AFL to assess Giants separately for costs of living allowance

Quite frankly, there is no place for the massive cost of living allowances afforded to both Sydney clubs as long as we have a free agency situation. It simply goes against the grain to have situations where these clubs can offer big money to potential recruits that can't be matched by the other clubs courtesy of this allowance a la Tippett and Franklin.

Moreover, the clubs should now be lobbying the AFL Commissioners to ensure that we have a truly level playing field when it comes to recruiting/retaining players.

The only way we can have a truly level playing field is when the fixture is not set with the sole purpose to increase attendance for the larger clubs, yes the COLA is a problem but it's pretty insignificant compared to the fixture.

It's not exactly cheap living in Melbourne.

Voted 4th most expensive city in the world today!!

Can i have an allowance?

What a joke.

It's beyond a joke that the AFL will decrease Sydney's allowance whilst keeping GWS' 9.8%.

Ie. Western Sydney has a higher CoL than Eastern Sydney. What a joke.

It should be completely scrapped. If the evidence shows it then young players and rookies in their first 3 years earning under 100k could be given a rent assistant payment but it would probably extend to Perth clubs as well.

The AFL need to come out and tell us what it is which is an expansion allowance. Decreasing Sydney's but keeping GWS' is proof of that.

Would anyone be too upset if GWS had a 5% expansion allowance for the next 3 years then tapering down to nothing over the 5 years after that? I think we'd all be accepting of that as they need to pay a little more to get player in to a brand new club.

  On 17/02/2014 at 08:23, Jarka said:

The only way we can have a truly level playing field is when the fixture is not set with the sole purpose to increase attendance for the larger clubs, yes the COLA is a problem but it's pretty insignificant compared to the fixture.

Yep agree. I think all fixtures outside of Friday night should be divided equally to guarantee equal exposure. Friday night should mandate that each club had a chance to host 1 of them per year. The remaining 4 or however many (with split rounds it might be more) can be divided up between the bigger clubs and the away team can be favouring the bigger clubs as well. Then clubs can get a small compensation for inequity (which is now much smaller) of Friday night games.

Nothing irritates me more than hearing supporters of big clubs say 'they didn't deserve the blockbuster game'. Especially when I've sat through Collingwood or Essendon snore fests on Friday night for much of the year.

  On 17/02/2014 at 08:23, Jarka said:

The only way we can have a truly level playing field is when the fixture is not set with the sole purpose to increase attendance for the larger clubs, yes the COLA is a problem but it's pretty insignificant compared to the fixture.

There will never be equality in the AFL because it is a business, it's run on profits and revenue.

What is even more worrying, it that it has absolutely no ethics, from the top on down - this is why we see things like Essendon, etc.

Then the AFL try cover it up, that is what they are about.

Betting companies are some of the biggest sponsors in the game. Television stations dictate the draw - which in turn affects equality.

The more the AFL is the business, the game is the product, that is all.

All I can say is thank god for Eddie McGuire, otherwise the AFL would just keep pulling the wool over the eyes of the public.

The competition needs to be fair, I believe it will come to a stage in the future - where Eddie will threaten to pull Collingwood from the competition.

Collingwood will strike and I hope they do.

Initially I felt some sympathy for GWS however when you see the way they have squandered money e.g The Scully Family

I have little left for either NSW team.

Welcome to the real world guys!

Must we open up this can of worms again? I think we've all long-agreed that it's a joke.

Does this mean if it is cheaper to live in Qld, SA, and WA, their salary cap gets reduced. Come on AFL, just tell the truth "Cost of living". really!

At lease when we get given money it called equalisation funds. In the case of Brisbane all those years ago and now Sydney, its all about their continued success.

The AFL are scared if GWS and the Swans hold up the ladder no one in NSW will go.

hmm i don't think melbourne will be a big player in trying to remove the COLA.

after all the money we have been given for our misfortunes we would be silly to ark up at another club for trying to get an edge.

I think cost of living allowance is an allowance that shouldn't exist. I reckon that in years gone by that Sydney did need some extra cap space. We forget how attractive a destination the Swans were in the early 90's. I used to bemoan having to watch Swans matches on Sundays as usually they were over by half time, the SCG was like a crypt with crowds of 5000 and a real smell of death lingered about the joint. It wasn't until the AFL sent their storm troopers in and made the joint professional that Tony Lockett and Paul Roos signed on.

While the Swannies aren't front of the sports section material up there, there are plently of perks when you play for them (i.e. living in Ultimo, Woolomooloo, Bondi etc., playing in one of the best cultures in the AFL, having a shot at finals most years and likely a premiership). I think they can attract players just fine.

GWS, as much as I am opposed to the idea, do need this assistance but it shouldn't be rationalized by the high cost of living in Sydney. Let's call it for what it is. GWS are where the Swans were 20 years ago. There isn't a stench of death about them because the AFL are propping them up but their games are usually over pretty damn quickly and usually played in front of a few seagulls searching for food in Blacktown. Plus add onto the fact that they aren't based in the glitzy part of Sydney and you have a pretty good rationalization as to why they should get help.

Give GWS an allowance but don't say it's to balance out cost of living. Call it for what it is.
The Swans don't need said allowance.

When it's all said and done we have received little more than anyone else and that came with a great deal of strings attached.

The COLA has no strings, why do footy players need to be paid so much that they are set for life by age 30-35 and also expect extra to help pay for the basics of life.

When they sell up in Sydney will they repay the extra they make from the sale, very greedy club, very greedy players.

Does it cost $150 pw more to live in Sydney. Do players buy property? If they buy more expensive Sydney property one presumes they will later sell more expensive Sydney property. They have lost nothing.

If they rent, there may be an argument, however. If half the players rent then perhaps they may apply for a rent allowance, say $150pw that is less than $200,000 in total for the club.

If Melbourne becomes more expensive in the future do Melbourne clubs get the allowance?

I think players earning over $150,000 and are buying property they should just suck it up. No allowance.

You could argue that if it is more expensive it is more desirable so perhaps they should be paid less.

Isnt the way to do it is let them have the same salary cap as everyone else, and the COLA is a % which is added onto each players salary by the AFL? That way the extra salary cap space CANNOT be used to draw in another superstar, and if the COL is actually higher, then all players benefit equally?

Forget COLA, what the AFL are proposing with GWS is a development allowance. The name of the allowance should be changed to reflect this, the debate should not be about cost of living (a smoke screen) but whether the club needs a leg up into a premiership.

  On 18/02/2014 at 00:19, brey9186 said:

Isnt the way to do it is let them have the same salary cap as everyone else, and the COLA is a % which is added onto each players salary by the AFL? That way the extra salary cap space CANNOT be used to draw in another superstar, and if the COL is actually higher, then all players benefit equally?

The problem with a straight percentage to each player is that the players earning the most receive the most allowance. I think it should be means tested. If you are buying a property no allowance. If you rent and are on a lower income say under $150,000 you get a rent allowance paid direct to the player from the AFL.

I'm pretty sure I saw on the Today show (or one of those morning breakfast shows) a couple of days ago that Melbourne is now the 4th most expensive city in the world. So why does Sydney get an extra allowance?

It would be fair enough if player who earn less the $100k a year get a top up but hell everyone else can seem to live reasonable in those cities on $60K a year or less in a normal job.

Yes if Melbourne has been named the 4th most expensive city in the world where does that put Sydney?

Is Sydney more expensive in REAL Terms or is this just an inconvenience the rest of the comp must endure for NSW success

  On 18/02/2014 at 00:25, ManDee said:

The problem with a straight percentage to each player is that the players earning the most receive the most allowance. I think it should be means tested. If you are buying a property no allowance. If you rent and are on a lower income say under $150,000 you get a rent allowance paid direct to the player from the AFL.

Good points ManDee.

I think the salary cap should just be the same for all clubs but continue the COLA if it's that pricey there.

Just make it the $x amount of funds available from COLA is simply divided by the amount of players on the list and then paid in even amounts. That way they all an extra say $20k p.a. to cover the so called higher costs.

The club shouldn't even get the option to use it on players contracts or to entice other players.

COLA is just one of many unequal areas in the AFL, but under the current socialist regime - it will not be removed.

Once Vlad goes, then hopefully the next bloke can work about fixing up this big mess.

  On 18/02/2014 at 03:02, KingDingAling said:

COLA is just one of many unequal areas in the AFL, but under the current socialist regime - it will not be removed.

Once Vlad goes, then hopefully the next bloke can work about fixing up this big mess.

Well Dinga, I'm no wrap for our Vlad, but if this mob is "socialist" then the original Vladimir (the bloke who helped kick it all off) would roll over in his mausoleum!

  On 18/02/2014 at 06:01, Bitter but optimistic said:

Well Dinga, I'm no wrap for our Vlad, but if this mob is "socialist" then the original Vladimir (the bloke who helped kick it all off) would roll over in his mausoleum!

you might get an argument on "original" down at trades hall bbo

dimwit and the afl are certainly not socialists, quite the opposite

now craig thomson, there was a socialist for you

This is not about the AFL giving away money.

It's about the AFL giving a competitive advantage to one club over all others.

It's about the AFL teaching Sydney a lesson for having the gall to steal Buddy from the GWS clutches.

It's about allowing GWS to do other clubs what it did with Tom Scully - allow it to poach a player from another club that has absolutely no chance of matching their offer.

Let's hope it's not that GWS is not allowed to use this weapon to steal Chip away from us.