AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

[Pmcc2911]

AFL trade 2014: AFL bans Sydney Swans from trading players in

Sydney has been told it cannot trade any players into the club this year or next unless the club is prepared to bring about an instant end to the cost of living allowance.

I hope Eddie or McL don't show their faces in Sydney next year.
In the words of George Orwell from "Animal Farm", "every one is equal but some are more equal than others"

[Meg]

And to add to the outrage it is now confirmed on AFL site that GWS are retaining COLA with no restrictions for next two years.

"AFL also advised GWS that due to its TPP position, list structure,contractual commitments, it retains COLA for 2015/16 with no restrictions.
5:57 PM - 9 Oct 2014"

Live: Dogs skipper wants out as Trade Period finally heats up - AFL.com.au

[Matt80]

The question needs to be asked.

How much did this decision effect the Grand Final preparations of the coaching staff and the administration?

Everything changed between the Preliminary Final and the Grand Final.

Those tools.

[Meg]

List changes and trade bait

Further clarification (or ambiguity) re COLA phasing now on AFL site:

"Currently, COLA will be phased out and replaced in 2017 by a rent subsidy scheme
However, Greater Western Sydney - which also benefits from COLA - will not be under the same restrictions for 2015 and 2016.
An AFL statement said GWS would be exempt because of "TPP (total player payment) position, list structure, (and) contractual commitments".
They will receive $800,000 in 2015 and $600,000 in 2016 under the COLA allowance.
"The Commission stated that the key principle was that the Sydney Swans should use the COLA transition amount to honour existing contracts and not to attract players from other clubs or use that transitional amount to compete with other clubs for the services of Currently, COLA will be phased out and replaced in 2017 by a rent subsidy scheme.
However, Greater Western Sydney - which also benefits from COLA - will not be under the same restrictions for 2015 and 2016.

An AFL statement said GWS would be exempt because of "TPP (total player payment) position, list structure, (and) contractual commitments".

They will receive $800,000 in 2015 and $600,000 in 2016 under the COLA allowance.

"The Commission stated that the key principle was that the Sydney Swans should use the COLA transition amount to honour existing contracts and not to attract players from other clubs or use that transitional amount to compete with other clubs for the services of players not on their list," the statement said.

"Accordingly, the AFL advised the Sydney Swans last week that the transitional amounts will decrease to zero if the Swans contract a player for their Primary List for either of the 2015 or 2016 seasons who is not currently on their Primary List or Rookie List." not on their list," the statement said.

The 'they' at beginning of para 4 of that explanation is confusing but I assume it means that both Swans and GWS are getting those decreasing COLA total amounts in 2015 & 2016. But we are not allowed to use any to pay to traded in players (or we lose the lot) while GWS are allowed to do so (because the AFL wants to give them a gold star while the Swans are on the naughty list.

AFL tells Swans: Trade players in and COLA will be scrapped ASAP - AFL.com.au

[goswannies]

We certainly are not be in a position to end the COLA immediately unless the players involved are willing to take pay cuts, so I can't see that as a viable option.

If players take pay cuts, are the original contracted pay rates still included in the cap? Ie what if Buddy got to the Swans by making a huge contractual nomination $1.1M per year for 9 years & then said "oh, I want to do the right thing by my club, I'm being paid overs to I'll take a $250K pay cut"
I was under the impression the original contract will continue to occupy the cap regardless of whether he plays or retires early. if that's the case, what happens if he's traded out before his contract ends? eg Paddy Ryder ... surely Paddy's last year of his contract doesn't remain in the Bombers cap? I suspect if (and we wouldn't) wanted to trade out Buddy, the AFL would insist he's original contract remain in place regardless of where he played. Unless only contracts with nominated playing conditions/fees are included.
Who the @@@@ knows what goes on in the heads of the AFL? I suspect it's all determined by a random number generator!

[Ludwig]

Andrew Ireland was just on SEN radio. Of course he disagreed with the decision, but didn't seem too miffed by the impact. He seemed to indicate that our plans for the elimination of the COLA have been well underway for some time. He didn't seem upset about not being able to sign free agents, but couldn't understand why we couldn't replace players going out with new ones traded in as long as we complied with the transition rules. He also indicated that there would be further discussions in this regard.

[Doctor J.]

STunned is a word I keep saying over and over.

I knew Gil Mac was a poor choiice for CEO, when you have people like @@@@head McG, and James Brayshaw openly campaigning for his appointment, then you sense something aint right. Here is the outcome.

I'm over this whole AFL @@@@. Its not AFL its just a @@@@ expanded VFL comp.

[Matt80]

Further clarification (or ambiguity) re COLA phasing now on AFL site:

"Currently, COLA will be phased out and replaced in 2017 by a rent subsidy scheme
However, Greater Western Sydney - which also benefits from COLA - will not be under the same restrictions for 2015 and 2016.
An AFL statement said GWS would be exempt because of "TPP (total player payment) position, list structure, (and) contractual commitments".
They will receive $800,000 in 2015 and $600,000 in 2016 under the COLA allowance.
"The Commission stated that the key principle was that the Sydney Swans should use the COLA transition amount to honour existing contracts and not to attract players from other clubs or use that transitional amount to compete with other clubs for the services of Currently, COLA will be phased out and replaced in 2017 by a rent subsidy scheme.
However, Greater Western Sydney - which also benefits from COLA - will not be under the same restrictions for 2015 and 2016.

An AFL statement said GWS would be exempt because of "TPP (total player payment) position, list structure, (and) contractual commitments".

They will receive $800,000 in 2015 and $600,000 in 2016 under the COLA allowance.

"The Commission stated that the key principle was that the Sydney Swans should use the COLA transition amount to honour existing contracts and not to attract players from other clubs or use that transitional amount to compete with other clubs for the services of players not on their list," the statement said.

"Accordingly, the AFL advised the Sydney Swans last week that the transitional amounts will decrease to zero if the Swans contract a player for their Primary List for either of the 2015 or 2016 seasons who is not currently on their Primary List or Rookie List." not on their list," the statement said.

The 'they' at beginning of para 4 of that explanation is confusing but I assume it means that both Swans and GWS are getting those decreasing COLA total amounts in 2015 & 2016. But we are not allowed to use any to pay to traded in players (or we lose the lot) while GWS are allowed to do so (because the AFL wants to give them a gold star while the Swans are on the naughty list.

AFL tells Swans: Trade players in and COLA will be scrapped ASAP - AFL.com.au

It's staggering to think that the AFL wants to smack the Swans, while GWS pays a million dollars a season to Tom Scully and payed huge money for Isral Falou. GWS are not managing their cap responsibly.

[ernie koala]

I know it won't happen, but what I would love to see....

A new competition is started.... A truely national comp.

We need all other interstate teams on board, a new team in Tassie , 2 teams from Melbourne plus Geelong.

That's a 12 team comp...24 rounds. Everyone plays each other twice.

Grand final is played in a different state each year.

A representative from each state make up the leagues board.

[sprite]

[QUOTE=Matt80;659736]The question needs to be asked.

How much did this decision effect the Grand Final preparations of the coaching staff and the administration?

FFS - this would have had no effect - perhaps we lost because we were planning for 2019 instead, with all the 1st round draft picks were so wisely traded for.

[Ludwig]

I am not against GWS being treated differently. They are clearly in a different stage in the life of their organisation and need special assistance to succeed. I agree with Ireland in the part of how we are limited to making trades. Suppose we struck a deal with Brisbane for a straight swap of Malceski for Patfull, with Patfull not receiving any COLA in his contract. I can't see why we should not be permitted to do that.

[Zlatorog]

Here is a possible prediction: A-league to replace AFL as a second code in NSW within 10 years time period, especially if picked up by either C7 or C10 when new TV rights are up for grabs; and I think that the Giants will end up in Canberra

[Meg]

Andrew Ireland was just on SEN radio. Of course he disagreed with the decision, but didn't seem too miffed by the impact. He seemed to indicate that our plans for the elimination of the COLA have been well underway for some time. He didn't seem upset about not being able to sign free agents, but couldn't understand why we couldn't replace players going out with new ones traded in as long as we complied with the transition rules. He also indicated that there would be further discussions in this regard.

I can see that with COLA going anyway, this 'ban' might not make much difference to our plans for the next two years. But what I am furious about is that by making this grandiose statement the AFL has yet again implied we cheated in the use of COLA with the recruitment of Tippett and Franklin and need to be repeatedly punished.

The club, the players (particularly Franklin) and we the Swans fans have all been abused for 12 months because of this false story which the AFL has done nothing to defuse and now encourages even further. Just look at the comments already building under the Emma Quayle story. And no doubt Big Footy is filling up with petty comments.

[Meg]

Suppose we struck a deal with Brisbane for a straight swap of Malceski for Patfull, with Patfull not receiving any COLA in his contract. I can't see why we should not be permitted to do that.

Exactly!

[Bloodthirsty]

You know what I hate about the Swans the most? They never fight back against this corruption. Just vague, non-descript diplomacy.

Of course the sheep will believe the lies if the Swans never STRONGLY call out the lies for what they are. What's to be gained by diplomacy if we keep getting smashed?

Bully: "I am going to punch you in the face and take your lunch money every single day, because you have a paper run and I don't."
Swan Jnr: "Regarding your proposal, I'm not pleased about it, but I understand that the playground needs to evolve. Are you sure you need to beat me up and steal my money?"
Bully: "Yes. And I'm going to tell everyone that you stole that money."
Swan Jnr: "But your dad employs me to deliver papers. He gave me the money. It's the law."
Bully: "I don't care. I'm fat with a red face and I hate how all the girls like you and you get straight-A's and you can spell."
Swan Jnr: "Well, if I can't change your mind, then I accept your decision."


Fight back for @@@@@@@*s sake. Things clearly get worse when you don't fight back. That's what bullying is.