Communist AFL Bans Swans from trading players until 2017

[dirkdiggler]

Im not going to go through who Sydney got rid of to get Buddy and Tippett in to the club. COLA helped Tippett and Buddy get to Sydney but they could have got to Sydney without COLA as well.

We have the same cap as everyone else, the COLA payment is seperate, an add on.

COLA was never going to stay around though, the same thing happened to the Lions after the 3-peat

if you didn't need COLA to get Buddy and Tippett....then why is the AFL imposing restrictions on you? Suggests that without COLA you are in fact over the salary cap.

If we are over the salary cap they would say so, and there would be a far greater penalty you would think?

COLA did not get us Buddy or Tippett, all the players that left in those two years, plus contract structuring was what allowed those signings to happen.

the AFL imposed restrictions because people like eddie screamed and threw a tantrum.

With the length of the contract offered, buddy would have always gone to sydney, regardless of COLA.

I think tippett would have as well, but honestly don't know the other offers etc. he had.

Im not going to go through who Sydney got rid of to get Buddy and Tippett in to the club. COLA helped Tippett and Buddy get to Sydney but they could have got to Sydney without COLA as well.

We have the same cap as everyone else, the COLA payment is seperate, an add on.

COLA was never going to stay around though, the same thing happened to the Lions after the 3-peat

if you didn't need COLA to get Buddy and Tippett....then why is the AFL imposing restrictions on you? Suggests that without COLA you are in fact over the salary cap.

If we are over the salary cap they would say so, and there would be a far greater penalty you would think?

COLA did not get us Buddy or Tippett, all the players that left in those two years, plus contract structuring was what allowed those signings to happen.

If there was no concern about your salary cap AFTER COLA is removed..then why the restictions now? I would suggest that this indicates that the Swans are loaded up with contracts that they can't commit too without COLA, therefore they aren't allowed to add anymore before COLA is removed. Swans are committed to Tippett and Buddy salaries through FA (I think that is correct)....Who knows...but obviously suggests some concerns..othewise why would the AFL be involved

COLA isn't in the contracts... you sign a contract for example 500k a year, and COLA adds an extra 10% on top of that. It's 10% added to each contract, not 1 million to distribute however you want.

precisley. So if you remove COLA the Swans should just be within the cap like everyone else is......So why the restrictions?

[Ziplock]

Im not going to go through who Sydney got rid of to get Buddy and Tippett in to the club. COLA helped Tippett and Buddy get to Sydney but they could have got to Sydney without COLA as well.

We have the same cap as everyone else, the COLA payment is seperate, an add on.

COLA was never going to stay around though, the same thing happened to the Lions after the 3-peat

if you didn't need COLA to get Buddy and Tippett....then why is the AFL imposing restrictions on you? Suggests that without COLA you are in fact over the salary cap.

If we are over the salary cap they would say so, and there would be a far greater penalty you would think?

COLA did not get us Buddy or Tippett, all the players that left in those two years, plus contract structuring was what allowed those signings to happen.

the AFL imposed restrictions because people like eddie screamed and threw a tantrum.

With the length of the contract offered, buddy would have always gone to sydney, regardless of COLA.

I think tippett would have as well, but honestly don't know the other offers etc. he had.

Im not going to go through who Sydney got rid of to get Buddy and Tippett in to the club. COLA helped Tippett and Buddy get to Sydney but they could have got to Sydney without COLA as well.

We have the same cap as everyone else, the COLA payment is seperate, an add on.

COLA was never going to stay around though, the same thing happened to the Lions after the 3-peat

if you didn't need COLA to get Buddy and Tippett....then why is the AFL imposing restrictions on you? Suggests that without COLA you are in fact over the salary cap.

If we are over the salary cap they would say so, and there would be a far greater penalty you would think?

COLA did not get us Buddy or Tippett, all the players that left in those two years, plus contract structuring was what allowed those signings to happen.

If there was no concern about your salary cap AFTER COLA is removed..then why the restictions now? I would suggest that this indicates that the Swans are loaded up with contracts that they can't commit too without COLA, therefore they aren't allowed to add anymore before COLA is removed. Swans are committed to Tippett and Buddy salaries through FA (I think that is correct)....Who knows...but obviously suggests some concerns..othewise why would the AFL be involved

COLA isn't in the contracts... you sign a contract for example 500k a year, and COLA adds an extra 10% on top of that. It's 10% added to each contract, not 1 million to distribute however you want.

precisley. So if you remove COLA the Swans should just be within the cap like everyone else is......So why the restrictions?

that was exactly the first question I posted on this topic :P

[Mailman the 2nd]

Now you understand why people are complaining

[elephants]

This thread should be renamed "The Sydney Swans Supporters dog Thread"

[Vinny]

This thread should be renamed "The Sydney Swans Supporters dog Thread"

[Ziplock]

I'm not a sydney supporter, I just think this is flowered.

[meow meow]

This thread should be renamed "The Sydney Swans Supporters dog Thread"

I'm not a sydney supporter, I just think this is flowered.

Both are accurate. It's a bad rule, but nowhere near as bad as Sydney supporters are claiming.

precisley. So if you remove COLA the Swans should just be within the cap like everyone else is......So why the restrictions?

that was exactly the first question I posted on this topic :P

Seriously? Remove the extra 9.8% off every player's contract and none of them will mind? Swans would be over the cap in 2015 if the COLA was removed. You can't just tell players that they're not getting as much as they originally agreed to.

A 500K player doesn't care if they get paid 500K under a normal cap, or 455K and 45K under COLA, they want and are entitled to the 500K under their current contracts.

The only way the Swans can remove the COLA immediately is if they have an extra million dollars in their cap, which is HIGHLY unlikely.

[Dudge]

I'm not a sydney supporter, I just think this is flowered.

Agree, but heaps of things are flowered in the AFL. The draw, the tribunal system, the umpires (interpretations of certain rules at critical stages of matches ), the compo picks, the Crows  ;), Eddie lol, Port wearing a away strip in a home final they earned, the umps doing the Brownlow, BT, that's all I can think of after a six pack, feel free to add :) Ps - I still love the game haha

[Toga]

The only way the Swans can remove the COLA immediately is if they have an extra million dollars in their cap, which is HIGHLY unlikely.

This ^

The only other way I can think of would be to phase it out from now on, no contracts are allowed to involve the 9.8% COLA boost...

[meow meow]

The only way the Swans can remove the COLA immediately is if they have an extra million dollars in their cap, which is HIGHLY unlikely.

This ^

The only other way I can think of would be to phase it out from now on, no contracts are allowed to involve the 9.8% COLA boost...

The AFL gave the Swans 3 years to sort it out. That's enough. All contracts negotiated since the start of this year would include the COLA for 2015 and 2016 but not 2017 onwards and the Swans are well aware of that.

Not allowing them to trade in players is a bit of a joke though. It implies that the Swans don't know how to manage contracts without COLA, which is laughable. They got Tippett via clever list management. If they lose someone like K. Jack next year, they won't be able to replace him with a player of equal value. Then it would be worth being outraged about. But until someone of his ilk leaves, the Swans wouldn't be bringing in anyone when they've got 2 players claiming 20% of the regular cap from 2017 onwards and they need to pay all the rest under a normal salary cap. It's near on impossible. They wouldn't have the space to lure anyone.

[Mailman the 2nd]

I'm fine with us being unable to get people if its specifically a cap issue, I'd expect that, but being treated as if we've broken our rules and getting punishments that are comparable with teams is what is just mind-blowing imo.

Doesn't matter in the end I guess. Next year will be the test to see if 2014 defines us

[Torpedo10]

I'm not a sydney supporter, I just think this is flowered.

Agree, but heaps of things are flowered in the AFL. The draw, the tribunal system, the umpires (interpretations of certain rules at critical stages of matches ), the compo picks, the Crows  ;), Eddie lol, Port wearing a away strip in a home final they earned, the umps doing the Brownlow, BT, that's all I can think of after a six pack, feel free to add :) Ps - I still love the game haha

the worst

[Ziplock]

We really, really need to clarify something.

I've always thought COLA was +9.8% on a player's contract, not 9.8% of the salary cap to be used wherever. Subsequently, they coiuld remove COLA for players being traded in couldn't they? So the contracts would be signed at (to use the last example) the 500k mark, then they would get the extra money on top of that- the actual contract wouldn't include COLA though.

The only way the Swans can remove the COLA immediately is if they have an extra million dollars in their cap, which is HIGHLY unlikely.

This ^

The only other way I can think of would be to phase it out from now on, no contracts are allowed to involve the 9.8% COLA boost...

The AFL gave the Swans 3 years to sort it out. That's enough. All contracts negotiated since the start of this year would include the COLA for 2015 and 2016 but not 2017 onwards and the Swans are well aware of that.

Not allowing them to trade in players is a bit of a joke though. It implies that the Swans don't know how to manage contracts without COLA, which is laughable. They got Tippett via clever list management. If they lose someone like K. Jack next year, they won't be able to replace him with a player of equal value. Then it would be worth being outraged about. But until someone of his ilk leaves, the Swans wouldn't be bringing in anyone when they've got 2 players claiming 20% of the regular cap from 2017 onwards and they need to pay all the rest under a normal salary cap. It's near on impossible. They wouldn't have the space to lure anyone.

what about their AA halfback?

[Capper]

We really, really need to clarify something.

I've always thought COLA was +9.8% on a player's contract, not 9.8% of the salary cap to be used wherever. Subsequently, they coiuld remove COLA for players being traded in couldn't they? So the contracts would be signed at (to use the last example) the 500k mark, then they would get the extra money on top of that- the actual contract wouldn't include COLA though.

They could if we were allowed to trade them in. I dont know why we cant trade players in if we are under the cap.

We have lost
PEbbles
LRT
Membrey
Esky
Dick
Lockyer
Walsh

So not all on alot of money but there should be room there to trade people in

[meow meow]

We really, really need to clarify something.

I've always thought COLA was +9.8% on a player's contract, not 9.8% of the salary cap to be used wherever. Subsequently, they coiuld remove COLA for players being traded in couldn't they? So the contracts would be signed at (to use the last example) the 500k mark, then they would get the extra money on top of that- the actual contract wouldn't include COLA though.

Lance's contract doesn't all come out of the COLA fund but it makes no difference either way. It is an extra 9.8% on each contract, but they can just lower every contract by 9.8% if they want to work it to their advantage.

The only players that it makes any difference to are the lowest paid players, since you cannot lower their contracts.

Let's say Jetta demands to get paid 300K a year at the absolute least. He doesn't care where it comes from. The Swans pay him 270K + COLA. In this example they have an extra 30K in the 'real' salary cap and 3K in the COLA fund. These little wins add up and eventually you've got enough for 800K Buddy + his 80K COLA

In this case, the contracts the players signed with the Swans are not the same contracts that are lodged under the salary cap. Player's contracts include the COLA money, and they must be paid this amount even if COLA disappears.

In 2016 Jetta is going to have to have his contract fullfilled and the Swans have to cough up that 30K. So is Rampe. So is Titch. So is....
The Swans are going to have to come up with a million dollars in 2017 to appease all their players if they have exisiting contracts.

There's no reason why this should stop them from signing players, if they can manage it. I just doubt that they could.

what about their AA halfback?

Did he leave for the extra year or simply because the Swans couldn't afford him anymore? Either way, any money saved this year can be spent next year. They can't bring anyone in next year but they can front load a new contract for someone that starts in 2015.

The bold part. Over the course of 2 years, clubs can pay 95% of the cap in one year, then 105% the next year.

2015 is the last year of the veterans list rule too, so the Swans won't be awash with cash when that goes out either.