AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

[Swansongster]

It wasn't a "decision" of the AFL - it was an unprecedented and unjustified move to limit an interstate team becoming stronger through and was accompanied by simultaneous approval for the Melbourne-based Premiers to become significantly stronger through trading. The Swans were knobbled, just as Brisbane was after the threepeat.

If the Hawks win their third this year - do you really think there will be any sanctions against them?

I have to admit that I only recently came to understand that the AFL took some measures to slow down Brisbane after their successful stretch.

Either it received little coverage at the time or I was just not listening. Either way it shows that - just as I didn't care about Brisbane being "knobbled" - fans of other teams just don't care about us having a few extra barriers erected.

Sad but true as far as I can tell.

I don't think Brisbane had the off-field science as sorted as we do so I don't think we will fall in the heap that Brisbane has but we do have to be vigilant because most won't care (except for the TV networks and marketeers that carpet bag off their efforts).

[Nico]

On Footy Now app it says the trade ban was not even discussed at the Commission meeting this week. Appears they have chosen to ignore Pridhams comments. Or is something else going on behind the scenes .

[Nico]

What was done to Brisbane appears to have been inspired by McGuire, given the Lions dominate them in finals.

[Bexl]

What was done to Brisbane appears to have been inspired by McGuire, given the Lions dominate them in finals.

He does seem to be a vindictive, grudge holding little @@@@ when he doesn't get what he wants.

[Mug Punter]

On Footy Now app it says the trade ban was not even discussed at the Commission meeting this week. Appears they have chosen to ignore Pridhams comments. Or is something else going on behind the scenes .

I have no doubt that the club have a timetable in place for this to be played out and a date where they will take legal action if this isn't resolved. I wouldn't be surprised if they have been pretty transparent with the AFL on this too.

I know there is a lot of anger about this, and I am 100% in the legal action camp if we are still materially constrained in this trade period, but I trust the Board and our Chairman to handle this in our best interests. There is nothing to be gained by commencing legal action against city hall prematurely

- - - Updated - - -

He does seem to be a vindictive, grudge holding little @@@@ when he doesn't get what he wants.

He is deeply unpopular in AFL circles even within his own club.

Makes me sick to see Dermott fawning to him on the telecast tonight

[bennyfabulous]

Maybe Stevie J could come up and play for a year @ 340k?

[cherub]

He does seem to be a vindictive, grudge holding little @@@@ when he doesn't get what he wants.

He is not little.

[barry]

Getting the balance right for expansion clubs is tricky. They acted swiftly after the Lions 3 flags, but have stood idly by after 3 spoons (or there abouts )

[mcsquirta]

Maybe Stevie J could come up and play for a year @ 340k?

We could probably get him for $250k after last night, but there's always the No D'heads policy to get around!

[dimelb]

Geelong might be so fed-up they'd pay us to take him, but would the Commission let that through?

[YvonneH]

Anyone heard any whispers and if not then when will we know, as the AFL is very quite on the matter (as are the Swans)?

[bloodspirit]

Anyone heard any whispers and if not then when will we know, as the AFL is very quite on the matter (as are the Swans)?

I think the matter is progressing. It was reported on by Caro Wilson in The Age last Thursday where she wrote:

"The threat of gaping deficiencies in Sydney's ageing list has prompted the AFL to consider partially lifting the restriction on the Swans' ability to move players in the forthcoming trade period.
The club lodged a formal submission with the AFL late on Wednesday after talks between the two parties in recent days are understood to have persuaded the league that the Swans' predicament could not only damage the club but have a domino effect on the competition as the trade period looms."

She also seems to say the AFLPA is supporting our submission.

See: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-new...#ixzz3kM9KYI6H

The Swans have also kept stoking the fires by releasing this article: We don't deserve restrictions, says Ted - sydneyswans.com.au. The article was in turn picked up and published on afl.com.au.

[barry]

With many public comments by swans, AFL heavies, and players association before the meeting last week, its been deafly quiet since. This seems odd. What does it mean ?

IMO, the AFL is seeking legal advice whether than can defend the rule. And/or tuning the rule to be defensible.

Who knows when, but there must come a time when Swans will need to start legal preceedings prior to trade period.

Wouldnt suprise me if the AFL say, "no change", the week before the grand final.

[Mel_C]

I read somewhere last week quoting Fitzpatrick that our submission wasn't discussed at the meeting. How arrogant is that?? ????.

[WauchopeAnalyst]

It depends on results.

If we go out in straight sets they will alter the ban.

Knocked out in prelim would allow a little wiggle room.

In GF, virtually no chance.

As Premiers the ban would be made harder with Sydney not allowed to trade *IN* any player and must only used the draft.