The Roar
The Roar

AFL
Advertisement

The Swans played by COLA rules, so why are they being punished?

9th October, 2014
Advertisement
Roar Rookie
9th October, 2014
221
2337 Reads

The AFL has stated that if the Swans trade any players within the next two seasons, and bring in any players through means other than draft picks, then the cost of living allowance will be decreased to zero.

What makes no sense to me is that all clubs agreed to the COLA in 1995, and it has not been an issue until the last two years.

Basically, it comes down to the Bondi Billionaires.

The signing of Kurt Tippett and Lance Franklin led to uproar from the Melbourne teams (and the man who knows all about AFL, Eddie McGuire) about the COLA that they agreed to many years before.

I recognise the flaws in the COLA, and it has been an advantage to some extent. Now is probably an appropriate time for it to be removed in stages.

However, why should the Swans be punished for following the rules that the AFL set?

What further enrages me is that the Greater Western Sydney Giants will not be placed under the same restrictions. They live in the same city, under the same ‘higher cost of living’ conditions, yet they get the benefit and the Swans do not. It is obviously only because they are not seen as a threat.

The AFL said that GWS would not be put under these restrictions because of “TPP (total player payment) position, list structure, (and) contractual commitments”, but isn’t that something that happens at all clubs, including the Swans?

Advertisement

The Swans are just being punished because of the recruitment of the best forward in the game, Buddy Franklin, who came into the team when seven others left, all first-team players on between $150,000 and $400,000 a year.

Jude Bolton, Marty Mattner, Jesse White, Mitch Morton, Shane Mumford, Andrejs Everitt and Tony Armstrong all left for Franklin to come. That’s about $1.5 million in cap room.

Another part of the debate has been that the Swans have used the COLA to get more experienced players in, and have a higher squad rotation. In 2014, the Swans used the joint lowest amount of players in the league (with Port Adelaide), with 33. GWS used 44 players, yet the Swans are the ones being forced to get back.

Additionally, the Swans have made clear that the COLA is allocated as a proportion of each player’s wage, not all $1 million of it going in the back of Buddy’s Jeep. Within each contract, they allocate the cost of living allowance as a percentage (and I’m sure Buddy’s would be a lot less than the others).

The Sydney Swans were complying with all the rules set in place by the AFL in the drawing back of the COLA. As Swans chief executive Andrew Ireland stated, “As you’d expect, the club is very disappointed and we don’t understand why the AFL has made this rule specifically for us considering we’ve complied with their rules.”

The Swans, who have not been doing anything wrong or against the AFL rules, are being punished simply because the Victorian teams are worried about the lure of Sydney, with big-name players wanting to move to the Harbour City because they see premierships on the horizon.

With Collingwood struggling to hold on to stars like Dayne Beams, Hawthorn is about the only club in Melbourne anyone wants to go to (a premiership team getting a former All-Australian and former no.2 draft pick, now that’s a bit more concerning, and another story in itself).

Advertisement

Ireland went on to say, “It doesn’t make any sense that we’re being punished for something that we’ve been told to do… It also doesn’t seem fair that we can lose players yet we’re unable to replace them.”

I completely agree.

I see fairness in Essendon getting punished throughout the ASADA investigation, I get Adelaide being punished over the salary cap scandal, but the Swans have abided by the rules.

While the debate about COLA is probably settled, the Swans getting punished for it is an absolute joke.

close