AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

[liz]

Can you supply the name of an uncontracted player beyond 2015 that you fear may leave and cannot be adequately replaced, just for argument's sake?

a) As far as I am aware both Ted Richards and Heath Grundy are out of contract at the end of this season and are free agents to boot. I am not predicting they are going to leave but it's not impossible. Ted would be more likely to retire than move to another club. If we lost just one it would be problematic. To lose both would be disastrous, given our potential replacements have about 5 minutes of senior experience between them (X, playing in the forward line 18 months ago).

b) Contracts don't necessarily count for much nowadays - see Beams, Christensen, Griffen. If someone throws big money at, say, Hannebery, and he decides he wants to leave, the reality is that the club will have little choice. While we have good depth in the midfield, I still don't see why we shouldn't be allowed to replace like for like.

c) It doesn't actually matter whether this marginally changed ban has any real effect. It is the principle. The Swans continue to be punished for doing nothing wrong. The COLA phase out continues to be inconsistently applied between the Swans and Giants. And the AFL continues to stand by and applaud while the more dominant Hawks continue to add highly paid free agents to their already strong squad, while going out of its way to handicap the Swans in their efforts to do similarly, if their cap permits it.

d) A trade ban of any kind continues to be needless to phase out the COLA, as has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum.

[annew]

Well said Liz, I totally agree.

[dimelb]

a) As far as I am aware both Ted Richards and Heath Grundy are out of contract at the end of this season and are free agents to boot. I am not predicting they are going to leave but it's not impossible. Ted would be more likely to retire than move to another club. If we lost just one it would be problematic. To lose both would be disastrous, given our potential replacements have about 5 minutes of senior experience between them (X, playing in the forward line 18 months ago).

b) Contracts don't necessarily count for much nowadays - see Beams, Christensen, Griffen. If someone throws big money at, say, Hannebery, and he decides he wants to leave, the reality is that the club will have little choice. While we have good depth in the midfield, I still don't see why we shouldn't be allowed to replace like for like.

c) It doesn't actually matter whether this marginally changed ban has any real effect. It is the principle. The Swans continue to be punished for doing nothing wrong. The COLA phase out continues to be inconsistently applied between the Swans and Giants. And the AFL continues to stand by and applaud while the more dominant Hawks continue to add highly paid free agents to their already strong squad, while going out of its way to handicap the Swans in their efforts to do similarly, if their cap permits it.

d) A trade ban of any kind continues to be needless to phase out the COLA, as has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum.

The highlight is the bit that gets me.

Looking at it pragmatically, it probably won't make much difference as the scenario Liz outlines is a possibility but not likely, and as Ludwig said, we probably wouldn't have the money for a top flight replacement anyway. Nevertheless, we are still being penalised, and the only recourse at this stage would be the legal pathway which would be indulging in a game of chance and not worth the candle. We will just have to put up with it for a season, but we have every right to feel unfairly disadvantaged and resentful of our treatment in contrast with the treatment Hawthorn receives. Perhaps the best thing to emerge from it is that as was said above, they owe us one.

[jono2707]

It's policy making on the run again from the AFL - it engenders no trust that they're not going to turn around again sometime soon and do something else equally as harebrained....

[Ludwig]

c) It doesn't actually matter whether this marginally changed ban has any real effect. It is the principle. The Swans continue to be punished for doing nothing wrong. The COLA phase out continues to be inconsistently applied between the Swans and Giants. And the AFL continues to stand by and applaud while the more dominant Hawks continue to add highly paid free agents to their already strong squad, while going out of its way to handicap the Swans in their efforts to do similarly, if their cap permits it.

d) A trade ban of any kind continues to be needless to phase out the COLA, as has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum.

Of course you are right about the principle of the matter and I argued as vehemently as anyone about this. I think the solution arrived at gives the Swans what they wanted while achieving the required face saving for the AFL. Like with the Tippett penalty, which was absurdly excessive, we took our shot in the short term and got the player we wanted. This falls into the category that includes fining Melbourne for 'not' tanking. So often the AFL comes up with stuff that ranges from silly to inexplicable. Who knows exactly what propagated this sordid nonsense; it probably had something to do with Eddie McGuire. But it was done, and some people have to save face. They have been roundly criticised by the media and the AFLPA. I don't know if it would be better to excoriate McLachlan over this incident. Apparently the Swans management didn't think so and were happy enough to get the outcome they wanted.

If someone like Grundy decides to leave, and he is free agent, so we can't stop him, then so be it. He's probably earning around 300k, so we could theoretically replace him for a similarly salaried player not infringing on the upper limit. I think there will be other options given the number of young key defender prospects we now have on our books. They've got to start sometime. Anyway, this is all conjecture. On the practical side of things, I don't think the salary limitation will have any impact, and I the solution arrived at was intended to be such.

[liz]

If someone like Grundy decides to leave, and he is free agent, so we can't stop him, then so be it. He's probably earning around 300k, so we could theoretically replace him for a similarly salaried player not infringing on the upper limit. I think there will be other options given the number of young key defender prospects we now have on our books. They've got to start sometime. Anyway, this is all conjecture. On the practical side of things, I don't think the salary limitation will have any impact, and I the solution arrived at was intended to be such.

But why should we have to? There may be no one available and interested in coming to Sydney who warrants "an average wage". What if Rance or Carlisle is available and wants to come to Sydney and we have plenty of room in the cap (possibly because we've lost another decently paid player). Why should we not be allowed to recruit the most suitable, willing replacement on a baseless whim of the AFL, while we sit back and watch the Hawks add Dangerfield, or Sloane, or Steven or someone of similar quality?

[Ludwig]

But why should we have to? There may be no one available and interested in coming to Sydney who warrants "an average wage". What if Rance or Carlisle is available and wants to come to Sydney and we have plenty of room in the cap (possibly because we've lost another decently paid player). Why should we not be allowed to recruit the most suitable, willing replacement on a baseless whim of the AFL, while we sit back and watch the Hawks add Dangerfield, or Sloane, or Steven or someone of similar quality?

You are correct in principle, but if there were no compromise it would be an admission by the AFL that they erred in their original trade ban, which of course they had. It would be too embarrassing for them, especially with a new chief to make such an admission of fault. Bringing up these hypothetical situations of possible star players that could come to the club through trades or free agency is a bit of a red herring. If it were a real possibility in view of our management, we probably wouldn't have settled for this compromise. I think we know where we stand in respect to these situations and that's why the deal was struck the way it was.

The reason I see this as a win for the club is that we get what we want, including a statement that we had not broken any rule, without making it appear that the AFL caved in. We didn't get everything, so Gill is happy. We can move on to the next battle, academy picks, showing that we are reasonable negotiators and should expect reciprocation from the AFL. This compromise still left us with a few cards left to play. It wouldn't have been all that great to leave the new CEO with egg on his face. I think he's incompetent, so it's better for him to come out this without ongoing hostility toward the club. I think it was strategically wise decision.

[Matt80]

You are correct in principle, but if there were no compromise it would be an admission by the AFL that they erred in their original trade ban, which of course they had. It would be too embarrassing for them, especially with a new chief to make such an admission of fault. Bringing up these hypothetical situations of possible star players that could come to the club through trades or free agency is a bit of a red herring. If it were a real possibility in view of our management, we probably wouldn't have settled for this compromise. I think we know where we stand in respect to these situations and that's why the deal was struck the way it was.

The reason I see this as a win for the club is that we get what we want, including a statement that we had not broken any rule, without making it appear that the AFL caved in. We didn't get everything, so Gill is happy. We can move on to the next battle, academy picks, showing that we are reasonable negotiators and should expect reciprocation from the AFL. This compromise still left us with a few cards left to play. It wouldn't have been all that great to leave the new CEO with egg on his face. I think he's incompetent, so it's better for him to come out this without ongoing hostility toward the club. I think it was strategically wise decision.

You are on fire Ludwig. What a wonderful analysis of the Gill situation. You have a real world view of the situation, which is to be commended.

I believe now, that the AFL should have gone for a highly rated NFL executive to be the CEO after Andrew D.

A brash NFL Executive would have not cared for playing the politics of McGuire, The AFL Commission or the Powerful Victorian clubs. The NFL is used to dealing with powerful Billionaire owners of Franchises. The NFL has the power to give these guys a whack if required.

The NFL guy would have looked at Eddie and thought to himself " you are not even a team owner, so what if you make media noise!

Gill, having grown up in the system is fully aware of the key backers who got him into the job. He now has to give the best possible hearing to the people who got him the position. He is therefore making little compromises that appeal to his supporters.

An NFL guy would have shaken some feathers, but you know that decisions would have been made without the political architecture currently in place.

Maybe the AFL commission did look at getting an NFL guy for the AFL CEO role. The money would have been the issue. For example the AFL players salary cap is just over $10 million in 2015, to fund around 44 players on a list. The NFL salary cap is $133 million in 2015, to fund around 63 players on a roster.

The difference in the pie is astonishing, and I'm sure the senior executives in the NFL are making great money. The NFL commissioner Roger Goodell took home $44 million last year.

Poor Gill is on food stamps in comparison. What highly rated NFL senior operator is going to come to Australia to be paid food stamps!

[erica]

Oh geez, here you go again.

[Conor_Dillon]

Let's just hope that this 'compromise' is somehow tied in with the eventual outcome of the proposed changes to the father-son/academy bidding systems.

[Untamed Snark]

Let's just hope that this 'compromise' is somehow tied in with the eventual outcome of the proposed changes to the father-son/academy bidding systems.

That's what I though.
The AFL may have said we'll put a restriction on you but in return we won't touch the Academy Trades for X number of years.

[0918330512]

Oh geez, here you go again.

9 paragraph, 7 of which had NFL mentioned.

A. F. L. forum ... A. F. L.!

[Flying South]

You are on fire Ludwig. What a wonderful analysis of the Gill situation. You have a real world view of the situation, which is to be commended.

I believe now, that the AFL should have gone for a highly rated NFL executive to be the CEO after Andrew D.

A brash NFL Executive would have not cared for playing the politics of McGuire, The AFL Commission or the Powerful Victorian clubs. The NFL is used to dealing with powerful Billionaire owners of Franchises. The NFL has the power to give these guys a whack if required.

The NFL guy would have looked at Eddie and thought to himself " you are not even a team owner, so what if you make media noise!

Gill, having grown up in the system is fully aware of the key backers who got him into the job. He now has to give the best possible hearing to the people who got him the position. He is therefore making little compromises that appeal to his supporters.

An NFL guy would have shaken some feathers, but you know that decisions would have been made without the political architecture currently in place.

Maybe the AFL commission did look at getting an NFL guy for the AFL CEO role. The money would have been the issue. For example the AFL players salary cap is just over $10 million in 2015, to fund around 44 players on a list. The NFL salary cap is $133 million in 2015, to fund around 63 players on a roster.

The difference in the pie is astonishing, and I'm sure the senior executives in the NFL are making great money. The NFL commissioner Roger Goodell took home $44 million last year.

Poor Gill is on food stamps in comparison. What highly rated NFL senior operator is going to come to Australia to be paid food stamps!

WTF???????

[Bloods05]

You are on fire Ludwig. What a wonderful analysis of the Gill situation. You have a real world view of the situation, which is to be commended.

I believe now, that the AFL should have gone for a highly rated NFL executive to be the CEO after Andrew D.

A brash NFL Executive would have not cared for playing the politics of McGuire, The AFL Commission or the Powerful Victorian clubs. The NFL is used to dealing with powerful Billionaire owners of Franchises. The NFL has the power to give these guys a whack if required.

The NFL guy would have looked at Eddie and thought to himself " you are not even a team owner, so what if you make media noise!

Gill, having grown up in the system is fully aware of the key backers who got him into the job. He now has to give the best possible hearing to the people who got him the position. He is therefore making little compromises that appeal to his supporters.

An NFL guy would have shaken some feathers, but you know that decisions would have been made without the political architecture currently in place.

Maybe the AFL commission did look at getting an NFL guy for the AFL CEO role. The money would have been the issue. For example the AFL players salary cap is just over $10 million in 2015, to fund around 44 players on a list. The NFL salary cap is $133 million in 2015, to fund around 63 players on a roster.

The difference in the pie is astonishing, and I'm sure the senior executives in the NFL are making great money. The NFL commissioner Roger Goodell took home $44 million last year.

Poor Gill is on food stamps in comparison. What highly rated NFL senior operator is going to come to Australia to be paid food stamps!

Perhaps I could try to interpret for non-speakers of Mattese.

Paragraph 1: Matt commends Ludwig for his real-world view.

Paragraphs 2-6: Matt proceeds to expound his own cloud-cuckoo-land view. This involves a metaphor that appears to describe the AFL as a building made out of feathers.

Paragraph 7: Matt speculates, bizarrely, that the AFL might be as divorced from reality as he is. This provides him with an opportunity to impress us with some figures that show how much he knows about a sport that most of us aren't interested in, or if we are, we go elsewhere to talk about it so we aren't boring the pants off those who aren't.

Paragraphs 8-9: Matt is barely able to contain his excitement as he hyperventilates over the vast amounts of money sloshing around the NFL, and wishes the AFL could find a way to generate enough of it to pay an American who doesn't even know what Australian Rules is an obscenely inflated salary that would put him in the top 0.01% of income "earners" in the world so that he wouldn't be beholden to sectional interests within the game, for some reason he doesn't explain, but possibly because he may have some experience of punching rich guys.

Matt would like to see the AFL heading down the same path as American sports, because, you know, they're really big and wealthy and powerful and everything. All of these are good things.

Bear in mind that this was originally a post about the AFL slapping a trade ban on the Swans.

I hope this helps.

[magic.merkin]

That's what I though.
The AFL may have said we'll put a restriction on you but in return we won't touch the Academy Trades for X number of years.

Great work Ludwig agreed,

and the above quote is my thoughts and hopes.