The fallout from the Lance Franklin move to Sydney has been extraordinary. For the Swans it was trial by jury, but there was no procedural fairness or natural justice in this case.
Instead, the fallout resembled another jury situation, that seen on reality series Survivor.
For those unfamiliar with the Survivor concept, in simple terms, it involves placing a group of strangers on a deserted island. They are then split into tribes, form alliances and compete to win rewards, immunity idols and the like.
At the end of the game, a group of contestants who have been eliminated from the competition come together to form a jury and vote for the most deserving of the remaining players, to win the game.
In the AFL version of Survivor, the prize was not one million dollars, rather it was Franklin, the athletic superstar from the Hawks.
The tribes were split.
On one side was Eddie McGuire, James Brayshaw and the other Melbourne club’s head honchos.
They formed a strong alliance with a collective goal of ridding AFL Survivor of the Sydney contestants and their Cost of Living Allowance.
Representing the Swans was Richard Colless, a veteran Survivor player of some 20 years.
A master strategist who had seen many other players voted out at tribal councils over the years.
In the past few years of AFL Survivor, the producers, in their wisdom, decided on a twist.
There’s nothing surprising about a twist in a reality program, but this twist would have Eddie and the cool kids alliance hopping mad.
The producers had handed Richard and his GWS counterpart an Immunity Idol at the start of the game.
This Idol was in the form of an allowance for the cost of living in Sydney. The producers intention, presumably, was to make the game more equal.
The idea was to give Richard and the GWS player a chance to be competitive.
As you could imagine, Eddie and the Cool Kids voiced their anger. “It’s unfair, it’s a rort,” they shouted, making sure the whole Survivor world could hear them.
But what Eddie and his mates needed to remember was that an Immunity Idol did not guarantee success in Survivor.
Sure it helps, but if not used correctly, it is little more than a shiny trinket with no value. In order to be of any use it must be played with intelligence, planning and timing.
Another thing that makes the protests so ridiculous, is that Eddie and his mates knew that the Sydney players each had an Idol. In fact, they had been blindsided by Richard in last year’s version of the game.
Last year, Richard had triumphed.
His prize? Kurt Tippett. He returned this year, seeking to win Lance Franklin, but his opponents had seemingly learnt nothing from his masterful game from the previous year.
Survivor truly is fascinating television.
And Richard Colless has pulled off the two biggest blindsides in the history of AFL Survivor.
Both involved a stealth mission, a covert operation kept secret from all the other contestants until, seemingly it was too late for them to do anything about it.
He had played his Idol superbly, blindsiding all players including the poor GWS fella who left the game with his own Idol in his pocket.
Richard had truly outplayed them all, and he did it two years in a row.
So as Eddie, James and the other beaten players gather to form the jury at the final tribal council they are understandably upset.
They are bitter. The feel betrayed. They are yelling and screaming. They are demanding the rules be changed.
But most of all they are jealous. Jealous that Richard won Kurt and Lance in consecutive years.
Richard simply needs to look across the campfire and smile. “Eddie” he says with a smile, “it’s very simple… I outwit, outplayed and outlasted you. I won and you lost and you can’t seem to handle that.”
What may please Eddie and the Cool Kids alliance, is that Richard Colless, a veteran of AFL Survivor is retiring.
He is not returning for an AllStars edition. Instead he is passing the reigns to Andrew Pridham, who will be the Swans contestant next year.
Also warming the hearts of the Melbourne head honchos is news that the producers are considering removing the Immunity Idols given to the Sydney players in the form of the cost of living allowance.
My guess is that even in the absence of an Immunity idol, the Swans will still be ultra competitive in next year’s game.
If they happen to win again I wonder what Eddie will do? Who, or what will he blame, for what are his own inadequacies and shortcomings?
Lroy
Guest
I just like the fact you managed to get "mendacious" into a footy conversation.. last guy I heard using that was Pierce Akerman.. he was talking about the ALP ;-)
Lroy
Guest
"live with their parents anyway.." Well most of the backline are from South Australia, midfield are mostly Vics.. we do have a couple of Sandgropers in the side granted.. NicNats parents are probably in Fiji. ;-)
Jack Smith
Roar Guru
Mitch Morton , a retired (as of this year) Swans player, has lived in Perth and Melbourne. His verdict is that cap should be 20%, and Andrejs Everitt backs this up with saying C-O-L in Sydney is too high, hence why he left. While I don't think that it is that high, it proves a common place idea that it is expensive. For the record, Morton comes from Perth and his father was born in Perth and played in the Claremont WAFL side. Everitt would also know if Melburne is cheaper with his father, Peter, who previously lived in Melbourne and played there. His father now resides in Brisbane so not like he is following his father around.
Jack Smith
Roar Guru
Now, travelling to Perth is difficult. But for 10 games of the season they are travelling away from Perth. If it was so unfair that people have to travel then WCE, judged to be top 4 contenders at the start of the year, would have been up there with Fremantle. Also, Fremantle would have dominated rather than humbly without dismantlement of other teams (like Geelong have done previously). Now, that leads me onto travel to Geelong. The team is good at their home ground. Suck it up. This is about to change with their dynasty ending with people like Chapman and Pods gone along with others in previous years. Equal advocacy to motor mouths - Nah, let Kennet speak I get laughs from what comes out.
Jack Smith
Roar Guru
Lol to the 95%? Heard Brisbane people (important people, CEOs and other executive)stating that they were going to start paying above, and closer to, the 100% cap room instead of the 95% they were. Maybe that's where it comes from. From wikipedia: The cap was set at A$1.25 million for 1987–1989 as per VFL agreement, with the salary floor set at 90% of the cap or $1.125 million; the salary floor was increased to 92.5% of the cap in 2001, and to 95% of the cap for 2013 onwards due to increased revenues. The club has confirmed that some of the money raised will be used to bring its total player payments up to the minimum of 95 per cent of the 2013 salary cap of $9.14 million. Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/kangaroos-raise-enough-for-minimum-payments-20130618-2ogwn.html#ixzz2jf3FyidO Thats where it comes from. So Brendon, how do you know you paid 92% by the way? CEO tells you that they paid 92% of there cap in a newsletter that would make your club be breaching salary cap RULES?
Chris H
Guest
There's no "extra money" Gecko, just the salary cap and the COLA. I fear you have been reading and believing all the mendacious and ill-informed propaganda in the Melbourne media and probably in Adelaide and Perth as well. As Colless said on the ABC recently, Eddie McGuire has the "biggest propaganda machine in Australian sport" and the AFL is "petrified" to intervene. The Swans were probably spending less than 100% of their cap in 2012, because of the recent retirements of high paid players like Bradshaw, Craig Bolton, Kirk and Kennelly. Then Mark Seaby and a heap of others left at the end of 2012, leaving plenty of room for Tippett, front-ended and all. With Franklin, his contract is back-ended, so he gets relatively little in the first 2 years, but room has been made by the departures of Jude Bolton, Morton, Mattner, Mumford and Everitt. Do the maths; it's not rocket science! The Swans are proven good list managers, and there is no fear of any erosion of the culture or "ethic", no matter how many Victorian journalists and opposition Presidents try to undermine it.
Gecko
Guest
If every Swans player is getting the COLA, where's the extra money coming from for buying Tippett and Franklin? One of us is clearly misinformed, Chris. Whether 'mercenaries' is the appropriate word or not, the Swans' culture will be severely tested by this 'coup' by Colless. You're predicting they can continue their 'brothers in arms' ethic and I fear they might lose that ethic that made them so admirable even to Melbournians.
Chris H
Guest
Nobody is getting anyone else's "share" of the COLA, gecko. It is 9.8% on top of ALL players' salaries. There is a legitimate debate around whether lower paid players should get a greater share, but that's not how it is at the moment. It is a bit rich to call either Tippett or Franklin "mercenaries". Is Gary Ablett Jnr a mercenary? Both Tippett and Frankin were expected to go to expansion clubs for $$$, but chose the Swans. They could have got more money elsewhere, or even staying where they were. The fact that they sought out and chose the Swans says something about their character and of the Swans' culture. People want to come here now. Unfortunately all you knockers from other states can't hack that very thought.
Gecko
Guest
This Vic-NSW debate is a lot of fun. But another part of the original article that requires debate is whether Richard Colless has really pulled off a coup. Or is he leaving the Sydney ship after smashing a hole in its bow? The Swans' famed club spirit will be much harder to maintain in 2014 as younger Swans see their share of the COLA going to mercenaries Tippett and Franklin. Colless's last decision may prove to be his worst.
Chris H
Guest
Spot on Troy. I would have thought it was self evident. Carlton's offer probably matched Sydney's in pure dollar terms, but once you factor in the cost of living, Carlton's was worth more. Yes, the Swans still have the COLA to add in, but at 9.8% it is insufficient.
Troy Murray
Roar Rookie
Okay so Andrejs Everitt has come out and said one of the reasons he chose to leave the Swans was due to the High Cost of Living in Sydney. So now the Swans are losing players as a result of the high cost of living. This would suggest the COLA, as it currently stands, is inadequate and should be increased for both Sydney clubs. Thoughts Roarers?
Chris H
Guest
Obviously we will have to agree to disagree. But you still misrepresent, or misunderstand, the COLA. It's not a safety blanket, or a leg-up, it's an equalisation measure based on economic factors beyond our control, i.e, the cost of living. It doesn't even take into account (at least not officially) the different circumstances the Swans face in the Sydney market. Do you even know what it's like to live in a city where AFL isn't the only game in town? The game is a religion in Melbourne and also Adelaide and Perth. In Sydney, it's not only not the dominant football code, but there are plenty of other lifestyle choices outside sport (if you can afford them!). There is a reason that Melbourne is known as the sporting capital of Australia. But none of this is covered by the COLA. To say we have a question mark over our success, and compare us to Essendon, is outrageous. Unlike Essendon or Melbourne, the Swans have done nothing wrong. That's all I have to say.
NeeDeep
Roar Pro
Chris, we're done here. It's like banging your head against a brick wall. If you need your crutch / safety blanket, to prop you up, rather than being able to compete equally with the other clubs, that's your problem and your opinion and you are certainly entitled to that. Just realize that their will always be a question mark over that period of the Swans history as a result of the COLA, much the same as there would be if Essendon achieved much this year, or during the 2 or 3 years coming up. Cheers and all the best for the future. PS. St. Kilda. Having said that, I have a soft pot for the Dogs, North, Gold Coast and Freo. Believe it or not Sydney as well, until one-eyed people start winding me up. I usually go to the footy in Perth and am very happy to watch and support both teams and applaud individual players, no matter what team they play for, based on what they do on field.
Chris H
Guest
The good of the game eh? How altruistic of you? Funny how you haven't mentioned which club you support! I too have always put the good of the game ahead of any club's interests. That's why I supported GWS coming in, despite the opposition expressed by many at the Swans. The game is best served by 2 teams in Sydney, as long as they are properly resourced and given a chance to develop. And that includes taking into account the extra living costs, which in Sydney are definitely not "temporary". It is absurd and insulting to compare the COLA with the dole. It is more like the zonal taxation allowance for workers in remote areas, if you are looking for an analogy. The dole is more like what Melbourne, North and the Dogs get. They've been getting CBF assistance for well over 10 years and they still can't manage without it, with no end in sight. The "good of the game" certainly wouldn't be served by all the other clubs ganging up on Sydney and forcing the removal of the COLA. It would be a disaster if both Sydney clubs struggled because they couldn't attract or retain the best players because their money was worth more in real terms elsewhere. What would happen to your TV rights if nobody watched in Sydney? That's why we have an AFL Commission: so that decisions aren't just based on the interests of the majority of (read Victorian) clubs, but the good of the game overall. No club should be given handouts or assistance without a specific purpose, or some reciprocal obligation. COLA has a specific purpose. Of course all clubs get a dividend from the AFL as they should. Without the clubs there is no game. But it is the additional ":disequal" grants and subsidies that are causing the controversy, and it needs to be addressed more transparently in all cases. At least everyone now knows about the COLA, but what do all the other clubs get, and why?.
NeeDeep
Roar Pro
Yes - Chris. But mission accomplished. Sydney & Brisbane are up and running, due to the concessions the other clubs were in favour of providing. What, are you guys going to live on the dole for the rest of your life, dependent on hand outs? It wasn't something that was written into the AFL l book - it was a "concession", which was expected to be temporary - ie. in place whilst required and not indefinitely. What's with the "precious flag" you keep bangin' on about? Is that your catch cry or something? You didn't win it this year - you won it last year and as I said before, more than happy a club that hasn't been all that successful are able to grab a couple of premierships. I reckon we should just make North Melbourne's salary cap $2M more than the other clubs and we give Richmond an extra 2 draft picks next year if they don't make the finals this year, plus Melbourne can play all their games at the MCG and Collingwood don't leave Victoria at all next year. Then Sydney can keep the COLA and everyone will be happy and we can all live in fantasy land, happily ever after! Tim, honestly mate, tell me which key forward Sydney has actually developed? Adam Goodes s a fantastic utility player you could argue is a Centre Half Forward type. But Sydney seem to grab blokes like Lockett & Hall, now Tippett & Franklin. The main thing here guys, I'm arguing for the good of the game and you're arguing for the interests of one club, that has done well and should now acknowledge they have overcome an issue and should be able o stand on their own 2 feet and not be dependent on continuing advantages and concessions.
Chris H
Guest
You really are talking rubbish now NeeDeep. Of course the other 16 clubs would like the COLA scrapped! It's called self interest! They didn't mind a few years ago, when the Swans and Bears were near the bottom, throwing a few concessions around so they could boast of a wonderful national competition whilst benefitting from greater TV revenue. But now that first Brisbane, then Sydney, dared to take the precious Flag away from the traditional heartland, they suddenly they want an "even playing field"? As you point out yourself, calls for a level playing field are disingenuous, with issues like the fixture, travel, etc etc. One more time, the COLA is what the name implies, a cost of living allowance. You can argue about whether Perth clubs now qualify, but it is indisputible that the players forced to live in Sydney, near enough to the SCG, face a huge extra cost of living burden, especially renters. To take that allowance away would make an UNEVEN playing field for those players, and therefore for both Sydney clubs. Significantly, the AFLPA have always supported the COLA, and if it is removed, there is the possibility of an industrial issue for the AFL. I don't know any group of workers who would cop a 10% pay cut, especially when the employer is making $$ squillions in profits. Of course, we could always scrap the salary cap altogether, and the draft with it if you like. They are both probably illegal anyway. We'll see what sort of level playing field we have then.
Ronny
Roar Rookie
plenty of household names there, plenty. B - Addison Davis Suckling HB - Bird Staker Gilbert C - I.Smith Cross Jack HF - Roberts-Thompson Hawkins Bruest F - Schnieder Walker McGlynn Foll - McIntosh Hayes J.McVeigh I/C - Koschitzke Armstrong Townsend Sub - Tutt That is a 2012 team , Kozi out, Witts in, Tutt out, Bruest in, Schneider out, Suckling in etc Pretty competetive team.
Tim
Guest
Btw, correct me if I'm wrong but weren't Riewoldt and Ball the result of priority picks? But I guess its different when somebody other than your club benefits. I personally think St. Kilda has done rather quite well out of equalisation.
NeeDeep
Roar Pro
Well, when 16 or 17 clubs say one thing and one club clings to an idea, that is going against the grain. Your argument concludes that most of these clubs and football people have got it all wrong and the Sydney Football Club knows best. So, the majority of people are stupid and you're on the right track! Peddling delusions...........hmmmmmmmmmmm! Majority - minority. Which side of the fence am I on??? Delusional, or sane? I'm not focused on Buddy, or Tippett - couldn't care less. All I said from the start was - EVEN PLAYING FIELD. The AFL are making noise about "Equalisation" and making it a straight competition, which is what I commented on. The COLA as per my earlier posts was one example of an advantage afforded to a single, or small number of clubs. I also noted soft draws, reduced travel, 6 day breaks and so on, along with media exposure, as other matters that need to be addressed. If Sydney were smart enough to come up with a deal for Buddy (and Tippett) good luck to them. Will it be a winner, or will Hawthorn come out in front - who knows? Only time will tell on that one! The big issue I was also trying to drag into the open is this is more about the AFL wanting market share in Sydney and to achieve that, they need successful teams / clubs, in that market. Otherwise, people will stay away and the game will stagnate in the countries biggest population centre. Is the interest of the AFL as a whole, to establish the game in Sydney, running the risk of supporters of other clubs becoming uninterested in the game, in the AFL's traditional markets? How are they doing it - with things like the COLA. You don't have to be all that smart to be able to see that! Anytime the COLA gets a mention, Sydney fans jump all over you - why? Is it because without the COLA they wouldn't be as successful? Well, fine - you hang on to that dream and all the marbles and take the unpredictability out of the game and eventually people will just get tired of playing with you. The other clubs are "asking" for common ground and "transparency" and if Sydney has established itself, then perhaps it's time the club loosened its grip on the COLA and played nicely with the other kids! PS: Chris - Melbourne were found not guilty of tanking. However, they were fined for bringing the game into disrepute and several officials were suspended - or something along those lines. Essendon also appear to have dodged a lot of sanctions, as the AFL has managed to keep the players (so far) out of being penalised for their actions. Hence, we have this very rubbery set of rules that we can sort of manipulate to "protect" the interests of the game. But who decides what is in he best interests of the supporters, who ultimately make the game what it is? What happens to the clubs who "continually" play by the rules??? They should just be happy to be in the competition and pleased to finish 10th or 11th each year? That is a major concern at the grass roots level.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
NeeDeep, First year players are also on about $85k, plus about 3k per game. To hit the kind of numbers you're quoting, they need to play about 20 games a season. This is less than a plumber earns.