They are getting 800 extra in the cap next year, 600 the year after. It's hard to feel sorry for them even if these are silly conditions.

I don't feel sorry for them, they recently won a premiership and have had exciting games.

I feel sorry for us as we've been trying to build - thankfully it's coming.

Good.

Well I LOLed

Policy on the run as usual.

Correct.

The Sydney Swans (until proven otherwise) have followed the AFL's guidelines in putting the COLA into every contract they have. If that means they have been consistently underpaying players for years AND their players accepted said contracts, so they could use the remaining salary cap buffer to attract big stars then congratulations to them. Removing COLA as an allowance is perfectly acceptable, however the AFL should not then ban a club from performing the same legal draft actions that the other 17 clubs are performing when there is no evidence that the Swans acted against the guidelines and rules given to them by the AFL.

IF the AFL believe the Swans have breached their salary cap, then they should do as they have done in the past and appoint an investigator to check the Swans books and then punish them accordingly.

I believe that the COLA should be allowed to stand in the contracts it is currently written in to as it was a recognised and MANDATED contractual instrument AT THE TIME THE CONTRACT WAS SIGNED. Having said that any further contracts they wish to sign should be subject to NO COLA, as per the AFL's wish to remove the allowance. Being a professional organisation the AFL should be able to appoint an auditor to the Swans to keep track of COLA payments expiring so as to assess their continued salary cap adherence.

Haiku time!

Another knee jerks

The rule of law has faded

Crisis simmers on

Policy on the run as usual.

Never come across an associated which responded to group think like the AFL do. Policy on the run and knee jerks all round!

Correct.

The Sydney Swans (until proven otherwise) have followed the AFL's guidelines in putting the COLA into every contract they have. If that means they have been consistently underpaying players for years AND their players accepted said contracts, so they could use the remaining salary cap buffer to attract big stars then congratulations to them. Removing COLA as an allowance is perfectly acceptable, however the AFL should not then ban a club from performing the same legal draft actions that the other 17 clubs are performing when there is no evidence that the Swans acted against the guidelines and rules given to them by the AFL.

IF the AFL believe the Swans have breached their salary cap, then they should do as they have done in the past and appoint an investigator to check the Swans books and then punish them accordingly.

I believe that the COLA should be allowed to stand in the contracts it is currently written in to as it was a recognised and MANDATED contractual instrument AT THE TIME THE CONTRACT WAS SIGNED. Having said that any further contracts they wish to sign should be subject to NO COLA, as per the AFL's wish to remove the allowance. Being a professional organisation the AFL should be able to appoint an auditor to the Swans to keep track of COLA payments expiring so as to assess their continued salary cap adherence.

i don't believe the original cola allowed it to legally (in the AFL sense) be a contractual part of a contract

it was to be outside of the contract and as such excluded from the cap

i don't believe the original cola allowed it to legally (in the AFL sense) be a contractual part of a contract

it was to be outside of the contract and as such excluded from the cap

The COLA, as part of it being granted, MUST be included in every contract, even though the payment itslef sits outside the cap, it still has to be written into the contract. What that means is the Swans can effectively pay a player 10% less than their market value and with the COLA payment sitting outside the cap, bank the extra salary cap space until they require it. That would allow them to sit at the minimum 92.5% salary floor (excluding veterens and rookies) consistently until they needed to pay 100%. By saving that money over the last few years they also wouldn't even have to go into debt to do it.

I'm opposed to the COLA, third party arrangements, ambassadorships, academies and every other inequality in the league.

However the AFL telling a club they cannot trade players or recruit FA's is a disgrace and a restraint of trade. The AFL operates like a third world junta, the way they just male policy on the run is an utter disgrace.

Absolute garbage. You can't just change the goalposts (pun intended) all the time on the run like this. Makes a mockery about of the planning clubs put in place over a number of years and is totally illogical.

I'm opposed to the COLA, third party arrangements, ambassadorships, academies and every other inequality in the league.

However the AFL telling a club they cannot trade players or recruit FA's is a disgrace and a restraint of trade. The AFL operates like a third world junta, the way they just male policy on the run is an utter disgrace.

They are only inequalities if not every team has access to them. Third party arrangements are a part of every club and you could also look at the fact we get a massive "equalisation" payment directly from the AFL that far exceeds other more financially successful clubs. I would put a case to the AFL that every team that wants an academy should be able to explore it. Then everyone has equal choice to be a part of that system or not. As for COLA, well, that should be removed but not the way the AFL are going about it today.

Hah. I couldn't give a stuff about Sydney but I'm just shaking my head at the absurdity of this response from the AFL. This situation is completely out of control; it is a mess entirely of the AFL's own making, and this is just blatantly unreasonable IMO. How are they supposed to trade at all if they can't bundle players in to deals?

They are only inequalities if not every team has access to them. Third party arrangements are a part of every club and you could also look at the fact we get a massive "equalisation" payment directly from the AFL that far exceeds other more financially successful clubs. I would put a case to the AFL that every team that wants an academy should be able to explore it. Then everyone has equal choice to be a part of that system or not. As for COLA, well, that should be removed but not the way the AFL are going about it today.

I'd like to see every team be responsible for a region to look after, Re local talent development. So the clubs spend time & energy putting into their local region, developing kids & attracting people into footy in their regions.

then IMO each club should be able to select one U-16/17 nominee from within they're region Per Year as an academy player, to be sponsored & developed by that club.

these kids would keep up school but get specialised training & mentoring from the club, & the club should then be able to select one preferred academy player from their region to put onto their player list, Pre draft. Not using any draft picks, but only a list spot.

Any subsequent academy players left in their region should be available to be taken in the father son nominations following any actual Father/Son selections. Using a draft pick.

Vlad looks like a stable moderate in comparison to Gill. This guy has no 'bigger picture' sense.

I'd like to see every team be responsible for a region to look after, Re local talent development. So the clubs spend time & energy putting into their local region, developing kids & attracting people into footy in their regions.

then IMO each club should be able to select one U-16/17 nominee from within they're region Per Year as an academy player, to be sponsored & developed by that club.

these kids would keep up school but get specialised training & mentoring from the club, & the club should then be able to select one preferred academy player from their region to put onto their player list, Pre draft. Not using up draft pick, but only a list spot.

Any subsequent academy players left in their region should be available to be taken in the father son nominations following any actual Father/Son selections. Using a draft pick.

Great idea. You could call it a "zone".

Then you could build a time machine and teleport out of 1978 back to 2014 where all teams have (almost) equal access to the players.

The COLA, as part of it being granted, MUST be included in every contract, even though the payment itslef sits outside the cap, it still has to be written into the contract. What that means is the Swans can effectively pay a player 10% less than their market value and with the COLA payment sitting outside the cap, bank the extra salary cap space until they require it. That would allow them to sit at the minimum 92.5% salary floor (excluding veterens and rookies) consistently until they needed to pay 100%. By saving that money over the last few years they also wouldn't even have to go into debt to do it.

are you sure it is in the contract. i thought i read somewhere that the swans divvy it up each year to the players (using their own formula which i think is as a % of each players contract))

the 92.5% you mention was changed to 95% (last year iirc)

do you know what % of the salary cap the swans have actually paid the last few years?

HQ don't want another Buddy going up there.

Simple.

Why would they not be able to just trade in new players and make their new contracts compliment with the no COLA.

Seems like there is much more to this story.

I'm all for equalisation but this just sounds rediculous and punishing a team for abiding by the rules made availible to them... Wait a minute, that sounds familure.

Remember when AFL jumped up the day before the pre season draft and said Sydney was not allowed to pick? What year was that? Too close to the salary cap. Sounds like the same deal. Sydney has been using the COLA as a "red zone" to finagle it's margins.

are you sure it is in the contract. i thought i read somewhere that the swans divvy it up each year to the players (using their own formula which i think is as a % of each players contract))

the 92.5% you mention was changed to 95% (last year iirc)

do you know what % of the salary cap the swans have actually paid the last few years?

Yeah almost positive. The swans CEO stated when this all went down that it was a mandated part of every contract.

92.5% to 95% sounds right. I knew it was going up.

No idea how much they paid of the cap, havent read anything or seen anything to suggest what they paid, but it just makes sense. Its the only way they can bank salary cap space.

Yeah almost positive. The swans CEO stated when this all went down that it was a mandated part of every contract.

92.5% to 95% sounds right. I knew it was going up.

No idea how much they paid of the cap, havent read anything or seen anything to suggest what they paid, but it just makes sense. Its the only way they can bank salary cap space.

not to be picky, but i know it's mandated (by the AFL actually) and must be fully expended, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is included in each players contract

but quite prepared to accept it is even if possibly described as discretionary

Remember when AFL jumped up the day before the pre season draft and said Sydney was not allowed to pick? What year was that? Too close to the salary cap. Sounds like the same deal. Sydney has been using the COLA as a "red zone" to finagle it's margins.

10 out of 10 for using 'finagle' in there Tony. Good word to sum the Swans up.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/aap/article-2644560/Swans-CEO-hits-COLA-critics.html

Sydney lost the AFL's COLA war long ago, but chief executive Andrew Ireland on Saturday fired a series of shots in response to "offensive" allegations.

The league will soon announce reformed equalisation measures, with the Swans and Giants' cost-of-living allowance (COLA) set to be replaced by rent subsidies.

Western Bulldogs president Peter Gordon this week became the latest official to bemoan the COLA and link it to the Swans' recruitment of superstars Lance Franklin and Kurt Tippett.

Gordon told News Corp Australia the club had "tested the rules" and "exploited" the allowance, which he said was "completely unfair".

A passionate Ireland hit back with a broadside at Gordon and other critics.

"Peter's comments are very offensive. The fact is he's effectively saying were cheating," Ireland told 3AW.

"The reality is when we did the Buddy deal, the AFL came and sent an investigating team to look at it and passed it fully.

"There's a clause in every contract that (salary cap watchdog) Ken Wood wrote, which dictates that every contract has got 9.8 per cent allowance for every player.

"It's in their contract as required. There's no pool to be able to recruit players."

Ireland noted the club had asked the league to publicly explain this point, but that the Swans are "still waiting".

He said the AFL would adopt one of the Swans' COLA suggestions, that the league pay the new rent allowance directly to players so "there can never be any accusation we're hoarding".

Ireland added that Gordon should "worry more about running his own club".

Gordon was given the right of reply on the same radio program.

"Clearly it gives them an advantage, but look I regret that both Sydney and their management feel offended by this," he said.

"I didn't wake up and intend to say something offensive."

Unprompted, Ireland earlier also turned his attention to outgoing Carlton chief executive Greg Swann.

Speaking after the Swans' unbelievable 110-point win over Geelong on Thursday night, Swann had said the best way for rivals to compete with the odds-on premiership favourites would be to "give us all an (extra) million bucks and we might be a chance".

"Last time I looked Carlton haven't won too many premierships without breaching the salary cap," Ireland said.

"They've been good tankers and the last time I looked (Chris) Judd's VISY deal seemed to be hanging around somewhere."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/aap/article-2644560/Swans-CEO-hits-COLA-critics.html

Sydney lost the AFL's COLA war long ago, but chief executive Andrew Ireland on Saturday fired a series of shots in response to "offensive" allegations.

The league will soon announce reformed equalisation measures, with the Swans and Giants' cost-of-living allowance (COLA) set to be replaced by rent subsidies.

Western Bulldogs president Peter Gordon this week became the latest official to bemoan the COLA and link it to the Swans' recruitment of superstars Lance Franklin and Kurt Tippett.

Gordon told News Corp Australia the club had "tested the rules" and "exploited" the allowance, which he said was "completely unfair".

A passionate Ireland hit back with a broadside at Gordon and other critics.

"Peter's comments are very offensive. The fact is he's effectively saying were cheating," Ireland told 3AW.

"The reality is when we did the Buddy deal, the AFL came and sent an investigating team to look at it and passed it fully.

"There's a clause in every contract that (salary cap watchdog) Ken Wood wrote, which dictates that every contract has got 9.8 per cent allowance for every player.

"It's in their contract as required. There's no pool to be able to recruit players."

Ireland noted the club had asked the league to publicly explain this point, but that the Swans are "still waiting".

He said the AFL would adopt one of the Swans' COLA suggestions, that the league pay the new rent allowance directly to players so "there can never be any accusation we're hoarding".

Ireland added that Gordon should "worry more about running his own club".

Gordon was given the right of reply on the same radio program.

"Clearly it gives them an advantage, but look I regret that both Sydney and their management feel offended by this," he said.

"I didn't wake up and intend to say something offensive."

Unprompted, Ireland earlier also turned his attention to outgoing Carlton chief executive Greg Swann.

Speaking after the Swans' unbelievable 110-point win over Geelong on Thursday night, Swann had said the best way for rivals to compete with the odds-on premiership favourites would be to "give us all an (extra) million bucks and we might be a chance".

"Last time I looked Carlton haven't won too many premierships without breaching the salary cap," Ireland said.

"They've been good tankers and the last time I looked (Chris) Judd's VISY deal seemed to be hanging around somewhere."

thanks. fair enough

Total farce

Middle of trade week

Told they can't trade.

Talk about making it up on the run

And you are surprised?