Giants relieved to miss out on Franklin

[Ricochet]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-02-17/gws-relieved-on-buddy-miss

GREATER Western Sydney is relieved its bid to recruit Lance Franklin was foiled by the Sydney Swans, but say their crosstown rivals should be stripped of the cost of living allowance following their audacious nine-year deal with the former Hawthorn spearhead.

GWS chairman Tony Shepherd told Fairfax Media on Monday it had "not been a good move" by the Swans to recruit Franklin, arguing the deal had harmed the image of the NSW AFL clubs.

"With hindsight I'm relieved we didn't get him - not that we could have come anywhere near that price," Shepherd said.

[Ziplock]

I dont really know what we were getting at there- we say it should be removed for sydney, since they're an established club, but kept for us because we're an new club (which could be a legitimate point). But then it says we agree that the cost of living in sydney is significantly higher than elsewhere and that the COLA offsets that. The only reason we'd say that iws if we were certain it'd be removed for sydney at least, and just wanted an argument to keep it.

I think COLA needs to change a little, like atm the 10% is basically 10% on top of whatever the player already earns isnt it? it should be that 10% up to like 600k or something, then any excess money given out equally.

That being said, I'm pretty sure most of the cash for buddy came from elsewhere. They lost Bolton, Mattner, Mumford who all would have been on solid amounts (and bolton was a veteran wasn't he? allowing for someone else to take his veteran spot?). Morton and Armstrong would have been on ok amounts as well, and then white, Everitt and Lamb all would have been well above the basement price. Basically every other player  they picked up would be getting the minimal afl salary.

Anyway, w.e.

[Mailman the 2nd]

Yeah GWS seem to still be really sour about not getting Franklin and while COLA shouldn't be removed, it doesn't really need to apply the top 10% (aka Franklin and Scully)

There's no need to keep throwing shots at Sydney, still have a few years before they'll be competing

[The_Captain]

I dont really know what we were getting at there- we say it should be removed for sydney, since they're an established club, but kept for us because we're an new club (which could be a legitimate point). But then it says we agree that the cost of living in sydney is significantly higher than elsewhere and that the COLA offsets that. The only reason we'd say that iws if we were certain it'd be removed for sydney at least, and just wanted an argument to keep it.

I think COLA needs to change a little, like atm the 10% is basically 10% on top of whatever the player already earns isnt it? it should be that 10% up to like 600k or something, then any excess money given out equally.

That being said, I'm pretty sure most of the cash for buddy came from elsewhere. They lost Bolton, Mattner, Mumford who all would have been on solid amounts (and bolton was a veteran wasn't he? allowing for someone else to take his veteran spot?). Morton and Armstrong would have been on ok amounts as well, and then white, Everitt and Lamb all would have been well above the basement price. Basically every other player  they picked up would be getting the minimal afl salary.

Anyway, w.e.

The worse thing about it is the COLA is outdated. Its actually more expensive to live in Perth than it is Sydney.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/business/perth-is-australias-most-expensive-city-according-to-numbeo/story-fnhld5o2-1226677289063


It needs to be scrapped all together. These blokes dont struggle to pay the bills anyway with their wages so its not like they base decisions on what club they will go to on an extra 30 cents they are going to pay for a loaf of bread. Its a joke, especially now with Free agency. The Afl just loves pumping money into NSW, because of the oppurtunity for growth.. Theres just one problem.. They are all rugby diehards and cant be converted just because Sydney are set up to have success each year..

[SydneyRox]

Sounds mainly like sour grapes to me. We all know how badly GWS wanted Buddy, and taking the Swans hat off for a second, it would have been better for the AFL, NSWAFL and GWS if he had gone there instead.
But (swans hat back on) Sydney saw an opportunity not only to get arguably the most marketable player in the game, in his prime, who would enhance the team, and as a bonus got to thwart cross town rivals in the process. Magnificent play.
You cant tell me that if 3 year ago Pav wanted back to SA, whichever team picked him up would be 50% to get him and 50% to be able to rub it in the face of the other!!

[Ziplock]

I was wondering how that was possible (the perth being more expensive), but the ranking's based on
'consumer goods' giving the examples of groceries, restaurants, transportation and utilities. Also, that article was from mid 2013 and the index is updated weekly. Sydney isn't much below perth (less than 10 places), but it doesn't take into account rent/ the cost of houses. If you include rent, then Sydney is actually the most expensive australian city (according the numbeo, which that article used for its rankings).

If you're looking at buying a house, the median house price in sydney is 130k+ that of perth, and 90k+ of melbourne (which is the second most expensive for housing).

[Ricochet]

Here's the comparison from numbeo

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Australia&country2=Australia&city1=Perth&city2=Sydney

You would need around 7,049.49A$ in Sydney to maintain the same standard of life that you can have with 6,900.00A$ in Perth (assuming you rent in both cities). This calculation uses our Consumer Prices Including Rent Index.

Perth is getting flowering ridiculous lately

[The_Captain]

Yeah, to top that Darwin is the most expensive place to rent in Australia.

But the COLA needs to go in order for the competition to actually be 100% fair. Otherwise you may as well have an EPL system where the richest clubs(most money to spend) wins all the time.

[The_Captain]

Here's the comparison from numbeo

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Australia&country2=Australia&city1=Perth&city2=Sydney

You would need around 7,049.49A$ in Sydney to maintain the same standard of life that you can have with 6,900.00A$ in Perth (assuming you rent in both cities). This calculation uses our Consumer Prices Including Rent Index.

Perth is getting flowering ridiculous lately

Not much difference at all.

It an absolute joke the prices in Perth for some thing at the moment. Mining boom can flower off lol. Then again keeps the country afloat. But us that just work in Perth get to deal with all the jacked up prices.. that smaller cities shouldnt have!

[SydneyRox]

I think the COLA is fine, but to continue needs to be audited and or paid by the AFL.

Despite the success the Swans have had, they have done it tough for 21-22 of the 25 years.

Not to mention that NSW is an area the AFL need to spend more money in to grow/maintain the code compared to all the other states.

[Ziplock]

Yeah, so there's only a 2.2% difference, as opposed to the (9.5%?) COLA.

Imo though, all the non-AFL states (so, QLD and NSW) should be getting some bonus concession- like, the go home factor pisses off a lot of clubs in AFL dominated states, but honestly clubs like adelaide, while they lose guys like gunston, they also have other guys from SA coming back into their teams, which balances it out somewhat.

Teams from non-afl states don't have that luxury... which was really highlighted last year, with brisbane losing like (6?7?) young players who all moved back interstate. It's not a massive problem atm for the giants, suns and sydney, who have the expanded salary cap (although both the suns and giants have lost quite talented players over the last couple of years because of it), but if you remove concessions like COLA, they're all going to get screwed over.

While I think some COLA is needed, it should probably be based on some common denominator (like,  the cheapest australian city to live in?), and teams get the extra salary cap depending on how much more expensive it is for that city. That being said, I still think that Sydney, GWS, GC and Brisbane should be getting an allowance on top of that (not 10% though). I mean, Brisbane losing Docherty, Karnezis, Longer, Polec, Yeo has probably set their development back 1-2 years, which is brutal for a club that's been at the bottom of the table for a couple already.

[The_Captain]

Yeah, so there's only a 2.2% difference, as opposed to the (9.5%?) COLA.

Imo though, all the non-AFL states (so, QLD and NSW) should be getting some bonus concession- like, the go home factor pisses off a lot of clubs in AFL dominated states, but honestly clubs like adelaide, while they lose guys like gunston, they also have other guys from SA coming back into their teams, which balances it out somewhat.

Teams from non-afl states don't have that luxury... which was really highlighted last year, with brisbane losing like (6?7?) young players who all moved back interstate. It's not a massive problem atm for the giants, suns and sydney, who have the expanded salary cap (although both the suns and giants have lost quite talented players over the last couple of years because of it), but if you remove concessions like COLA, they're all going to get screwed over.

While I think some COLA is needed, it should probably be based on some common denominator (like,  the cheapest australian city to live in?), and teams get the extra salary cap depending on how much more expensive it is for that city. That being said, I still think that Sydney, GWS, GC and Brisbane should be getting an allowance on top of that (not 10% though). I mean, Brisbane losing Docherty, Karnezis, Longer, Polec, Yeo has probably set their development back 1-2 years, which is brutal for a club that's been at the bottom of the table for a couple already.

Yeah definitely raising some good points there ZIppy! But yea, Brisbane got hammered by that, but thats always going to be the case for all interstate clubs. Happens to eagles as well. Judd decided to piss off back home as well. Could never get simon black back here either  :P.

Thats why we play it safe most years and tend to draft mostly WA blokes. Even though there are better options out there that get selected after what we pick. And the WA blokes who go to Melbourne dont seem to mind it because its a good place to live over there as well.

But what you have said could work with the cheapest city as a base, then every other city more expensive gets something on top of that..  Not sure.

[Ringo]

Yeah, so there's only a 2.2% difference, as opposed to the (9.5%?) COLA.

Imo though, all the non-AFL states (so, QLD and NSW) should be getting some bonus concession- like, the go home factor pisses off a lot of clubs in AFL dominated states, but honestly clubs like adelaide, while they lose guys like gunston, they also have other guys from SA coming back into their teams, which balances it out somewhat.

Teams from non-afl states don't have that luxury... which was really highlighted last year, with brisbane losing like (6?7?) young players who all moved back interstate. It's not a massive problem atm for the giants, suns and sydney, who have the expanded salary cap (although both the suns and giants have lost quite talented players over the last couple of years because of it), but if you remove concessions like COLA, they're all going to get screwed over.

While I think some COLA is needed, it should probably be based on some common denominator (like,  the cheapest australian city to live in?), and teams get the extra salary cap depending on how much more expensive it is for that city. That being said, I still think that Sydney, GWS, GC and Brisbane should be getting an allowance on top of that (not 10% though). I mean, Brisbane losing Docherty, Karnezis, Longer, Polec, Yeo has probably set their development back 1-2 years, which is brutal for a club that's been at the bottom of the table for a couple already.

Yeah definitely raising some good points there ZIppy! But yea, Brisbane got hammered by that, but thats always going to be the case for all interstate clubs. Happens to eagles as well. Judd decided to piss off back home as well. Could never get simon black back here either  :P.

Thats why we play it safe most years and tend to draft mostly WA blokes. Even though there are better options out there that get selected after what we pick. And the WA blokes who go to Melbourne dont seem to mind it because its a good place to live over there as well.

But what you have said could work with the cheapest city as a base, then every other city more expensive gets something on top of that..  Not sure.

These are really good points and whilst the smallest average plus allowance - what happens if Brisbane the base so do we give all Melbourne clubs a 5% allowance.  Would not seem fair, Anyway if Eddie gets his way Sydney and GWS allowance will go the same way as brisbane - Remember Eddie got all clubs on side to remove ours and it has only taken 8 years for it to really hurt us with go home issues.

Do not know what the ideal situation is as no matter what solution you come up with some one will always find fault with it.
Thought of something like this but it will be open for debate as well.
Have a Living from Home allowance for all players forced to relocate for the first 4 years of their contracts only. Rates to be worked out. Qld and NSW to say get an extra 2% promotional allowance as well to continue the grow the game in those states.

Not an easy solution,

[Ziplock]

Yeah, so there's only a 2.2% difference, as opposed to the (9.5%?) COLA.

Imo though, all the non-AFL states (so, QLD and NSW) should be getting some bonus concession- like, the go home factor pisses off a lot of clubs in AFL dominated states, but honestly clubs like adelaide, while they lose guys like gunston, they also have other guys from SA coming back into their teams, which balances it out somewhat.

Teams from non-afl states don't have that luxury... which was really highlighted last year, with brisbane losing like (6?7?) young players who all moved back interstate. It's not a massive problem atm for the giants, suns and sydney, who have the expanded salary cap (although both the suns and giants have lost quite talented players over the last couple of years because of it), but if you remove concessions like COLA, they're all going to get screwed over.

While I think some COLA is needed, it should probably be based on some common denominator (like,  the cheapest australian city to live in?), and teams get the extra salary cap depending on how much more expensive it is for that city. That being said, I still think that Sydney, GWS, GC and Brisbane should be getting an allowance on top of that (not 10% though). I mean, Brisbane losing Docherty, Karnezis, Longer, Polec, Yeo has probably set their development back 1-2 years, which is brutal for a club that's been at the bottom of the table for a couple already.

Yeah definitely raising some good points there ZIppy! But yea, Brisbane got hammered by that, but thats always going to be the case for all interstate clubs. Happens to eagles as well. Judd decided to piss off back home as well. Could never get simon black back here either  :P.

Thats why we play it safe most years and tend to draft mostly WA blokes. Even though there are better options out there that get selected after what we pick. And the WA blokes who go to Melbourne dont seem to mind it because its a good place to live over there as well.

But what you have said could work with the cheapest city as a base, then every other city more expensive gets something on top of that..  Not sure.

These are really good points and whilst the smallest average plus allowance - what happens if Brisbane the base so do we give all Melbourne clubs a 5% allowance.  Would not seem fair, Anyway if Eddie gets his way Sydney and GWS allowance will go the same way as brisbane - Remember Eddie got all clubs on side to remove ours and it has only taken 8 years for it to really hurt us with go home issues.

Do not know what the ideal situation is as no matter what solution you come up with some one will always find fault with it.
Thought of something like this but it will be open for debate as well.
Have a Living from Home allowance for all players forced to relocate for the first 4 years of their contracts only. Rates to be worked out. Qld and NSW to say get an extra 2% promotional allowance as well to continue the grow the game in those states.

Not an easy solution,

Well, for instance, last year west coast got yeo, in 2012 they got wellingham, Morton, Cripps

while freo got  gumbleton this year.

And that option of playing it safe isn't an option for insterstate clubs. 

Ftr ringo, the COLA would be based off Adelaide in that scenario, and only sydney + perth would be getting more than brisbane.

I like the idea of a relocation bonus, but I don't think it should be for the first 4 years. Remember, drafted players automatically sign a (2 year? ) contract... I think after that first contract, then the relocation should come into play, for up to 4 years.

[Ziplock]

Or, have it so an extra bonus is paid to players  drafted into sydney/gws/ brisbane/ gc, so you don't lure new players with it, but it helps keeps the players you draft. It wouldn't count for pre-season picked players who'd walked from their club, but would count for like delisted free agents or players who weren't on a list the previous season.