Cost of Living Allowance

[stellation]

I think it's fair to say that, even if it's all done through superb list management and being an attractive location, the potential addition of Lance Franklin just one year after the addition of Kurt Tippett has raised one or two politely raised eyebrows around the country. I thought I'd divert some of the chit chat out of other threads into its own as it's probably going to be one of the biggest issues we've faced as a club in a while.

What are your thoughts on the Cost of Living Allowance? Do you think it creates an uneven competition? How could it be improved? Most importantly: what arguments can we use to justify this to our friends so we don't hear that every victory is "tainted" for the next 9 years?

[Big Al]

Should be increased to 150% in line with the fact a cubby house in Sydney now sells for half a billion.

[mcs]

I have no issue with it to be honest, but then I think to remove all the whining from everyone else, it should be applied across all cities. Starting at 100% of the salary cap for Melbourne clubs, and indexing costs against what it costs in Melbourne. The Melbourne clubs will whine, but they get so many other advantages that interstate clubs don't and hence the COLA can help make up for some of them. From there, it should be set according to some sort of cost of living index/measurement from say the ABS statistics (an independent source). if any other town (Adelaide is the one I'm thinking of) works out cheaper than Melbourne, then they still get 100% of the salary cap. End result I'd guess would be it would be Melbourne/Adelaide clubs on 100%, Brisbane/Gold Coast next, then Sydney and Perth at the top.

I frankly think its a storm in a teacup. It doesn't create an uneven competition - if players were so desperate for an extra 10%, we'd have a team full of Harlem globetrotters all chasing the $$$$. Clearly this is not the case. Buddy is not coming to Sydney because of the COLA, and Tippett did not come to Sydney because of the COLA, no matter what the media frenzy wants you to believe.

[Reggi]

I think you need to start with where it comes from. IIRC in 1992 none of our draftees came to Sydney, probably not worth their while financially. We lost many of our 93 and 94 draftees quickly, gaspar, rocca, grant etc. The dillemma is most new recruits move interstate you can't be competitive paying your senior players enough and pay young recruits enough to cover the cost difference. This was introduced to make us competitive. My understanding is the Afl is proposing they will manage the cola and make the payments direct to younger players

On everything else I think victorian clubs are bleating as they are embarrassed at how badly they are managing this

[Triple B]

Buddy is not coming to Sydney because of the COLA, and Tippett did not come to Sydney because of the COLA, no matter what the media frenzy wants you to believe.

Clearly correct, BUT, if not for the COLA, could we have fit them in the salary cap? That is the thing that has the other clubs upset.

When the COLA was first introduced, there was a clear case that teams like Sydney and Brisbane were having trouble attracting players and retaining players and a big part, certainly in Sydney's case was the COL. Things have changed however to the point that players WANT to come to Sydney, not for the extra 9.8% on their contract, but because they are now so highly respected and they want to be part of the culture and also play in a perennially competitive team.

IMO, Melbourne didn't deserve another priority pick because their current position is a by product of poor management, poor recruiting and poor culture.

If Sydney loses the COLA because they have recruited brilliantly and have developed a culture that players all over the country envy and many want to be a part of, well that would be plain wrong. Unfortunately may well happen.

[aardvark]

Bulldogs President Peter Gordon on SEN this morning said the real problem is the poorer Melb clubs cannot afford to pay 100% of the salary cap like Sydney and the richer Melb clubs. Where the real equalization needs to occur is the AFL should make sure everyone has the financial footing to pay 100% of the salary cap each year.
Having established an equal base line for everyone would then make cost of living adjustment more acceptable.

[erica]

Bulldogs President Peter Gordon on SEN this morning said the real problem is the poorer Melb clubs cannot afford to pay 100% of the salary cap like Sydney and the richer Melb clubs. Where the real equalization needs to occur is the AFL should make sure everyone has the financial footing to pay 100% of the salary cap each year.
Having established an equal base line for everyone would then make cost of living adjustment more acceptable.

One of the problems is that the AFL competition includes Melbourne clubs that are not financially sustainable. If the AFL chooses to subsidise them, fine but, if it doesn't, then those clubs should face financial reality and become extinct.

[DK_]

Bulldogs President Peter Gordon on SEN this morning said the real problem is the poorer Melb clubs cannot afford to pay 100% of the salary cap like Sydney and the richer Melb clubs. Where the real equalization needs to occur is the AFL should make sure everyone has the financial footing to pay 100% of the salary cap each year.
Having established an equal base line for everyone would then make cost of living adjustment more acceptable.

Therein lies the manifest hypocrisy of Eddie's argument. There is no level playing field. Half of Collingwood's home games have 20,000 opposition supporters turn up and give them revenue. They don't need to send their team and support staff interstate every second week. They get the bonanza of the Anzac Day match every year regardless of performance or merit. Collingwood attract players with world class facilities and training camps in the US. All paid for by revenue which Sydney can't get.

If Collingwood want a level playing field, they should agree to a significant proportion of all gate takings being divided equally amongst clubs. They should agree on big matches being shared amongst teams on merit. Anzac Day should be a grand final replay IMO.

Strangely, Eddie isn't so keen on those ideas. He wants equalisation as long as Collingwood gets to be more equal.

I'm a supporter of the idea of managing the COLA better to remove any idea of an unfair advantage. There's been good ideas floated by others on here - a set figure per player, means testing, control by the AFL. They're all good ideas. But any change needs to be matched by better sharing of revenue and equalisation of costs like travel.

[liz]

COL clearly is an issue for younger or lesser paid players. The simplest way is probably a flat dollar allowance applicable to all players (and paid directly by the AFL if that's the way they want to go). Make it equal on a marginal post tax basis, so the gross amount would be a little higher for anyone in the $180k pa range or higher. Could be means tested so that it is removed once a player hits some salary level but that is probably an unnecessary complication. It will just become such an insignificant amount at higher salaries that no-one will claim it influences where a player wants to play.

[aardvark]

Morton has his say on COLA.

Audioboo / Mitch Morton on Gillette Trade Radio (https://audioboo.fm/boos/1634453-mitch-morton-on-gillette-trade-radio?utm_campaign=detailpage&utm_content=retweet&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebookshare#t=0m35s)

- - - Updated - - -

Morton has his say on COLA.

https://audioboo.fm/boos/1634453-mitch-morton-on-gillette-trade-radio?utm_campaign=detailpage&utm_content=retweet&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebookshare#t=0m35s

[ernie koala]

Good on ya Mitch....Lets make it 20%, I love it.....A true Blood....a Premiership Blood

- - - Updated - - -


Therein lies the manifest hypocrisy of Eddie's argument. There is no level playing field. Half of Collingwood's home games have 20,000 opposition supporters turn up and give them revenue. They don't need to send their team and support staff interstate every second week. They get the bonanza of the Anzac Day match every year regardless of performance or merit. Collingwood attract players with world class facilities and training camps in the US. All paid for by revenue which Sydney can't get.

If Collingwood want a level playing field, they should agree to a significant proportion of all gate takings being divided equally amongst clubs. They should agree on big matches being shared amongst teams on merit. Anzac Day should be a grand final replay IMO.

Strangely, Eddie isn't so keen on those ideas. He wants equalisation as long as Collingwood gets to be more equal.

I'm a supporter of the idea of managing the COLA better to remove any idea of an unfair advantage. There's been good ideas floated by others on here - a set figure per player, means testing, control by the AFL. They're all good ideas. But any change needs to be matched by better sharing of revenue and equalisation of costs like travel.

Great post DK...Totally agree.

[Dosser]

As I said in another thread, a good player based in Melbourne, Adelaide or Perth gets a lot of income from opportunities outside of football (ie media, endorsements, etc) however in Sydney and maybe Brisbane, League players get that money. This means that, even with a 9.8% COLA, Sydney and Brisbane players are POTENTIALLY worse off financially than the others.

[Melbournehammer]

One of the problems is that the AFL competition includes Melbourne clubs that are not financially sustainable. If the AFL chooses to subsidise them, fine but, if it doesn't, then those clubs should face financial reality and become extinct.

I hope no club ever ever ever becomes extinct. It is heartbreaking. Have a watch of some of the youtbe clips about fitzroy.

There is more than enough wealth to be shared around. North to their great credit pioneered friday night games and now cant get one for love or money and their stadium deals at etihad shaft the clubs badly.

The actual problem is not enough equalisation not too much. Clubs like footscray, north and some others should get a full crack at blockbuster games at the mcg and not be shuffled off to twilight on sunday night on fox footy. this just perpetuates the unfairness of the system.

[Doctor]

I would potentially consider an arrangement where the COLA only applied up to a certain salary level. Other than that, I think it is, and remains to be, perfectly reasonable. Supreme list management should not be mistaken for cheating. As any American sports fan knows, a successful team begins and ends with the front office.

[MightyBloods]

[QUOTE=ernie koala;626417]Good on ya Mitch....Lets make it 20%, I love it.....A true Blood....a Premiership Blood

- - - Updated - - -

I listened to Mitch's interview with trepidation as he can be bluntly honest. You could tell that the journo was trying to find holes in our COLA payments. I was rapt when Mitch said it should be 20%. It shut the journo right up!
Is the timing right to ask the AFL for an increase?!:rofl

[DamY]

Bulldogs President Peter Gordon on SEN this morning said the real problem is the poorer Melb clubs cannot afford to pay 100% of the salary cap like Sydney and the richer Melb clubs. Where the real equalization needs to occur is the AFL should make sure everyone has the financial footing to pay 100% of the salary cap each year.
Having established an equal base line for everyone would then make cost of living adjustment more acceptable.

I believe that the AFL has set as a goal for either this or next season is to ensure that all clubs have the ability to pay 100% of the cap

[MightyBloods]

Therein lies the manifest hypocrisy of Eddie's argument. There is no level playing field. Half of Collingwood's home games have 20,000 opposition supporters turn up and give them revenue. They don't need to send their team and support staff interstate every second week. They get the bonanza of the Anzac Day match every year regardless of performance or merit. Collingwood attract players with world class facilities and training camps in the US. All paid for by revenue which Sydney can't get.

If Collingwood want a level playing field, they should agree to a significant proportion of all gate takings being divided equally amongst clubs. They should agree on big matches being shared amongst teams on merit. Anzac Day should be a grand final replay IMO.

Strangely, Eddie isn't so keen on those ideas. He wants equalisation as long as Collingwood gets to be more equal.

I'm a supporter of the idea of managing the COLA better to remove any idea of an unfair advantage. There's been good ideas floated by others on here - a set figure per player, means testing, control by the AFL. They're all good ideas. But any change needs to be matched by better sharing of revenue and equalisation of costs like travel.


and Eddie has asked for an uncompromising draft. All right Eddie, let's start now. No more father/son picks...make it uncompromised. The Melb clubs have done well on the father son rule certainly over the past 20 years, in particular Geelong and Footscray. I think Geelong have stockpiled sons...something in the water or sports science related?!! lol
Oh Eddie, whats that? You want to keep the father/son rule until the end of next years draft? Sorry, you have a kid called Darcy Moore (Peter Moore's son) who many are saying top 3 potential? But Eddie, you said uncompromised! You better give Nathan the news about some equalisation Ed. Cheerio good chap!

[Sandridge]

Therein lies the manifest hypocrisy of Eddie's argument. There is no level playing field. Half of Collingwood's home games have 20,000 opposition supporters turn up and give them revenue. They don't need to send their team and support staff interstate every second week. They get the bonanza of the Anzac Day match every year regardless of performance or merit. Collingwood attract players with world class facilities and training camps in the US. All paid for by revenue which Sydney can't get.

If Collingwood want a level playing field, they should agree to a significant proportion of all gate takings being divided equally amongst clubs. They should agree on big matches being shared amongst teams on merit. Anzac Day should be a grand final replay IMO.

Strangely, Eddie isn't so keen on those ideas. He wants equalisation as long as Collingwood gets to be more equal.

I'm a supporter of the idea of managing the COLA better to remove any idea of an unfair advantage. There's been good ideas floated by others on here - a set figure per player, means testing, control by the AFL. They're all good ideas. But any change needs to be matched by better sharing of revenue and equalisation of costs like travel.

Spot on! You don't see Eddie offering ANZAC Day or the Queen's Birthday Monday games to the struggling Victorian clubs that we're supposedly helping to kill off! And, in Melbourne, Friday Night games are becoming the "place to be" with TV coverage to huge audiences hungry for another weekend of football after a week's work. Guess which club gets to play most Friday night games?

[ernie koala]

[QUOTE=ernie koala;626417]Good on ya Mitch....Lets make it 20%, I love it.....A true Blood....a Premiership Blood

- - - Updated - - -

I listened to Mitch's interview with trepidation as he can be bluntly honest. You could tell that the journo was trying to find holes in our COLA payments. I was rapt when Mitch said it should be 20%. It shut the journo right up!
Is the timing right to ask the AFL for an increase?!:rofl

Perfect timing....Like running a stick over a bull ant nest

[Xie Shan]

I'm just amused by the amount of misinformation that's been spread about the COLA. Most Swans fans here and on BF seem to get it, but even the basics are dreadfully misunderstood by many in the mainstream footy media. I guess it's like the old saying, if a lie gets repeated often enough, people will believe it to be true.

The term cost of living allowance is probably a bit misleading, location allowance would have been a more appropriate label as it was really put in to counteract the inherent disadvantages faced by us and Brisbane in recruiting and retaining players. I agree that it is still an issue for the younger or lesser paid players. The extra 9-10% hardly makes a difference to the big marquee deals like Tippett and now Franklin, which is why the criticism that we cop over it when we try to sign a Buddy is so absurd.

I think it's almost certainly gone as a result of the backlash, though personally I believe it should stay, because no matter how successful we are perceived to be, we will always be at a disadvantage compared to clubs in Vic/WA/SA because we don't have enough home grown talent, we have to draft from interstate. It's to the club's great credit that they have turned this weakness into a strength by creating a strong culture with a close knit playing group. The lifestyle benefits of living in Sydney help a bit too!

[Rod_]

It's easy.

Have all the Melbourne clubs pay more for milk and other things and we won't need the cost of living allowance...

Same price everywhere. No complaints from me as I pay Sydney prices anyway!

Rod_

[CureTheSane]

Regardless of the legitimacy for COLA, it is in place, and one thing the AFL doesn't do too often is bow down to clubs demands.
I wonder if the Swans thought it was a good idea to have a player on a 9 year contract for other reasons?
If the AFL was to scrap COLA, surely it would have to be done gradually ie: if you're a current Swans player, you've signed with the Swans knowing that COLA is in place. To have it ripped out from under players would be as detrimental to the Swans as they thing the Buddy deal might be in locking in a player for so long.

Having said that, Buddy is said to have a large chunk of that as promotional payments, as allowed by AFL rules.
I would say that the clubs are simply pissed off and using COLA as a sooky sooky la la
Most of what I've heard being said sounds as if there was no real understanding of the structure and rules of the use of COLA, as a lot of what I've heard is said in a speculative (and incorrect) way.

It's made me very happy for the Swans to be so aggressive and get what they want.
Franklin to GWS would have been great for them, much like Folau was.
We have put them right back in their place :D for now...

[liz]

I am surprised so many opposition clubs and media people can't do their sums. They keep quoting that the Swans get an extra 9.8% in the cap. But don't we get an extra increment of 9.8% added each year? Or at least every other year or so. We must do. Because the only reason we were able to lure starring talents from Hawthorn and Geelong back in 2009 was because the COLA enabled us to throw unrealistic sums of money at them. And then COLA was the sole reason we were able to recruit Tippett. And now its done the trick again with Buddy. Factor in the recruitments of Hall, Plugger, Greg Williams and Gerald Healey and our salary cap must be well over 200% of any other club's? Surely?

[wolftone57]

I think it's fair to say that, even if it's all done through superb list management and being an attractive location, the potential addition of Lance Franklin just one year after the addition of Kurt Tippett has raised one or two politely raised eyebrows around the country. I thought I'd divert some of the chit chat out of other threads into its own as it's probably going to be one of the biggest issues we've faced as a club in a while.

What are your thoughts on the Cost of Living Allowance? Do you think it creates an uneven competition? How could it be improved? Most importantly: what arguments can we use to justify this to our friends so we don't hear that every victory is "tainted" for the next 9 years?

The latest figures are saying that the cost of living is 28% higher in Sydney than in Melbourne. That has risen from 14.9% three years ago. That is because property rose by 11% each year for the last 3 years, a total of 33%. @@@@ing stupid I know. That means rents increased accordingly. I think 9% is piddling really. A property that once sold for $350,000 is now $470,000 and the rent on that property has risen from $400 to $550/wk. I am sorry but the real cost of living is an issue here in Sydney for the rookie and baseline players. It is nearly 30% above Melbourne and if we didn't have it most players would tell us not to draft them.

[DK_]

The latest figures are saying that the cost of living is 28% higher in Sydney than in Melbourne. That has risen from 14.9% three years ago. That is because property rose by 11% each year for the last 3 years, a total of 33%. @@@@ing stupid I know. That means rents increased accordingly. I think 9% is piddling really. A property that once sold for $350,000 is now $470,000 and the rent on that property has risen from $400 to $550/wk. I am sorry but the real cost of living is an issue here in Sydney for the rookie and baseline players. It is nearly 30% above Melbourne and if we didn't have it most players would tell us not to draft them.

There's a property in Sydney for $470,000?!?!?! Is it on wheels?

[Triple B]

There's a property in Sydney for $470,000?!?!?! Is it on wheels?

No, but the car in the driveway is on bricks...

[ShockOfHair]

Clearly correct, BUT, if not for the COLA, could we have fit them in the salary cap? That is the thing that has the other clubs upset.

When the COLA was first introduced, there was a clear case that teams like Sydney and Brisbane were having trouble attracting players and retaining players and a big part, certainly in Sydney's case was the COL. Things have changed however to the point that players WANT to come to Sydney, not for the extra 9.8% on their contract, but because they are now so highly respected and they want to be part of the culture and also play in a perennially competitive team.

IMO, Melbourne didn't deserve another priority pick because their current position is a by product of poor management, poor recruiting and poor culture.

If Sydney loses the COLA because they have recruited brilliantly and have developed a culture that players all over the country envy and many want to be a part of, well that would be plain wrong. Unfortunately may well happen.

Yep I think the allowance is going to COLAteral damage in the Buddy deal.

It's going to be hard to argue we can't attract players if Buddy turned down $2m from GWS for a third less from us.

The COLA is based on ABS figures, which show Sydney is 15% more expensive than Melbourne. During the Tippett saga, Colless was talking about applying to increase that. I guess the club decided that wasn't a good time.

Buty they should at least keep it for rookies and young plaers.

[BillyRayCypress]

I'm seeing double posts again..........

[Mug Punter]

My understanding of COLA is that all our contracts have it specifically written in.

In line of "your salary is $250,000 per year plus 9.8% cost of living allowance".

I assume we have a clause in our contracts that state that should the AFL revoke this allowance then it will not be paid. If this is the case and our COLA was withdrawn overnight I would believe that we would have no salary cap issues but the players would lose that payment.

So, whilst it would perhaps place our future contract offerings under threat the way I see it there would not be any immediate impact on our squad...

I would think the club is shrewd enough to have structured this risk this way as they would be aware this is an ongoing issue

[Mug Punter]

My understanding of COLA is that all our contracts have it specifically written in.

In line of "your salary is $250,000 per year plus 9.8% cost of living allowance".

I assume we have a clause in our contracts that state that should the AFL revoke this allowance then it will not be paid. If this is the case and our COLA was withdrawn overnight I would believe that we would have no salary cap issues but the players would lose that payment.

So, whilst it would perhaps place our future contract offerings under threat the way I see it there would not be any immediate impact on our squad...

I would think the club is shrewd enough to have structured this risk this way as they would be aware this is an ongoing issue

- - - Updated - - -

Think I am doubling up, feel free to delete this post....

- - - Updated - - -

My expectation is that the COLA will be capped/means-tested. It does seem a little absurd that Buddy gets it and it's hard to argue that he needs it. For players on more humble contracts it is still a very real issue. I'd think the first $150,000 or $200,000 only of each contract should get it.

Probably means it will be approximately halved in effect. With any luck common-sense will prevail here - we do of course have the facts to back up our argument for COLA which helps.

[Auntie.Gerald]

wouldnt you think that a contract is a contract and therefore on that basis is COLA is built in therefore this has to be honoured by the AFL ?

i would be amazed if the AFL canned the COLA that this would be retrospective ?

ie it would only apply to new contracts from 2014 onwards for example

[Mug Punter]

wouldnt you think that a contract is a contract and therefore on that basis is COLA is built in therefore this has to be honoured by the AFL ?

i would be amazed if the AFL canned the COLA that this would be retrospective ?

ie it would only apply to new contracts from 2014 onwards for example

That would be an issue for the AFLPA I imagine. As long as we are covered so we don't need to find a million dollars overnight

A prospective change that is means tested for newly issued contracts would be a fair outcome.

[linko]

The easy way to fix the COLA , or perceived problem with it would be to index it based on the Sydney cost of living at 100% of the cap and reduce the Melbourne clubs salary caps by the 10% odd that it is cheaper to live in Melbourne, Adelaide etc etc. that would shut them up pretty quickly.

To fix the problem with clubs not being able to spend 100% of their cap, if the rich clubs want to spend more than the cap, for every dollar more than the cap they need to pay a dollar into an equalisation pool. This pool can then be used to disperse payments on a prorate basis to the poorer clubs to be able to spend 100% of the cap.

[Ludwig]

Another way to look at the COLA is to forget the technicalities of how it is applied to contracts and if it has validity in respect to the actual cost of living in Sydney.

The COLA is one of many forms of equalization benefits that the AFL use to advance the competition.

So the questions that arise would be:

1. Does the COLA in fact benefit the Swans in their ability to recruit and retain players.
2. How critical is it to the competition that Sydney have at least one, if not two, competitive teams, and should the AFL use means at its disposal to insure this occurs.
3. What are the risks of Sydney sliding down the ladder is the COLA is removed, and what effect would this have on the investment the AFL has made to advance the game in NSW.
4. How important is the Sydney market to AFL's revenue stream from broadcasting right.
5. Can a modified COLA or other program maintain fairness across the competition, without diminishing the ability of Sydney teams to maintain a strong playing list and a profitable operation.

[BillyRayCypress]

Its obvious that there is perception that our COLA is not good for other Clubs.

Therefore we need to introduce them to the financially healthy JUICE. That is Joint Unifying Income Comparison Equation.

This formula takes into account a Club's membership size (please no large member jokes), blockbuster games, home games versus away and sponsorship deals. Specifically would apply to a club like Collingwood so as to help out a club like North. Share the money.

[Jewels]

Its obvious that there is perception that our COLA is not good for other Clubs.

Therefore we need to introduce them to the financially healthy JUICE. That is Joint Unifying Income Comparison Equation.

This formula takes into account a Club's membership size (please no large member jokes), blockbuster games, home games versus away and sponsorship deals. Specifically would apply to a club like Collingwood so as to help out a club like North. Share the money.

Sounds like an excellent idea to me Billy. I'm sure Eddie would have absolutely no qualms with sharing the wealth, I mean he is all for equalization isn't he?

[Chilcott]

I believe the COLA should be stopped for players on higher salaries.

The COLA was introduced to assist with relocation and higher housing properties in Sydney. Don't see how it can be justified if we are paying a player $1,000,000.00, and he gets an extra $100,000.00 in the kick.

Then we have players on $90,000.00 and they get an extra $9,000.00.

Doesn't make sense to me.

[Zlatorog]

I think it's been said already what COLA is all about and it seems to me people are still not getting it. The 9.8% is not per player but an overall increase in the salary cap. The club has already said that it is distributed evenly between the players. I can't believe it that people still listen to that crap coming out of Melbourne media and some other clubs officials.

[Meg]

I think it's been said already what COLA is all about and it seems to me people are still not getting it. The 9.8% is not per player but an overall increase in the salary cap. The club has already said that it is distributed evenly between the players. I can't believe it that people still listen to that crap coming out of Melbourne media and some other clubs officials.

I'm not aware that the club has said that the COLA money is distributed evenly but I would be pleased if you are right. Can you direct us to a quote or source? The quote below is from Colless last year when we had the outrage about recruiting Tippett. It confirms that every player gets a COLA but not that the amount is the same for every player.

"Every player contract at the Sydney Swans stipulates that the COLA must be paid in addition to the agreed contract figure. Every player has a manager, and every one of those managers is aware the Club has the COLA. The COLA is also added to the standard contracts of rookie listed players. Like all Clubs, each contract that is signed is reviewed by the AFL." See more at: The case for the cost of living allowance - sydneyswans.com.au (http://m.sydneyswans.com.au/news/2013-03-18/the-case-for-cost-of-living-allowance#sthash.pM7vTHxy.dpuf)

[Meg]

To add to my comments above I also recall (but haven't found the quote) that in regard to Franklin, Colless has said that a portion of his contract will be for marketing (adding that the Swans are allowed to do this) and the COLA will not be applied to the payments for this work.

[ShockOfHair]

It's like any other loading paid to a wage or salary-earner - the company is obliged to pay it to each and every staff member. A mining company can't salt away the remote living allowances for miners in order to 'free up' its wage bill like every meathead AFL supporter thinks the Swans do with COLA. Colless' point during the Tippett flap was that there's a built-in expectation that players get the 9.8% allowance - so if you're a non-Sydney player on 300k negotiating with the Swans, the bidding starts at 330k.

It's telling that critics of the Swans like Malthouse and Maguire explicitly say the Swans haven't done anything wrong. Basically they're arguing that the Swans are doing well enough not to need the COLA any more - that's a fair point and worth debating, but not the same as saying the Swans are abusing COLA.

[CJK]

This was at the bottom of the AFL Statement (http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-10-08/afl-statement-lance-franklins-move-to-the-sydney-swanshttp://)on the Lance transfer


Separately, Mr Dillon said the AFL had also reconfirmed to the Sydney Swans board and senior management that all club and player allowances, including the Cost Of Living Allowance, were currently being reviewed by the AFL with the prospect of variations from the 2015 season as part of broader revenue-sharing reforms to the competition.

Therefore, the Sydney Swans FC understood that it may need to accommodate the long-term Franklin contract in an environment in which the Cost of Living Allowance has been altered or removed altogether.

[Swansongster]

Nice Tweet from Patrick Dangerfield (whom I like, despite being a Crow). Retweeted by a Swans fan.

Patrick Dangerfield ?@dangerfield32
Flown to Darwin via Sydney today. Bottle of water was $6 who said they don't need the #COLA buddy expensive. @phildavis_1

Retweeted by Blair Doherty

[Ludwig]

The high cost of Sydney living helped send Andrejs Everitt to Carlton

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/the-high-cost-of-sydney-living-helped-send-andrejs-everitt-to-carlto/story-fndv8ujy-1226747091454


?The expense of Sydney compared to Melbourne was one of the key factors in Andrejs decision making process,? Everitt?s manager Winston Rous from Phoenix Management told News Limited.

?Rental costs are much higher in Sydney as are most living expenses.

?For players outside the top 25 per cent of salaries there are quality of life issues that you weigh up when looking at offers from other clubs.?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

We are going to have to ask for an increase in the COLA. We just can't retain players with the current allowance.

[Bloody Hell]

The high cost of Sydney living helped send Andrejs Everitt to Carlton

?The expense of Sydney compared to Melbourne was one of the key factors in Andrejs decision making process,? Everitt?s manager Winston Rous from Phoenix Management told News Limited.

?Rental costs are much higher in Sydney as are most living expenses.

?For players outside the top 25 per cent of salaries there are quality of life issues that you weigh up when looking at offers from other clubs.?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

We are going to have to ask for an increase in the COLA. We just can't retain players with the current allowance.

Absolute gift for the club...thanks Dre - obviously a good clubman.

[ScottH]

The high cost of Sydney living helped send Andrejs Everitt to Carlton

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/the-high-cost-of-sydney-living-helped-send-andrejs-everitt-to-carlto/story-fndv8ujy-1226747091454


?The expense of Sydney compared to Melbourne was one of the key factors in Andrejs decision making process,? Everitt?s manager Winston Rous from Phoenix Management told News Limited.

?Rental costs are much higher in Sydney as are most living expenses.

?For players outside the top 25 per cent of salaries there are quality of life issues that you weigh up when looking at offers from other clubs.?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

We are going to have to ask for an increase in the COLA. We just can't retain players with the current allowance.

Interesting.
Wonder if the other Club Presidents have read this.

[ShockOfHair]

That's pretty funny - not for Andrejs but in the context of all the BS being said about the COLA.

Don't know if others saw it but Mitch Morton, who would know and has no reason not to speak his mind, thinks the COLA is necessary and should in fact be raised.

[jono2707]

So if we lose the COLA, which we know is entirely justifiable, we should be blaming the club for failing to win the PR battle against Eddie and the uneducated masses who were calling for its axing.