AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

[barry]

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.

The last two TV rights have been high because of Sydney Swans and Brisbane Lions great era's, but I think a large part of this deal (66% increase) is based on where the Giants and Suns are tracking.

[Mug Punter]

The last two TV rights have been high because of Sydney Swans and Brisbane Lions great era's, but I think a large part of this deal (66% increase) is based on where the Giants and Suns are tracking.

This was all part of the master plan from the AFL.

Personally not convinced it is GWS anmd the Suns per se increasing the value of the other rights. The NRLs rights went up without any new markets or extra games, I think the main driver is the fact that Free to Air TV is in a fight to the death with new nedia and that Live mainstream sport is one of their few points of difference due to the anti-siphoning laws

It's a purely hypothetical argument I know but I believe of you strip $417M per season back to 8 games a week not 9 ($370M) and then take away the dead money the AFL spends to prop up GWS and the Suns (let's say $20M which is very very conservative I'd say) then you have to ask would the AFL have achieved a $2.1 B deal out of a 16 team comp with a better standard product on the field?

I suspect that answer is Yes

[bloodspirit]

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.

It's nowhere near that simple. In the first place the costs of preparing the paperwork will far exceed the filing fees. Despite people talking about lawyers offering to do some work pro bono, there are lawyers and there are lawyers and there is pro bono and pro bono (free or reduced fees) and there is "some work" and there is some work. Not too sure there will be many SCs willing to devote significant time to drafting a statement of claim, evidence etc for absolutely nothing. It's not like the Swans are feeding the starving children.

More to the point, taking legal action against the AFL is a drastic action that would not be done lightly at all - especially if there is any potential for it to destabilise the legitimacy of the whole competition (I've heard many suggest that the whole ND system is an unlawful restraint of trade although I don't know if it is true). Even the threat of taking legal action is a drastic step. However, it's hard to see how we can get a different result without doing it given that the matter has been considered and dealt with. Now the AFL won't want to back down because nothing has changed except our minds. It is unfortunate we acceded to their decision previously.

Incidentally, what is the situation with ownership of the club? Who owns the Swans? I don't think it's us members. Is it the AFL? It's not Geoffrey Edelstein any more. Does anybody know?

[AnnieH]

It is that simple.
If a QC has offered to do the job gratis, take up that offer.
We don't need a lawyer if we are briefing the barrister directly.
Drastic measures are called for.
Agreed, acceding to their decision in the first place was very silly on their part, but they were told by many that they shouldn't just sit there and take it... they should have fought from day one (especially considering that GWS were not being restricted from trading as well).

[Mug Punter]

It's nowhere near that simple. In the first place the costs of preparing the paperwork will far exceed the filing fees. Despite people talking about lawyers offering to do some work pro bono, there are lawyers and there are lawyers and there is pro bono and pro bono (free or reduced fees) and there is "some work" and there is some work. Not too sure there will be many SCs willing to devote significant time to drafting a statement of claim, evidence etc for absolutely nothing. It's not like the Swans are feeding the starving children.

More to the point, taking legal action against the AFL is a drastic action that would not be done lightly at all - especially if there is any potential for it to destabilise the legitimacy of the whole competition (I've heard many suggest that the whole ND system is an unlawful restraint of trade although I don't know if it is true). Even the threat of taking legal action is a drastic step. However, it's hard to see how we can get a different result without doing it given that the matter has been considered and dealt with. Now the AFL won't want to back down because nothing has changed except our minds. It is unfortunate we acceded to their decision previously.

Incidentally, what is the situation with ownership of the club? Who owns the Swans? I don't think it's us members. Is it the AFL? It's not Geoffrey Edelstein any more. Does anybody know?

My understanding is that the club is member based but we have limited voting rights, in many ways we are as much an old boys club as the AFL. It's something I've posted about befopre and the apathy re this issue really shocked me, I think we are happy with the status quo and lack of real input into the club as long as it is well run which I think we pretty muich agree it is.

I agree with AnnieH, this is an open an close case we need to take to court. It's not like we do this on a regular basis but this is such a restraint of how we do business I just cannot see us having any other choice.

It is a punitive sanction with absolutely no basis and it must be challenged

[Ajax]

It is that simple.
If a QC has offered to do the job gratis, take up that offer.
We don't need a lawyer if we are briefing the barrister directly.
Drastic measures are called for.
Agreed, acceding to their decision in the first place was very silly on their part, but they were told by many that they shouldn't just sit there and take it... they should have fought from day one (especially considering that GWS were not being restricted from trading as well).

I agree. I'm sure there are some QCs who are also passionate Swans Supporters. I also agree that they should have pushed back right from the start.

[Industrial Fan]

In response to Ampersand...

Again, I'm not talking about whether it is justified. And the example of the restricted free agent we agree on. Any bids for free agents are based on the preCOLA offer.

But in principle we still have a bigger salary cap. Looking at it from the other way if another club wants to agree to terms with one of our players that is earning $440k per year, that player is going to see an offer of $400k as a 10% paycut, even though it is technically matching the offer. So if the other club offer $440k and we offer $440k incl COLA we effectively bank $40k to go to another player.

So I see that division as largely semantics that comes up often in defence of the system.

[liz]

In response to Ampersand...

Again, I'm not talking about whether it is justified. And the example of the restricted free agent we agree on. Any bids for free agents are based on the preCOLA offer.

But in principle we still have a bigger salary cap. Looking at it from the other way if another club wants to agree to terms with one of our players that is earning $440k per year, that player is going to see an offer of $400k as a 10% paycut, even though it is technically matching the offer. So if the other club offer $440k and we offer $440k incl COLA we effectively bank $40k to go to another player.

So I see that division as largely semantics that comes up often in defence of the system.

But the justification behind COLA- and remember, it stands for cost of living allowance - is that if we offer the same amount to a player as a club based in a different state and all other things are equal (eg perceived playing opportunities) most players will choose the club in the other state because financially they will be better off once basic living costs are taken care of. Of course, all other things are rarely exactly equal so it is hard to prove in individual cases. But for more than a decade, the competition was in agreement that the Swans, on average, needed to be able to offer each player a little more to assemble a list of equivalent ability.

I have no issue with suggestions that the structure of the COLA was a blunt instrument. As wages increase, the proportion of one's income that is taken up with basic living costs decreases. So a flat 10% allowance was a crude way to achieve the end goal. 10% was probably insufficient at the bottom end of the wage scale to account for the different in costs, while clearly it would be much less than 10% for a Buddy or Tippett. The new rental allowance is more targeted and I have no issue with the phasing out of the COLA and replacement with this allowance. But suggestions we could (and did) just stockpile the entire COLA allowance to recruit one or more additional marquee players is nonsensical.

[Ludwig]

Eddie McGuire made a statement on SEN (http://www.sen.com.au/audio) that I didn't understand. It was in relation to the trade ban, which he seems to back. He said he hoped the AFL and the Swans could work things out because ".............we're sick of the Swans taking us to court."

Does anyone know what he's talking about?

[bloodspirit]

Eddie McGuire made a statement on SEN (http://www.sen.com.au/audio) that I didn't understand. It was in relation to the trade ban, which he seems to back. He said he hoped the AFL and the Swans could work things out because ".............we're sick of the Swans taking us to court."

Does anyone know what he's talking about?

Just listened. He is incoherent. And unbelievable - for instance when he says "I HAD NO IDEA ABOUT THE BAN ON TRADING"!!! (At about 11.15 on the audio file in the link.) Come again! He is on record as saying (for instance with Mike Sheahan on Open Mike) that he closely follows the news - and the trading ban has certainly come up many times in the news over the past year. Quite apart from the fact that he is a major football identity and has a very fair idea of what is going on anyway. He is not only a twit but he is, in my opinion, being dishonest here.

The reference to Swans "taking us to court" is to when we went to the Supreme Court to get an injunction against the AFL effectively allowing Andrew Dunkley to play in the 1996 Grand Final.

[Bloods05]

No. Least of all Eddie himself.

[Bloodthirsty]

Eddie McGuire made a statement on SEN (http://www.sen.com.au/audio) that I didn't understand. It was in relation to the trade ban, which he seems to back. He said he hoped the AFL and the Swans could work things out because ".............we're sick of the Swans taking us to court."

Does anyone know what he's talking about?

Eddie now just blatantly saying that he is the AFL?

[Ludwig]

The reference to Swans "taking us to court" is to when we went to the Supreme Court to get an injunction against the AFL effectively allowing Andrew Dunkley to play in the 1996 Grand Final.

1996. And he wants everyone to forget the King Kong remarks. What a dill.

[Bloodthirsty]

One commenter referred to the AFL as the "plaything of the Melbourne elite". I can't see it ever being anything but this, and therefore my interest is waning in the sport. If you have to go to the Supreme court before enjoying something, then that ain't my definition of fun. If anyone can shed some light regarding approximately when the competition will stop being the plaything of the Melbourne 'elite', please let me know ASAP.

[Bexl]

Eddie McGuire made a statement on SEN (http://www.sen.com.au/audio) that I didn't understand. It was in relation to the trade ban, which he seems to back. He said he hoped the AFL and the Swans could work things out because ".............we're sick of the Swans taking us to court."

Does anyone know what he's talking about?

I had a listen and first he is a straight out liar, he didn't know about the ban he said then he went about saying the afl's reason for it like he wrote it.
Second he is totally full of @@@@.