Feel free to merge elsewhere....
If the AFL is serious about a 9.8% Sydney cost of living allowance, why not:
1) Give the Swans the same salary cap as everyone else.
2) Give each individual Sydney player an additional 9.8% on top of their club salary.
ridiculous, common sense, suggestion. you should be ashamed of yourself.
or discount from the salary cap in Adelaide? and Brisbane where it is cheaper to live.
That would still give them an advantage in attracting players there.
I am a public servant. I would be paid the same where ever I lived in Victoria. I choose to live in Melbourne(inner suburbs) where it is more expensive to buy property than in the country. I don't think my employer would give me extra due to my choice of where I live.
There are part of Sydney which are affortable
I understand the COLA argument. But also, playing devils advocate, the Swans will lose Bolton, Mattner, Morton, White, Everit and Mumford this year. Those six players combined would easily free up 1.5 mil per year.
That's all well and good if down the track they lose a player like Parker because of cap pressure, This never seems to happen to the Swans, They never seem to struggle to sign players even after winning premierships.
Personally I think they should remove the COLA for those on a certain level or above. So for example, if a player on $150,000 p/y cannot afford to live in Sydney they are doing something dodgy with their money. I can understand the rookies and lower paid players needing it.
On the Buddy issue: if Sydney want to screw themselves up badly with a stupid 9 year contract, let them. The other "poorer" clubs will reap the players who leave for better condiftions later.
Someone on the radio mentioned that any player on a large wage, should not be effected by the living differences between Sydney and somewhere else. But only players who are payed under $250,000 a year should get a 9% bonus put on their wage.
I am a public servant. I would be paid the same where ever I lived in Victoria. I choose to live in Melbourne(inner suburbs) where it is more expensive to buy property than in the country. I don't think my employer would give me extra due to my choice of where I live.
There are part of Sydney which are affortable
If it is within the same state that makes sense. Not so much interstate.
My wife is a public servant. We moved to the NT because she gets almost double what she can in Melbourne and it allows me to take a year off.
Take the COLA away from club and have it handed out to the player directly from the AFL.
Or make it only applicable to 1st 2nd and maybe 3rd year players.
Who cares? Clubs have no right to sook about the farcical AFL after they had a chance to do something but just furthered the cause of EFC getting smashed up the ■■■■. You made your bed, now lie in it you gutless morons. Hope this happens more often.
I am a public servant. I would be paid the same where ever I lived in Victoria. I choose to live in Melbourne(inner suburbs) where it is more expensive to buy property than in the country. I don't think my employer would give me extra due to my choice of where I live.
There are part of Sydney which are affortable
If it is within the same state that makes sense. Not so much interstate.
My wife is a public servant. We moved to the NT because she gets almost double what she can in Melbourne and it allows me to take a year off.
Yeah. That's got little or nothing to do with the cost of living. I think you are talking about remote locality allowance, the same as the ADF get.
I love the idea that the AFL might step in just because a 10 year deal could potentially screw up Sydney's list if he cuts it early. Does the AFL see its role as giving teams extra benefits then baby sitting every decision they make?
I'm cooking Buddy up a nice batch of something.
Take the COLA away from club and have it handed out to the player directly from the AFL.
Or make it only applicable to 1st 2nd and maybe 3rd year players.
Hang on. Back the bus up a bit. All this cola talk. You mean Snydney get these included in their TPP? No wonder they snared Buddy. Where do I sign?
In hindsight should we have offered a teenage Dustin Fletcher a 20 year deal?
Feel free to merge elsewhere....
If the AFL is serious about a 9.8% Sydney cost of living allowance, why not:
1) Give the Swans the same salary cap as everyone else.
2) Give each individual Sydney player an additional 9.8% on top of their club salary.
That's how the COLA works.
However the popular view is that the players are offered 92% of what they are worth, with the COLA making up the difference, which frees up more salary cap room.
The COLA should be a flat rate paid by the AFL if it really was about the cost of living in Sydney. Which it isn't.
I am a public servant. I would be paid the same where ever I lived in Victoria. I choose to live in Melbourne(inner suburbs) where it is more expensive to buy property than in the country. I don't think my employer would give me extra due to my choice of where I live.
There are part of Sydney which are affortable
If it is within the same state that makes sense. Not so much interstate.
My wife is a public servant. We moved to the NT because she gets almost double what she can in Melbourne and it allows me to take a year off.
Yeah. That's got little or nothing to do with the cost of living. I think you are talking about remote locality allowance, the same as the ADF get.
We live in the centre of town.
I think you get paid extra for living in this ■■■■ hole!
In hindsight should we have offered a teenage Dustin Fletcher a 20 year deal?
You could offer it to him now and he would honour it.
Feel free to merge elsewhere....
If the AFL is serious about a 9.8% Sydney cost of living allowance, why not:
1) Give the Swans the same salary cap as everyone else.
2) Give each individual Sydney player an additional 9.8% on top of their club salary.
and how will this change anything? This is effectively how it is 'supposed' to be now in theory, but all handled by the Swans.
For example, a player who wants 500K would just get offered 450K by Sydney, with the AFL kicking in the rest. Nothing really changes.
The whole thing doesnt make sense, but if there was an argument for COLA - why is it a % based thing?
So Buddy "needs" $100,000 more to live, but a first year player only 'needs' $6,000 more to live in Sydney? It makes no sense. Does Buddy eat more meals than a rookie does he? Goes to more movies does he? Does he pay more for petrol does he? Is his cough medicine more than a rookies, is it?
IF, and a big IF you want a COLA - it should be a flat amount. Say $25,000 each per player. That means it is a sliding scale for a rookie on 60K it is a bigger % than that for a player on $1 million.
What makes sense though is a player on anymore than say $150,000 should not be entitled to a COLA. It is a joke.