AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

[baskin]

I don't know where to start or what to say about this new rule, it is doing my head in!

Is it time all this anger and upset was put into trying to do something? We as supporters may not be able to change what the AFL has put in place but we have a right to let them know how wrong this all seems.

Does someone out there in RWO land have the political / marketing speak to put together a petition/letter which we could all be a party to? Ask for answers to our questions, etc...

While all the discussions are within forums everything just keeps going around and around. While it is good to get the frustration out sometimes I want the AFL to answer me.

[Meg]

List changes and trade bait

I think the following is the twisted logic:

We (the AFL) have sat down with you (the Swans) and looked at all your contracts and so we know that you will need to pay $800,000 in COLA in 2015 and $600,000 in COLA in 2016, because it is already written into contracts that extend over that period.

We will therefore assist you to phase out COLA by providing those aggregate amounts for those two years.

However if we did not fund those amounts, we know (because we have seen the contracts) that you would have to pay this out anyway, and then it would come out of your salary cap.

So if you trade in a player/s for the cost of (say) $800,000 for next year or $600,000 for the following year, then it could be said that this was being paid for by COLA.

We can't have any PERCEPTION that COLA pays for players. We know that didn't happen with Tippett or Franklin, but Eddie says that it did, and because Eddie speaks very loudly, very often and very publicly (along with a few of his friendly club CEOs) now the public think that too.

So we have made up a new rule that we have just announced on the 4th day of trade week to make sure this can't happen. We know you are a very sensible and well managed club so we are sure you will cope and that you will understand that we mean well.

[liz]

I don't know where to start or what to say about this new rule, it is doing my head in!

Is it time all this anger and upset was put into trying to do something? We as supporters may not be able to change what the AFL has put in place but we have a right to let them know how wrong this all seems.

Does someone out there in RWO land have the political / marketing speak to put together a petition/letter which we could all be a party to? Ask for answers to our questions, etc...

While all the discussions are within forums everything just keeps going around and around. While it is good to get the frustration out sometimes I want the AFL to answer me.

You know the restriction must be nonsensical when all but the most obvious trolls and dunderheads on BF think it is unfair.

And the AFLPA have come out with a statement criticising the ruling. We just need a couple of the more rational, level headed club presidents to make similar comment and the AFL might just realise the error of its ways.

[Auntie.Gerald]

Ludwig this one is for you

The AFL is lost in a desert with a camel and the camel's name is EDDDIE and eddie has some teeth on him !!!

now-thats-a-photobomb-36062.jpg

[goswannies]

A lot has been post here in response to this ridiculous new AFL ruling. What I'd like to see is an email address for Gillon McLachlan, the AFL & the AFLPA and have everyone who posts a response on RWO to email cc that response to Gilly & the AFLPA (angry, suggestions, criticisms etc). If they are read, we will be heard ... otherwise they will be inundated & hopefully have their inboxes clogged into submission

[S.S. Bleeder]

This has to be the most absurd decisions the AFL, A.K.A. VFL, has ever made. They have abolished the COLA and placed certain requirements on the Swans COLA allowance over the phasing out period. The Swans are complying with this yet they want to impose this additional PENALTY on the Swans to make sure that they comply with it. If that is the case they need to impose this on ALL clubs incase they breach their salary caps. Exactly the same argument.

This makes no sense and is simply policy on the run that surpasses the huge "policy on the run" stuff ups of Rudd, Gillard and Bracks such as the home insulation scheme, the North South pipeline and The Building Education Revolution. I can only assume the McGuire, Newbold and Gordon have got into McLachlin's ear and called in the favour he still owes them for backing his promotion into the top job.

If your not aware, you can post your thoughts on; http://www.aflplayers.com.au/article/statement-from-the-afl-players-association-3/., and sign a petition on; http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/fairness-and-transparency-in-the-afl.html. Spread the word to all your friends and family.

[Meg]

I don't know where to start or what to say about this new rule, it is doing my head in!

Is it time all this anger and upset was put into trying to do something? We as supporters may not be able to change what the AFL has put in place but we have a right to let them know how wrong this all seems.

Does someone out there in RWO land have the political / marketing speak to put together a petition/letter which we could all be a party to? Ask for answers to our questions, etc...

While all the discussions are within forums everything just keeps going around and around. While it is good to get the frustration out sometimes I want the AFL to answer me.

I'm with you on this. I'm still quite emotional about the appalling behaviour of so many Hawthorn fans at the GF, much of it fuelled by the perception that the Swans cheated on COLA to get Franklin. The AFL did nothing all year (or in 2013 when we recruited Tippett) to correct that lie.

And here we are faced with another two years of this abuse. And then it will start all over again when the accommodation assistance is introduced.

It's time the AFL heard our side of the story.

[Dan]

This is @@@@@@! Say before this trade period Malceski was 350k, Goodes (500k) retired and (hypothetically) Reid or Mitchell said they want to leave (400k), would this rule still of occured? Adding in the contracts of ROK and LRT that would be pushing 1.5million of free cap space! And we wouldn't be allowed to bring in anybody at all, big name or not.


Another hypothetical is Richards retires next year. We wouldn't be able to trade in a young, inexperienced fringe KPD from another team to bolster our stocks even if he only was going to get paid 150-200k.

The AFL has screwed us over.

[Cardinal]

Plenty of support on BF, it's not just my red and white goggles.

I'm starting to suspect that this bizzare retrospective rule change relates to a key free agent signing the Swans had planned for next year. Can only speculate as to whom but the AFL must have got wind of it. It's my rumour and I'm sticking to it.

[Meg]

I hope Kieran Jack, Jarrad McVeigh and Nick Smith pull out of the international rules match in protest. Or perhaps better still, play wearing a top over their official jumpers which have protest words printed on them.

[troyjones2525]

Absolute bull@@@@! This is the AFL treating us like Carlton from years past, who cheated and lost draft picks, like Adelaide who cheated with KT 's deal and like Essendon who cheated by taking dubious or banned substances. They were all penalised by losing draft picks and have hurt the clubs in the following seasons. The common theme here is that they all cheated and thus deserved to be punished in some way. So someone please tell me how our club has cheated the last couple of years thus now receiving a punishment by the AFL? Perhaps I must've missed something???

[ernie koala]

I think the following is the twisted logic:

We (the AFL) have sat down with you (the Swans) and looked at all your contracts and so we know that you will need to pay $800,000 in COLA in 2015 and $600,000 in COLA in 2016, because it is already written into contracts that extend over that period.

We will therefore assist you to phase out COLA by providing those aggregate amounts for those two years.

However if we did not fund those amounts, we know (because we have seen the contracts) that you would have to pay this out anyway, and then it would come out of your salary cap.

So if you trade in a player/s for the cost of (say) $800,000 for next year or $600,000 for the following year, then it could be said that this was being paid for by COLA.

We can't have any PERCEPTION that COLA pays for players. We know that didn't happen with Tippett or Franklin, but Eddie says that it did, and because Eddie speaks very loudly, very often and very publicly (along with a few of his friendly club CEOs) now the public think that too.

So we have made up a new rule that we have just announced on the 4th day of trade week to make sure this can't happen. We know you are a very sensible and well managed club so we are sure you will cope and that you will understand that we mean well.

You're spot on Meg.

The AFL are restricting the Swans ability to trade because of a perception of rorting...

A perception which has been created, and maintained in a large part, by McGuire and a few other self interested presidents.

If the AFL had spoken out against these false allegations, when they first surfaced, then this false perception wouldn't of gained legs ,

and these restrictions of trade wouldn't of been seen as necessary.

So in summary, because of the AFL's inability to ensure that the actual facts are presented to the public, they now feel the need to publicly punish the Swans,

there by perpetuating the myth that the Swans somehow cheated the system and need to be pulled into line...

This, in their minds, leaves the AFL looking like a strong and fair governor.

I only hope this creates an 'us against the rest', fiercely protective, mentality in our footy team.

[Meg]

List changes and trade bait

Below is the players association statement. Ted Richards is a board member of the AFLPA so I hope he takes an interest (although he is currently in Bali and then he is getting married and off to Tanzania according to his video interview). Perhaps one of you who does twitter could send something to him?

Please see below statement from AFL Players? Association CEO, Paul Marsh:

http://www.aflplayers.com.au/

"The AFL Players? Association is disappointed by the AFL?s directive, which will prevent the Sydney Swans from recruiting new players through a trade or free agency over the next two years.

In our view, the directive has an adverse impact on players, both at Sydney and elsewhere. It will prevent players from going to Sydney through a trade or free agency, and will also make it more difficult for players at Sydney to leave the club through a trade.

We believe this directive is a reaction to concerns around COLA, and rather than addressing the core issue, an introduction of this new restriction is simply unfair to the club and players.

The central tenet of free agency is that it enables eligible players to go to a club of their choice, however from next year, those players will not be able to go to Sydney in the next two years. This is fundamentally wrong and unfair on those players who have earned the right to choose where they play.

The Players? Association will continue to discuss this matter with the AFL and other stakeholders in the coming days."

[storeymjs]

I was outraged when I heard this news but I have calmed myself down and approached this logically. In no way am I sticking up for the AFL and there can be no doubting that I love my Swans but I think this is where the AFL are coming from.

Currently, the COLA is being phased out over 3 years and it will no longer exist in its current form by 2017. Therefore it is the AFL's belief that if we are able to sign another Free Agent or player via a trade we must therefore be able to pay our players contracts including those which still include COLA. Of which there aren't many.

Now this may not seem fair or right but this is what I think is the AFL's argument.

[Meg]

I was outraged when I heard this news but I have calmed myself down and approached this logically. In no way am I sticking up for the AFL and there can be no doubting that I love my Swans but I think this is where the AFL are coming from.

Currently, the COLA is being phased out over 3 years and it will no longer exist in its current form by 2017. Therefore it is the AFL's belief that if we are able to sign another Free Agent or player via a trade we must therefore be able to pay our players contracts including those which still include COLA. Of which there aren't many.

Now this may not seem fair or right but this is what I think is the AFL's argument.

Except that, as others above have said, that argument has no validity whatsoever if (for example) the Swans wanted to trade in a player to replace Malceski who was a player they wanted to keep and had planned for in their salary projections.