COLA

[KTigers]

I'm reading Sherrin: The Family Behind the Football at the moment. Syd Sherrin was on the Collingwood Football committee and was the vice president for 20 years. In essence, the very family whose name appears on our beloved football and who helped shape the specifications of the ball itself were heavily involved in the Pies club.

I quote "Though a Collingwood man through and through, Syd knew that all clubs needed to be financially sound. In 1930 he paid two pounds to be a life member of the South Melbourne Football Club. His financial commitment, along with other patrons at the time, was required to keep South Melbourne bouyant back then. This was a generous donation from a man who truly loved Australian Rules football."

How different are the characters of Eddie and Syd? Both leaders of the Collingwood FC. One trying to enable and keep the competition healthy. The other trying to cripple interstate teams to maintain a Vic bias.

Nearly 100 years ago, this bloke (Syd Sherrin) hit the nail on head. Unless the whole league is strong, then what is victory over
the other teams in that league worth?

[bloodspirit]

I can vouch for the fact that Giants players don't all live in the west. I live in the east and see them around all the time. I know for a fact Callan Ward lives in the east (neighbour of an acquaintance). I saw Jeremy Cameron in Bronte pool on Saturday morning with his girlfriend before he went on to kick 6 against the Pies that afternoon. I saw Toby Greene and Josh Kelly down at the beach recently etc etc.

I think they won't bring back COLA - it would be too embarrassing given how controversial it was in the first place - however maybe there is some hope of some other kind of relief (maybe with the soft cap in addition to the living allowance) but I wouldn't be surprised if it is drafted in a way to advantage the Swans less than other clubs. The Victorian powers (especially Eddie) begrudge Sydney our success and can target us without getting one another's noses out of joint.

[Blood Fever]

I can vouch for the fact that Giants players don't all live in the west. I live in the east and see them around all the time. I know for a fact Callan Ward lives in the east (neighbour of an acquaintance). I saw Jeremy Cameron in Bronte pool on Saturday morning with his girlfriend before he went on to kick 6 against the Pies that afternoon. I saw Toby Greene and Josh Kelly down at the beach recently etc etc.

I think they won't bring back COLA - it would be too embarrassing given how controversial it was in the first place - however maybe there is some hope of some other kind of relief (maybe with the soft cap in addition to the living allowance) but I wouldn't be surprised if it is drafted in a way to advantage the Swans less than other clubs. The Victorian powers (especially Eddie) begrudge Sydney our success and can target us without getting one another's noses out of joint.

McGuire will always play to the Melbourne Sydney rivalry. It is very tiresome and cynical and one day even people in Melbourne will see through it.

[Bloody Hell]

I can vouch for the fact that Giants players don't all live in the west. I live in the east and see them around all the time. I know for a fact Callan Ward lives in the east (neighbour of an acquaintance). I saw Jeremy Cameron in Bronte pool on Saturday morning with his girlfriend before he went on to kick 6 against the Pies that afternoon. I saw Toby Greene and Josh Kelly down at the beach recently etc etc.

I think they won't bring back COLA - it would be too embarrassing given how controversial it was in the first place - however maybe there is some hope of some other kind of relief (maybe with the soft cap in addition to the living allowance) but I wouldn't be surprised if it is drafted in a way to advantage the Swans less than other clubs. The Victorian powers (especially Eddie) begrudge Sydney our success and can target us without getting one another's noses out of joint.

They can bring it back, as long as it is paid directly to the players by the AFL. No club involvement.

[barry]

They can bring it back, as long as it is paid directly to the players by the AFL. No club involvement.

How would that make a difference?.
There was a lot of BS about us using cola to pay for buddy. Simpliatic nonsense.

[S.S. Bleeder]

How would that make a difference?.
There was a lot of BS about us using cola to pay for buddy. Simpliatic nonsense.

It would make practical difference. It's all about perception. If it was reuntroduced we should insist on it.

[Melbourne_Blood]

It would make practical difference. It's all about perception. If it was reuntroduced we should insist on it.

There could still be the argument , as there was previously , that we would just pay 10% less on contracts ( assuming the figure of cola here for arguments sake) knowing it would be topped up by the Cola and that we would bank 10% over all these contracts to build a war chest. So I agree with Barry that I don’t think it would matter if the AFL pays it , there will still be arguments around the potential for it to be manipulated to our advantage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KTigers]

My understanding is that essentially the old COLA allowance was 9% on top of the Swans salary cap, and
all players received that 9% on top of their regular salary.
So if you were Luke Parker on $600K a year then your payslip said ;
Salary $600,000
COLA allowance $54,000
Total $654,000
and if you were Dan Robinson on $100K a year then your payslip said;
Salary $100,000
COLA allowance $9,000
Total $109,000
How on earth this could be manipulated so that Buddy (or Tippo or whoever) received the other players COLA
allowance is beyond me. It's kinda possible the other 40 guys on the Swans list mightn't have been
too happy about it.
I find it weird that people would even consider that the club would do something so dodgy.

[Melbourne_Blood]

My understanding is that essentially the old COLA allowance was 9% on top of the Swans salary cap, and
all players received that 9% on top of their regular salary.
So if you were Luke Parker on $600K a year then your payslip said ;
Salary $600,000
COLA allowance $54,000
Total $654,000
and if you were Dan Robinson on $100K a year then your payslip said;
Salary $100,000
COLA allowance $9,000
Total $109,000
How on earth this could be manipulated so that Buddy (or Tippo or whoever) received the other players COLA
allowance is beyond me. It's kinda possible the other 40 guys on the Swans list mightn't have been
too happy about it.
I find it weird that people would even consider that the club would do something so dodgy.

I’m not at all suggesting we did it , but that idea was bandied around at the time by people like Eddie .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Blood Fever]

I’m not at all suggesting we did it , but that idea was bandied around at the time by people like Eddie .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And the lies were perpetuated by the AFL to punish us because we dared to sign Buddy who was to be the shining light of the Giants. Arrogant and vindictive.

[KTigers]

I’m not at all suggesting we did it , but that idea was bandied around at the time by people like Eddie .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, I know you are not suggesting it. I just always found it ridiculous that anyone (the Eddies of the world) could suggest the
Swans were paying part of one players salary to another player. I'm sure Luke is good mates with the Bud, but giving him $54K
every year!. It's just absolute lunacy.

[liz]

My understanding is that essentially the old COLA allowance was 9% on top of the Swans salary cap, and
all players received that 9% on top of their regular salary.
So if you were Luke Parker on $600K a year then your payslip said ;
Salary $600,000
COLA allowance $54,000
Total $654,000
and if you were Dan Robinson on $100K a year then your payslip said;
Salary $100,000
COLA allowance $9,000
Total $109,000
How on earth this could be manipulated so that Buddy (or Tippo or whoever) received the other players COLA
allowance is beyond me. It's kinda possible the other 40 guys on the Swans list mightn't have been
too happy about it.
I find it weird that people would even consider that the club would do something so dodgy.

The argument made (by some) was along the lines:

Luke Parker is worth $600k pa (because that's what another club would pay him)
The Swans contract him on $545k pa, telling him that the additional 10% (of $545k) will bring him to a total salary of $600k - what they deem he is "worth".

It's a nonsense argument for a few reasons. Firstly, all managers knew that the Swans got an extra allowance. So the final stage of recontracting negotiation were around tying down the precise amount, and the Swans tried to argue they'd pay him the same as the best offer from another club, the player's manager would be stupid to accept this.

Of course, recontracting negotiations are never simply about deciding on the financial aspects. Players chose to stay at, or leave, clubs based on a whole range of factors. In general, players tend to want to stay where they are (most people are comfortable in their environments) and players who move clubs typically earn more than those who stay (players in high demand that it; not players moving for more opportunity). It's been widely discussed how players will often accept less than their "market value" to play at a strong club where they might achieve team success. And it's less overtly spoken about, but still acknowledged, that the shady world of "third party deals" and marketing payments can also materially affect the amounts players actually get paid.

It's therefore literally impossible to demonstrate whether the club was or was not "misusing" the allowance. Indeed, it's a concept that doesn't even make much sense if you think about it. The only place where you could concretely look at salaries and determine whether the allowance was being used as intended was with players still on fixed contracts - ie those in their first two seasons. I would be flabbergasted if those players weren't explicitly receiving the additional allowance on top of their AFL-stipulated salaries. Indeed, if you were auditing the Swans use of the allowance (something the AFL did - and said they'd never found evidence of misuse), the very first place you would start would be to look at the contracts of those on AFL-stipulated salaries.

The argument (of those who pushed it) was that "it is possible to do, therefore the Swans must be doing it". Some pointed to the Swans' strong performances as further evidence that they must be doing it, while describing clubs who had more success over the same period (primarily Geelong and Hawthorn) as being exceptionally well-run clubs who were able to manage their list brilliantly, and who had selfless players who put team success ahead of individual profit (ignoring the greater scope for external payments propping up said players' salaries than are generally available to those in the non-traditional AFL states).

[erica]

Article by Caroline Wilson:

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/nsw-queensland-clubs-push-afl-to-address-inequalities-20190726-p52b11.html

[Auntie.Gerald]

Does anyone know what the current allowable third party payment terms are for an AFL player ?

Is there a max per club ?

[Markwebbos]

The argument made (by some) was along the lines:

Luke Parker is worth $600k pa (because that's what another club would pay him)
The Swans contract him on $545k pa, telling him that the additional 10% (of $545k) will bring him to a total salary of $600k - what they deem he is "worth".

It's a nonsense argument for a few reasons. Firstly, all managers knew that the Swans got an extra allowance. So the final stage of recontracting negotiation were around tying down the precise amount, and the Swans tried to argue they'd pay him the same as the best offer from another club, the player's manager would be stupid to accept this.

Of course, recontracting negotiations are never simply about deciding on the financial aspects. Players chose to stay at, or leave, clubs based on a whole range of factors. In general, players tend to want to stay where they are (most people are comfortable in their environments) and players who move clubs typically earn more than those who stay (players in high demand that it; not players moving for more opportunity). It's been widely discussed how players will often accept less than their "market value" to play at a strong club where they might achieve team success. And it's less overtly spoken about, but still acknowledged, that the shady world of "third party deals" and marketing payments can also materially affect the amounts players actually get paid.

It's therefore literally impossible to demonstrate whether the club was or was not "misusing" the allowance. Indeed, it's a concept that doesn't even make much sense if you think about it. The only place where you could concretely look at salaries and determine whether the allowance was being used as intended was with players still on fixed contracts - ie those in their first two seasons. I would be flabbergasted if those players weren't explicitly receiving the additional allowance on top of their AFL-stipulated salaries. Indeed, if you were auditing the Swans use of the allowance (something the AFL did - and said they'd never found evidence of misuse), the very first place you would start would be to look at the contracts of those on AFL-stipulated salaries.

The argument (of those who pushed it) was that "it is possible to do, therefore the Swans must be doing it". Some pointed to the Swans' strong performances as further evidence that they must be doing it, while describing clubs who had more success over the same period (primarily Geelong and Hawthorn) as being exceptionally well-run clubs who were able to manage their list brilliantly, and who had selfless players who put team success ahead of individual profit (ignoring the greater scope for external payments propping up said players' salaries than are generally available to those in the non-traditional AFL states).

The COLA 9 or 10% was an arbitrary figure used by the AFL to cover the extra cost of player retention in Sydney, Brisbane etc. If the non-northern clubs could demonstrate that it cost us only 5% more then maybe their argument would hold water. Using the Luke Parker example of $600K we would actually only have to pay him $570K and been able to "use" the other $30K elsewhere. They didn't do that. But nor did we provide data to prove our case.

In the end Buddy coming off the back of the premiership was used to "demonstrate" we no longer needed the allowance. It doesn't show anything of the sort...

I think that something will happen that won't affect the salary cap, but might involve one or more of the soft cap, 3rd party stuff, and the length of contracts for draftees.