'Very offensive': Ireland furious with Bulldogs' COLA comments

[Ghost Dog]

SYDNEY Swans chief executive Andrew Ireland (http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-05-31/hes-saying-were-cheating)has leapt to his club's defence after Western Bulldogs president Peter Gordon accused the Swans of exploiting the cost-of living allowance.

Speaking on 3AW on Saturday, Ireland labelled Gordon's comments as "very offensive".

Gordon claimed on Friday that the Swans had "tested" the AFL's rules and "exploited" the COLA, insinuating the extra 9.8 per cent allowance in their salary cap was used to lure star forwards Kurt Tippett and Lance Franklin.

Link (http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-05-31/hes-saying-were-cheating)

It is simply not possible that Sydney could have all that talent without some form of creative account keeping. The fact the AFL sent a team up there to have a look at the Buddy deal gives me little comfort. Happy to side with Peter on that one.

[Remi Moses]

The AfL gave them a million dollars, and they're not using it for it's intended reason.
We all know it, and whatever spin Ireland wants to put on it, it's true.
If he's offended by the truth, then he's easily offended.

[bulldogtragic]

Oh my god, someone told the truth and Sydney bitch about it...

[SonofScray]

Swan's CEO has difficulty with comprehension it would seem. Likewise some media people, although that is probably by design so less a personal sleight and more a reflection of their shady practice. Good on PG for having the courage to stand by his comments and values.

[Flamethrower]

Peter Gordon should worry about his own club, the massive debt that is hanging around their neck, and the terrible stadium deal that the Bulldogs agreed to with Etihad Stadium. Besides the Dogs could have drafted Lance Franklin in 2004.

Let the AFL investigate any possible rule breaches and misuse of the COLA.

[Remi Moses]

Peter Gordon should worry about his own club, the massive debt that is hanging around their neck, and the terrible stadium deal that the Bulldogs agreed to with Etihad Stadium. Besides the Dogs could have drafted Lance Franklin in 2004.

Let the AFL investigate any possible rule breaches and misuse of the COLA.
Pretty irrelevant comment to be honest. We are meant to have a salary cap and Sydney's clearly been clever exploiting a loophole in its intended purpose.

[Webby]

Mike Sheehan tried to take Gordon to task on 3AW today. Gordon flexed a bit of legal background muscle and took care if him. It was quite impressive, really. He said something like "I wish I could get you on a witness stand in a courtroom" or something to that effect... He was just getting into stride, and then his phone dropped out. A pity.

Then talkback started and 95% of callers were with Gordon. I think Sheehan and Ireland must be mates- thus Sheehan trying so hard to defend it all.

Point is the COLA is a complete Furphy. We all know the true purpose is to have northern state teams cooking with gas whilst clubs like us get treated like garbage. I'm sick and tired of this corporate objective to "grow the game, grow the game, grow the game by frigging around and manipulating everything.

Here's a radical idea, run a competition with integrity and fairness, deliver a good product at a reasonable price and you might just find that the game grows quite well on its own.

[bornadog]

Point is the COLA is a complete Furphy. We all know the true purpose is to have northern state teams cooking with gas whilst clubs like us get treated like garbage. I'm sick and tired of this corporate objective to "grow the game, grow the game, grow the game by frigging around and manipulating everything.

Here's a radical idea, run a competition with integrity and fairness, deliver a good product at a reasonable price and you might just find that the game grows quite well on its own.

Spot on Webby, AFL has been made into a joke competition.

[lemmon]

I'm sure the Swans rookie listed players are all thankful they have the COLA to absorb the high cost of Sydney living :rolleyes: Ireland is clutching at straws defending a lie

[Remi Moses]

I'm sure the Swans rookie listed players are all thankful they have the COLA to absorb the high cost of Sydney living :rolleyes: Ireland is clutching at straws defending a lie

It's intended purpose was to retain players from other states.
It's been abused.
You just cannot have in a so called equalised competition clubs paying 95% and one club getting 1 million more than 100%!
Makes a mockery of a so called equalised economy

[boydogs]

He was just getting into stride, and then his phone dropped out. A pity.

"Dropped out"

[LostDoggy]

Another technical solution applied without the appropriate monitoring measures. If it's for cost of living, to be applied equally for all players, then the AFL integrity unit should be able to answer this in two minutes.

[jeemak]

Here's a radical idea, run a competition with integrity and fairness, deliver a good product at a reasonable price and you might just find that the game grows quite well on its own.

Bingo.

Pretty much all of the negative issues associated with the game are due to its commercialisation and growth imperatives.

I'm not doubting that thriving commercially and growing has its positives, BTW. It's just that the balance is completely screwed.

[Scorlibo]

To say that the COLA money should only be able to be used on lower-rung players is completely absurd. I can't agree with Peter on this one. The idea behind it is to stop Sydney clubs being at a competitive disadvantage when trying to lure players to their club - and when trying to keep players at their club. It's not to give 'struggling' rookies a hand out, they are just fine with the salaries they are on, as is every player on an AFL list. Sydney can use their allowance however they see fit.

[ReLoad]

Well when I usurp power down at AFL HQ I'm going to change the rules, all AFL clubs must bring total football dept spending (inc salary cap) to equal to that of the club that pays the lowest amount, I.e us.

Then let's see who is the best in the land :)

[jeemak]

To say that the COLA money should only be able to be used on lower-rung players is completely absurd. I can't agree with Peter on this one. The idea behind it is to stop Sydney clubs being at a competitive disadvantage when trying to lure players to their club - and when trying to keep players at their club. It's not to give 'struggling' rookies a hand out, they are just fine with the salaries they are on, as is every player on an AFL list. Sydney can use their allowance however they see fit.


Do you understand what the acronym actually means?

[F'scary]

Gordon should sick Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey onto those bludging Sydney Swans. Listen to that Ireland! Talk about a sense of entitlement.

[wimberga]

To say that the COLA money should only be able to be used on lower-rung players is completely absurd. I can't agree with Peter on this one. The idea behind it is to stop Sydney clubs being at a competitive disadvantage when trying to lure players to their club - and when trying to keep players at their club. It's not to give 'struggling' rookies a hand out, they are just fine with the salaries they are on, as is every player on an AFL list. Sydney can use their allowance however they see fit.

I get what you're saying here but my understanding was that COLA is the "Cost of Living Allowance" and meant to assist Swans players with the high living costs associated with Sydney. Now whether or not that is necessary for that reason alone is debateable, but if I am interpreting it right, I can see the problems. If you are earning $40k as a rookie, you need assistance. If you are earning $9m over 10 years or whatever it is, you don't.

[bornadog]

I get what you're saying here but my understanding was that COLA is the "Cost of Living Allowance" and meant to assist Swans players with the high living costs associated with Sydney. Now whether or not that is necessary for that reason alone is debateable, but if I am interpreting it right, I can see the problems. If you are earning $40k as a rookie, you need assistance. If you are earning $9m over 10 years or whatever it is, you don't.

That is exactly what it was originally designed for but that argument is out the window these days and irrelevant. The 80's were different times.

[jeemak]

Correct wimberga.

The allowance has nothing to do with, in theory anyway, retaining marquee talent.

[Remi Moses]

Gordon should sick Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey onto those bludging Sydney Swans. Listen to that Ireland! Talk about a sense of entitlement.

Yeah that'll show em':confused:

[jeemak]

Yeah that'll show em':confused:

If Joe and Tonester were engaged we'd have a Docklands co-payment fee.

[Dry Rot]

When does Sydney's COLA finish?

[jeemak]

When does Sydney's COLA finish?

I think it's being phased out within three years.

[Dry Rot]

Thanks.

[Twodogs]

When does Sydney's COLA finish?

Good question. I've read many times that it is finishing but not once have I heard a date.

[Scorlibo]

Do you understand what the acronym actually means?

Cost of Living Allowance, to assist Sydney clubs attempting to retain/lure players who may be discouraged from living in Sydney because of the high cost of living.


I get what you're saying here but my understanding was that COLA is the "Cost of Living Allowance" and meant to assist Swans players with the high living costs associated with Sydney. Now whether or not that is necessary for that reason alone is debateable, but if I am interpreting it right, I can see the problems. If you are earning $40k as a rookie, you need assistance. If you are earning $9m over 10 years or whatever it is, you don't.

Who is earning 40k? It would surprise me if any listed player is earning under 60k. Average player earns 250k, remember.


Correct wimberga.

The allowance has nothing to do with, in theory anyway, retaining marquee talent.

Yes, it does! It's an allowance given to the club and not the players.

[westdog54]

Cost of Living Allowance, to assist Sydney clubs attempting to retain/lure players who may be discouraged from living in Sydney because of the high cost of living.



Who is earning 40k? It would surprise me if any listed player is earning under 60k. Average player earns 250k, remember.



Yes, it does! It's an allowance given to the club and not the players.

Surprise!

40k is about the going rate for a rookie salary, believe it or not.

Put in perspective, players like Tippett and Franklin would roughly earn a rookie's base salary as their cost of living component. You can't possibly tell me that they need an extra 40k to cope with cost of living.

[KT31]

Peter Gordon should worry about his own club, the massive debt that is hanging around their neck, and the terrible stadium deal that the Bulldogs agreed to with Etihad Stadium. Besides the Dogs could have drafted Lance Franklin in 2004.

Let the AFL investigate any possible rule breaches and misuse of the COLA.

Not our Club ????

One would think raising concerns with subjects he sees as unfair,unjust and puts our club at a disadvantage would be in his job description.

[Ghost Dog]

Peter Gordon should worry about his own club, the massive debt that is hanging around their neck, and the terrible stadium deal that the Bulldogs agreed to with Etihad Stadium. Besides the Dogs could have drafted Lance Franklin in 2004.

Let the AFL investigate any possible rule breaches and misuse of the COLA.

I'm all for accountability Flamethrower, but I don't really get how these points address COLA. People like Mick Malthaus are saying it should be scrapped immediately. Peter Gordon, a blue chip lawyer is saying the same thing. Your point seems to be just worry about your own club and forget measures that disadvantage us and stop us winning a flag, measures that many see as being unfair.

[Mofra]

Surprise!

40k is about the going rate for a rookie salary, believe it or not.
Correct.
Scott Thompson at North was still working at Bunnings in his first year to make ends meet. Rookies earn far less than expected.

[anfo27]

Surprise!

40k is about the going rate for a rookie salary, believe it or not.

Put in perspective, players like Tippett and Franklin would roughly earn a rookie's base salary as their cost of living component. You can't possibly tell me that they need an extra 40k to cope with cost of living.

If you're on 250k and you struggle to live in Sydney because of the inflated prices i can't see what an extra 9 or 10% is going to achieve. Maybe we should get a cost of living allowance for our players because its so expensive to live in Toorak & Brighton!

[bulldogtragic]

Peter Gordon on the Sunday footy show addressing Ireland's comments head on.

[Greystache]

Correct.
Scott Thompson at North was still working at Bunnings in his first year to make ends meet. Rookies earn far less than expected.

And Cameron Pederson was driving a forklift at night because he had a wife and kid. He fell asleep in a couple of team meetings which is why Norf found out.

[bulldogtragic]

And Cameron Pederson was driving a forklift at night because he had a wife and kid. He fell asleep in a couple of team meetings which is why Norf found out.

Wasn't the story about Picken as a rookie having a regularly broken down rust bucket car which he would park next to HSV's and BMW's, being the main listed players. And the first thing he did when elevated was to buy a new car. I think he might of said in the press how hard it was on bugger all salary, but also a little embarrassing as a 'have not' surrounded by money???

[bornadog]

Peter Gordon on the Sunday footy show addressing Ireland's comments head on.

Did he say much we haven't heard already?

[bulldogtragic]

Did he say much we haven't heard already?

Still not on, perhaps in about 45 minutes, 12.30ish I guess.

[F'scary]

if joe and tonester were engaged we'd have a docklands co-payment fee.
roflmfao :D:D:D:D:D

[Twodogs]

A couple of players with family picked in the rookie draft have had to knock it back because they couldn't afford the salary drop.

[lemmon]

Has anyone seen Ireland's comments? This is what he said about Carlton:

“Carlton haven’t won too many premierships without breaching the salary cap,”
“They’ve been good tankers and the last time I looked (Chris) Judd’s Visy deal seemed to be hanging around somewhere.’’

Talk about offensive...I'm no Carlton lover but would be seeing red if he made comments of a similiar ilk about us. What an absolute wanker

[bulldogtragic]

Has anyone seen Ireland's comments? This is what he said about Carlton:

“Carlton haven’t won too many premierships without breaching the salary cap,”
“They’ve been good tankers and the last time I looked (Chris) Judd’s Visy deal seemed to be hanging around somewhere.’’

Talk about offensive...I'm no Carlton lover but would be seeing red if he made comments of a similiar ilk about us. What an absolute wanker

Not sure how the media have let these comments slide, or maybe I can guess why. These comments are not even close to the substantive issue, standard deflecting comments ala rule 101 of politics.

[Scorlibo]

Surprise!

40k is about the going rate for a rookie salary, believe it or not.

Put in perspective, players like Tippett and Franklin would roughly earn a rookie's base salary as their cost of living component. You can't possibly tell me that they need an extra 40k to cope with cost of living.

That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying that if a player's offered 200k in Sydney or 200k in Melbourne, the idea behind COLA is that they're more likely to accept the Melbourne offer because the money goes further.

[LostDoggy]

Except that its utterly absurd. People want to live in sydney. The only people who need a cola allowance are those on less than $75k which is the average wage nowadays. alternately, kids forced to go to adelaide should get pity money. That's it. Even Brissie is at least sunny and we don't make anyone live in Alice where a 300 percent "o good lord we apologise" loading would be appropriate.

[Topdog]

That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying that if a player's offered 200k in Sydney or 200k in Melbourne, the idea behind COLA is that they're more likely to accept the Melbourne offer because the money goes further.

And if it were used on players earning 200,000 most people wouldn't worry. They have 2 $1m players. That is ludicrous.

[Scorlibo]

And if it were used on players earning 200,000 most people wouldn't worry. They have 2 $1m players. That is ludicrous.

What is the difference? Money goes further for players earning $1m the same as it does for players earning $200k.

Just so everyone knows - I think there is something flawed about COLA in the first place: Sydney is more expensive because people want to live there. I don't agree with COLA at the outset, but this complete misunderstanding of why (in theory) it's in place is just as silly. It's an equaliser, not a centrelink handout.

[soupman]

I understand the theory and good intentions of COLA, but it creates too many inconsistencies between locations.

You could argue that Sydney is more expensive so needs a bigger allowance but then you could argue Adelaide is cheaper so they have an advantage because their wages go further. Then you could suggest that Perth also has a higher cost of living so maybe they need to be compensated. Then you could look at it as a player retention allowance as the majority of Sydney's recruits will be moving interstate but then they already receive compensation in this area with the whole NSW pre-selection stuff and all that and besides Brisbane just got massacred by this so it isn't purely a NSW issue. Then you could argue that houses in Geelong are cheaper than Melbourne so they get too much. Then you could get into the benefits of different clubs and how off field being part of the Collingwood family might get you much further outside football than another clubs through their connections.

So many variables.

They need to stop trying to overcompensate for one inequality and give everyone a even playing field with the salary cap, regardless of all these immeasurable differences.

[GVGjr]

What is the difference? Money goes further for players earning $1m the same as it does for players earning $200k.

Just so everyone knows - I think there is something flawed about COLA in the first place: Sydney is more expensive because people want to live there. I don't agree with COLA at the outset, but this complete misunderstanding of why (in theory) it's in place is just as silly. It's an equaliser, not a centrelink handout.

The allowance should have only been for the 15 lowest paid players and should have been no more than $25,000 per player.
With younger players sharing accommodation an extra $500 per week each would be a huge assistance in managing their rent and bills.

It should have never been given to players earning a lot more than the league average.

[Scorlibo]

I understand the theory and good intentions of COLA, but it creates too many inconsistencies between locations.

You could argue that Sydney is more expensive so needs a bigger allowance but then you could argue Adelaide is cheaper so they have an advantage because their wages go further. Then you could suggest that Perth also has a higher cost of living so maybe they need to be compensated. Then you could look at it as a player retention allowance as the majority of Sydney's recruits will be moving interstate but then they already receive compensation in this area with the whole NSW pre-selection stuff and all that and besides Brisbane just got massacred by this so it isn't purely a NSW issue. Then you could argue that houses in Geelong are cheaper than Melbourne so they get too much. Then you could get into the benefits of different clubs and how off field being part of the Collingwood family might get you much further outside football than another clubs through their connections.

So many variables.

They need to stop trying to overcompensate for one inequality and give everyone a even playing field with the salary cap, regardless of all these immeasurable differences.

I agree.


The allowance should have only been for the 15 lowest paid players and should have been no more than $25,000 per player.
With younger players sharing accommodation an extra $500 per week each would be a huge assistance in managing their rent and bills.

It should have never been given to players earning a lot more than the league average.

If it's going to be in place, then the argument can't be that it's there to assist young players to pay the rent. $40k is still plenty to live on, even in Sydney. I agree with your cap, it should really be a flat rate per player, not a percentage of the original salary.

[jeemak]

I agree.



If it's going to be in place, then the argument can't be that it's there to assist young players to pay the rent. $40k is still plenty to live on, even in Sydney. I agree with your cap, it should really be a flat rate per player, not a percentage of the original salary.

$40K, before tax is plenty to live on...........in Sydney?

[Scorlibo]

$40K, before tax is plenty to live on...........in Sydney?

I live on $20k in central Melbourne. It absolutely is enough.

[lemmon]

I live on $20k in central Melbourne. It absolutely is enough.

I am intrigued, do you mind if I ask how?

[bulldogtragic]

I am intrigued, do you mind if I ask how?

A week Lem. $20,000 a week. :)

[lemmon]

A week Lem. $20,000 a week. :)

Haha that would make considerably more sense :D

[Greystache]

A week Lem. $20,000 a week. :)

$20k a month is only $240K if we're talking gross, certainly not big bucks. You can live comfortably enough, but not extravagantly.

[Scorlibo]

I am intrigued, do you mind if I ask how?

Without going into too much detail, I am a student paying my way through Uni, living in a share house. I don't consider my lifestyle to be that far removed from any young player. Rent makes up around half of my living costs. I live cheaply, but also very comfortably. $40k would have me living like a king!

[lemmon]

Without going into too much detail, I am a student paying my way through Uni, living in a share house. I don't consider my lifestyle to be that far removed from any young player. Rent makes up around half of my living costs. I live cheaply, but also very comfortably. $40k would have me living like a king!

Similar situation myself, not sure what I would do with all the two minute noodles I could buy on $40,000 :p

[Scorlibo]

Similar situation myself, not sure what I would do with all the two minute noodles I could buy on $40,000 :p

A pantry full of mi goreng, weet-bix and coolabah would be priority number one!

[LostDoggy]

Melbourne costs more in many places. It's a total furphy, the COLA.

HOWEVER, I'm happy for it to be phased out over time, else it's unfair to drop every players wage 10%, there are contracts to honour! and it's only igniting salary cap debates that we don't want to have, ie the cap should be raised for all. Take a look at the NRL post-Storm saga.

[LostDoggy]

That's why they did the Buddy deal for so long, so they can claim they need the dodgy scheme to continue because they cannot change things retrospectively "the deal is done!" Sydney know this as do every other club in the game. AFL house finally had is nipple chewed off by the kid who they kept feeding that had already fully grown up with a full set of chompers!

COLA is ridiculous, and a guise that has been sensibly exploited. No doubt Sydney is more expensive but if the AFL must this money should be payed to the players by the AFL directly. Not just thrown into the total salary cap coffers that the Swans can, have and will continue to use to drive the success of the footy club not the welfare of their players.

[Topdog]

What is the difference? Money goes further for players earning $1m the same as it does for players earning $200k.

Just so everyone knows - I think there is something flawed about COLA in the first place: Sydney is more expensive because people want to live there. I don't agree with COLA at the outset, but this complete misunderstanding of why (in theory) it's in place is just as silly. It's an equaliser, not a centrelink handout.

Im not sure anyone disagrees with the theory of why it has been put in place. It is the practice of it. It is intended to help them keep players from returning home due to the high cost of living. Not sure how high cost of living can be an argument for people earning 300k+ a year.

[Scorlibo]

Im not sure anyone disagrees with the theory of why it has been put in place. It is the practice of it. It is intended to help them keep players from returning home due to the high cost of living. Not sure how high cost of living can be an argument for people earning 300k+ a year.

I feel like I'm running out of ways to say again what I've already said. High cost of living affects all, it might be more and more insignificant as salaries go up, but it's still there. The difference between $1m and $1.1m for a house might seem negligible, but it's not, Buddy Franklin knows that, the AFL knows that, the Sydney Swans know that.

[Happy Days]

I am intrigued, do you mind if I ask how?

Oettinger and Bond Street Gold.

[Scorlibo]

Oettinger and Bond Street Gold.

I was going to mention Oettinger but then checked myself because the stuff is below even my standards of drinking. Tastes like muddy water.

[Webby]

I can’t believe that some are not only unable to see the COLA for what it is, but are actually defending it!

We need to go back a step to understand the COLA in full. Initially it was introduced under the guise of the ‘Location Allowance’.
It was paid to both Brisbane and Sydney. After the two clubs won the 2001, 2002, 2003 & 2005 premierships between them, the AFL bowed to pressure to remove it by 2006.

The rationale behind the “location allowance” was initially that, apparently, the “go home” factor was greater for Brisbane and Sydney footballers than for other states...
Obviously, as Melbourne Storm and the Sydney Swans have demonstrated, a counter balance to the “go home factor” is actually the positive “anonymity” factor of living outside of the pressure-cooker heartlands. Something that many players greatly appreciate, and a great differentiating strength of being an outside market.

So, after that rort was exposed and the masses protested, the AFL needed a new excuse to prop up the potentially super-lucrative and strategically important Sydney market..... Bang, a perfect solution! Sydney’s reasonably expensive, right? How about a Cost Of Living Allowance?
We’ll give them an extra 10% for that!

Seriously, if you ranked the importance of each club to the AFL, Sydney and GWS rank first, second, third, fourth and fifth!! From a corporate perspective, those clubs are the beating heart of the AFL’s future plans. Clubs like us are, unfortunately, the toenails!

So the AFL’s genius idea is “We’ll give the Swans and Giants an extra 10% on their salary cap! People might actually just buy this cost of living thing, and meanwhile we can manipulate the competition to keep our two most important clubs outperforming the others.
Too easy. The supporters of the ‘toenail’ clubs will keep chasing a rainbow and stumping up for their memberships - the suckers! Meanwhile we’ll “grown the game in our key strategic market and pay ourselves bonuses on the back for meeting our KPI’s..”

The result of which is a clearly compromised, highly manipulated competition. Christ, if WBFC supporters can’t get 100% behind Peter Gordon on this one, I fear that we’re not only spineless, but brainless! Completely devoid of passion and, I fear, eventually, a pulse!

Imagine if the NHL decided that, as most ice-hockey players are Canadian, there is a stronger “go home factor” for players employed in New York City than in, say, Edmonton or Montreal. Imagine they told all other clubs that “New York is 25% more expensive to live than most of you and there is also a ‘go-home’ factor as most hockey players are Canadian. Therefore the biggest city on the continent’s team needs an extra 10% on their salary cap to the rest of you”???

I think we know there’d riots in Canada! Yet when our own president makes a few completely civilised comments about this farcical situation, his own club members question him. It’s sad, to be honest!

[Topdog]

I feel like I'm running out of ways to say again what I've already said. High cost of living affects all, it might be more and more insignificant as salaries go up, but it's still there. The difference between $1m and $1.1m for a house might seem negligible, but it's not, Buddy Franklin knows that, the AFL knows that, the Sydney Swans know that.

Um it was never brought in to help with players buying houses. Lets not twist the Cost of Living into Cost of Buying Property. If you were going to do that you'd than have arguments that those in Sydney are at an advantage as their investment will be bigger in years to come.

[Mofra]

I can’t believe that some are not only unable to see the COLA for what it is, but are actually defending it!
Your post nails it for mine.

If COLA was consistent, WA teams would also have a bigger salary cap, SA clubs would have a reduced cap, and Geelong would have a reduced cap as well.

We could simply hire a ground in Toorak, request 60% extra in COLA due to increased cost of living, and buy our next premiership.

[Ghost Dog]

Um it was never brought in to help with players buying houses. Lets not twist the Cost of Living into Cost of Buying Property. If you were going to do that you'd than have arguments that those in Sydney are at an advantage as their investment will be bigger in years to come.

Is it true and correct that the percentage of COLA each player receives is dependent on what they earn in their contract?
If that is correct, as Peter commented, then I can't see how it can be defended.
Centrelink doesn't pay an Austudy living allowance at a different scale to students depending on their grades. It's a flate rate to support their living.

[westdog54]

I feel like I'm running out of ways to say again what I've already said. High cost of living affects all, it might be more and more insignificant as salaries go up, but it's still there. The difference between $1m and $1.1m for a house might seem negligible, but it's not, Buddy Franklin knows that, the AFL knows that, the Sydney Swans know that.
The problem isn't that we don't understand you. It's that your logic and argument are flawed. As is the COLA.

[Scorlibo]

The problem isn't that we don't understand you. It's that your logic and argument are flawed. As is the COLA.

Maybe you should make a counter-argument to prove that my logic is flawed, rather than take potshots. If a house costs $1m in Melbourne, and the same house costs $1.1m in Sydney, then tell me how that doesn't fall under the title 'Cost of Living'.

As I've said previously, I don't agree with COLA, but not because it's being misused in any way. I want it gone because it's fundamentally wrong. Actually, another way of looking at it is that I'm arguing for its complete removal, whereas others want to see some ridiculous parameters in place to ensure that only lower paid players receive COLA. No one should receive extra funding. It was (wrongly) introduced as an equaliser for the Sydney clubs, and if it is maintained as a handout for lower-rung players then I will spew up.

[Scorlibo]

I think we know there’d riots in Canada! Yet when our own president makes a few completely civilised comments about this farcical situation, his own club members question him. It’s sad, to be honest!

Questioning his use of the term 'exploiting'. This does not assist anyone in the complete eradication of COLA.

[wimberga]

Maybe you should make a counter-argument to prove that my logic is flawed, rather than take potshots. If a house costs $1m in Melbourne, and the same house costs $1.1m in Sydney, then tell me how that doesn't fall under the title 'Cost of Living'.

As I've said previously, I don't agree with COLA, but not because it's being misused in any way. I want it gone because it's fundamentally wrong. Actually, another way of looking at it is that I'm arguing for its complete removal, whereas others want to see some ridiculous parameters in place to ensure that only lower paid players receive COLA. No one should receive extra funding. It was (wrongly) introduced as an equaliser for the Sydney clubs, and if it is maintained as a handout for lower-rung players then I will spew up.

Scorlibo - your right that paying a higher house price to live should probably fall under cost of living.

But the COLA is their to assist people deal with these types of costs. However, if someone is earning $1m a season, then that person doesnt need COLA, they should have more than enough funds (and likely more than 99% of other AFL players) to cover their living costs. Thus they dont need further assistance.

[Scorlibo]

Scorlibo - your right that paying a higher house price to live should probably fall under cost of living.

But the COLA is their to assist people deal with these types of costs. However, if someone is earning $1m a season, then that person doesnt need COLA, they should have more than enough funds (and likely more than 99% of other AFL players) to cover their living costs. Thus they dont need further assistance.

You're right, they don't need it, but they'll want it nonetheless. It's not a question of need. In theory, that differential in house prices prevents a player from moving to a Sydney-based club because they WANT more money.

[Topdog]

You're right, they don't need it, but they'll want it nonetheless. It's not a question of need. In theory, that differential in house prices prevents a player from moving to a Sydney-based club because they WANT more money.

yet it helps them long term as they are investing in a better area

[Scorlibo]

yet it helps them long term as they are investing in a better area

Well that's a highly speculative suggestion, one which I'm not qualified to address and suspect that you're not either. In any case you're effectively conceding that there are certain cost of living differentials which affect players of all salaries.

[wimberga]

You're right, they don't need it, but they'll want it nonetheless. It's not a question of need. In theory, that differential in house prices prevents a player from moving to a Sydney-based club because they WANT more money.


In theory perhaps, but the differential in contracts able to be offered by COLA clubs in recent times go beyond any reasonable increase in actual cost of living. so in practicality, you can.

[Ghost Dog]

Maybe you should make a counter-argument to prove that my logic is flawed, rather than take potshots. If a house costs $1m in Melbourne, and the same house costs $1.1m in Sydney, then tell me how that doesn't fall under the title 'Cost of Living'.

As I've said previously, I don't agree with COLA, but not because it's being misused in any way. I want it gone because it's fundamentally wrong. Actually, another way of looking at it is that I'm arguing for its complete removal, whereas others want to see some ridiculous parameters in place to ensure that only lower paid players receive COLA. No one should receive extra funding. It was (wrongly) introduced as an equaliser for the Sydney clubs, and if it is maintained as a handout for lower-rung players then I will spew up.

So basically you disagree with Peter on this point. Peter has described the way it has been used as 'farcical'.

[soupman]

Well that's a highly speculative suggestion, one which I'm not qualified to address and suspect that you're not either. In any case you're effectively conceding that there are certain cost of living differentials which affect players of all salaries of all clubs of all cities.

*Edited the above for accuracy.

I don't understand how Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, Gold Coast and Geelong all have the exact same cost of living as implied by only changing the Sydney clubs salary cap.

Surely COLA differences are variable and change relative to eachother every year, and on top of that are almost impossible to quantify and estimate, meaning the extra money afforded to the Sydney clubs is a guess, and potentially a completely inaccurate one at that, of the difference.

In a competition that prides itself on delivering equality through the draft and salary cap, the COLA is not in keeping with it's supposed ideals.

The COLA needs to be removed, and it is Sydney and GWS's responsibility to convince players that despite the cities disadvantages there is an upside to counter them, much like clubs based in every other city have to do.

[soupman]

BTW with reference to free agent offers, if the COLA is say a 10% increase, does that mean if they offer $660k to a restricted free agent that the club they are stealing from has to match the full offer or the offer less that bonus 10% (ie. $600k) to keep the player?

If it's the full $660k then that is a huge inequality.

[westdog54]

BTW with reference to free agent offers, if the COLA is say a 10% increase, does that mean if they offer $660k to a restricted free agent that the club they are stealing from has to match the full offer or the offer less that bonus 10% (ie. $600k) to keep the player?

If it's the full $660k then that is a huge inequality.

If a Sydney player is offered 600k under RFA then Sydney would have essentially have to offer 660k to match it and retain the player.

[Topdog]

Well that's a highly speculative suggestion, one which I'm not qualified to address and suspect that you're not either. In any case you're effectively conceding that there are certain cost of living differentials which affect players of all salaries.


Well data over the past 15 years proves it.

No as nobody is forcing them to buy a more expensive house. In fact nobody is forcing them to buy a house at all. It is their choice as to how expensive it is to live in Sydney.

[Scorlibo]

*Edited the above for accuracy.

I don't understand how Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, Gold Coast and Geelong all have the exact same cost of living as implied by only changing the Sydney clubs salary cap.

Surely COLA differences are variable and change relative to eachother every year, and on top of that are almost impossible to quantify and estimate, meaning the extra money afforded to the Sydney clubs is a guess, and potentially a completely inaccurate one at that, of the difference.

In a competition that prides itself on delivering equality through the draft and salary cap, the COLA is not in keeping with it's supposed ideals.

The COLA needs to be removed, and it is Sydney and GWS's responsibility to convince players that despite the cities disadvantages there is an upside to counter them, much like clubs based in every other city have to do.

Agree with everything you have said.


Well data over the past 15 years proves it.

No as nobody is forcing them to buy a more expensive house. In fact nobody is forcing them to buy a house at all. It is their choice as to how expensive it is to live in Sydney.

Data from the past proves - PROVES - the future? Areas of Melbourne could just as easily boom, while rich areas of Sydney stagnate. There's no sure thing here.

Of course it is, but they will expend less in Melbourne than in Sydney for the same thing!

[KT31]

Agree with everything you have said.



Data from the past proves - PROVES - the future? Areas of Melbourne could just as easily boom, while rich areas of Sydney stagnate. There's no sure thing here.

Of course it is, but they will expend less in Melbourne than in Sydney for the same thing!

I told you not to use the DeLorean to get your point across on Woof, Scorlibo.:D

[Topdog]

Data from the past proves - PROVES - the future? Areas of Melbourne could just as easily boom, while rich areas of Sydney stagnate. There's no sure thing here.

Of course it is, but they will expend less in Melbourne than in Sydney for the same thing!

Ahh it proves that the last x years that COLA has been operating has been a farce. So yes it proves that Gordon is right, which is afterall the whole basis of this discussion.

[Webby]

If anyone can't see the strings in the puppet show whereby Sydney are the sacred cow for the AFL, take a look at Buddy Franklin's bump.....

..... I was just told that he got off today!! Simply unbelievable...

I context with the COLA, if people can't see that the AFL are buttering Sydney's bread, they are simply blind.

[Topdog]

I havent seen the bump but everyone in the media instantly said he would get off. Surely it wasnt worse than Goodes' last week?

[Scorlibo]

I havent seen the bump but everyone in the media instantly said he would get off. Surely it wasnt worse than Goodes' last week?

Probably less impact but more intent. Goodes had the excuse that he was trying to smother. Buddy just hit the guy late.

[bulldogtragic]

Probably less impact but more intent. Goodes had the excuse that he was trying to smother. Buddy just hit the guy late.

I think he did worse last year when he copped a week. The problem is the AFL won't address the tribunal system as commentators like Whateley have been asking. Or we as a public will never accept things and bitch no matter what happens with the system, ie the honeymoon with this system didn't last too long.