AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

[Meg]

AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

The bit that makes no sense is near the end when McLachlan says:
"If you have the same salary cap for the next two years and they can trade players out then there would be potentially serious consequences".
In other words he is saying that the Swans could have demonstrated that they needed (say) $800,000 in COLA in 2015 to maintain the COLA obligations to their existing list, then traded out a player and used the COLA 'saved' to assist them to attract in another player.
That 'risk' was simple to eliminate - as we have said here on RWO in the past and as Ireland said in a radio interview last year. If the Swans had traded out a player who had $40,000 of COLA in his contract, then the AFL simply had to deduct $40,000 from the total amount it originally had calculated would be necessary to meet the Swans' COLA obligations. There was plenty of time to make any required adjustment between the trade period last year and the commencement of the 2015 season contracts.
He can't explain the decision because there is no rational explanation. And if there had been a rational explanation it would have had to apply also to GWS.

[ScottH]

There is something wrong with the audio on this vid.
All I heard was blah, blah, blah.

[S.S. Bleeder]

It sounds like someone at the AFL genuinely thought this would solve the issue of how best to phase out the COLA when it's built into existing contracts.

My understanding is that the COLA withdrawal isn't built into the contracts?

[i'm-uninformed2]

The bit that makes no sense is near the end when McLachlan says:
"If you have the same salary cap for the next two years and they can trade players out then there would be potentially serious consequences".
In other words he is saying that the Swans could have demonstrated that they needed (say) $800,000 in COLA in 2015 to maintain the COLA obligations to their existing list, then traded out a player and used the COLA 'saved' to assist them to attract in another player.
That 'risk' was simple to eliminate - as we have said here on RWO in the past and as Ireland said in a radio interview last year. If the Swans had traded out a player who had $40,000 of COLA in his contract, then the AFL simply had to deduct $40,000 from the total amount it originally had calculated would be necessary to meet the Swans' COLA obligations. There was plenty of time to make any required adjustment between the trade period last year and the commencement of the 2015 season contracts.
He can't explain the decision because there is no rational explanation. And if there had been a rational explanation it would have had to apply also to GWS.

This is so spot on. Gil can't even lie well.

[Bloods05]

He can't explain the decision because there is no rational explanation. And if there had been a rational explanation it would have had to apply also to GWS.

That is it in a nutshell. It also explains his unease and aggression.

[Meg]

At last, the confirmation of what we have believed all along.
Andrew Ireland:
"To assert that the Swans had prior knowledge, or had discussed the trade ban prior to the Commission decision is incorrect.

Given the AFL has made clear that there was no wrongdoing on our part, it is our understanding that the AFL Commission was concerned with the possibility ? one which had no foundation ? of our Club recruiting a high profile free agent and due to this, the trade ban was established."
State of Play: Andrew Ireland - sydneyswans.com.au

[chalbilto]

At last, the confirmation of what we have believed all along.
Andrew Ireland:
"To assert that the Swans had prior knowledge, or had discussed the trade ban prior to the Commission decision is incorrect.

Given the AFL has made clear that there was no wrongdoing on our part, it is our understanding that the AFL Commission was concerned with the possibility ? one which had no foundation ? of our Club recruiting a high profile free agent and due to this, the trade ban was established."
State of Play: Andrew Ireland - sydneyswans.com.au

If this is so, then isn't this compromising and manipulating the draft. So much for the espoused "pure draft" philosophy.

[S.S. Bleeder]

At last, the confirmation of what we have believed all along.
Andrew Ireland:
"To assert that the Swans had prior knowledge, or had discussed the trade ban prior to the Commission decision is incorrect.

Given the AFL has made clear that there was no wrongdoing on our part, it is our understanding that the AFL Commission was concerned with the possibility ? one which had no foundation ? of our Club recruiting a high profile free agent and due to this, the trade ban was established."
State of Play: Andrew Ireland - sydneyswans.com.au

So happy to hear that. As far as I'm concerned it means that there was no secret deal, which in turn means that we had done something wrong.

What it does reveal (IMO) is that the AFL didn't want us to win the premiership last year nor in future years. The AFL advised us of this penalty during GF week. You would only do that if you wanted to unsettle us. They could have easily waited another week.

The fact is that this UNCONSCIONABLE PENALTY reeks of inventing rules in order to equalise the competition. We've won two premierships in the last 69 years yet we were targeted because of pressure from other clubs. Hawthorn is likely to win their third premiership in a row and 13th premiership in the last 30 years. Let's see if the AFL even up the playing field now!!!!!!!

[Bloods05]

At last, the confirmation of what we have believed all along.
Andrew Ireland:
"To assert that the Swans had prior knowledge, or had discussed the trade ban prior to the Commission decision is incorrect.

Given the AFL has made clear that there was no wrongdoing on our part, it is our understanding that the AFL Commission was concerned with the possibility ? one which had no foundation ? of our Club recruiting a high profile free agent and due to this, the trade ban was established."
State of Play: Andrew Ireland - sydneyswans.com.au

This is truly infuriating. It is bad enough that they have done this, but to misrepresent the content of the discussions held between the AFL and the club, as Ireland is clearly accusing McLachlan of doing, is utterly disgraceful.

There is bad faith here. This does not bode well for future dealings between the club and the AFL. I sincerely hope that the club works very hard to overturn this ridiculous decision before the 2015 draft. I will be very disappointed if they don't.

[Meg]

Yes interesting that Ireland and the club more generally have been (infuriatingly) circumspect up till now, taking good manners to an extreme. Ireland's words today suggest that McLachlan's TV interview really got up their nose and they decided it was time to respond. And hallelujah to that!

[giant]

I'm probably way out of line here - but I thought McLachlan was fairly convincing the other night. He kinda made sense to me.

[Industrial Fan]

He looked really tired.

[Bloods05]

Correct. You are way out of line.

[barry]

The afl wanted the cola gone in 2 years. We signed big money players on long deals with cola included. Thereby extended cola for many years.
Afl got pissed off and hit us.

The AFL is corrupt

[cherub]

I'm probably way out of line here - but I thought McLachlan was fairly convincing the other night. He kinda made sense to me.

Really? prevarication and dissembling were words that came to my mind.