AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

[Mel_C]

If the AFL had any legitimate reason for the ban then surely they would have released it by know after all the attacks from the swans and the media.

The thing is that the AFL shot themselves in the foot by using COLA as the excuse for the ban but not enforcing it on GWS as well. Now of course if they did that it wouldn't have allowed GWS to keep recruiting players would it??

I can't see the AFL backing down, and if they do then surely heads will roll...(hopefully!!). But then again they will not want this going to court and have the TRUTH revealed.

[Ludwig]

Hold on. I hear that a deal is in the works.

The AFL will lift the trade ban if we hire James Hird as our player-welfare manager.

[Dosser]

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

Interestingly, Pridham has mentioned that a number of times he had been told by commissioners that the ban wasnt about the COLA. This would strongly suggest that it was not a unanimous decision at the VFL and that one or more (Ball?) had been expressing this to Pridham.

On another interesting development, now that Hird is no longer at Essendon, he is probably free to vent everything he has been unable to say up until now. This could mean that the VFL may have a damaging war on two fronts now!

[Mug Punter]

Interestingly, Pridham has mentioned that a number of times he had been told by commissioners that the ban wasnt about the COLA. This would strongly suggest that it was not a unanimous decision at the VFL and that one or more (Ball?) had been expressing this to Pridham.

On another interesting development, now that Hird is no longer at Essendon, he is probably free to vent everything he has been unable to say up until now. This could mean that the VFL may have a damaging war on two fronts now!

Can imagine Mr Hird will be dropping a few bombshells over the next few weeks....

[The Big Cat]

Interestingly, Pridham has mentioned that a number of times he had been told by commissioners that the ban wasnt about the COLA. This would strongly suggest that it was not a unanimous decision at the VFL and that one or more (Ball?) had been expressing this to Pridham.

Caro mentioned last night that the AFL's own legal officer, plus their contract guru (Ken Wood) both were strong to the Commission in their opposition to the ban.

Patrick Smith annoyed me on SEN this morning claiming that the extra money in COLA was used to recruit Franklin. (Apparently Luke Darcy argued something similar on Talking Footy, but then again he's on Triple M with Eddie). Kevin Bartlett argued strongly against the ban reiterating that Sydney had done nothing wrong. Why do some of these commentators not look at the evidence provided by Andrew Ireland that the Swans cleared $1.2 million in salaries before they signed Franklin?

[GoRhino]

Caro mentioned last night that the AFL's own legal officer, plus their contract guru (Ken Wood) both were strong to the Commission in their opposition to the ban.

Patrick Smith annoyed me on SEN this morning claiming that the extra money in COLA was used to recruit Franklin. (Apparently Luke Darcy argued something similar on Talking Footy, but then again he's on Triple M with Eddie). Kevin Bartlett argued strongly against the ban reiterating that Sydney had done nothing wrong. Why do some of these commentators not look at the evidence provided by Andrew Ireland that the Swans cleared $1.2 million in salaries before they signed Franklin?

Luke Darcy argued that the Swans had stockpiled Cola payments to recruit Franklin & Tippett.

[mcs]

Luke Darcy argued that the Swans had stockpiled Cola payments to recruit Franklin & Tippett.

This part of the argument frustrates me so much, as the AFL could come out and kill this story dead - by outlining that we have not broken any rules about how we've used COLA, and that we didn't stockpile it.

A real issue people struggle to understand is that, yes we won the flag in 2012, but no, our list wasn't jammed full of stars (cough cough like Hawthorn cough cough) at the time. An objective look at the 2012 list would suggest that there was more than enough room to fit tippett into it - and in time Buddy, given the contract structures used.

Now if we have broken the rules and the AFL is staying silent (the accusation made by many), that's another story all together....

[707]

Can imagine Mr Hird will be dropping a few bombshells over the next few weeks....

No he won't be.

In the past Hird has threatened to expose a heap of people but you can bet his nice fat payout from Essendon will have a "keep yer mouth shut" clause.

[Nico]

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.

I hope we throw in the fact that the Academy issue is but one chapter of the book they threw at us.

[Ludwig]

One thing I could never understand is why the Swans have not made public one player contract with the name of the player redacted, so that all the world can see exactly how the COLA provision is stated in the contract. That would end once an for all the speculation on how the COLA was used and allocated.

I know that Jenny Thompson of the Swans is an RWO member and reads this forum and AnnieH seems to have a legal background, so perhaps they can address this issue.

It's quite astounding that high profile media personalities are still saying that we misused the COLA to get Tippett and Franklin.

[Nico]

Luke Darcy argued that the Swans had stockpiled Cola payments to recruit Franklin & Tippett.

AFL stooge.

[jono2707]

AFL stooge.

Yes but plenty of people listen to AFL stooges. The tide of public opinion turned against the Swans post 2012 when we landed Tippett and then Buddy. This lowering of the general footy public's perception of the Swans, combined with the character assassination performed on Goodes, is certainly very much a large part of the reason why the whole shameful booing fiasco became as big as it did.

[Mug Punter]

One thing I could never understand is why the Swans have not made public one player contract with the name of the player redacted, so that all the world can see exactly how the COLA provision is stated in the contract. That would end once an for all the speculation on how the COLA was used and allocated.

I know that Jenny Thompson of the Swans is an RWO member and reads this forum and AnnieH seems to have a legal background, so perhaps they can address this issue.

It's quite astounding that high profile media personalities are still saying that we misused the COLA to get Tippett and Franklin.

What would that achieve?

I'm not being argumentative here but so what if the players contracts have COLA as a separate item. The club would be idiots not to structure it like that because they would be aware this was a discretionary item that could be taken away.

Clearly we couldn't stockpile COLA and use that directly to pay Buddy but the reality remains is that we had an additional $1M to pay to players if you accept COLA was part of the salary package.

Yes, some of it was justified due to the additional cost of living in Sydney but I think that argument wears thin on blokes on $400 - 500,000 per year plus you could argue that the off field opportunities for players in Sydney are now as strong or if not stronger than other states.

Most players would have simply looked at their total package (COLA included) when signing so the other clubs have a point that by being able to pay other players a low base that it freed up extra base salary to attract Buddy and Tippett. It's simple arithmetic and quite frankly an insult to people's intelligence to say it didn't.

I think the rental assistance package is more than a fair solution to this issue and I think that by continually playing the victim re losing COLA we are simply giving our critics ammunition they do not need re this.

As I have said before I don't think the phasing out of COLA and introduction of the Academy System is a co-incidence - we are now able to build a local based list where the go home factor a living away from home factor won't be such an issue.

[stevoswan]

Yes but plenty of people listen to AFL stooges. The tide of public opinion turned against the Swans post 2012 when we landed Tippett and then Buddy. This lowering of the general footy public's perception of the Swans, combined with the character assassination performed on Goodes, is certainly very much a large part of the reason why the whole shameful booing fiasco became as big as it did.

Spot on. We've all of a sudden become an easy target to hate/vent on, and Goodesy got well and truly caught up in it, and it snowballed out of control. With the recent tide turning on that one, let's hope a successful legal challenge on the trade ban, or a pre-court AFL backdown on it( perfect scenario!) sees a karma laden return to the popularity and respect our great club deserves and once had.....but I fear the above mentioned media bufoons will do their darnedest to continue to twist facts or plain lie to perpetuate the 'great untruths' into the future. As long as the playing field is truly level(@@@@@@ you Eddie!), and we're winning GF's again, I couldn't care what they say or do.

[Mug Punter]

Spot on. We've all of a sudden become an easy target to hate/vent on, and Goodesy got well and truly caught up in it, and it snowballed out of control. With the recent tide turning on that one, let's hope a successful legal challenge on the trade ban, or a pre-court AFL backdown on it( perfect scenario!) sees a karma laden return to the popularity and respect our great club deserves and once had.....but I fear the above mentioned media bufoons will do their darnedest to continue to twist facts or plain lie to perpetuate the 'great untruths' into the future. As long as the playing field is truly level(@@@@@@ you Eddie!), and we're winning GF's again, I couldn't care what they say or do.

The ironic thing is that in a couple of years with the TV deal Buddy's contract will simply a run of the mill contract for a top line player. He certainly won't be anywhere near the highest paid player in the comp. The Swans took a calculated gamble on the new TV deal and it looks to have paid off. Will we still have to take that Bondi Billionaire rubbish from all and sundry including that bonehead Brown

So all the hysteria was really OTT and it was highly personal by idiots like Eddie in a way that actually harmed the game.