated that it had to be distributed on a sliding scale on a formula worked out by the AFL. As he said "it is what it is" and the underlying resentment is the fact that Tippett and Franklin wanted to play for the Swans. If they could have I am sure every other club would have had no hesitation in having either of these players on their roster. It was brilliant recruiting by the Swans.

[707]

Yep GWS screwed themselves. It is an accomodation allowance not rental

Great to see that GWS in working so hard against our COLA have shot themselves in the foot, no I'd say in the nuts! and lost their own COLA. Nice work from those smart arses. Bet there was shock when they found out - nice!

[707]

What's stunning to think about is that a list of spuds like at Melbourne last year, got paid 95% of what the Premiers Hawthorn did.

So in bald reality, every Melbourne player was getting paid far more, and probably twice as much as what their real worth was on the open market. That is quite stupid and obviously limits the ability of a lowly club to attract better players because nearly all their cap is tied up in overpriced hacks.

I have current theory that it will be very hard for lowly placed sides to rise up the ladder because of the combined effects of more teams, Free Agency, FA compo picks, no priority picks etc. It's why a team like Carlton with its best players close to retirement could end up a cellar dweller for a decade or more. You read it here first!

[Ludwig]

Carlton with its best players close to retirement could end up a cellar dweller for a decade or more. You read it here first!

I've thought the same. They only have about 6 players under 27 worth keeping. Easily the next AFL basket case. You would think MM had better things to worry about than the COLA.

[ShockOfHair]

The sting has been pretty much taken out of the COLA story. Gordon got slapped down and I'm sure the figures broadcast on On The Couch registered with a lot of people, not to mention the sympathetic views of Dunstall a Hawks bloke.

Plus the AFL would've been totally focused on selling its new equalisation package which is replacing the COLA. It wouldn't want to get distracted from that so it'd be loathe to get into arguments about past policies.

[ernie koala]

Great to see that GWS in working so hard against our COLA have shot themselves in the foot, no I'd say in the nuts! and lost their own COLA. Nice work from those smart arses. Bet there was shock when they found out - nice!

Agree.

It's why a team like Carlton with its best players close to retirement could end up a cellar dweller for a decade or more. You read it here first!

Agree

[CureTheSane]

Yep GWS screwed themselves.

Yep, that was my first thought.
Funny.

[CureTheSane]

So everyone listening to 3aw on Monday night heard it then ? Didn't see it any of the papers, on the tv news or on the afl website. I want a big, bold statement that gets across to the masses, not a mention on a Monday night am radio station from the departing CEO. Put it to bed.

Doesn't matter. It can be said as plain as day, but anyone and everyone, but the press only hear what makes a good story.

So everyone listening to 3aw on Monday night heard it then ? Didn't see it any of the papers, on the tv news or on the afl website. I want a big, bold statement that gets across to the masses, not a mention on a Monday night am radio station from the departing CEO. Put it to bed.

I didn't interpret i that way at all.
Simply gives everything more transparency, and considering we are all banging on about how hard it is to prove transparency with COLA, I see it as a great thing.

[CureTheSane]

Yes he did acknowledge that the Swans were paying 9.8% to all players but he found in incongruous that a player on a base of $60,000 received 9.8% (roughly $6,000) and someone on $8000,000 received $80,000 (roughly) for cost of living expenses. He was inferring and rightly so that the player on $60,000 was worse off. However, the rule stated that the COLA was 9.8% to all players. It wasn't stated that it had to be distributed on a sliding scale on a formula worked out by the AFL.

The problem with this is clear when compared to say, income tax.
Not only are higher earners taxed more dollars, they are also taxed at a higher end of the scale.
Not fair but it has to be that way.

When the AFL brought in COLA, they knew that the higher earners would get a larger amount of money and they were OK with that.

[Meg]

Brad Seymour strongly feels AFL should make a statement refuting misleading rumours about Swans' use of COLA.

http://www.sportsfan.com.au/Home/VideoonDemand/tabid/947/Default.aspx?selectedtab=2008&selectedprogram=865#650803

[DamY]

I think the more anyone including the AFL talks about it, and especially the Swans and COLA, the more opposition supporters will say Sydney gets special treatment. I think it will persist until COLA is gone so don't hold your breath, ladies and gentlemen. It's gonna be a long ride with resentful premierships should they arise.

[Matt80]

What's stunning to think about is that a list of spuds like at Melbourne last year, got paid 95% of what the Premiers Hawthorn did.

So in bald reality, every Melbourne player was getting paid far more, and probably twice as much as what their real worth was on the open market. That is quite stupid and obviously limits the ability of a lowly club to attract better players because nearly all their cap is tied up in overpriced hacks.

I have current theory that it will be very hard for lowly placed sides to rise up the ladder because of the combined effects of more teams, Free Agency, FA compo picks, no priority picks etc. It's why a team like Carlton with its best players close to retirement could end up a cellar dweller for a decade or more. You read it here first!

Well done. Superbly put on the Hawks / Demons example.

The AFL thinks that paying 100% of your cap makes the competition more equal. I think it allows good and mediocre players at low ladder clubs to be paid way above their market value and on-field performance. The AFLPA thinks this is a great outcome.

This practice allows the lowly club less flexibility in revamping their list and less money to advantage from free agency. Imagine if a club who finished 14th on the ladder could say:

?We have had some significant improvement from our younger players and we are operating at 82% of our salary cap. We are looking forward to the free agency period and have significant cap room to ad players who will fill positional weaknesses s in our young side?.

[Reggi]

That's the way I see it too. I like your suggestion.

If you paying a list of crap (read mediocre) players the same a strong list then you are pricing those players out of the market for other clubs, and locking up ocap that could be use to recruit or retain better players. So it actually entrenches the status quo rather than leads to greater equalisation.

They haven't lost any flexibility. Clubs in that position need to be sensible and put guys on shorter contracts so they have more players coming out of contract and go and recruit/ turnover their players. In practice many of them get scared and contract mediocre players long term

It is more poor management than anything

[barry]

This is a poor outcome for the Swans.

We have a distinct disadvantage in attracting star (top 50 players in the comp) talent. We can overcome that by offering then 10% more.

But sometimes this is not enough. It was not enough to get Buddy. To get Buddy we had to offer a 9 year contract.

When a star player weighs up going to us or a melbourne club, he needs to consider the cost of living and the earnings outside football. In both cases Sydney is worse off than Melbourne.

What we will see is more long contracts.