By this logic SA players should get paid less as property is cheaper there. Can you see that happening? Unless the same rule applies to everyone it shouldn't apply to anyone at all.
By this logic SA players should get paid less as property is cheaper there. Can you see that happening? Unless the same rule applies to everyone it shouldn't apply to anyone at all.
I really feel we're responsible for the COLA having become an issue.
It wasn't an issue when we won the 2012 premiership, but by then getting Tip and Buddy..
If I'm really objective about it, I'm sure I'd be complaining about it if I barracked for another team (irrespective of whether Sydney is the most expensive city).
For example: if Brisbane had a COLA and we didn't, and Brisi got Goodsey at the height of his powers by offering him a 9 years mega-bucks deal, I'd be pretty dirty and logically think that the COLA was being used to poach top players rather than give everyone on the list and extra 10%. I'd feel even stronger about this if Brisi had also gotten another star player from another team the year before.
Simply, I'm not sure the COLA is being used to give everyone on the list an extra 10%.
Ok, let me have it, I'm sure I'm about to be howled down!
What the giants have patently made clear is the elephant in the room on the COLA (borne out in some respects by the examples given in respect of cost of living in states like adelaide) . It seems that it really only ever was an allowance to allow a not so succeccful club to attract and keep players because most players preferred to stay in their home states. Therefore if that is all it really ever was it should be scrapped as the swans arent so much in that boat any more.Originally Posted by Gezball
If it really is a COLA allowance then the Swans truly have a case and Im pretty sure statistical evidence will back them up every time. If it never was for that purpose then the AFL should admit it for what it was - an equalisation measure that only applied when we were losing.
That is not the way COLA systems generally work. I managed such a system in an international organisation which had staff in over 60 countries. We used an international remuneration consultant to provide us with COLA comparisons every 6 months based against Sydney (where the organisation's head office is located). Using an index where Sydney = 100, staff in cities where the index was higher than 100 had their remuneration adjusted by the relevant percentage every 6 months. For staff in cities where the index was less than 100, their salaries remained unchanged. That is, they were paid as they would have been paid had they been based in Sydney. I cannot imagine that any organisation would cut staff salaries on a COLA system.
Not going to howl you down, your example is a good one and I agree with you that if that had have happened, I'd be screaming from the rooftops as well, but I disagree with the rest of your post.
I think The Swans have been able to prove time and time again to the powers that be at AFL HQ that they have consistantly used the COLA in the manner that it was intended, it's just that the CEOs of the other clubs refuse to accept it, if we had indeed stockpiled it or used it inappropriately then I believe the AFL would have been all over it and fines/penalties would apply.
As far as no mention of it after winning the flag in 2012, you certainly weren't sitting near any Hawks supporters at the game nor have paid too much attention to the media afterward! I sat two rows in front of one of the standing areas, which was full of Hawks supporters, and every time we kicked a goal we were bombarded with COLA accusations and the media very quickly picked it up after the game and ran with it.
I agree with this. The allegation that the Swans had not distributed the COLA but had somehow 'pooled' it was made last year when we recruited Tippett. If that were true it would be a dire criticism of the market 'smarts' of the agents working on behalf of every other player on the Swans' list. They know what the market rate is for their players (that is what another club would pay) and they know the Swans have a 9.8% COLA fund provided by the AFL. They would be failing their players if they didn't ensure Swans players' contracts reflected the market rate + 9.8%. Also, and this point seems to be ignored by all the critics, if as is alleged the Swans pooled the allowance and used it to pay Tippett, then the money would be committed. It couldn't be used again to buy Franklin. Arithmetic is not something these people are good at.
The club has explained many times how these two high paid players have been funded through list management and the use of Additional Service Agreements (at least in the case of Franklin). They have also said that the contracts are submitted to the AFL who accept that the COLA is being paid to each player as intended. But as Jewels has said, the CEOs of the other clubs and their supporters simply refuse to accept it.
I think much of this comment is right. COLA has been used as a vehicle to pay an extra allowance to Sydney (and then to the Giants) ostensibly because the cost of living is higher in Sydney which is demonstrably true. But it has also been necessary to pay players extra to attract them to Sydney away from their home states because Sydney is not a traditional AFL state and relatively few players are home grown. So I think you are right - it is really an equalisation measure based on cost of living as measured at one point in time. A true COLA would be adjusted at least once a year on an up-to-date cost comparison.
But if any form of allowance were removed altogether from the Swans on the rationale that the club is now successful, then what has happened to Brisbane after its allowance was removed could well be the future for the Swans - losing players back to their home States, difficulty in attracting new players here, and falling further down the premiership ladder each year. As an earlier comment has pointed out, the AFL needs at least one successful and well supported club in Sydney to generate the TV revenue it is projecting into the future. Relying on that to be the Giants would be a big gamble.
No way!
I'll put it to you this way.
I don't like that the Hawks only had Buddy, Roughead, Lewis, Hodge playing in their p'ship teams because they were so crap for a few years in a row & finished bottom, that they were rewarded with not 1 but 2 picks in the top 5 during those few years of drafts. One pick being the priority pick, which since has been labelled unfair & so it was removed. All within the rules allowed though. Just like our recruiting of Buddy.
Ahh but wait. You may say that we too could have finished bottom & been rewarded like the Hawks & the Pies. But history has told us that when we did finish bottom, our top picks have wanted to go home after a year or two.
Shannon Grant, Anthony Rocca, Darren Gaspar, Ben Doolan...................................it don't work for us so we need something different in place to be able to attract a star, well into his career, to our club. Plugger, Bazza & now Buddy!
Bring on a p'ship no matter how. We have 90% or so of our list coming from interstate. The Vic clubs have maybe 10 - 15 % coming from interstate. Where's the level playing field there?
To get Dale Thomas, Carlton only had to offer a certain amount of money. Thomas wouldn't have to sell up his house & uproot his life. To go to GWS, Brisbane or Swans we would have had to add a whole lot more in order to cover those costs & be on an even playing field with Carlton in order to lure him. Being part of our culture isn't going to get players there for ever & we will always have to find players that haven't been given a chance or have failed elsewhere.
So in other words, there is a system in place for all 18 clubs to take advantage of, the draft, when finishing bottom, but reality suggests that we will NEVER EVER want to take advantage of that system because it's a double edged sword. meaning we would be barely surviving as an AFL club should we hit rock bottom again & then the AFL would have to give us a lump payment again to bai; us out. Hence the enticement that is the CoLA!
The COLA has to be analysed in the broader context of what the AFL wants to achieve. It can't be viewed in isolation as just a cost of living allowance for Sydney, which is at least partially justified. The AFL would like to:
1. Have a competition with 9 competitive games every week. Every team that goes out on the field has a reasonable chance of winning and there are very few blowouts.
2. Surpass rugby in the Eastern states as the number one sporting attraction.
3. Grow the Sydney market to increase television and other revenue from the country's most important demographic.
4. Have well managed franchises that can be profitable without subsidies from the league.
What applies as a goal for an egalitarian society in general applies to the AFL as well. We would like to see every club have an equal chance for success. Better managed teams will have more success than poorly managed ones.
These goals are difficult to achieve simultaneously, because of a variety of imbalances in the present system. How the league works towards finding remedies for these inequities is what the Equalization meetings are about. The Sydney COLA is just one factor that goes some way to achieving success in the critical Sydney market, but some feel has led to advantages to the Swans. It's hard to try to ensure that Sydney has 1 or 2 successful teams without there being a disadvantage to the other teams; the ladder is a zero sum game.
If there were easy answers, they would have been found already. It's hard to say how the pendulum will swing on these issues.
The Swans are also the biggest beneficiary of the veteran's allowance with 5 players adding nearly 600k to the salary cap. Some of this is how we were able to get players like Tippett and Buddy.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-02-2...veterans-aflpa
The COLA's almost certainly gone. It's a victim of the club's success. There's no support for it from other clubs, especially when clubs like the Lions and Melbourne are struggling and there's a growing gap between rich and poor. No-one can seriously argue the Swans have abused it and there's no evidence it was ever a factor in causing any player to choose the Swans over another club.
I doubt Cola will be gone. It's just to obviously needed, not all clubs are opposed. I think the nature of it will be different, some help will go the Lions way. I think there will be some assistance to lower paid players. Fact is players in Sydney are paid less in real terms than players elsewhere. It's a globally accepted fact
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks