AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

[JPK12]

Absolutely agree.

The afls protection of drug cheats is doing far more damage to the brand than the swans being succesful is.

No trade bans for them. Its seems likely the kurt tippet was banned from football games for more weeks than the 34 bombers combined.

The AFL will lose me if the essendon players get anything less than 12 months, and hird isnt run out.

I am the same, perhaps we can both go jump on another bandwagon, because to follow this code if you ask the old timers, you have to be prepared to get royally screwed you know where and allow it to happen. Its called passion you know.

Again its the reason why the AFL do what they want, there is a generation of idiots who are prepared to hand over more money than they have to sit and watch a compromised code.

I love the swans with all my heart but i hate the AFL. 10 years ago this was not the case at all..but when you strip the layers, like most businesses and govts that are backed by corporate interest, you expose the filth that is crawling around, the corruption and the conflicts of interests.

[floppinab]

The words below from the formal AFL statement re the trade ban seem to be effectively saying that in the past the Swans have used COLA to subsidise salaries thereby freeing up salary cap to recruit super stars (the argument continually used on sports blogs). And if not impeded from trading the Swans could do it again over the next two years.

This is arithmetically impossible but I have concluded after this argument has raged all year that the standard of numeracy in the general population is extremely poor. And perhaps that extends to the AFL as well? (Or they have conveniently implied it to reinforce the common view.)


"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."

Sydney Swans Statement - Trade Restrictions

So we continually come back to the same assertion, that either the Swans have deflated players base contracts below the market and topped them up with COLA to create cap space (rightly refuted by many given players and their managers would not accept less than they are worth + COLA) or what we've been told about COLA being written into every contract isn't true. If neither of those is correct then surely it shouldn't be hard to ensure any offer to an incoming player would not have any COLA it.

Either what we've led to believe isn't true or there is something else going on that we aren't being told. It'd be nice if someone told us.

It's going to come down to the Swans somehow proving to the Commission that the first point (re. deflating contracts and topping up with COLA) is not true. Not really sure how they are going to do it.

[liz]

It's going to come down to the Swans somehow proving to the Commission that the first point (re. deflating contracts and topping up with COLA) is not true. Not really sure how they are going to do it.

I don't see why it will or should come down to that. If this is how the scenario is to play out, first the Commission would need to come up with a charge against the Swans for them to defend - a charge of "rorting". Given the difficulties they faced defining what tanking means, I can see them struggling somewhat with rorting. Then the onus would need to be on the Commission to provide persuasive evidence that the Swans somehow partook in this unsavoury activity. Given the concept of rorting really doesn't mean anything, I think the Commission might suffer.

As it stands, the AFL hasn't actually charged the Swans with any wrong doing, other than by innuendo. So there isn't really anything for the Swans to defend. I imagine that their hearing in front of the Commission will focus on the rights of each club to participate in the draft and to trade, as stipulated in any charters, rules of operation or other legal documents that govern the rights of clubs, and then the Commission's right to deny a club any of these privileges and on what grounds. Again, the Swans haven't been charged with breaking any rules, so it should be interesting to find out on what basis the AFL can deny the Swans a right that all other clubs have.

[floppinab]

I don't see why it will or should come down to that. If this is how the scenario is to play out, first the Commission would need to come up with a charge against the Swans for them to defend - a charge of "rorting". Given the difficulties they faced defining what tanking means, I can see them struggling somewhat with rorting. Then the onus would need to be on the Commission to provide persuasive evidence that the Swans somehow partook in this unsavoury activity. Given the concept of rorting really doesn't mean anything, I think the Commission might suffer.

I don't think it's a charge as such. Assuming that is what the AFL is claiming the Swans have done (McLachlan's statements appear to be heading in that direction) there is nothing in the rules that can stop them from doing it, it's not a rort as such, the Swans have not done anything fraudulent or dishonest. There is nothing against the rules to convince a player or bunch of players for that matter to sign a contract on less money than what they might've got elsewhere or against a market value (if that could be defined in any way). Plenty of suggestion other clubs have done something similar to keep a star studded list together. The claim here (again I'm assuming in the absense of anything definitive from the AFL) is that Swans have done it using the extra COLA space with the sole aim of recruiting Tippett and Buddy. To be clear I am not suggesting the Swans have done this.

A little aside from mine on COLA in general. I'd say 10 maybe even up to 5 years back I'd argue that it was an important measure for Sydney based players simply given the amount, on average, they were getting paid is a lot less than what they get today. The salary cap has skyrocketed relative to the cost of living so I can understand the argument to remove it on that basis (with the appropriate provisions for lower paid players, particularly rookies who get a pittance, 300k pa still seems a very high threshold for mine to qualify).

[Mel_C]

Geelong is one club that kept players on less money than they would have received at another club. Their players loved the club and they wanted to keep playing at a successful club. No difference with the swans. Apart from Malceski we have not lost a star player in recent times. Yeah ok we had COLA but I seriously doubt that would make much difference to a player staying or leaving unless you are on a Buddy size contract.

As has been mentioned by others if the AFL believes we have rorted the system then they need to charge the swans and publicly outline what has transpired. Hopefully when the swans front the commission they will receive some answers. Although something tells me the commission will just be vague because they don't have a legitimate case.

The comments from Gillon have really infuriated me and are just more evidence that the AFL is in the wrong.

[tasmania60]

Agree they cant be that gullible ,and Hird is basically a cheat. Watch the AFL sweep it under the carpet ,look at the new captain hes a fool . Nrl / soccer will be pissing there pants with joy .

[yabbadabbado]

I think the swans should have extra money in the cap . Why it was called cola and not player retention money due to being a non football state ,was badly handled by the AFL.The cost of living to me should have nothing to do with it, it's about convincing players to leave their home state and then retaining them

[barry]

I love the swans with all my heart but i hate the AFL. 10 years ago this was not the case at all..but when you strip the layers, like most businesses and govts that are backed by corporate interest, you expose the filth that is crawling around, the corruption and the conflicts of interests.

All sports have that to an extent. Soccer corruption and conflicts of interests has always been numero uno, and we as AFL fans have always felt a little superior. But With Essendon, and Gills weakness, we are catching up fast.

I cant help but feel the momentum the AFL had in Sydney over the past decade is slowing down. We are burning the goodwill generated by clean efficient administrations past.

[S.S. Bleeder]

A little aside from mine on COLA in general. I'd say 10 maybe even up to 5 years back I'd argue that it was an important measure for Sydney based players simply given the amount, on average, they were getting paid is a lot less than what they get today. The salary cap has skyrocketed relative to the cost of living so I can understand the argument to remove it on that basis (with the appropriate provisions for lower paid players, particularly rookies who get a pittance, 300k pa still seems a very high threshold for mine to qualify).

Sorry, gotta disagree;
1) A 22 y.o. on $300k may not be able to afford to buy a home in Sydney. The housing prices are higher and even though his income is high, a professional sportsman on a 2-3 year contract is considered medium/high risk to lend to.
2) You need to remember that the Swans players are more likely to be from interstate, unlike the clubs in Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth. Therefore the young players have to move out of the family home and rent.
3) If they are from another state or region it is unlikely that they will want to buy in case they don't stick around.
Therefore, Swans players are far more likely to rent than say the players in Melbourne. The cost to rent in eastern Sydney (or anywhere near the SCG) costs a fortune. The average rental cost for a one bedroom apartment in Sydney is $133/wk more expensive than Melbourne. I can only imagine how much more expensive a two bedroom apartment in the eastern suburbs would cost. The following website gives you a pretty good indication of the costs per area; http://sydneymovingguide.com/the-cos...ing-in-sydney/.

I agree with the scrapping of the COLA but believe that a rental allowance of $10k p.a. (before tax) is well below true costs and that the threshold of $300k is a little too low.

[Reggi]

I don't think it's a charge as such. Assuming that is what the AFL is claiming the Swans have done (McLachlan's statements appear to be heading in that direction) there is nothing in the rules that can stop them from doing it, it's not a rort as such, the Swans have not done anything fraudulent or dishonest. There is nothing against the rules to convince a player or bunch of players for that matter to sign a contract on less money than what they might've got elsewhere or against a market value (if that could be defined in any way). Plenty of suggestion other clubs have done something similar to keep a star studded list together. The claim here (again I'm assuming in the absense of anything definitive from the AFL) is that Swans have done it using the extra COLA space with the sole aim of recruiting Tippett and Buddy. To be clear I am not suggesting the Swans have done this.

A little aside from mine on COLA in general. I'd say 10 maybe even up to 5 years back I'd argue that it was an important measure for Sydney based players simply given the amount, on average, they were getting paid is a lot less than what they get today. The salary cap has skyrocketed relative to the cost of living so I can understand the argument to remove it on that basis (with the appropriate provisions for lower paid players, particularly rookies who get a pittance, 300k pa still seems a very high threshold for mine to qualify).

As a trained economist. Cost of living means in real terms, earning $300k in Sydney is equivalent to earning $265 in melbourne.

[penga]

As a trained economist. Cost of living means in real terms, earning $300k in Sydney is equivalent to earning $265 in melbourne.

Wow, a $299,735 difference, no wonder we need COLA!!

- - - Updated - - -

Salary cap for 2015 is $10.07m and for 2016 $10.37m. But where did you get your 6% COLA figure from? I haven't read that anywhere so would be interested to read what was said if you have a source.

That's a damn good question, where I got the 6% from. That was a figure that was stuck in my head, and swore I read it somewhere, but I have no source for my claim.

[Bloodthirsty]

- Funny how Tippett hasn't done @@@@ all and people always use him as one of the poster boys for evil COLA.

- Yes, all Essendon players combined will not get suspended for as many games as Tippett. Suspend the whole team? Can't have that - change the rules on the run then so they don't apply anymore!!!

- The Swans MUST win the flag next year, and hopefully then go back to back. That will be the last action we will see for a while. Brisbane and GC will be seen as lifestyle resorts for players, so Sydney won't have that edge either.

- Do I think the Swans will win the flag in '15 or '16? I think this trade ban is more significant than anyone realises. Even one player with any value is needed to help, in a butterfly effect sorta way. The AFL have achieved their secret agenda here - and Sydney just let it happen. Ryder or Patfull is what the Swans needed to maintain powerhouse status. That has been crushed.

[CureTheSane]

Sorry, gotta disagree;
1) A 22 y.o. on $300k may not be able to afford to buy a home in Sydney.

Seems the Swans need to employ a financial planner.
3 Year contract on $300,000 per year is kinda a no brainer for a bank.

[mcs]

- Funny how Tippett hasn't done @@@@ all and people always use him as one of the poster boys for evil COLA.

- Yes, all Essendon players combined will not get suspended for as many games as Tippett. Suspend the whole team? Can't have that - change the rules on the run then so they don't apply anymore!!!

- The Swans MUST win the flag next year, and hopefully then go back to back. That will be the last action we will see for a while. Brisbane and GC will be seen as lifestyle resorts for players, so Sydney won't have that edge either.

- Do I think the Swans will win the flag in '15 or '16? I think this trade ban is more significant than anyone realises. Even one player with any value is needed to help, in a butterfly effect sorta way. The AFL have achieved their secret agenda here - and Sydney just let it happen. Ryder or Patfull is what the Swans needed to maintain powerhouse status. That has been crushed.

Next year I think we will be ok.... we could be in serious trouble in 2016 however if we can't trade at the end of next season. If for instance, Goodes, Shaw give it away, and some of the younger guys don't progress as we want (In particular in the ruck).

[i'm-uninformed2]

My understanding is the Swans had no plan to recruit this year. Patful may have come sniffing round but for salary and other reasons, he and others were a no no.

BUT, our big issue is next year. The club is apparently ok about their ability to meet the COLA transition and were keen on upping trade activity next year.

Hence, we didn't get hysterical during this trade period but are prepared to about the next one as that is where we start to re-set our list for the second phase of the Buddy-cycle.

This is what makes Gill even more of an evil dunce. We weren't after a star this year and would only be back into solid citizen types next year.

Instead, he's chosen to slur the whole club based on what he even knows is a lie.