AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

[liz]

In amongst the noise there is a view that suggests we have purposefully deflated the base contracts of players, knowing they would inflate up to their market value with the addition of COLA. The view is that it is this that has allowed the "extra" cap space to pull in the superstars. When you read the AFL's statement on this issue, the only way that I can reconcile what they are saying is if you take that view as being correct. Clearly the Swans refute this and have said all along they've negotiated in good faith and the COLA has then come on top.
Would've liked to have been a fly on the wall in the discussions between the Swans and the AFL on this one.

And in the process they are then damning the competence of every player agent with whom Sydney has ever dealt.

These agents know about the existence of COLA. They know that it really does cost more to live in Sydney than in Melbourne and Adelaide (a fact that has somehow gotten lost in amongst all the mistruths and propaganda spewing out of Eddieland) and therefore their clients (especially those at the lower end of the pay scales) do need to earn more in cash terms than if they lived in another city if they are to be equivalently off.

I have no issue with the restructure of the COLA. Once you earn a certain amount the differential becomes far less of a factor. As it currently stands, the COLA is a blunt instrument. But it really is a mechanism designed to address an inequality that exists due to the location of one club (now two). Not the preferential rort that the more obtuse are determined to believe.

[Meg]

In amongst the noise there is a view that suggests we have purposefully deflated the base contracts of players, knowing they would inflate up to their market value with the addition of COLA. The view is that it is this that has allowed the "extra" cap space to pull in the superstars. When you read the AFL's statement on this issue, the only way that I can reconcile what they are saying is if you take that view as being correct. Clearly the Swans refute this and have said all along they've negotiated in good faith and the COLA has then come on top.
Would've liked to have been a fly on the wall in the discussions between the Swans and the AFL on this one.

Can't do that for draftees and rookies as minimum salaries set by law through CBA with players association, so that rules out those players. So the supposed 'saving' would have had to be made through the senior, higher paid players, the very ones with market bargaining power.

But the club still has to meet the 95% minimum total payout of the salary + additional service agreement cap which also constrains artificial deflation of salaries.

For example, in 2014 the salary cap was $9.632m and the ASA cap was $963,000, a total of $10.595m. So Swans had to pay out a minimum of $10.065m. So the absolute MAXIMUM they could have been 'saving' by artificial deflation of salaries this year to pay Franklin (which is what is being argued) would have been $530,000. And that was AFTER paying Tippett so he would have had to agree to having an artificially deflated salary made up with COLA as well, not convenient for those who have argued we used COLA to lure Tippett.

The artificial deflation of salaries didn't happen, and even taken to its extreme could not have paid for Franklin.

(Tell me if there is anything wrong with my arithmetic.)

[desredandwhite]

These agents know about the existence of COLA.

QFT.

Every single one of the players and their agents knows about the COLA. How could we possibly get away with offering them less, on the expectation that COLA will pay for the rest? We would have had players walking out left right and centre!! AI (or was it RC) has said before that every contract has COLA built into it - there is no "buddy fund" that we can save up to get those players!!

[sharp9]

You are right Meg.

For the conspiracy theory to be right then no Swan AT ALL has received the COLA. Because Buddy's contract equals the COLA amount so therefore all these players in 2012-2013 did not receive COLA.

OR

They all received COLA in 2012-2013 but agreed to not receive it in 2014 so that it could all be used as a war chest to get Buddy. That's simply not possible. We are on record as paying 100% of cap plus COLA in 2012 yes?

BTW tweet from Patrick Keane last night "As part of COLA phase-out in next 2 yrs,Sydney told extra money could honour existing contracts but not to attract players from other clubs" would seem to indicate that we should be able to trade...just not offer new player COLA. Maybe there has been a misunderstanding?

[sharp9]

It's now 11.28 EST yes? And can it be right that not a single person from the AFL has spoken about this ban on radio or in print? For example Name the person who came up with this idea? Why are you doing this? What legal right do you have to do this when nobody has accused the Swans of doing anything wrong?

[liz]

You are right Meg.

For the conspiracy theory to be right then no Swan AT ALL has received the COLA. Because Buddy's contract equals the COLA amount so therefore all these players in 2012-2013 did not receive COLA.

OR

They all received COLA in 2012-2013 but agreed to not receive it in 2014 so that it could all be used as a war chest to get Buddy. That's simply not possible. We are on record as paying 100% of cap plus COLA in 2012 yes?

BTW tweet from Patrick Keane last night "As part of COLA phase-out in next 2 yrs,Sydney told extra money could honour existing contracts but not to attract players from other clubs" would seem to indicate that we should be able to trade...just not offer new player COLA. Maybe there has been a misunderstanding?

I don't see how the contracting of a new player joining the list is any different to an existing player being recontracted. We know that Pyke, Bird and now Towers, at the very least, have been recontracted since the COLA restructure. Presumably there is no COLA on their new contracts. If their new contracts are below the $300k threshold, presumably they are entitled to the rental allowance instead. How is this different to offering a contract to a Patful, Ryder or any other player with whom the Swans are able to agree terms?

[rojo]

Michael Voss has come out punching on behalf of the Swans on Twitter. His 3 tweets are incorporated in an AFL.com post, 'Swans' penalty a joke'. Nothing else, all focused on the Bulldogs.

[Reggi]

He has kept going this morning

[aardvark]

Swans penalty 'a joke': Voss - AFL.com.au

[Ludwig]

And in the process they are then damning the competence of every player agent with whom Sydney has ever dealt.

These agents know about the existence of COLA. They know that it really does cost more to live in Sydney than in Melbourne and Adelaide (a fact that has somehow gotten lost in amongst all the mistruths and propaganda spewing out of Eddieland) and therefore their clients (especially those at the lower end of the pay scales) do need to earn more in cash terms than if they lived in another city if they are to be equivalently off.

I have no issue with the restructure of the COLA. Once you earn a certain amount the differential becomes far less of a factor. As it currently stands, the COLA is a blunt instrument. But it really is a mechanism designed to address an inequality that exists due to the location of one club (now two). Not the preferential rort that the more obtuse are determined to believe.

+1. Exactly the point.

This is why it is so sickening that this attack by innuendo has been allowed to persist for so long when the AFL have made the rules and have complete knowledge and control over the exact details of how they are applied. So this is just a flagrant and defamatory attack on a football club that has never been backed up with any credible evidence whatsoever.

[Mel_C]

I hope the Dogs saga doesn't overshadow this. McCartney is gone so that is all they will be talking about.

Whatever the outcome of this ridiculous decision, I hope this strengthens the club and it can be an F you to the AFL. There are clubs currently imploding arround us so let's show them what we are made of.

[Flying South]

There was also rumours about the Swans going after Ryder.

It was this that Mike Sheehan (on the couch), commented that the Swans had been warned off him.

I suspected that we were going after one of the big ones in Ryder or Griffin or Frawley. Combined with Tippett/Franklin and the perceived academy bonuses you can only poke the lion so much before they bite back.

I am finding myself having to defend our great club as everyone in the office assumes we have done something wrong, like breached the Salary cap. Clearer reasons why the afl did this need to be made public..

[Ampersand]

I'm surprised that other club presidents (excepting the establishment clubs) have not come out opposing this ban.

Not only does it set a horrific precedent for the AFL to punish clubs for operating according to the rules, but it is also effectively a "ban" on other clubs as well, because they will be entirely limited to giving up draft picks if they want a Swans player. What happens when another club would prefer to package up a player and a draft pick instead?

I'm wondering if this is the cause of the apparent delay in the Membrey transfer. Perhaps the Saints don't want to give away their high draft picks for Tim but would have offered a lower pick combined with a player.

[Red]

I suspected that we were going after one of the big ones in Ryder or Griffin or Frawley. Combined with Tippett/Franklin and the perceived academy bonuses you can only poke the lion so much before they bite back.

I am finding myself having to defend our great club as everyone in the office assumes we have done something wrong, like breached the Salary cap. Clearer reasons why the afl did this need to be made public..

Then we're getting done under the 'Bad Look' clause.

[Ludwig]

While the AFL is banning us from trading for no legitimate reason they are actually allowing Essendon and PA to pursue a loophole that would be an flagrant abuse of the rules - Essendon pushes ahead with Paddy Ryder free agent scheme

I doubt it will come off, but who knows with this AFL management. Why are some clubs allowed to openly abuse the spirit of the AFL rules, while others are defamed for following the rules?