AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

[dimelb]

Mods, it has already been suggested and nothing's changed. Can we please put all this in a new thread, perhaps titled AFL Moves Goalposts on Swans?

- - - Updated - - -

As someone above said, the key legal issue is: what is the status of the existing contract re COLA? Is the club in a position to sue for breach of contract?

[Matt80]

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.

Maybe David Koch. He often makes comment on Sunrise. I've been blowing his trumpet for a long time. Now he needs to not make me a fool but an astute judge of character.

[S.S. Bleeder]

.....

[Ajax]

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.

Very succinct Meg. Someone else on this thread has suggested putting some sort of campaign together to fight this unbelievably dumb call by the AFL and I totally agree with that too. Swans fans need to work out a way of putting real pressure on the AFL for what is an appallingly knee-jerk, spineless decision driven by powerful and self-centred entities such as Eddie. It's good to vent on this forum but the AFL won't take any notice unless there's a much bigger and obvious grumbling from the ranks.

[S.S. Bleeder]

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Thats my theory too but I was thinking this year. Why else would they impose it so quickly just before/during the trade period.

[desredandwhite]

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.

Meg, that is so spot on that it sent shivers down my spine when I read it. chills.

[S.S. Bleeder]

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.

So you're saying that they're doing it for our benefit so that we don't mismanage and overspend? That's crazy thinking. If that's the case they should impose this on all clubs in case they exceed their salary caps. If anyone should be getting this imposed on them its, Melbourne, Carlton, Adelaide, Essendon, etc

[Mug Punter]

As absurd and as wrong as this directive is I actually think there is an upside.

Fair-minded football fans, and there are actually more of them than the idiots who make the most noise, can now see the bare faced bullying of our club and the pandering to the Melbourne "elite".

The best thing is for us to act with dignity in this instance, keep our powder dry and keep the moral high ground.

From a football perspective a year of talent banking from the Draft and saving some cash to re-sign players like Lloyd, Rampe et al to front loaded deals in 2015 may be a blessing in disguise.

However, I now feel the following are non-negotiable

(1) If the Academy System and any reasonable benefits from it are attacked I expect our club to bring down the Draft. We know it is an illegal restraint of trade that the Boys' Club of the AFL keep to ensure the existence of commercially unviable clubs like the Western Bulldogs, St Kilda, Melbourne and North Melbourne. If they want to play hard ball then bring it on. I expect us to be able to withdraw from the first three rounds of the draft in return for three Academy concessions and no less.

(2) If this stunt is repeated I expect a full legal challenge under the law of equity

The next few days will be interesting - I think it is time for people like Gerard Healy to get off the fence and start defending their club

[annew]

How come we get punished for not breaking any rules and for being too successful and yet Hawthorn can: recruit as many as they like, be lauded for being so successful and well run, get McEvoy to play in the VFL final although not eligible to prepare for AFL, effectively throw the VFL GF cos Rioli can only play certain amount of time and is on bench along with injured players, get extra 4 games at MCG to compensate games in Tas while swans get to play their finals at the paddock at Homebush which is partially owned by an AFL Commissioner. So much for equalisation .

[Faunac8]

I want to put out a sincere apology to the Red and White community. I defended Eddie on several occasions this year because I thought that the AFL was a professional organisation that would not pander to Eddies demands. I feel let down by the AFL today. I'm now in line with you all in your criticism of Eddie and the AFL establishment.

I apologise again and I'm now with you all.

Oh the innocence of youth . McWhiner is an expert manipulator and has been since his time as a cadet journalist when he was reknown for scamming drink cards from the Tunnel and other salubrious King St establishments in return for dropping their names wherever he could.
In years to come his true story will become known in the public domain.
Only wish that Plugger had hit him properly with his crutches in 88 we may have been spared his petulant sneaky and self serving role in the political sewer that exists in the upper echelons of the AFL.

[liz]

The perception that the Swans were somehow abusing the COLA seemed to stem from the fact that we could recruit a marquee player (Tippett) immediately after winning a premiership. This ignored the fact that most of the football world didn't think our list was good enough to win a premiership, until we actually did so. Most rated the Hawks' list as far superior to ours. So the fact we were well under the salary cap (regardless of COLA) shouldn't have been too hard to fathom.

But if anyone was dubious, can they not now see that the Hawks who, despite losing Franklin, are still perceived to have the best list on paper and whose on-field performances have been head and shoulders above any other club for the past three seasons (taking that period as a whole) have sufficient room in their cap to go out and recruit a marquee player. So the claim that the Swans could do so in 2012 ONLY due to an abuse of COLA has surely been proven to be disingenuous and mendacious.

[Cardinal]

- - - Updated - - -



Thats my theory too but I was thinking this year. Why else would they impose it so quickly just before/during the trade period.

Not sure who it could have been this year - not too many desirable free agents around I would have thought ?

[liz]

Not sure who it could have been this year - not too many desirable free agents around I would have thought ?

Other than NicMal

[mcs]

The perception that the Swans were somehow abusing the COLA seemed to stem from the fact that we could recruit a marquee player (Tippett) immediately after winning a premiership. This ignored the fact that most of the football world didn't think our list was good enough to win a premiership, until we actually did so. Most rated the Hawks' list as far superior to ours. So the fact we were well under the salary cap (regardless of COLA) shouldn't have been too hard to fathom.

But if anyone was dubious, can they not now see that the Hawks who, despite losing Franklin, are still perceived to have the best list on paper and whose on-field performances have been head and shoulders above any other club for the past three seasons (taking that period as a whole) have sufficient room in their cap to go out and recruit a marquee player. So the claim that the Swans could do so in 2012 ONLY due to an abuse of COLA has surely been proven to be disingenuous and mendacious.

Absolutely spot on Liz.

we all know that if we didnt win the flag in 2012, there would never have been a peep out of the vfl wannabes.

[storeymjs]

So you're saying that they're doing it for our benefit so that we don't mismanage and overspend? That's crazy thinking. If that's the case they should impose this on all clubs in case they exceed their salary caps. If anyone should be getting this imposed on them its, Melbourne, Carlton, Adelaide, Essendon, etc

Just so we are clear I am not for a second suggesting that the AFL is right in any way but I just wanted to establish the theory behind why they would impose this ban.

I'm saying that they're doing it because they are annoyed that we signed Buddy and their love child GWS didn't. But they aren't going to say that are they so I was thinking about what they would or could say!!