AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

[liz]

It should actually be a relatively simple process to apply a grandfathering arrangement that adheres to the spirit and objective of the COLA phasing out period, while not imposing such a punitive restriction on a club.

The Swans and AFL sit down with the Swans TPP arrangements at the point before the change was decided. I wouldn't be surprised if the COLA allocations aren't already explicitly identified in the Swans' records, but if they aren't, it can't be too hard to work out. They identify which parts of players' contracts are met out of the ASA allowance (which never had any COLA top-up). Prima facie 1/11th (or close enough) of every player's remaining contracted amount should be COLA. If the Swans can demonstrate that for lower paid players in their first two seasons (whose base salaries are stipulated by the AFL CBA and hence for whom the COLA amount must be exactly determinable) are getting more than the 9.8% allowance, the proportional COLA allocated to the rest of the list must be a little lower. But the impact is likely to be trivial.

So for contracts that were in place before the change was determined, that COLA amount is set. This becomes the amount the Swans have in their cap above the regular cap amount. We now have a transitional TPP for the club for each of the next two seasons.

Any new contracts signed below $300k pa (or whatever the threshold is for qualifying for the rental allowance) attract the new allowance but this is paid by the AFL outside the cap and doesn't count towards the Swans' TPP. This should apply to new players joining the club, plus those whose contracts expire after the announcement of the change.

So long as the Swans payments over the next two seasons fall within that adjusted TPP, I fail to understand why there need to be any restrictions on player movements.

It seems so obvious and straightforward to me that I must be missing something????

[Matt80]

You are so are so right with your comment.

This is what's so annoying. Kevin Sheedy parades around how he has just signed 2008 number one draft pick Tom Scully for 5 million over 5 years. The AFL and the wider AFL community rejoices with "you beauty Sheeds, what a master stroke". No body thought it was irresponsible. We the find out that GWS gets Tom Scully's Dad in a recruiting role. No objections are raised.

Tom Scully has proved inferior to Josh Kennedy, Kieran Jack, Mcveigh, Hannenbery, Ben Mcglynn and Luke Parker. He is probably at Craig Bird level.

Why are the AFL or AFL community not looking at the stupidity of this deal? At least Franklin and Tippett can win games.

[Cardinal]

[QUOTE=annew;659751]It is exactly what I thought too, maybe Frawley, maybe Ryder. Since when can the AFL say you cannot trade that player in because we said so. What if our current rucks dont develop and Pyke gets injured or retires we cannot trade and experienced player unless they are delisted - this sucks big time.[/QUOTE

The AFL must have discovered Pyke was getting an indestructible titanium alloy carbon composite bionic body in the off season and reacted accordingly. In any case with these new restrictions our entire ruck stocks will need the procedure.

[rb4x]

I am concerned that these restrictions are more onerous than at first site. Lets say next year Pyke retires, and Derickx and Naismith are injured. Sydney will obviously need a ruckman. You do not recruit ruckman in the draft. They take years to develop so we are basically stuffed. Another scenario this year, we know St. Kilda want Membrey and suppose they wanted to offer us a player as part of the deal. Perhaps Schneider wants to return to Sydney but it can be any player on their list. That is a no go situation for what the next three years. I trust the club is most vehemently pointing out this ludicrous restriction to our fat controllers. (Includes you Eddie). It would seem the only way out when we are in a corner is to when necessary recruit who we need and have the COLA immediately replaced by the rent subsidy scheme. That would mean that the AFL is then breaking its own contract with the players and I would think affected players could bring on court action. This new ruling appears to be totally amateur and most likely illegal as well. Will be interesting to see where it ends up in the next three years.

[Ludwig]

It should actually be a relatively simple process to apply a grandfathering arrangement that adheres to the spirit and objective of the COLA phasing out period, while not imposing such a punitive restriction on a club.

The Swans and AFL sit down with the Swans TPP arrangements at the point before the change was decided. I wouldn't be surprised if the COLA allocations aren't already explicitly identified in the Swans' records, but if they aren't, it can't be too hard to work out. They identify which parts of players' contracts are met out of the ASA allowance (which never had any COLA top-up). Prima facie 1/11th (or close enough) of every player's remaining contracted amount should be COLA. If the Swans can demonstrate that for lower paid players in their first two seasons (whose base salaries are stipulated by the AFL CBA and hence for whom the COLA amount must be exactly determinable) are getting more than the 9.8% allowance, the proportional COLA allocated to the rest of the list must be a little lower. But the impact is likely to be trivial.

So for contracts that were in place before the change was determined, that COLA amount is set. This becomes the amount the Swans have in their cap above the regular cap amount. We now have a transitional TPP for the club for each of the next two seasons.

Any new contracts signed below $300k pa (or whatever the threshold is for qualifying for the rental allowance) attract the new allowance but this is paid by the AFL outside the cap and doesn't count towards the Swans' TPP. This should apply to new players joining the club, plus those whose contracts expire after the announcement of the change.

So long as the Swans payments over the next two seasons fall within that adjusted TPP, I fail to understand why there need to be any restrictions on player movements.

It seems so obvious and straightforward to me that I must be missing something????

But the transitional COLA amounts have already been set at 800k for 2015 and 600k for 2016, which supersedes any computed amounts per individual contract. The methodology dictated was an aggregate 3 stage process that went from 9.8% of the normal cap down to zero. The method that you suggest is the one that I would have thought fair, but the AFL has deemed otherwise.

[Danzar]

It's outrageous! Think of the message it sends - the AFL is, both in substance and in form, agreeing with the McGuire's of the world and exacting a penalty accordingly.

And I agree with rb4x - what are the far reaching consequences? List management is extremely fluid/elastic and very difficult to accurately predict an outcome. Removing an entire trade pillar could have profound effects downstream.

[Ampersand]

Side note from the interview was that Ireland indicated Jake Lloyd will be (formally) upgraded to the senior list.

[Ludwig]

I also thing that rb4x hits upon the major issue. I can add my earlier speculation about trading Membrey for Michael Talia, and although this was unlikely anyway, it seemed a reasonable possibility in terms of value. In such a case it not only punishes the Swans, but Membrey and Talia as well and would limit their opportunities to find new clubs. I think the AFLPA should get involved, as this is clearly a restraint of trade and player movement outside the agreement.

[Ampersand]

I wonder what the AFLPA will have to say about this. Surely this is an illegal restriction on trade and an abuse of monopoly power.

I think Ireland is probably not fighting that hard because we aren't planning on trading in players this year. Next year Im sure if we attempt to bring in a player and the trade is blocked it will go before the courts. $600k in COLA for one year isn't a huge amount to risk.

[jono2707]

It's outrageous! Think of the message it sends - the AFL is, both in substance and in form, agreeing with the McGuire's of the world and exacting a penalty accordingly.

And I agree with rb4x - what are the far reaching consequences? List management is extremely fluid/elastic and very difficult to accurately predict an outcome. Removing an entire trade pillar could have profound effects downstream.

Yes this is a clear message that the AFL are punishing us. I can only assume it's for our audacious recruiting of Buddy last year, when he was meant to go to GWS - the AFL's team - instead.

It's poor policy-on-the-run and pandering to the lowest common denominator of AFL fans who have consistently accused the Swans of doing something dodgy in our recruiting over the last 2 years.

[Matt80]

I want to put out a sincere apology to the Red and White community. I defended Eddie on several occasions this year because I thought that the AFL was a professional organisation that would not pander to Eddies demands. I feel let down by the AFL today. I'm now in line with you all in your criticism of Eddie and the AFL establishment.

I apologise again and I'm now with you all.

[Legs Akimbo]

This just confirms my thoughts on Gillon McLaughlin is a stooge and a tool and McGuire is running the show. Seriously, penalising teams in a.competition in such an ad hoc and capricious way is pathetic. The basics of any competition is rules and consistency. How can the afl just wave a magic wand and say not drafting of other players.for two years. I fear for the future.of the AFL with this idiot running the show...

[Danzar]

I want to put out a sincere apology to the Red and White community. I defended Eddie on several occasions this year because I thought that the AFL was a professional organisation that would not pander to Eddies demands. I feel let down by the AFL today. I'm now in line with you all in your criticism of Eddie and the AFL establishment.

I apologise again and I'm now with you all.

[Dave]

So long as the Swans payments over the next two seasons fall within that adjusted TPP, I fail to understand why there need to be any restrictions on player movements.

It seems so obvious and straightforward to me that I must be missing something????

This is what no one can seem to explain. What purpose can it serve other than to punish the club (for nothing more than adhering to rules set out by the AFL)?

[liz]

But the transitional COLA amounts have already been set at 800k for 2015 and 600k for 2016, which supersedes any computed amounts per individual contract. The methodology dictated was an aggregate 3 stage process that went from 9.8% of the normal cap down to zero. The method that you suggest is the one that I would have thought fair, but the AFL has deemed otherwise.

My suggestion was just one method by which they might come up with a reasonable transition amount. I've just listened to the Ireland interview and now understand they have already come up with such an amount. I expect the approach would have been along the lines I described - because it is such a blindingly obvious way to approach the question.

But regardless of how they came up with the transitional amounts, the fact that they have done so and now the AFL decides to impose such a trade restriction is even harder to comprehend. It's like some kind of weird twilight zone where the person who has come up with this idea has no idea on the basic concepts of how to apply a salary cap.