Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

David wrote:This seems like a total re-run of the "tanking" saga: the AFL institutes an unfair rule that everyone can see is unfair, and then, once the worst consequences come to pass (in this case, one team has an unfair advantage over the rest), the AFL "punish" the club as if it was somehow their fault.

I know it's easy to point the finger in hindsight, but what did they think would happen?

Exactly what has happened. It's all going according to plan, it's just that the Swans don't agree that they're ready to stand on their own feet yet.

But really, how else to stop the COLA? If the Swans keep signing players, then they keep using the excuse that they need the COLA to maintain their current contracts and it just goes on forever.

If this is a punishment for many years of salary cap cheating that resulted in 2 flags, then it's pretty light IMO. But I don't think of it that way. It was all about developing the game in NSW and a guy like Jarrod Witts is the result of that. In the end all clubs will benefit from it.

Stolen from big footy!

Does this mean Sydney now have FANTA , F**k All New Trades Allowed?

I have no sympathy for the Swans!

They've been rorting the system for years even though they've been technically following the rules imposed by the AFL regarding the cost of living allowance (COLA) and their ability to stay within the salary cap. However, this doesn't mean Sydney should be let off because of the AFL's inept rules. The fact that they recruited Buddy and Tippett with the knowledge they had COLA whereas others didn't is where the system is flawed. COLA was only ever designed to subsidise players on lower wages because of the cost of living standards in Sydney, not players like Buddy who are being $1,000,000 a year to play for the club.

The AFL has preached equalisation to the whole competition and has taxed clubs like us and Hawthorn to ensure equalisation occurs within the competition. I don't mind that as such even though equalisation does hurt our club somewhat but when clubs like ours are getting taxed but the likes of the Swans, Suns and Giants have been getting concessional advantages over other clubs, I can understand why so many support the AFL's decision regarding the Swans inability to trade or recruit players via free agency until they fix their issues to do with COLA.

It's about time COLA is being phased out. I think the recruitment of Buddy by the Swans last year was the final straw for the AFL and its supporters.

Domesticated_Ape wrote:

David wrote:This seems like a total re-run of the "tanking" saga: the AFL institutes an unfair rule that everyone can see is unfair, and then, once the worst consequences come to pass (in this case, one team has an unfair advantage over the rest), the AFL "punish" the club as if it was somehow their fault.

I know it's easy to point the finger in hindsight, but what did they think would happen?

Exactly what has happened. It's all going according to plan, it's just that the Swans don't agree that they're ready to stand on their own feet yet.

But really, how else to stop the COLA? If the Swans keep signing players, then they keep using the excuse that they need the COLA to maintain their current contracts and it just goes on forever.

If this is a punishment for many years of salary cap cheating that resulted in 2 flags, then it's pretty light IMO. But I don't think of it that way. It was all about developing the game in NSW and a guy like Jarrod Witts is the result of that. In the end all clubs will benefit from it.

Could just have excluded all new contracts from including COLA and achieved the same outcome. The way they've built their list they rely on trading to replace the aging players. AFL have shot them in the foot.