AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan’s “you can’t have everything” remark directed at the Sydney Swans is a massive insult in the highest order.
Considering what the club has achieved for the game in 20 years, it fails to acknowledge the hard work of Richard Colless and Ron Barassi, as well as Andrew Ireland and coaches Rodney Eade, Paul Roos and John Longmire.
All McLachlan has done is feed the grand Victorian delusion the COLA helped make the Swans successful, and not first class professional administrators, or second-to-none coaching and recruiting staff.
It makes a joke of the 2005 and 2012 premiership efforts. It makes a joke of the heartache the club had to overcome to get to where it is today. The COLA did not buy the Swans two premierships anymore than it lured Lance Franklin to the club.
Since the club’s last wooden spoon in 1994, in rugby league dominant Sydney, the Swans have been going from strength to strength, so why can’t the AFL let them go along as they have been?
Is it because of a great Victorians fear the Swans could potentially become the biggest AFL club in the country?
While unlikely, the potential is most certainly there, as the population of Sydney, the high level of Swans support and the massive corporate interest the club has been able to attract suggests.
The Swans have been a sleeping giant in Australian sport, they already have the most expensive jumper in the AFL, now worth $3 million alone, and if the club is able to capitalise during Franklin’s nine-year tenure with more premiership success, the jumper value should soar further.
However, rather than celebrate what the Swans have achieved, like 40,000 members for the first time in the club’s history, McLachlan seems to be happy with the idea of punishing them for being successful.
It’s as if the AFL are saying they were the reason why the Swans were able to sign Kurt Tippett and Lance Franklin. It is sending out mixed messages, and it doesn’t look good.
The Swans trade ban does not look good for the game, and it makes you wonder why both the AFL and the Swans would violate a player’s right to seek trades. McLachlan’s remarks are also proof the AFL is losing its marbles when it comes to the challenges the game faces in Sydney. Not only that, they undermine everything the game is trying to achieve there.
While the Swans may be tentatively well established, the AFL cannot take the club’s success for granted either.
The AFL has the problem of having one Sydney club being vilified for being successful, and perceived as wanting everything with handouts, while in the meantime, the other Sydney club has become like a loveless child, vulnerable to player raids with disgruntled kids wanting out.
The AFL appears to have no plan for what to do in Western Sydney. The Canberra written on the back of the Giants jumper suggests a “plan B”, and the AFL wonders why Lance Franklin possibly baulked at signing with GWS.
McLachlan’s belief the rivalry between the Swans and the Giants will escalate quickly is delusional. It is not like the West Coast Eagles and Fremantle Dockers, where there is a deep history of Australian Rules among genuine followers of the game, to make such a rivalry happen.
The dream of the Swans and the Giants somehow having the same intense rivalry the A-League has been able to conjure up between the Western Sydney Wanderers and Sydney FC is an illusion. It will never happen.
Sydney-siders don’t have the same natural love for AFL as they do for rugby league, and the A-League has proven football has always been a sleeping giant, especially in Sydney.
It seems the AFL does not understand the Sydney sporting market, and it appears to underestimate the NRL, its biggest rival.
The NRL, a well run organisation with a big war chest, are buoyed by the redemption the resurrected (now James Packer backed) South Sydney Rabbitohs have given the game. To go with that, the code’s big four of Western Sydney – Penrith Panthers, Canterbury Bulldogs, Parramatta Eels and Wests Tigers – all look set to be making sure they claim their territories.
Gillon McLachlan would be best served to take a much more sober look at the game in Sydney, otherwise the country’s most volatile sporting market could deliver the AFL a king hit it never saw coming.
andyl12
Guest
So Cooper, what you seem to be saying is that we should give the Swans extra help because they're in a city whose fans are fickle by nature. Clubs whose fans are loyal are less deserving of help in your opinion. Andrew Newbold supports an 18-team competition, always has. What my beloved Hawks discovered 15 years ago was that you move up in the world by making wise decisions. We could've asked for handouts but instead we tapped into the Tasmanian market in a deal that was made independently of the AFL, and we have now benefited from that. Same goes for the Waverley Park deal- unlike many clubs we embraced Waverley because we knew our fan base lived out that way, and in another deal made independently of the AFL we got access to the ground rent-free. The Swans, on the other hand, did not support an 18-team competition. In 2006 Richard Colless asked for the Swans logo to be the sole marketing symbol of the game in NSW. They felt NSW'men should see no difference between club and sport. It's funny, the Swans always insisted the Sydney market wasn't ready for a second team, while at the same time coming up with ideas to make sure it would never be ready for one.
Jimmy_jamz
Guest
For all the success of the storm first grade side I don't believe they will be truly successful until they have a strong junior development program. One player has come through to the big time and he's from nz. A Canberra side, though not financially a very appealing idea will always produce more local juniors that either Sydney side. The auskick program will never work aswell in Sydney as it will in south western nsw. In Sydney you play soccer as a kid and rugby league when you start to strengthen up. The success of the swans won't change this
Bill
Guest
Who is the Wanderer's marquee?
Warren Cooper
Roar Guru
No, I know they haven't Chris H. I believe its good for the club the COLA is going because it gets a big monkey off of the club's back. However the AFL should not be hurting the club as it is being phased out. Its funny how it was all OK until the Swans won the premiership in 2012. Actually it was OK until it was announced they had signed Kurt Tippett. Yet on the flip side, Hawthorn goes back to back and can sign James Frawley and no one batters an eyelid ... so the Hawks can improve their side with some of the premierships best players, after winning premierships, but the Swans can't ... why because the Swans have a COLA??? Topsy turvey??? Rules for some and not for others??? I'd say a big yes to that one!
Warren Cooper
Roar Guru
andyl12, the advantages you're talking about are mythical at best. The club has never said it has to always be at the top of the ladder. What they have said its crucial the club is always competitive. That's the reality of the Sydney sporting market, even the Sydney NRL clubs suffer from it, but not as much as two AFL teams. AFL is not the traditional sport of NSW, it never will be. And you can talk about educating the people of Sydney all you like, it won't change the Sydney sporting landscape. That said, we're not a bunch of derelicts either! lol Its also a myth that all Swans fans are based in the Eastern Suburbs of Sydney - some live in Adelaide, Perth, Melbourne - I live in Wollongong. Its also a myth all the players live Bondi. One of the reasons why the GWS struggle for fans at the moment is because of the reality the Swans have fans in the West too. For what its worth I believe its good the COLA is going because it gets a monkey off the club's back. Even so, the AFL should not be hurting the club in the process of phasing it out either. Perhaps you should direct your "It's an 18 team competition" at Eddie McGuire and Andrew Newbold too.
Penster
Guest
No, it's not inexpensive, but depends what you're earning. What would the same apartment cost to rent out in Bondi?
Warren Cooper
Roar Guru
Thanks Pumping Dougie: I don't expect opposition supporters to accept the Swans being able to make room for Tippett. The room was there, but that said, it never sat well with me with how Tippett ended up at the Swans. I'm not saying the club broke rules, and I don't believe they did, but the moment the Crows and Tippett saga began, that is when the Swans should have backed off. Lance Franklin had a much more smoother arrival at the club and he sought the club out. I agree on the draft system. I believe there should be equal salary caps, a lottery draft system, and a proper under 18's and Reserves set up, thus ending once and for all the nonsense over the Academies. The problems, its too easy. And the AFL is more interested in making money then spending it.
Leapin Leo
Guest
i own a One (1) bedroom apartment in Mascot, about 1.5 km from the airport which I rent out for $600/week. I'd hardly call that inexpensive.
Pumping Dougie
Guest
Great answer Cooper and I accept most of that. Good argument about most of the clubs enjoying success in that timeframe. But I'm not convinced on your argument (or Chris H above) that the Swans found room for Tippett in their salary cap on the back of departing players. All of the players you and Chris H quoted, retired or departed the club in 2009 or 2010 (with the exception of Tadgh Kennelly, who was 2011), which means they were gone 3 to 4 years before Tippett arrived. The Swans also picked-up Mumford and retained O'Keefe (who was being offered big bucks from Carlton) prior to Tippett arriving. I've got nothing against the Swans - I like them more than most opposition clubs. I just think the draft order and salary cap objectives aren't quite working and therefore needed to be changed if the premiership team can pick-up a player that everyone else would like to have on their books but can't access - Swans/Tippett in 2012, Hawks/Frawley in 2014. In the Frawley example, I'd love to see the AFL introduce a concept whereby the club receiving a free agent has to give up something for that reward. Hawks got Frawley for free; effectively a bonus high draft pick, ready made player. The same panel that awarded Melbourne pick 3 should have required Hawks to throw their first draft pick (19?) back into the pot, so that whoever has the next pick slides up the order one. That would be a much fairer free agency system. Thanks for your comments and article.
EddyJ
Guest
The best thing about getting rid of COLA is that we won't have to read such ignorant postings anymore. Seems like most detractors know nothing about COLA and are basing their opinions on rants from Eddie McGuire, and assorted pub talk.
Josh
Guest
My bad, when I see Australian football I think soccer played here.
Powerbot
Guest
Yeah right............The only government that sponsors AFL is the Victorian one......Just think TAC, Worksafe, Bloody Idiot, et al. Let's not forget other governments who pay taxpayers money to sponsor clubs not in their own states, just so they will play there and, my favourite, industry super funds who have no need to advertise at all. It's YOUR money, and these fat cats use it to pay for their corporate box while you subsidise them with your membership.
clipper
Guest
I think that's a fair point that WSW have really taken off in Western Sydney, so much so that in most parts Soccer is the No. 1 participation sport - there is a niche out there for AFL, but as I have observed before, they need to get more engaged with the 'battlers', as AFL is a bit middle class in Sydney - I think that will change once the juniors start coming through - that and they start making the finals, then judgments can be made. As long as they match or better the worst performing NRL team, I think they're doing OK in a tough market.
fiver
Guest
I would say its more like 800k a year salary from the roosters plus his endorsements which would be more than Buddy gets, considering SBW is a global brand. The rest of the roosters starting 13 would be somewhere between 100k - 500k, are you saying every swans player is on more than 500k? Either way, you're right, the COLA is a complete farce.
andyl12
Guest
Fiver- the Roosters pay SBW $500K a year. Buddy gets almost triple that and apparently needs a COLA to survive. The fact that SBW chose the Roosters kind of proves what I'm saying anyway.
fiver
Guest
Look at the NRL- the Roosters have no trouble luring players with the Bondi lifestyle. And they are on much lower salaries (without rent assistance) than any Sydney Swans player. pretty sure sonny bill williams would have been getting more money than any swans player, considering hes an international ambassador for Adidas... but yeah keeping living in that bubble down there.
andyl12
Guest
"go to Sydney and outside a big 3 or 4 they are anonymous." Is that a bad thing? Lance Franklin and Ryan Griffen seem to like the relative anonymity there.
TD
Guest
Andy - really - did you read (a) what polec said about his behavior until he knew he was going home (b) al the lions that went home last year
TD
Guest
An afl player in Vic, Perth or Adelaide has a ton of advantages that a Sydney or Brisbane player doesn't have - in te afl states he is recognized - more media opportunities - freebies - mealies - queue jumping etc - and that's the middle tier of the list - go to Sydney and outside a big 3 or 4 they are anonymous - look at all the go hmers and realize that if you want to grow the game - you need success outside of suburban melbourne
andyl12
Guest
But why would their players want to live in Canberra? That is the problem the Canberra Raiders have- that all their players would rather live in expensive places like Bondi, because they're footballers and they can afford to.