AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

[Mug Punter]

Caroline Wilson has a new article in The Age. Mike Fitzpatrick, Bill Keelty, Chris Langford all voted for the ban. Langford was at the 'Chairmans Room' during Pridham's speech on Friday night and the Swans are going to the Commission again to have the ban removed.

So Langford, who is an all time Hawthorn legend and the father of one of its players, gets to vote on an issue that provides a massive disadvantage to one of his son's teams direct competitors.

This is such an indecent conflict of interest. In any corporate environment with any form of corporate governance Langford would have had to declare a conflict of interest (actual of perceived) and remove himself from the matter being discussed and voted upon. But no Langers gets to vote on and probably lobby on behalf of such an issue.

How can this not get more coverage in Melbourne (or here for that matter)? It is an absolute disgrace and shows that the AFL is just a Melbourne Old Boys Club.

For this matter alone the AFL needs to take this to the Courts

[stevoswan]

So Langford, who is an all time Hawthorn legend and the father of one of its players, gets to vote on an issue that provides a massive disadvantage to one of his son's teams direct competitors.

This is such an indecent conflict of interest. In any corporate environment with any form of corporate governance Langford would have had to declare a conflict of interest (actual of perceived) and remove himself from the matter being discussed and voted upon. But no Langers gets to vote on and probably lobby on behalf of such an issue.

How can this not get more coverage in Melbourne (or here for that matter)? It is an absolute disgrace and shows that the AFL is just a Melbourne Old Boys Club.

For this matter alone the AFL needs to take this to the Courts

So obvious to everyone whose actually impartial that it's a stitch-up.....and to boot, Fitzpatrick insists on and succeeds in having Langford stay on in his tenure on the commission, when Langford was ready to move on. Keeps his mates close, the pr**k. This league is a joke, but gets away with it due to a sad lack of impartiality in the 'heartland'.......

[Mug Punter]

So obvious to everyone whose actually impartial that it's a stitch-up.....and to boot, Fitzpatrick insists on and succeeds in having Langford stay on in his tenure on the commission, when Langford was ready to move on. Keeps his mates close, the pr**k. This league is a joke, but gets away with it due to a sad lack of impartiality in the 'heartland'.......

I'd love to see this go to Court just to see them squirm under oath about what happened

[stevoswan]

I'd love to see this go to Court just to see them squirm under oath about what happened

I sincerely hope, as others on here have expressed, that it doesn't get to court.......with the a**holes in question seeking to avoid the inevitable legal 'squirming' and backing down before it gets that far. Then we will have the 'level playing field' Eddie bangs on about, only not what he and his Melbourne mates ever imagined playing out in this way.....we can only hope. One day the concept of a 'truly national' competition may finally hit home to these Melbourne Boys Club idiots/throwbacks.....

[CureTheSane]

@@@@ing finally.....
There is some hope for the Swans to get back some dignity.

As to the COLA comments here.
Well damn, I'm glad it's gone now as well.
If passionate Swans fans can't understand and justify it, there was always little hope that it would have continued much longer....

[Ampersand]

But if, in round numbers our cap was $11m vs their $10m to include COLA. We still have an extra $1m to throw at one player, or our whole list (even if it is administered across our list). We are able to manage our list to create salary space, where Richmond cannot. I get your example of the unrestricted free agent, but we are still able to present a better offer to that player than Richmond can.

I dont see what is achieved by saying it goes to the whole list vs one or two players and why that would make a tangible difference to whether it is justified or not.

Argh! There is no "extra $1 million" to throw at one player. This is a misunderstanding of how COLA works. When it comes to attracting an RFA from another club it's a level playing field. If Hawthorn wanted to keep Buddy, for example, they only needed to match our pre-COLA offer to him. They chose not to but COLA offered us no financial advantage whatsoever over Hawthorn in terms of the recruitment process.

There may be a case to be made that we have an advantage in attracting Unrestricted Free Agents but rightly so given they are generally unwanted by their clubs and/or earning in the bottom 75% of player salaries and the high cost of living in Sydney (which is absolutely a real thing that doesn't just apply to housing) would be a factor in their decision to relocate to our club over somewhere less expensive.

The club's position on this is completely correct - COLA had, and still has, a legitimate justification. We'll see how laissez-faire people are about its abolishment once we're back in the bottom 4 for a few seasons in a row.

[AnnieH]

It is more expensive to live in Sydney.
Just ask Eddie Everywhere.
Although, if you are getting paid $600,000 a year, go to buggery... pay your own rent.

The only thing this has to do with COLA is, it's the excuse given by the commission for our trading bans.

Going back to the AFL commission and asking them to lift the ban voluntarily is akin to banging your head against a brick wall. It's going to hurt.
The only way to get them to allow us to trade fairly and squarely is to take the decision out of the hands of the commission and into the hands of the law.

[aardvark]

Although, if you are getting paid $600,000 a year, go to buggery... pay your own rent.

Completely irrelevant but there is a Mount Buggery in Victoria and I hear the rentals are quite cheap! It would be a long haul to get to training though.....

[Mug Punter]

It is more expensive to live in Sydney.
Just ask Eddie Everywhere.
Although, if you are getting paid $600,000 a year, go to buggery... pay your own rent.

The only thing this has to do with COLA is, it's the excuse given by the commission for our trading bans.

Going back to the AFL commission and asking them to lift the ban voluntarily is akin to banging your head against a brick wall. It's going to hurt.
The only way to get them to allow us to trade fairly and squarely is to take the decision out of the hands of the commission and into the hands of the law.

Couldn't agree more

We've been hurt enough by this and enough is enough.

I would hope we have made legal representations that set this on a fairly short fuse to allow this to be resolved through the courts well before the trade period (and perhaps finals) starts

[707]

Article in The Age today adding a little more insight into Friday night's ambush. Only read it at the coffee shop so someone may be able to confirm what it accurately said but it quotes Pridham as saying in hindsight we probably shouldn't have accepted the ban in the first place. It looks like we are giving the AFL a little time to belatedly do the right thing otherwise are we off to court?

Goes on to say there are people wanting to do the case for us pro bono. Reckon there would be some silks chaffing at the bit to get the AFL heavies into court under oath as there is certainly no paper trail to defend what they are saying and have done. Great for us too that Jason Ball is on the inside of this steaming pile of corrupt poo known as the VFL.

[AnnieH]

Article in The Age today adding a little more insight into Friday night's ambush. Only read it at the coffee shop so someone may be able to confirm what it accurately said but it quotes Pridham as saying in hindsight we probably shouldn't have accepted the ban in the first place. It looks like we are giving the AFL a little time to belatedly do the right thing otherwise are we off to court?

Goes on to say there are people wanting to do the case for us pro bono. Reckon there would be some silks chaffing at the bit to get the AFL heavies into court under oath as there is certainly no paper trail to defend what they are saying and have done. Great for us too that Jason Ball is on the inside of this steaming pile of corrupt poo known as the VFL.

Doesn't anyone listen to me on this board.

I told you all back in February that there are QCs willing to go pro bono for us.
I also told Pridham back in February that we should have come out fighting from day one.

Andrew.... acting like this has just come out now.
Oh dear.

[707]

Our acceptance of the ban seemed strange to me. I wonder if we didn't intend to do much it trade period last year and also that we didn't want to provoke the VFL into changing the academy rules for last year (so we got Heeney cheap) and for the future so we could still secure Mills this year.

But now the academy rules are fairly set in stone (ha ha) and we do need to be active traders this years, then we've taken the gloves off. Almost certainly we have been working behind the scenes on the VFL (which is how head office like to work) on dropping the ban for this year but, when they wouldn't budge, we've gone to Plan B, the Colless bombshell, the Pridham ambush, the veiled threat of court action.

I'm watching to see what happens next, surely the VFL wouldn't want court action during the finals series to add to all their current woes when at the end of the day it's just the vindictiveness of Fitzpatrick.

[dimelb]

I don't think it's just Fitzpatrick. Others voted with him who should have known better.

[aardvark]

I would have thought the natural reaction from the AFL to any challenge would be to say we'll drop the trade ban and you lose the last 600k? of cola now. I'm not so sure we could challenge that.

[Mug Punter]

I would have thought the natural reaction from the AFL to any challenge would be to say we'll drop the trade ban and you lose the last 600k? of cola now. I'm not so sure we could challenge that.

I imagine they'll be weighing up the possible legal ramifications if the AFL attempt to pull that stunt