AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

[liz]

Yes this is a clear message that the AFL are punishing us. I can only assume it's for our audacious recruiting of Buddy last year, when he was meant to go to GWS - the AFL's team - instead.

It's poor policy-on-the-run and pandering to the lowest common denominator of AFL fans who have consistently accused the Swans of doing something dodgy in our recruiting over the last 2 years.

Which is bizarre in itself. Sure, the AFL might have hoped he go to GWS. But given he didn't want to, surely him rocking up at the Swans is the next best thing in terms of increasing the profile of the game in Sydney and NSW. The Swans being successful while GWS are still in the process of building a squad capable of being successful in a few years time is actually a really good thing for GSW. And Buddy's onfield charisma has had even the NRL media stooges sitting up and taking notice and writing some moderately positive things about AFL in Sydney.

[jono2707]

Correct me if I'm wrong but my reading of it is that the AFL are doing this, according to their announcement, to help us manage our existing payroll. This would imply that there's something in our current arrangements that they're not comfortable with?

[Danzar]

My suggestion was just one method by which they might come up with a reasonable transition amount. I've just listened to the Ireland interview and now understand they have already come up with such an amount. I expect the approach would have been along the lines I described - because it is such a blindingly obvious way to approach the question.

But regardless of how they came up with the transitional amounts, the fact that they have done so and now the AFL decides to impose such a trade restriction is even harder to comprehend. It's like some kind of weird twilight zone where the person who has come up with this idea has no idea on the basic concepts of how to apply a salary cap.

If this is the case, as a club member, I strongly believe the club must respond.

[ugg]

Correct me if I'm wrong but my reading of it is that the AFL are doing this, according to their announcement, to help us manage our existing payroll. This would imply that there's something in our current arrangements that they're not comfortable with?

On one of the final On The Couch episodes, when the Paddy Ryder seeking a trade story first emerged and we were linked with him, Gerard Healy made a strange comment about the AFL warning us off him. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest that this is their indirect way of us recruiting another big name and further enraging the rest of the competition.

[Dave]

On one of the final On The Couch episodes, when the Paddy Ryder seeking a trade story first emerged and we were linked with him, Gerard Healy made a strange comment about the AFL warning us off him. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest that this is their indirect way of us recruiting another big name and further enraging the rest of the competition.

As opposed to Hawthorn who have systematically gone around and plundered other lowly clubs to their advantage...

[Matt80]

If the Swans pursue legal action against the AFL, they may be able to get an injunction against the Trade period and force all completed deals at other clubs to be null and void. The AFL could be legally forced to apply the same rules for all clubs.

With our new ally Hird attacking from the other flank, we could put the AFL in some serious legal turmoil.

[mcs]

I can see that with COLA going anyway, this 'ban' might not make much difference to our plans for the next two years. But what I am furious about is that by making this grandiose statement the AFL has yet again implied we cheated in the use of COLA with the recruitment of Tippett and Franklin and need to be repeatedly punished.

The club, the players (particularly Franklin) and we the Swans fans have all been abused for 12 months because of this false story which the AFL has done nothing to defuse and now encourages even further. Just look at the comments already building under the Emma Quayle story. And no doubt Big Footy is filling up with petty comments.

+1 to this. That is exactly what it implies, which is ridiculous. We are being punished for no crime, being punished for following the rules set by the AFL.

@@@@ing McLachlan is just a stooge for others - how can the AFL justify the decision? Why do we need protection from ourselves? It is basically implying we've been rorting the COLA, when there is ZERO evidence to suggest that we have.

@@@@ the VFL - may as well call them what they truly are.

[Dosser]

If the Swans pursue legal action against the AFL, they may be able to get an injunction against the Trade period and force all completed deals at other clubs to be null and void. The AFL could be legally forced to apply the same rules for all clubs.

With our new ally Hird attacking from the other flank, we could put the AFL in some serious legal turmoil.

Just imagine what the VFL would do to our academies if we did that and won?

[Ampersand]

IANAL but the legality of the ban might only be able to be tested if it is applied against a specific trade case. The "ban" is more like a notification of an intention to withdraw COLA if we attempt to trade in a player. The question is what was the legal basis of the phase out of COLA? Was there a contract between the Swans and the AFL? If there wasn't then the AFL could foreseeably remove COLA at any time at their discretion.

[mcs]

This is what no one can seem to explain. What purpose can it serve other than to punish the club (for nothing more than adhering to rules set out by the AFL)?

+1. All it will do is fuel the COLA cheat bull@@@@ from Wees and Poos fans for another three years.

I'd like to know exactly what we are being punished for - for surely we are being punished for something?

- - - Updated - - -

I would be securing Reid, Jetta, Parker etc etc and all our good players so that their contracts don't run out and we have time to develop the draft picks we have to take. I cannot believe that they can say for 3 years (2015, 2016 & 2017) we cannot obtain any senior players other than delisted ones. This is a really bad look and I would hope that the swans take them to court for restriction of trade. Sucks big time. I also want to know why Hawthorn keeps getting admired for their list management and yet we get punished. I am disgusted with the AFL.

So much for an equal competition. We are now put at a complete disposition for basically three trade period- Melbourne clubs, and anyone else, will be free to tap up our players if they feel like it, knowing all we can demand in return is draft picks. The AFL won't be happy till we lose 2 or 3 big name stars I'd expect.

So @@@@ing angry about this - what an absolute load of bull@@@@.

[sharp9]

This is almost beyond comprehension!!!!!! As a real world example...if we lose Tim Membrey (an $80,000 player) the AFL is saying that under no circumstances may we trade for another player on an $80,000 contract???? Say Elliot Kavanagh. That's just....incomprehensible.

At the end of 2015 we lose Goodes and Shaw and $400,000 of salary cap.....but we are not allowed to trade, say, pick 36 for a $200,000 player??? That can't possibly be in any world that has actual meaning.

Now, if they said any player you trade in for cannot have COLA - I might (just) accept that.....but man, my head is spinning.

[mcs]

This is almost beyond comprehension!!!!!! As a real world example...if we lose Tim Membrey (an $80,000 player) the AFL is saying that under no circumstances may we trade for another player on an $80,000 contract???? Say Elliot Kavanagh. That's just....incomprehensible.

At the end of 2015 we lose Goodes and Shaw and $400,000 of salary cap.....but we are not allowed to trade, say, pick 36 for a $200,000 player??? That can't possibly be in any world that has actual meaning.

Now, if they said any player you trade in for cannot have COLA - I might (just) accept that.....but man, my head is spinning.

The only positive that will come out of this is imagine the cap space we will have in 2017, when 2 or 3 top names go and are replaced with draftees. Will be plenty of cap space once again.


But seriously, how @@@@ing ridiculous.

[Bloodthirsty]

Swans to win triple premierships 2015/16/17, then go on the biggest spending spree in AFL history. Swans to win further premierships 2018/19/20.

[Cardinal]

If transitional arrangements were agreed to and understood, how the hell can the AFL change the rules halfway through the game. I wish the players had known this rubbish before the grand final. It would really have got them running.

I can't wait till Eddie finds out that the Commission also decided that all gate, membership, merchandise and other Club revenues get pooled and distributed evenly amongst all the clubs.

[Cosmic Wizard]

Swans to win triple premierships 2015/16/17, then go on the biggest spending spree in AFL history. Swans to win further premierships 2018/19/20.

All years are undefeated of course!!