AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

[AnnieH]

I am going to be un-swanslike here and can that part of me understands the trade ban at the time but it has no justification now.

I just think the AFL got spooked we'd sign Frawley, and there were some pretty heavy rumours out there that we would, and if we had then the uproar would have been pretty understandable.

Perhaps an increase of the salary level to $500,000 per year is a compromise to save face for the AFL - it avoids any chance of us suddenly signing a gun player but should be enough to allow us to trade in the quality of player we need in exchange for Jetta should he leave or any other player for that matter.

I think it makes sense to avoid legal action if possible but if they are inflexible on this we really have no choice.

You "understand" the ban at the time??
Please.
Explain it to all... the board, the football department, the players, the fans, the media... we'd ALL love to hear how you understand a sanction can be placed upon us for no reason whatsoever.
What if we want to buy a player worth $520,000? Under your scenario, we're unable to do so.

The club meet on Wednesday with the AFL commission. They (the commission) either lift the ban in full, or we go to court and sort it out there.
No more.
No less.

[barry]

Hawthorn should be banned for getting Frawley, especially if the AFL think they are trying to get Dangerfield.

Same logic.

- - - Updated - - -

From Tim Lane, an interesting history lesson with relevance to "the South Melbourne/Sydney Swans", along with a great Packer yarn:

How a local football competition became a national goldmine

I wish Tim would shut up about Tassie.

[Mr Magoo]

[QUOTE=barry;680388]Hawthorn should be banned for getting Frawley, especially if the AFL think they are trying to get Dangerfield.

Same logic.

- - - Updated - - -


Ask anyone in Melbourne and the response is " well with the swans taking buddie they had a heap of salary cap space". What they seem to not be able to justify is how they can continue to keep - hodge, mitchell,rioli,burgoyne, gunston, bruest, roughhead, lake, gibson, shiels, hill etc etc etc etc in that same salary cap while at the same time getting frawley.

Yet if you dare mention that we had to offload th elikes of everitt, mumford, white, biggs, lamb etc in the last few years, you get a blank stare as if those guys were getting paid peanuts.

[Mug Punter]

You "understand" the ban at the time??
Please.
Explain it to all... the board, the football department, the players, the fans, the media... we'd ALL love to hear how you understand a sanction can be placed upon us for no reason whatsoever.
What if we want to buy a player worth $520,000? Under your scenario, we're unable to do so.

The club meet on Wednesday with the AFL commission. They (the commission) either lift the ban in full, or we go to court and sort it out there.
No more.
No less.

I can understand it that if we had signed Frawley that the outcry would have been huge and it would have been an undefensible position that COLA gave us an unfair advantage if we had been able to get the highest profile and highest paid free agents three years in a row - surely you are capable of seeing an alternate view every now and then...

I believe that AFL got spooked and over-reacted and now they don't have the face to back track

Don't really appreciate the tone of your response to be honest which is ironic as I have been pretty much in agreement with you about the need to take this to the courts. People are entitled to have a different view on things to you from time to time

[Ampersand]

COLA was being phased out and couldn't have been included in Frawley's contract anyway if he came to the Swans so how does that make any sense? If we could have gotten Frawley and fitted him in our salary cap without breaching any rules we should have been entitled to do so. Not convinced we wanted him anyway, but the trade ban was an act of bastardry that didn't make sense then and makes even less sense now.

[AnnieH]

I can understand it that if we had signed Frawley that the outcry would have been huge and it would have been an undefensible position that COLA gave us an unfair advantage if we had been able to get the highest profile and highest paid free agents three years in a row - surely you are capable of seeing an alternate view every now and then...

I believe that AFL got spooked and over-reacted and now they don't have the face to back track

Don't really appreciate the tone of your response to be honest which is ironic as I have been pretty much in agreement with you about the need to take this to the courts. People are entitled to have a different view on things to you from time to time

Tone??? How you can read my "tone" in an internet forum is interesting. Maybe you should enlighten us as to how you do that too?
Just because you agree with me that it needs to be taken to the courts (and you keep umming and ahhring about that one), doesn't mean that I have to agree with what you are saying.

COLA never has and never will give us an "undefensible" position.
Once again for the slow people that don't get it.... COLA IS PAID BY THE AFL - not by the club.
It is NOT given to the club as a one lump payment to spend how we like.

If we did sign up Frawley, it would have been within our salary cap AND he would not have COLA included in his contract.

Nobody is jumping up and down that Hawthorn has pretty much bought the cream of the AFL crop three years in a row.

[Mug Punter]

Tone??? How you can read my "tone" in an internet forum is interesting. Maybe you should enlighten us as to how you do that too?
Just because you agree with me that it needs to be taken to the courts (and you keep umming and ahhring about that one), doesn't mean that I have to agree with what you are saying.

COLA never has and never will give us an "undefensible" position.
Once again for the slow people that don't get it.... COLA IS PAID BY THE AFL - not by the club.
It is NOT given to the club as a one lump payment to spend how we like.

If we did sign up Frawley, it would have been within our salary cap AND he would not have COLA included in his contract.

Nobody is jumping up and down that Hawthorn has pretty much bought the cream of the AFL crop three years in a row.

Yawwwwnnn

[stevoswan]

Tone??? How you can read my "tone" in an internet forum is interesting. Maybe you should enlighten us as to how you do that too?
Just because you agree with me that it needs to be taken to the courts (and you keep umming and ahhring about that one), doesn't mean that I have to agree with what you are saying.

COLA never has and never will give us an "undefensible" position.
Once again for the slow people that don't get it.... COLA IS PAID BY THE AFL - not by the club.
It is NOT given to the club as a one lump payment to spend how we like.

If we did sign up Frawley, it would have been within our salary cap AND he would not have COLA included in his contract.

Nobody is jumping up and down that Hawthorn has pretty much bought the cream of the AFL crop three years in a row.

Agree. Everyone seems to be conveniently looking at the Hawks situation of getting 'the cream of the crop' as due compensation for losing Buddy to that 'bully/favoured club from up north', and their own 'great player/salary cap management', whereas they can't grasp that the Swans recruiting coups were due to the same reason(good management). They always perversely go back to COLA as the excuse to denegrate the Swans for doing exactly what Hawthorn are doing now.....and doing with impunity and the blessing of the A(V)FL. It'a a bias that permeates from the deluded fans of Vic based clubs to the top level of league management. It's the consequence of corrupted popular opinion! If it gets to the courts, they should see right through it and return this joke league to a 'real' level playing field, not the Southern/Vic-centric playing field it is now.

- - - Updated - - -

Yawwwwnnn

That's just lazy.......

[barry]

If hawthorn win this year's flag it will need a big asterix next to it. Because they will have not earned the right to host the grand final at there home ground by finishing top.

How do you think Hawthorne odds would blow out if the granny was hosted in Perth this year ?

[AnnieH]

Yawwwwnnn

I'll just go ahead and say it.
Yes, you're right Annie.

[rojo]

Hawthorn should be banned for getting Frawley, especially if the AFL think they are trying to get Dangerfield.

Same logic.

- - - Updated - - -



I wish Tim would shut up about Tassie.

You think the Swans are hard done by in dealings with the AFL/VFL! You probably wouldn't remember but up until perhaps 1990's, or maybe when it was still the VFL, Tassie provided some great players for the League and as in Victoria every town had its flourishing footy teams that were the centre of the life of the community especially in winter. Players who starred in the VFL were State and particularly local heroes. Not now. Grassroots footy in this state is in its death throes which in turn is affecting it at higher levels. We are no longer producing any heroes, Matthew Richardson is the only one in the past decade or so. I get it that most people outside Tassie don't give a toss but it is sad that soccer is fast taking over as the preferred code for kids - its grass roots organising is far better.

Agreed Tassie cannot afford to support its own team in the AFL especially now that footy is a business but the fact that I have to pay for the Hawks and North Melbourne to come and play a few games here through my taxes, is painful, well if I paid tax .... it would be very painful. Give him his due Jeff Kennett is the one person (outside of Tassie) who has an understanding of the situation here and does care and has fought for the few scraps off the AFL table that we do get - but then only if we pay for them.

Barry, aren't you pleased you brought this important injustice up up!

[dimelb]

Rojo, I posted this on the New Deal thread, but I repeat it here in response to your comments. Martin Flanagan knows what you are talking about:

An open letter to AFL boss Gil McLachlan: show Tassie some respect

[barry]

Ill take your word for it about grass roots, but I'm sick of Tim advocating a tassie AFL team. Ussually ahead of GWS or GC.

Tassie has bugger all people and money. A lovely place mind you ... for the same reason s.

[Mug Punter]

That's just lazy.......

Much easier than try to provide an alternative point of view to someone who knows everything and lectures accordingly

[rojo]

Ill take your word for it about grass roots, but I'm sick of Tim advocating a tassie AFL team. Ussually ahead of GWS or GC.

Tassie has bugger all people and money. A lovely place mind you ... for the same reason s.

You are right of course, not enough people or money, although exactly the same could be said of a couple of Melbourne teams, but the time has well passed for a Tassie AFL team, it would not be viable now for a variety of reasons.

That Tim and one or two others continue to beat the drum occasionally, may come from the lingering resentment that the AFL chose to throw millions$$$$$ into setting up the two expansion teams, which may or may not eventually become financially viable, at the same time that it was telling Tassie, if you want a team show us the money and sponsors.