AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

[Ajax]

It will be interesting to see how the AFL reconciles the trade ban and the multi-million dollar Murdoch-funded push into NSW and QLD - after all, you can't have it both ways - you can't throw money at the Northern Clubs in an attempt to buy TV coverage and at the same time cut them off at the knees:
"News Corp chief executive Robert Thomson also sent a warning to the NRL by declaring the company would do everything it could to help AFL's expansion into league's heartland.

'We will ensure that more people see more games of football and its reach is extended, particularly in NSW and Queensland, where there is obviously a growth opportunity and there is a growth opportunity because this is just a wonderful game, Thomson said.

Read more: AFL broadcast deal: record $2.5 billion agreement between News Corp, Seven and Telstra
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook"

[Ludwig]

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.

I agree with the points about the COLA in general and have put forth similar arguments myself. But there are a few factors that I believe the releasing of a pro forma contract would clarify.

Our position has been that we were obliged by the AFL to pay the COLA and include it in every contract and that the COLA was paid by AFL. This would put an end to the facile statements of some commentators that the AFL handed over a wad of money to do what it liked, notwithstanding the fact that the contracts could be structured to be the same amount they would have received had the same player been in Melbourne. But there's no way of proving that one way or another.

The argument that we really paid most of our players the same as what they would have otherwise received elsewhere and stashed away the extra COLA money for a play on big players can be countered by 2 arguments:

1. We were probably paying close to 100% of our salary before we signed Franklin, so this could not be the case.
2. Players have managers who know that we had extra cash in the kitty due to the COLA and surely took this into consideration during salary negotiations. They would use the same arguments negotiating with the Swans that was used by the Swans to maintain a need for the COLA.

I also agree that the Buddy deal will look very average in due course. I think the salary cap could go up around 50% over the next 5 years. We should probably try to lock away a few players before the ALFPA negotiate a new deal.

[crackedactor]

Cheap bikkies

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.

Well said Mug punter, The Franklin punt was a good move and he will be truly a cheap player. particular after the enormous TV deal that was signed today. More money to the AFL, then players will want a slice of that pie!!

And how much more interest is there in the Sydney Market and the AFL game now that Franklin is there!!! The AFL did not think about that factor when they were signing the lucrative TV contract today??? They are very narrowed mind.

[The Big Cat]

If we were truly stockpiling COLA money why were we forced to lose Mummy and several others to make space in the cap for Buddy? And if we were doing something wrong why would the AFL allow it when they were totally browned off by the Franklin deal?

[annew]

And how much more interest is there in the Sydney Market and the AFL game now that Franklin is there!!! The AFL did not think about that factor when they were signing the lucrative TV contract today??? They are very narrowed mind.[/QUOTE]

Tweet from Tadhg Kenelly

@TadhgKennelly: $2.5billion TV rights deal @AFL That's what a National sport does for u. Would not have got that much without @sydneyswans or @brisbanelions

[Mug Punter]

I agree with the points about the COLA in general and have put forth similar arguments myself. But there are a few factors that I believe the releasing of a pro forma contract would clarify.

Our position has been that we were obliged by the AFL to pay the COLA and include it in every contract and that the COLA was paid by AFL. This would put an end to the facile statements of some commentators that the AFL handed over a wad of money to do what it liked, notwithstanding the fact that the contracts could be structured to be the same amount they would have received had the same player been in Melbourne. But there's no way of proving that one way or another.

The argument that we really paid most of our players the same as what they would have otherwise received elsewhere and stashed away the extra COLA money for a play on big players can be countered by 2 arguments:

1. We were probably paying close to 100% of our salary before we signed Franklin, so this could not be the case.
2. Players have managers who know that we had extra cash in the kitty due to the COLA and surely took this into consideration during salary negotiations. They would use the same arguments negotiating with the Swans that was used by the Swans to maintain a need for the COLA.

I also agree that the Buddy deal will look very average in due course. I think the salary cap could go up around 50% over the next 5 years. We should probably try to lock away a few players before the ALFPA negotiate a new deal.

I would imagine that all deals now will have an uplift factor built in. I imagine even Hanners deal had the new deal factored in but that will also look like good business in the years to come. New deal coincides with the end of Tippett's contract so provided he is prepared to accept first ruckman rather than star forward wages we should be able to accommodate him.

The reality is most players have one or two players on top coin and for all our blue collar talk the Swans have always followed the superstar model (Lockett, Hall and now Franklin were all on good coin). The only exception was the miracle of 2012, I challenge anyone to look at that outfit and pick a premiership team...

Regardless we now have a fair bit of talent tied up and 2017 will see players like McVeigh, Richards and perhaps even Jack retiring or coming down in pay so I could really see us having a bit of money to spend in 2017

- - - Updated - - -

And how much more interest is there in the Sydney Market and the AFL game now that Franklin is there!!! The AFL did not think about that factor when they were signing the lucrative TV contract today??? They are very narrowed mind.

Tweet from Tadhg Kenelly

@TadhgKennelly: $2.5billion TV rights deal @AFL That's what a National sport does for u. Would not have got that much without @sydneyswans or @brisbanelions[/QUOTE]

IMO signing Buddy was a masterstroke for the Swans, the exposure and excitement he has brought is amazing and his on field performances have been top shelf too

[CureTheSane]

Pretty simple.
Pridham goes on MMM and is interviewed by Darcy
I'm confident that Darcy would look damn foolish and be left floundering.

[Bloody Hell]

Well said Mug punter, The Franklin punt was a good move and he will be truly a cheap player. particular after the enormous TV deal that was signed today. More money to the AFL, then players will want a slice of that pie!!

And how much more interest is there in the Sydney Market and the AFL game now that Franklin is there!!! The AFL did not think about that factor when they were signing the lucrative TV contract today??? They are very narrowed mind.

I think Hawthorn are a better TEAM without him, and I personally think if you subtract Buddy and add Mumford, the Swans will be a better team.

Give me a Premiership over ratings.

[aardvark]

I think Hawthorn are a better TEAM without him, and I personally think if you subtract Buddy and add Mumford, the Swans will be a better team.Give me a Premiership over ratings.

I'd agree if Mummy could stay on the park. I don't think he'd win us anything ATM.

[barry]

Up to 10 players looking to exit essendon. This is not a trade period we want to miss!

Come to sydney jake carslille

[KTigers]

Tadgh is so right.... what would the TV deal be worth without a NSW & QLD (almost half the Australia's population) presence ? $1.5B.... maybe even less....
Why would Murdoch, Telstra & co pay a lot of money for half a national comp, because that the AFL is without the northern states. They are not fools.
And all these folks in Melbourne benefit from all that extra money. Aah, the irony of all that bleating from down south.

And how much more interest is there in the Sydney Market and the AFL game now that Franklin is there!!! The AFL did not think about that factor when they were signing the lucrative TV contract today??? They are very narrowed mind.

Tweet from Tadhg Kenelly

@TadhgKennelly: $2.5billion TV rights deal @AFL That's what a National sport does for u. Would not have got that much without @sydneyswans or @brisbanelions[/QUOTE]

[AnnieH]

That's all lovely, but we're still not allowed to trade a player worth more than $350,000.
When we got Tipoff and Buddy, we were well within our salary cap range (with or without COLA), as we only have a team of 38 (or something low like that).
The club MUST take them to Court. It needs to be dealt with before the season end.

[Mug Punter]

That's all lovely, but we're still not allowed to trade a player worth more than $350,000.
When we got Tipoff and Buddy, we were well within our salary cap range (with or without COLA), as we only have a team of 38 (or something low like that).
The club MUST take them to Court. It needs to be dealt with before the season end.

Could not agree more and I have a feeling that the club shares your view.

We must have our day in court if decency, fairness and commonsense do not prevail

[erica]

Doubt it will make it to court because the AFL knows it's indefensible. Just the act of taking legal action should be enough to get a backdown?

[AnnieH]

Doubt it will make it to court because the AFL knows it's indefensible. Just the act of taking legal action should be enough to get a backdown?

Exactly.
It'll cost the swans $1700 to put the paperwork before the Court.
Don't threaten to do it... just bloody well do it.
Once the AFL gets the paperwork and see that we are serious, they'll roll right over.
They have no legs to stand on.