AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

[Matt80]

An excellent piece from Patrick Smith....Here's an extract...

"The Swans had accepted that the COLA benefits would be phased out over the next two seasons but had no expectation that they would be prevented from trading players. The ruling effectively bans the Swans from improving their list.

The decision to handicap the Swans in this manner shows the commission?s lack of judgment; its inability to stand up to the clubs with big followings and presidents who have platforms to exploit the commission?s weaknesses.

The COLA allowance that Sydney have enjoyed is, in fact, an AFL rule. Sydney did not promulgate the allowance, the commission did. The AFL has considered it so intrinsic to Sydney?s viability that the league has provided the money (last year just under $1m).

The AFL is effectively calling its own rule a rort while still believing in the principle. The COLA will eventually be replaced by a rent allowance to Sydney players on more modest wages. Which is a cost-of-living payment. This muddled thinking, contradictory rule-making, is emblematic of this commission?s work and explains how the game has so offended fans over the past two years.

Sydney?s error was to be very good at their job, gaining Kurt Tippett and then Buddy Franklin through precise and visionary thinking. And that?s something for which this commission will never be accused."

If you have a look at the calibre of the people on the Commission, it?s incredible that they came to this decision. It contains individuals who are superstars of Big Business and Entrepreneurship. These people have achieved their station in life through beating the competition in their industries consistently.

I don?t believe that these people are scared of Eddie or his media coverage. Paul Bassat for example would have made a lot more money than Eddie and is highly respected regardless of what Eddie may say. The same can be said of Richard Goyder who has had an amazing career at Westfarmers. These guys would not care about what Eddie would say. They are too big and powerful to worry about Eddie who would have limited influence on their formidable networks and power basis. Paul Bassat for instance has made Mr Packer a lot of money.

Gillion may be indebted to Eddie, but he is just one seat on the Commission.

The Commission must believe in their hearts that this is the correct decision. I wish the AFL or the Commission will give the public the reasons for the decision so we understand where they are coming from.

They were decisive in dealing with the Crows in the Tippett affair and we understood the reasons behind the decision.

[floppinab]

You could then trade out your early picks then match a F/S or Academy Round 1 bid with a very late pick for example.

I guess what I'm saying then if you chose to trade out your early picks (for which you would be bringing in other players) then you would give up the right to take the F/S or Academy player. A reasonable choice I would've thought, trade someone in or take your Academy player. If you can't match the round bid by another team then you forfeit the right to take that player.

[ernie koala]

The Commission must believe in their hearts that this is the correct decision. I wish the AFL or the Commission will give the public the reasons for the decision so we understand where they are coming from.

The fact that no comment has been made to clarify the motives of this decision and the timing of it, leaves the Commission with little to no credibility on this issue

One suspects they don't have a good response because, on the surface, it is an ill thought through irrational decision.

It can only be explained by exposing their dubious, unfair motives....

For example: Giving GWS a leg up, pacifying many Melbourne clubs and supporters by giving the perception of a Commission on the front foot when it comes to equalisation.

[Mel_C]

The fact that no comment has been made to clarify the motives of this decision and the timing of it, leaves the Commission with little to no credibility on this issue

One suspects they don't have a good response because, on the surface, it is an ill thought through irrational decision.

It can only be explained by exposing their dubious, unfair motives....

For example: Giving GWS a leg up, pacifying many Melbourne clubs and supporters by giving the perception of a Commission on the front foot when it comes to equalisation.

I agree with this. If the same trading restrictions applied to GWS then I don't think we would be as outraged, (although I'm sure we would still be pissed). But to allow GWS to just keep poaching players really gets my blood boiling!! The decision is prejudiced and illegal.

It's good to see there are articles now being written by Caroline and Patrick. However I feel that if it was a club like Collingwood that was banned then the noise would be deafening.

[mcs]

The Commission must believe in their hearts that this is the correct decision. I wish the AFL or the Commission will give the public the reasons for the decision so we understand where they are coming from.

They were decisive in dealing with the Crows in the Tippett affair and we understood the reasons behind the decision.

Being successful doesn't mean people can't be easily manipulated by a view- or even swayed by something as simple as who they follow (if they follow a team that is). I agree though it could easily be solved by them actually giving proper reason for their decision. But you can bet your bottom dollar nothing will see the light of day.

Patrick Smith is absolutely spot on..... the complete lack of vision from the Commission, combined with the pathetic stewardship of the AFL under Demetriou and now Mclachlan is turning a lot of people away from the sport.

[Jewels]

The fact that no comment has been made to clarify the motives of this decision and the timing of it, leaves the Commission with little to no credibility on this issue

One suspects they don't have a good response because, on the surface, it is an ill thought through irrational decision.

It can only be explained by exposing their dubious, unfair motives....

For example: Giving GWS a leg up, pacifying many Melbourne clubs and supporters by giving the perception of a Commission on the front foot when it comes to equalisation.

Whilst I agree in principle with what you say Ernie, I find the silence from the club deafening!
Why aren't we outraged? Why are we not taking legal action against this? I understand that behind closed doors we may very well be seething and speaking to a thousand odd specialist lawyers on the subject and I also understand that we are not a club that likes to play out its affairs on the big stage, but a couple of lousy statements????
I really don't know exactly what I'm trying to say, I just think it's really odd that we haven't heard more from the club.

[Ludwig]

The AFL decisions are so bizarre that

some might get the impression that the AFL Commission is a secret society



......................................... run by people in strange costumes

s

[Ludwig]

One thing that I find very odd is that hundreds of thousands of top secret documents have managed to be heisted from the intelligence agencies, making their way into the public domain, yet no journalist, employee, player, etc. has been able to bring to public scrutiny the exact wording of a player contract with a COLA provision. Why have we not seen any redacted player contract or even a pro forma contract. The only hint of how the COLA provisions work is via statements made primarily by the Swans' management.

Sometimes by using an extreme example (boundary condition), it is possible to get a better picture of what is going on. Take the following scenario:

Note: Forget certain technicalities (veteran's allowance, minimum turnover) for this example as being trivial.

1. Following the 2013 post season activities the Swans have managed to sign every one its players to multi-year contracts. So every player has a contract which includes the 9.8% COLA provision into the future.
2. The Swans pay 100% of the salary cap.
3. In 2014 the AFL decide to terminate the COLA applicable to seasons beginning 2015.

It would seem that if the player contracts are honoured, regardless of where the payments come from (3rd party payments for no additional service is included in TPP), would put the Swans in violation of the salary cap without any possibility of escape. Contracted players cannot be forced to leave the club. If the Buddy Franklin rule applies, even if a player retires, his contracted compensation would still fall into the salary cap provisions. If the players are underpaid their contracted amounts, it would seem to be in violation of contract law.

The COLA has always been presented as a fixed percentage of a player's base contract. Yet the transition period has the COLA presented as a lump sum (800k and 600k respectively) as if it is some of sort of slush fund without linkage to specific contracts. What happens if the total COLA portion of player contracts add up to $710,000 in year 2015. Does that mean that the AFL only pays $710,000, or is there an additional 90k available for other purposes?

Why aren't journalists asking these kinds of specific questions? The AFL is not being held to any reasonable level of scrutiny.

Patrick Smith is absolutely right. And I have said it in many of my posts in this thread. The AFL is shambolic.

There are millions of fans out there that are all going to suffer because of the incompetence of the league managers, and we seem powerless to do anything about it.

[liz]

Whilst I agree in principle with what you say Ernie, I find the silence from the club deafening!
Why aren't we outraged? Why are we not taking legal action against this? I understand that behind closed doors we may very well be seething and speaking to a thousand odd specialist lawyers on the subject and I also understand that we are not a club that likes to play out its affairs on the big stage, but a couple of lousy statements????
I really don't know exactly what I'm trying to say, I just think it's really odd that we haven't heard more from the club.

I am not entirely sure what you expect. Ireland was interviewed on the day after the ruling was made public, and the club appears to have got into the ear of Quayle, who has written a piece. Today we have in the media articles from Smith and Longmire (via Caro). The AFLPA statement is up on the Swans website. Short of Pridham getting his own radio show where he can bang on incessantly about it, and throw baseless accusations at everyone and anyone and generally make up @@@@ in the process, I am not sure what else is appropriate. As you note, the club isn't generally one to fight battles in public, and the one time Pridham did get into a twitter slanging match with Fat Ed, many of us on here thought the exchange became puerile quite quickly, and didn't necessary reflect that well on Pridham or the club.

[Meg]

Jewels I empathise with your frustration but I agree with Liz. I think the number of supportive articles in the last couple of days shows the club is in fact outraged and is doing a LOT behind the scenes. The writers of those articles have been well briefed.

The club has said it is continuing to talk to the AFL and if there is no change will then request a hearing with the Commission. I would think legal action would be considered as a last option if necessary, but in time to affect a result for next year's draft when the ban could be more damaging.

[Matt80]

Being successful doesn't mean people can't be easily manipulated by a view- or even swayed by something as simple as who they follow (if they follow a team that is). I agree though it could easily be solved by them actually giving proper reason for their decision. But you can bet your bottom dollar nothing will see the light of day.

Patrick Smith is absolutely spot on..... the complete lack of vision from the Commission, combined with the pathetic stewardship of the AFL under Demetriou and now Mclachlan is turning a lot of people away from the sport.

If you are a board member of a business, sporting, non-profit or government board and you disagree with a board?s collective decision, you have the option of resigning from that board. Resigning from the board over a board decision signals that you disagree with the decision and will carry no responsibility or accountability for the outcome of that decision. Hard won reputations are saved when board members resign over an ill-fated decision, which leads to poor outcomes.

All the members of the AFL Commission have hard-won corporate reputations. A lot of them have worked 24/7 over 30 years to earn their reputations. The AFL Commission, which I believe is an honorary board (non paid) is prestigious, but not the pinnacle of their corporate careers. A Commissioner will resign if an AFL Commissions decision has the potential to impact their reputation and further corporate careers. No Commissioner has resigned over the Swans trade ban, which leads me to believe that all Commissioners believe the decision will not be scandalous or damaging to their reputations. In short, all Commissioners believe the decision is right and will achieve the desired outcomes, whatever they may be.

Please just tell me why the decision is made.

[tasmania60]

@@CK the AFL why and how are the rest of the clubs other than the black and white maggots , and the 3 legged dog not in arms together .This is a dangerous precedent that cant be let happen ,if no one says anything any club can curtailed of trade picks. Big mistakes are going to be ongoing with the minion thats running the show. Years of fair management are now gone where the 2 nd team in NSW now!

[ernie koala]

Please just tell me why the decision is made.

I wouldn't hold your breath.

It seems obvious to me why no explanation is coming from the AFL.

That's because the sanction is unreasonable, to say the least, and there is no reasonable explanation.

[wolftone57]

I am not entirely sure what you expect. Ireland was interviewed on the day after the ruling was made public, and the club appears to have got into the ear of Quayle, who has written a piece. Today we have in the media articles from Smith and Longmire (via Caro). The AFLPA statement is up on the Swans website. Short of Pridham getting his own radio show where he can bang on incessantly about it, and throw baseless accusations at everyone and anyone and generally make up @@@@ in the process, I am not sure what else is appropriate. As you note, the club isn't generally one to fight battles in public, and the one time Pridham did get into a twitter slanging match with Fat Ed, many of us on here thought the exchange became puerile quite quickly, and didn't necessary reflect that well on Pridham or the club.

I don't agree with you Liz. I thought Pridham was pretty good. I liked the fact he fought Eddie that way. There is only one way to fight a rat and that is to call it's bluff. This quiet behind the scenes 'we are going to be prissy about this' is bull-dung. get it out in the open and call them out. I hate all this knife in the back, cloak and dagger bull. It reminds me of corporate and government. Only the liars, back-stabbers & disingenuous always win that sort of fight. look at government. how many honest people do you find there? Let's face it there is no such thing as an honest businessperson.

[CureTheSane]

I don't agree with you Liz. I thought Pridham was pretty good. I liked the fact he fought Eddie that way. There is only one way to fight a rat and that is to call it's bluff. This quiet behind the scenes 'we are going to be prissy about this' is bull-dung. get it out in the open and call them out. I hate all this knife in the back, cloak and dagger bull. It reminds me of corporate and government. Only the liars, back-stabbers & disingenuous always win that sort of fight. look at government. how many honest people do you find there? Let's face it there is no such thing as an honest businessperson.

I'm the same.
There is a time for discussion, and a time for getting on the front foot.
The time for discussion ended last Friday as far as I am concerned.

But what will we gain?
Being able to participate properly at the end of next year is a gain, but the time has come and gone for this year, and the only avenue left is compensation.
Unless someone has a better idea of what we would be seeking if we took it further...