Tweet
If it's true we haven't got the cap space to Upgrade Biggs as has been suggested on the AFL website, how could we have possibly been planning on trading anyone from outside in? It doesn't make sense, assuming the Biggs theory is true
-
-
The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.Comment
-
I wouldn't bank on it just yet. The AFL decided to ban us from trading in players a couple of weeks before the trading period. They could easily make it very difficult, or impossible, to select both Mills and Dunkley. They could decide to introduce a maximum of one F/S or academy selection at a time. They could even make us use our first three rounds of selections on Mills. Who knows what this mob is thinking. Clearly logic isn't something they're concerned about.Last edited by S.S. Bleeder; 14 October 2014, 09:16 PM.Comment
-
AFL slaps trade ban on Swans
Nice article & interview with Adam Goodes. He touches on trade ban right at the end.
Adam Goodes decides against retirement after Sydney?s grand final defeat to Hawthorn
A second article on Goodes with trade ban at end.
Last edited by Meg; 14 October 2014, 10:07 PM.Comment
-
There is no doubt that we have obviously cheated and that is why we are remaining quiet on this. The AFL have something huge on us and are forcing us to keep quiet else they will shut us down for good.Comment
-
No surprises here, and don't expect anything more from the Swans.
This is exactly the same response as when we had our traditional nursery zones pillaged by the AFL and handed to GWS, 6 or 7 (?) years ago ... internally, fuming, shock and horror, but publicly, muffled disdain!
Policy reads;
YOU NEVER (PUBLICLY) BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS YOU! ... Deal with it and move on.Comment
-
That is the simpleton conclusion, which assumes that the AFL Commission always acts in the 'best interests of the game' and that there are no other sources of pressure potentially impacting on their decision making process. I'd expect all the 'something huge' may be is some suspicion we haven't acted in the 'Spirit of COLA' - if we had actually broken the rules, we would have heard about it big time from the AFL.
Its not like they are against throwing teams out to dry when they break the rules - think of the Crows a couple of years ago, the Bombers and the drug scandal."You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."Comment
-
I can't access the Hun but I saw that Jon Ralph says that not being able to trade was part of the deal with the Swans to phase out the COLA rather than stop it immediately, and that the Swans were aware of that at the time. Perhaps someone with access to the paper can find the small item in a column he shares with another writer.
I find it hard to believe that the Swans would be either so negligent or so disingenuous.He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball)Comment
-
Jon Ralph repeating on SEN that the Swans agreed to the ban to avoid them immediately losing the COLA which would have caused them to have to discard players to stay under the cap. He said he was told by an official "high up in the AFL" and said the AFL acknowledged that the COLA was rorted to get players. He said the AFL can only be criticised for its appalling handling of the announcement. He said the AFL can't believe the angst the Swans feel when they knew about it for weeks and themselves put it up as an alternative to immediately losing the COLA.
I think the Swans angst concerns being put into a position where they NEEDED to make concessions when they were simply working within AFL rules.Those who have the greatest power to hurt us are those we love.Comment
-
It's not surprising coming from Ralph....he is a McGuire stooge after all.Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect... MTComment
-
[QUOTE=ernie koala;660294]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.
....END QUOTE.
More accurate had he said "The ruling effectively bans The Swans from improving their list through trading".
Not for one minute do I think we will take a 'ho hum' , self-pitying attitude for the next two seasons and accept that we will do no more than tread water.
Some fringe players will see this as an opportunity to improve our list , by improving themselves.
Horse et al will surely be pulling out all the stops to make the best of a raw deal.Comment
-
This stuff + the GF shemozzle = perfect motivation for our players to go one better in 2015..... Will hopefully give a few of them the hard edge that was lacking in the GF....Comment
-
The whole concept of "rorting" a salary cap is, at best, unprovable and probably just meaningless in an industry where:
- it is impossible to objectively determine the "fair salary" of any player (beyond those in their first two years on a list, where the salaries are stipulated by the CBA); and
- there are a multitude of factors, most of them non-monetary, that determine whether players stay or move, and where they move to.
Was Geelong "rorting" the cap when it persuaded players to accept lower salaries to stay at Geelong and enjoy team success than these players might have been able to get on the open market?
Is any club that pays one or two of its players a marquee wage, and compensates by filling the rest of its list with lower paid players rorting the salary cap? Can you determine whether the rest of the list is made up of lower paid players because they are lower quality, or because they are pressured into accepting less so that the club can pay one or two players very high wages?
It is a meaningless concept, when you think of it really.
The FACTS of the matter are that Sydney has been granted a higher salary cap for the past decade or more to reflect the widely acknowledged fact that the cost of living is higher in Sydney than any other city (notwithstanding the recent boom in WA). This means that, as a whole, it was deemed appropriate that the Swans got to have slightly more money to pay the list in its entirety than other clubs so that it could compete on a level playing field when it came to both retaining and attracting players. This FACT has been acknowledged by the new system granting an additional amount to lower paid players, and even Eddie is on record as saying he accepts the Swans salary cap needed to be different. The new scheme reduces the size of that difference but it effectively achieves the same objective.
Once a club has a salary cap, it is surely entirely up to that club how it chooses to distribute that cap. If triple premiership Hawthorn players are willing to accept lower wage increases so that the club can go out and recruit James Frawley, that's up to them. These players' managers need to make their clients aware of what choices they have, but it is up to them whether they stay, or chase more money at another club.
If the Swans had been a dominant force in the competition for an extended period of time, you could argue that the COLA was a distorting factor and needed to be removed or reduced. But another FACT is that we haven't. We have been a strongly performing club, sure, but less so than Geelong or Hawthorn and probably just on a par with Collingwood. It is a downright insult to all that work at the Swans to imply that the sole reason why the Swans have been able to build and maintain a strong list over recent years is the rorting of an allowance that has an acknowledged and rational purpose, while presumably for the similarly performed clubs it is down to their skill?Comment
Comment