AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

[Matt80]

Thanks Liz. Three things are clear from the above posts:

- Eddie has real influence at AFL head office.

- Eddie due to his established power, and popularity with a huge audience is not going anywhere.

- According to Mr Kennett, the corporate governance requirements in the AFL community are more relaxed than the wider corporate community.

We need a solution to Eddies agenda against the Swans.

I've mentioned building closer ties with Eddie, but this has been dismissed by the wider Red and White community.

Another idea is to have a prominent media and AFL personality return fire at Eddie. But who?

David Koch has his own team to worry about.

Alan Jones and Ray Hadley are Rugby League people. Karl Stevonovic looks League.

Is Michael Willisee senior still involved with Swans? Could be give the Swans some media clout to take on Eddie?

[JPK12]

We need a will anderson type to tackle Eddie head on.

Opps i went off topic..


what about those plucky swans hey, i saw a player do squats..anyone want to talk about the manner in which he did the squats?

[CureTheSane]

We need a will anderson type to tackle Eddie head on.

Opps i went off topic..


what about those plucky swans hey, i saw a player do squats..anyone want to talk about the manner in which he did the squats?

I literally had to scroll up to see what the topic was.
I'll probably have to do that forever more to make sure that my comments aren't only about the Swans, but that they don't veer too far away from the few words in the title and create huge angst amongst fellow forum readers.
I see the topic is AFL Swans trade ban.
As this issue has now been resolved I'd suggest that the topic is closed.
Same with the Tippett thread.
We recruited him, and that's what the topic was about.
If people want to diverge to other areas such as his body, his injuries, his new contract, surely they should all be new threads?

Not even sure why I'm writing this as it is clearly off topic to this thread and I don't expect to see it next time I log in

[JPK12]

I literally had to scroll up to see what the topic was.

What kind of slap did the swans receive? Open hand? Back hand? Cupped? These issues need to be resolved!

[CureTheSane]

Well that's easy but I won't say here because of political correctness

[Flying South]

Come on kiddies, don't sulk.

[royboy42]

I'm not sulking...pout pout..

[Meg]

Back on the topic of this thread:

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.

I agree Liz. I accept that there are times when accepting a compromise on one issue (in this case the trade ban) in order to continue to hold power on another more important issue (as argued by Ludwig, in this example the Swans Academy) can be a smart strategy. But here I think it is more of a case of picking us off one issue at a time. I fear the Swans are going to get a raw deal on the Academy before the next draft period - as is being discussed in a separate thread - and accepting the trade ban compromise won't protect us from that outcome.

At least the AFL statement on this compromise did include words stating that the Swans had at all times complied with the AFL's rules on the TPP and COLA. I hope the Swans insisted that these words were included before they agreed to the compromise deal. But the compromise itself makes no sense whatsoever. It bears no relationship to the issue of the phase-out of COLA. What particularly angers me is the continued suggestion that the Swans could or might have used the transition COLA for other than the intended purpose as suggested by the words:

"During the 2014 exchange period, the AFL Commission had ruled that the Sydney Swans could use its Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) transition amount to honour existing contracts, but 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."

As we said on RWO when the trade ban was announced last year, it would be impossible for the Swans to do that. The AFL used the COLA amounts in ongoing player contracts to calculate the COLA totals required in the phase-out years. It is not possible for the Swans to meet those contractual obligations AND use the same funds to attract players from other clubs. This is the same misrepresentation that has been used to attack the Swans all through the COLA debate.

I hope AnnieH does get into the ear of someone from Swans management and is able to give us some feedback. At the moment (as others have said) it seems that the Swans' propensity to be reasonable has been used against them.

[CureTheSane]

Not too sure about complaining about Hawthorns strong abilities to look after their list in adding free agents etc.
Is there an implication that they should also be unfairly treated?
They need to be able to do what they do, within the rules, and be able to do so without ramifications, and with much envy from other clubs.
Wasn't too long ago they nearly merged with Melbourne...

As for 'accepting a compromise' and moving on to look after the bigger 'fish' (the academy)...
Assuming that 'playing nicely' with the AFL will give us a any sort of benefit in future discussions and negotiations with them is a pipe dream.

I would suggest that the far better way would have been to kick up such a stink that the AFL wouldn't dare look at doing anything remotely unfair to us again.
This is why Collingwood is somewhat untouchable.
Look at the massive benefits they have. How many free to air games this year?
The AFL dare to slot a few games in on a Sunday night and there is hell to pay.
Next thing you know the AFL have bent over and Collingwood get what they want.

There's a time for the front foot and a time for the back foot.

As I've said before, the fact that the Swans took a back foot approach to all this still indicates to me that they were trying to keep it all on the down low for fear that something would come to light that would paint them in a very bad light.

[barry]

There's a time for the front foot and a time for the back foot.

As I've said before, the fact that the Swans took a back foot approach to all this still indicates to me that they were trying to keep it all on the down low for fear that something would come to light that would paint them in a very bad light.

Or, more likely, we acted like a small club and bent over for the AFL.

[Ludwig]

Or, more likely, we acted like a small club and bent over for the AFL.

Or, more likely, we acted like a big club, won the case, while still appearing to be victimized, a ploy often used by Collingwood.

[AnnieH]

If it were up to me, I'd be kicking up the HUGEST stink.... now.
I'd go back to the AFL (with QCs in tow) and say, we've changed our minds. We want you to drop ALL sanctions against us trading.

The AFL have admitted that we have done nothing wrong... yet, we're still being sanctioned.

I just don't get that.

We're going to lose some mighty big players this year... we'll have plenty of room in our salary cap, yet we won't be able to procure the services of a "big name" player... only a has-been (or a want to be) on a wage of less than $340,000.

Not all recycled players are worth getting!!!

As it stands, it sounds like we've still done something wrong somewhere and are still being punished for it.

It's a crock.

[Ludwig]

The AFL have admitted that we have done nothing wrong... yet, we're still being sanctioned.

I just don't get that.

We're going to lose some mighty big players this year... we'll have plenty of room in our salary cap, yet we won't be able to procure the services of a "big name" player... only a has-been (or a want to be) on a wage of less than $340,000.

It would seem the admission that the Swans had done nothing wrong was part of the deal. We take a limited sanction and they concede that we were not at fault. I think the Swans' management calculated that this softly-softly approach was the best strategy for the moment. We'll have to see if it works out that way in the long run. The changes in the AFL Commission personnel seem to line up more in our favour. Maybe this was part of the calculation.

I didn't realise that we were going to lose some mighty big players this year. Do you know who they are?

[Meg]

One point that I don't recall reading anywhere, which again highlights the randomness of the original trade ban and this supposed 'softening', is that this ban was not applied to the Brisbane Lions (and the Swans) when the Retention Allowance was phased out. The Retention Allowance was phased out over 3 years (compared to only 2 years for COLA). I think the amounts were from full allowance in 2003 of $592,000, to 2004 $580,000, 2005 $480,000, 2006 $360,000 and 2007 zero when it was abolished (with a continued COLA for the Swans). But there was no trade ban imposed during this period - which was appropriate as of course there was no justification for one to be imposed.

So what is the justification now? It infuriates me that the AFL has provided no rational explanation for linking the phase out of COLA with either their original trade ban decision on the Swans or for the newly announced supposed 'softening' of the trade ban. And that they get away with it - there has been virtually no mention of it in the Sydney media, imagine if this had been done to a Melbourne club.

I know I am simply raging against the dying of the light so I hope Ludwig's more measured reaction turns out to be well considered.

[Kelpie_X]

If it were up to me, I'd be kicking up the HUGEST stink.... now.
I'd go back to the AFL (with QCs in tow) and say, we've changed our minds. We want you to drop ALL sanctions against us trading.

The AFL have admitted that we have done nothing wrong... yet, we're still being sanctioned.

I just don't get that.

We're going to lose some mighty big players this year... we'll have plenty of room in our salary cap, yet we won't be able to procure the services of a "big name" player... only a has-been (or a want to be) on a wage of less than $340,000.

Not all recycled players are worth getting!!!

As it stands, it sounds like we've still done something wrong somewhere and are still being punished for it.

It's a crock.

Yep we are definitely hiding something or the club is WEAK