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?
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).
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.
jason
Guest
YES End of the story this is pay back for buddy not going to GWS to bring in supporters Poor decsision by the AFL but expected with Eddie calling the shots for the VFL Look at the amount of HOME games collingwood and hawthorn play at the MCG and then hawthorn play 3 finals in a row Lets see an interstate team play all there finals on there home ground then play the grand final at there home ground one would suspect many flags going interstate
Natalie SwansFan
Guest
Weren't you the one saying we were all short sighted nuff nuffs? Do you not understand that every club has the same salary cap...$9.63m, expected to exceed $10m in 2015. The Swans salary cap is the same as every other club. If anything, they have been outstanding at managing their salary cap, hence the reason why they have been one of the best list managers and recruiters in the league for decades. The AFL decision only goes to inhibit them from doing what they one of the best at. Again, your comments come back to the same old principles. Opposition fans that are fickle, ignorant and jealous, with a lack of understanding and knowledge of COLA.
Youngy
Guest
Swans supporters make me laugh. You guys have been on AFL social welfare for years with the COLA and other benefits. Time to grow up and manage your salary cap the same way all the other established clubs have to.
New York Hawk
Guest
OK, I was responding to the author, not to Jack. So, maybe your accusational nature should take a back seat on this one Nat. But yes, it all comes down to salary cap and the coming and going of players. Maybe I don't understand COLA, but I thought someone did a great job of explaining the math of how COLA = Buddy recruitment in the week leading up to the GF. But maybe it was because it was exactly how I saw it. Either way, Frawley coming to the Hawks on about $500k for four years and us picking up an injury-prone kid who hasn't played many games at an expansion club who happened to take him at number 2 in the draft, is hardly the signing of Buddy. To move off topic slightly, how awesome was the kiss Hodgey's planted on Buddy? It was like a father kissing his 2 year old son....
Maggie
Guest
Excellent summary Natalie. I've always been bewildered by the outrage about the Tippett recruitment. The amazing thing was that the Swans won the 2012 premiership playing all year without a specialist full forward (following Bradshaw's retirement forced by injury midway through 2011). It was the gap that needed to be filled so when it became clear Tippett wanted to leave Adelaide he was an obvious recruitment target. As you have said, salary cap space was cleared to make it happen. Yet somehow this became a COLA scandal?
Natalie SwansFan
Guest
Us short sited nuff nuffs are not "dragging the Hawks" into this debate. Last time I checked, they are a not a protected species and can be used to show an example. Short sited nuff nuffs have been crying about the Tippett deal since the end of 2012. So for yourself, who god forbid I suggest could be a short sited nuff nuff, here are some facts. In 2012, Sydney won the flag. In 2014, Hawthorn won the flag. In 2012, the Swans had a swag of departing players totally more than a mill. In 2013, the Hawks had Buddy depart, totalling whatever a year. In 2012, Sydney picked up Tippett, due to free cap space. In 2014, Hawks picked up Frawley, due to free cap space. From 2012-today, fickle "nuff nuffs" have been whinging about the Tippett deal suggesting it could not have happened any other way except for COLA. In 2014, people who are not jealous, frustrated or fickle, are suggesting that perhaps the Frawley deal is an example as to why the Tippett deal, which occurred after a grand final win, could actually have happened without COLA coming into it. Kind regards Short "sighted" nuff nuff
Youngy
Guest
Why are you short sited nuff nuffs dragging the Hawks into this debate. The Hawks were able to make an offer to Frawley due to the departure of Buddy last year (and the subsequent creation of space in the Hawthorn salary cap) and no other reason. I suggest you all stay on topic and not look for a red herring to deflect from the real issue at hand which is the COLA and the Swans leveraging of bad AFL policy to create an unfair playing field across the AFL clubs.
Natalie SwansFan
Guest
Craig It is an opinion site and I have an opinion of people as well as what they write. Fickle is an adjective used to describe the way in which people change frequently, in this instance, looking at the Tippett deal in one way, but then holding a completely different view of the Frawley deal. Simply because of COLA, when in fact both deals are exactly the same, i.e. Space in the cap from departing players. Jealousy is another adjective to describe resentment of someone's achievements based on perceived advantages......go figure. Perception in terms of COLA and what it does is pretty key here. Ignorance is another adjective used to describe a lack of awareness or knowledge, in this case, in relation to the salary cap and COLA which most show they know very little about. Maggie has done a pretty good job of explaining how it works, using facts, and yet most of the Roarers still refuse to try to understand due to pent up frustration and jealously. And frustration is another adjective used to describe a feeling of annoyance and distress in relation to not being able to change something. What's the problem champ? Lighten up hey.
Craig
Guest
Aside from you above reference, you have responded to people in your comments as ignorant, fickle, jealous and frustrated. People are allowed an alternative opinion Natalie . . .
Radelaide
Guest
She's heaped a lot of praise on Port this year, the thing about her is her moral and ethical standards are very high.
Don Freo
Guest
It's a very accurate assessment of Caro, Craig. She offers nothing to football apart from divisiveness. When has she ever written in praise of anyone or anything?
Natalie SwansFan
Guest
What name did I call her? Caroline Wilson really would not know the difference between her a-- and her elbow....IMO Don't be so tetchy Craig.
Craig
Guest
Natalie is it really necessary to resort to name calling when someone has a different opinion to yours . . . ?
JJJ
Guest
Natalie, if it's not an unfair advantage then you will have no concern in losing it. The very fact that swans management and supporters are so vehement in its defence suggests that it's a big advantage. Agree that the swans have managed their list well and done many things right, but list management is much easier when you have 10% more than everyone else . . .
Maggie
Guest
Further to my above response to TomC who has been one of the strong proponents all year on 'The Roar' that the Swans were able to fund Tippett and Franklin because they "saved" salary cap funds by paying other players reduced salaries topped up with COLA. I have today responded to another person on that point so am also adding my comment here. Have any of you who promote that theory (cut the salary component then add COLA to pay what would otherwise be the full salary) ever considered the arithmetic of what you are saying? For that to have been the way the recruitment of firstly Tippett and then Franklin was funded, the Swans would have had to be one of the lowest paying clubs in 2012 – otherwise the money in 2013 and 2014 which it is claimed had been “saved’ out of salaries by payment of COLA would have already been contractually committed. But it was reported that in 2012 the Swans were in fact the HIGHEST paying club, exactly what you would expect for a club that was paying out a high percentage of its salary cap + COLA on top of the salary cap + veteran payments outside the cap as allowed for all clubs with players who qualified as veterans. http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/swans-paid-175m-more-than-havenots-20130315-2g69y.html And if the Swans could so easily manipulate the use of COLA funding, why on earth would they have let go Mumford, the player departure which arguably hurt them the most this year??
Maggie
Guest
I said that I did not think they were "currently" getting $1m (and therefore the Swans did not have to immediately find cap space of $2m in two years). The total contract figures you quote have been reported but it has also been reported that Tippett's contract is backloaded and Franklin's contract is heavily loaded in the middle years. It is reasonable to expect the total player funding amount will increase, possibly quite significantly, by then.The Swans have also said that a significant part of Franklin's contract is in the form of an additional services agreement which means not all of his payment comes out of the salary cap as is so often assumed. If you think the Swans "poached" these players I assume you think every club recruiting free agents and uncontracted players is also "poaching"?
Maggie
Guest
And Michelangelo Rucci also criticises this AFL action. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-cracks-down-on-sydney-football-club-free-agency-spree-which-lured-lance-franklin-kurt-tippett/story-fni5fan7-1227088055275?nk=2ae486f277a20168bdaefbcf4cecbb3d
Jack Smith
Roar Guru
I'd be happy to lose COLA. Other than the contracts we might suddenly break, I'm cool with it. Blame the AFL. Hell, take COLA away from us now but they can pay dues to our players.
Maggie
Guest
That would be the case if the Swans had to increase salaries within the salary cap by the amount of the COLA lost after 2017. But accommodation assistance will be paid to lower paid players and many of the higher paid players have already re-signed contracts knowing that COLA is to be scrapped. So I think that is less likely than he is suggesting, particularly with further increases in the total salary cap.
Radelaide
Guest
I'll take your word on it but Terry Wallace is explaining it on radio that way, his words they'll need to get rid of a few players by then.