AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

[ernie koala]

My guess is a softening by the AFL.

Along the lines of...If a player valued at over the $350k pa is traded out (eg: Jetta), then a player, up to that same value, can be traded in.

[WauchopeAnalyst]

Overturned completely (0%)
Softened (0%)
Stand as is (100%)
Legal Action (0%)

I hope the Swans have a 'long game' strategy for a different agenda.

[Ludwig]

The news (reported on AFL360 last night, quoting some other media outlet that I can't remember) that the Hawks have put a $1m a year offer to The Chad (for 2017) puts things into perspective. We can't have it all, but apparently the Dorks can?

The Chad: "Only a mil. I'm a superstar."

The Fev: "Hey Dorks. What about ME?"

[dimelb]

Anyone like to voice their opinion on our chances for getting the ban overturned completely (0% in my opinion), having it softened (15%), having it stand as is (85%) or the club taking legal action (0%)

Another possible option:

Extend the ban to any club that has won a premiership (or perhaps finished top four in the H&A season) in the last 3 years.

Would be fairer than singling out the Swans, and would go some way to fixing the mess that free agency has become.

[mcsquirta]

Pridham sounded pretty adamant that the Swans weren't going to let this drop. With the Players Association behind it as well, a rise in the cap and maybe even a little bit of approval seeking from Uncle Rupert, the AFL might just want it all to go away quietly and remove the ban. 90% chance it is removed, 10% chance legal. The AFL doing nothing will only make it worse and it's already been softened. 0% (+/- 100%)

[stevoswan]

This in the Hun yesterday: 'Top lawyer David Galbally QC, says Sydney would defeat the AFL in a federal court showdown over the club's trading restrictions.' and this; 'Galbally told the HS the trade ban was a clear breach of trade practices. He said, "I would have no hesitation in issuing a writ. I think they would be successful. My advice would be proceed and issue the legal proceedings. If this is the way we are going to be treated, then we'll let the courts decide if it's fair and proper. Of course it's an explosive move, absolutely. But isn't what is being done to them explosive?"' Very interesting indeed, and IMO a green light to take those MF's at AFL house, down. Do it.....and I think they will.

[Ludwig]

Why do we doubt the integrity of the AFL? Now that the AFL have come out and made it official, our fears should be laid to rest:

"The commissioners act at all times with the greater interests of the game at the core of their decision making," said an AFL spokesman.

See AFL backs Chris Langford over potential conflict of interest claims in Swans trade ban appeal for the full article.

[Mug Punter]

This in the Hun yesterday: 'Top lawyer David Galbally QC, says Sydney would defeat the AFL in a federal court showdown over the club's trading restrictions.' and this; 'Galbally told the HS the trade ban was a clear breach of trade practices. He said, "I would have no hesitation in issuing a writ. I think they would be successful. My advice would be proceed and issue the legal proceedings. If this is the way we are going to be treated, then we'll let the courts decide if it's fair and proper. Of course it's an explosive move, absolutely. But isn't what is being done to them explosive?"' Very interesting indeed, and IMO a green light to take those MF's at AFL house, down. Do it.....and I think they will.

Pretty unequivocal from a top silk, this really is a no brainer and I will be very very disappointed if we do not require a full reversal of this ban and do what ever it takes legally.

Whilst in reality I don't think we were going to be very active in the off-season last year it did affect us as Patfull would have been very handy and we cannot afford to be penalised again

- - - Updated - - -

Why do we doubt the integrity of the AFL? Now that the AFL have come out and made it official, our fears should be laid to rest:

"The commissioners act at all times with the greater interests of the game at the core of their decision making," said an AFL spokesman.

See AFL backs Chris Langford over potential conflict of interest claims in Swans trade ban appeal for the full article.

Actually glad they are so arrogant and insular to not see this for it is - this will be the cherry on top if it goes to court, you can imagine a QC salivating at the thought of getting that private school ponce in the witness box

And can I also say that I think the club showing some balls and spine on this issue could inspire the club into September, nothing beats a siege mentality

[707]

Being heard tomorrow eh? Happy to have Galbally QC leading our team in court but surely the AFL can't be as stupid as that to let it get there as it opens a can of worms they want to keep the lid on.

This is remember just a hissy fit by Fitxpatrick and cronies on the commission.

But if it does get to court, what compulsive viewing, worth lobbing in the gallery to see it in person, those VFL patsies squirming with answers!

[annew]

My guess is a softening by the AFL.

Along the lines of...If a player valued at over the $350k pa is traded out (eg: Jetta), then a player, up to that same value, can be traded in.

Do you have a crystal ball or are you Caroline Wilson?

- - - Updated - - -

Do you have a crystal ball or are you Caroline Wilson?

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/swans-look-for-trade-ban-relief-20150826-gj8l4s.html

[dimelb]

Do you have a crystal ball or are you Caroline Wilson?

- - - Updated - - -



Swans look for trade ban relief

I've made the article accessible by putting the cursor after the url and hitting return.

[MattW]

Do you have a crystal ball or are you Caroline Wilson?

- - - Updated - - -



Swans look for trade ban relief

Oh, bravo.

[i'm-uninformed2]

Hey - does anyone know if it's possible, as part of celebrating the AFL's inevitable backdown on this, if we can set fire to Fitzpatrick?

[Auntie.Gerald]

Say What ?

[crackedactor]

Halfway

Oh, bravo.

Hopefully all this pressure placed upon the AFL would mean that they eventually bend their one off rule. At least with a $500,000 limit you may get a decent player. Don't want to go down the legal action course because the AFL are very vindictive when someone questions their authority.