Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 25 to 36 of 46

Thread: COLA

  1. #25
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Close to the old Lake Oval
    Posts
    3,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Melbourne_Blood View Post
    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.

  2. #26
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Inner West
    Posts
    2,402
    Quote Originally Posted by Melbourne_Blood View Post
    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.

  3. #27
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,393
    Quote Originally Posted by KTigers View Post
    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).

  4. #28
    Happy and I know it
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,246
    All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

  5. #29
    Does anyone know what the current allowable third party payment terms are for an AFL player ?

    Is there a max per club ?

  6. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    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.

  7. #31
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Markwebbos View Post
    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.
    The 10% (or rather, 9.8%) was explicitly a cost of living allowance. In the early naughties, I think the allowance was up around 15%, and the Lions also had a smaller allowance. There was a retention component in those allowance (exclusively so for the Lions). After the Melbourne clubs became upset that the Lions won a threepeat, they lost their retention allowance and the Swans' allowance was reduced so that it became just to cover cost of living. Yes, the size of the amount is/was somewhat arbitrary.

    I've heard Maguire justify the removal of the Lions' retention allowance by the fact that they haven't won a threepeat since. Of course, that's ridiculous. It implies that their retention allowance was the sole reason they achieved a three-peat, and fails to acknowledge that since their allowance was removed, their success in even qualifying for the finals has been significantly below that which would be expected "on average". Not to mention the absence of any explanation as to how the Hawks achieved a threepeat, or the Cats won three premierships over six years (other than the fact these are well-run clubs - a repeat of the dumb hypocrisy).

    I confess I thought the replacement of the cost of living allowance with the rental allowance largely addressed the pure cost of living issues for players. I would have structured it differently - eg giving a fixed amount to every player, not just those on low wages. It doesn't help the Sydney clubs' position to argue for a percentage allowance for all equivalent to whatever the estimated cost of living differential is because, as many rightly point out, there becomes a point where cost of living takes up a relatively small part of income and so differentials are less relevant to the "equity" argument.

    I believe retention remains a bigger issue, though it mostly becomes apparent when a club isn't competitive. The Swans haven't suffered huge retention issues while they've been up, and the Lions' seem to have been alleviated for now. It remains hard to interpret the Giants' issues because they still have a list that is (IMO) the most talented on paper, and the salary cap is doing what it should be doing if they can't retain everyone. However, that doesn't mean they are not at a disadvantage when compared to clubs like Hawthorn and Geelong that have managed to keep together lists deep in talent in recent seasons.

    More broadly, the salary cap is a very fluid tool and not especially transparent when third party deals exist. Some of these are small and genuine - ie players actually do do additional work to earn additional income, though inequalities in access to such opportunities mean clubs aren't playing on the same level field. As a starting point, I'd love to see the AFL collate (and ideally publish) information at a club-aggregate level that show the total income earned by playing lists, including salary cap, AMA payments, third party payments and other income. At an aggregate level, it won't tell the whole story, but it might give some indication of just how unlevel the playing field is.

  8. #32
    Goodesgoodesgoodesgoodes! Industrial Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Doughnuts don't wear alligator shoes
    Posts
    3,266
    That argument about the Cola being withheld to be managed by the afl is total and complete nonsense and does my head in.

    An extra 10% doesn’t become more than 10% if the club handles it. I’m no mathematician but 10% can be carved out amongst all the players equally or used to pay one extra player and it’s always a matter of perspective. We don’t get any more or less advantage in one scenario or another.

  9. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by KTigers View Post
    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.
    But no one knows Luke Parker or Dan Robinsons true market value down to a 9% tolerance.

    Parker could be worth anything between $500 and $700 k.

    Sydney pay what they can to keep him. If its $654,000 thats a figure they have worked out which will be enough to ward off victorian poachers who can only find about $600k in their cap space.
    How they justify that $654k as $600K plus COLA is just numbers on a page.

  10. #34
    pr. dim-melb; m not f
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Central Coast NSW, Costa Lantana
    Posts
    6,889
    Quote Originally Posted by erica View Post
    That's a very helpful article from Caroline. It's encouraging to see the four northern clubs joining together and it looks as if the chiefs at AFL headquarters are going to get the royal tour, and I hope get their noses rubbed in the realities of non-Victorian clubs.
    He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball)

  11. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by erica View Post
    I found Pridhams comment; "That's why we have an independent commission", quite perplexing. Would that be the same Independants commission that gave us a trade ban?

    At least it now sounds like the four northern clubs are working together. For a long time now GWS and The Suns wanted assistance to only apply to them.

    Despite Caro's bias towards Richmond, she's always been supportive of the northern clubs.

  12. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by S.S. Bleeder View Post
    I found Pridhams comment; "That's why we have an independent commission", quite perplexing. Would that be the same Independants commission that gave us a trade ban?

    At least it now sounds like the four northern clubs are working together. For a long time now GWS and The Suns wanted assistance to only apply to them.

    Despite Caro's bias towards Richmond, she's always been supportive of the northern clubs.
    Pridhams comment was to remind the commission that they are supposed to be independent. Maybe a long overdue wake up call.

    Am I am also glad the 4 northern clubs are acting as a unified block.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO