AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

[AnnieH]

For those not getting it... COLA is paid by the AFL in addition to the player's salary.
It is not given to the club to dole out, therefore the club cannot use it to top up anyone's salary.
Tipoff and Lance's salaries are paid under the salary cap rules.
They have COLA built into them until COLA is phased out, i.e. next year.

[Industrial Fan]

This is a myth and demonstrates a common and insidious misunderstanding of COLA and player recruitment. Under the example you site, the player is a Restricted Free Agent and Richmond would be able to retain the player's service by matching Sydney's pre-COLA offer of $800k. There is NO advantage under COLA in this circumstance.

It's bad enough having opposition supporters drinking Eddie's koolaid and pedalling this nonsense let alone our own supporters.

But if, in round numbers our cap was $11m vs their $10m to include COLA. We still have an extra $1m to throw at one player, or our whole list (even if it is administered across our list). We are able to manage our list to create salary space, where Richmond cannot. I get your example of the unrestricted free agent, but we are still able to present a better offer to that player than Richmond can.

I dont see what is achieved by saying it goes to the whole list vs one or two players and why that would make a tangible difference to whether it is justified or not.

[Mug Punter]

But if, in round numbers our cap was $11m vs their $10m to include COLA. We still have an extra $1m to throw at one player, or our whole list (even if it is administered across our list). We are able to manage our list to create salary space, where Richmond cannot. I get your example of the unrestricted free agent, but we are still able to present a better offer to that player than Richmond can.

I dont see what is achieved by saying it goes to the whole list vs one or two players and why that would make a tangible difference to whether it is justified or not.

At the fear of getting shouted down I agree with you.

There is a technical difference but ultimately we had more money to throw around.

I think the new system is inherently fairer as it is on a needs basis and paid by the AFL. I don't believe players above the average wage need an additional assistance to move to Sydney now that we have grown in stature.

The long term solution to COLA is growing a home grown list where this is not such an issue. If we didn't have the academy solution it would be a lot more an issue

[dimelb]

But if, in round numbers our cap was $11m vs their $10m to include COLA. We still have an extra $1m to throw at one player, or our whole list (even if it is administered across our list). We are able to manage our list to create salary space, where Richmond cannot. I get your example of the unrestricted free agent, but we are still able to present a better offer to that player than Richmond can.

I dont see what is achieved by saying it goes to the whole list vs one or two players and why that would make a tangible difference to whether it is justified or not.

I'm happy to be corrected if I have this wrong, but my understanding is that in the example of the Richmond player the Swans can offer more cash and in fact need to because of the notably higher cost of rent in Sydney.

Nevertheless, I'm happier with a system that focuses on the needs of the less well paid players.

[ernie koala]

There is no compensation payable, unless we were in talks specifically to get a player and missed out because of the ban.
As far as I know, the swans have said they weren't after any specific player.
The court case would be to contest the legality of the ban, and to have the ban lifted.
I can pretty much guarantee the banning will be overturned without it going through the whole court process.
Please swans, let me draw up the paperwork!!

The Swans said they weren't after any of the marquee players mentioned...which didn't include Patful.

My understanding was that Patful wanted to join the Swans, and the Swans wanted him, but had to change his plans due to the ban.

Regardless, if there is any backdown from the AFL , you could be sure there would be no talk of compensation, just a lifting of the ban.

[Industrial Fan]

I'm happy to be corrected if I have this wrong, but my understanding is that in the example of the Richmond player the Swans can offer more cash and in fact need to because of the notably higher cost of rent in Sydney.

Nevertheless, I'm happier with a system that focuses on the needs of the less well paid players.

In that case, we would both offer $800k, but our offer would be $800k plus cola.

I think the rents are higher, but I have my doubt that the cost of living in Sydney is significantly higher than in Perth for example. The more relevant points are that they're not fighting the go-home factor plus the outside cap income the Melbourne players can earn through appearances on the footy show, radio, as well as endorsements.

If you want a career in the media after footy, don't join an 'interstate' club.

[Mug Punter]

Anyone who thinks northern clubs don't need extra cap space compared to traditional states need only look at brisbane. They are right back where they started, like the Bears days. Could easily happen to us as well

Hear what you are sayiing but I think we are probably a bit better managed than Brisbane and also we are probably perceived as a better option lifestyle wise (Bris Vegas is a bogan outpost on many levels includding AFL) and also the off field opportunities are much better for us.

I do think some rental assitance is in order for lower paid players but I fail to see why someone on $450,000 needs a 10% topup

The long term solution solution to this issue is for the lists of the NSW and Qld teams to have a similar home grown content as traditional states (70% Plus) - that will make these arguments rather redundant and be good from a football perspective, indeed it is essential for growing the player pool and not diluting the standard of football. We have never had this mechanism before and have therefore needed assistance but now we do so we should all stop whingeing about COLA and concentrate on making the academy work

[The Big Cat]

At the end of the day, the Swans DO (did) have more cap than other clubs and I don't think that is fair. Whether it's spread across the other players or not, it still results in an unfair advantage because we have an additional $1m or so to spend that other clubs do not have (besides the expansion clubs). Sydney can say you may get $800,000 at Richmond but we can give you another 9.8% on top of that (which may or may not happen - it's quite difficult to determine. I understand on the other side, you have more opportunities for additional earning opportunities for VIC, WA and SA clubs compared to QLD and NSW based players. But I can understand the agitation from other clubs too.

When planning your next overseas trip would you prefer to go when the value of the dollar is high or low? This is why overseas travel booms when the dollar buys more overseas currency, and stagnates when the value of our dollars declines. The COLA was designed to equalise the value of the dollar between Sydney and other cities. By taking away the COLA the AFL is effectively allowing the Swans only 90% of every other team's cap.

[The Big Cat]

As far as I know, the swans have said they weren't after any specific player.

That's all they can say. They can't say "We had Ryder ready to come or ......" It would be as bad as Kyrgios dobbing in his mate and his bangee!"

[barry]

Hear what you are sayiing but I think we are probably a bit better managed than Brisbane and also we are probably perceived as a better option lifestyle wise (Bris Vegas is a bogan outpost on many levels includding AFL) and also the off field opportunities are much better for us.

I wouldnt be under that impression at all. It can all unravel very quickly with a bad coach selection, and some mis-management at board level.

Our profitability seems very dependent on the "buddy" or some other marque player.

Brisbane has a pretty decent lifestyle, and most footy players are bogans.

[Doctor]

But if, in round numbers our cap was $11m vs their $10m to include COLA. We still have an extra $1m to throw at one player, or our whole list (even if it is administered across our list). We are able to manage our list to create salary space, where Richmond cannot. I get your example of the unrestricted free agent, but we are still able to present a better offer to that player than Richmond can.

I dont see what is achieved by saying it goes to the whole list vs one or two players and why that would make a tangible difference to whether it is justified or not.

No it didn't work that way. Consider it like the Cabcharge fee. You pay for your cab then they add 10% on to it. Every player's salary has the COLA added on as an allowance. Having said that, a rental subsidy, or whatever they're calling it, for players under a certain salary is reasonable as an alternative. I do believe that players living here should receive something extra though, other than those on mega bucks.

[DamY]

When planning your next overseas trip would you prefer to go when the value of the dollar is high or low? This is why overseas travel booms when the dollar buys more overseas currency, and stagnates when the value of our dollars declines. The COLA was designed to equalise the value of the dollar between Sydney and other cities. By taking away the COLA the AFL is effectively allowing the Swans only 90% of every other team's cap.

Depending on what we're basing the "cost of living" on, if it is just housing then Sydney is far higher than Melbourne. This goes into a prickly debate of housing prices across the states, WA is also expensive (but dropping quickly).

I get how COLA was to retain talent and to assist with living costs, but when a player is earning $500,000 a season, is the rent really going to be that much of an issue? I remember Tadgh Kennelly mentioning that 80% of the playing list rented, and needed match day payments to make ends meet (Spangher, Everitt). That is why I think the rental assistance payments works well, it is targeted at lower income players.

Sometimes the benefits of living in Sydney are underplayed too. Players move out of the goldfish bowl lifestyle, sunny mild winters etc.

Anyways I'm happy to agree to disagree. But just because we disagree, doesn't mean I am any less passionate or committed supporter than anyone else here.

[Melbourne_Blood]

Depending on what we're basing the "cost of living" on, if it is just housing then Sydney is far higher than Melbourne. This goes into a prickly debate of housing prices across the states, WA is also expensive (but dropping quickly).

I get how COLA was to retain talent and to assist with living costs, but when a player is earning $500,000 a season, is the rent really going to be that much of an issue? I remember Tadgh Kennelly mentioning that 80% of the playing list rented, and needed match day payments to make ends meet (Spangher, Everitt). That is why I think the rental assistance payments works well, it is targeted at lower income players.

Sometimes the benefits of living in Sydney are underplayed too. Players move out of the goldfish bowl lifestyle, sunny mild winters etc.

Anyways I'm happy to agree to disagree. But just because we disagree, doesn't mean I am any less passionate or committed supporter than anyone else here.

I think our old friend Matt80 had a term for this, can anyone recall what he called it, the 'inner East lifestyle dividend' or something like that?

[WauchopeAnalyst]

Caroline Wilson has a new article in The Age. Mike Fitzpatrick, Bill Keelty, Chris Langford all voted for the ban. Langford was at the 'Chairmans Room' during Pridham's speech on Friday night and the Swans are going to the Commission again to have the ban removed.

[Ajax]

Caroline Wilson has a new article in The Age. Mike Fitzpatrick, Bill Keelty, Chris Langford all voted for the ban. Langford was at the 'Chairmans Room' during Pridham's speech on Friday night and the Swans are going to the Commission again to have the ban removed.

Bill Kelty, not Keelty, having achieved his lifelong ambition of actually closely resembling an over-inflated Sherrin, has retired.