AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

[Danzar]

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?

Done

[ernie koala]

I put this on the other thread so thought I'd bring it across....

I read here...No Cookies | dailytelegraph.com.au

That we were interested in Patfull, and were warned off...

I thought he was just the player we could of used to bolster our defence....And probably cost less than Mal....

This is an example of this restriction of trade already hurting us.

[CureTheSane]

Read this today, and it was taken as a joke by those commenting. Unfortunately it was from the Age and it ain't April Fool's Day...

Many many outraged people, not just Swans supporters.

Unfortunately there really is only one course of action for me.

THE SWANS NEED TO GROW A SET.

Seek some legal advice, and if they have a legal case to present (restriction of trade, or something along those lines) then make it clear to the AFL that they will be seeking compensation.

The last thing the AFL wants is another legal challenge, after the Essendon fiasco, and particularly one where they are potentially the wrong doers.

Sadly, we may not have a leg to stand on depending if we can proceed in any way at all (have any sort of a case)

Doesn't stop the Swans from GROWING A SET though and standing up for the club, the players and the fans.

[i'm-uninformed2]

I said in another thread Pridham's tweet re 'constructive restraint of trade' was hopefully telling - ie we'd march into AFL and say the whole thing, draft, trades, this, the lot is illegal so let's see if you want this in court.

Of course, the AFL's response would probably be some sort of nuclear response threat, but there is a point at which you need to get off your knees.

And this is it

[barry]

The swans have said that they would be happy to drop out of the draft and use only the academy. So we don't need the draft. Could this be the catalyst to legally challenge the draft?

[Danzar]

- - - 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.

Of course, the AFL's response would probably be some sort of nuclear response threat, but there is a point at which you need to get off your knees.

And this is it

The strategy is to force the AFL into a position where they have to justify their stance both in the court of public opinion AND in the letter of the law. There is only upside in forcing the AFL's hand. If we do and they respond with a harsher penalty, the whole situation will be seen as an AFL vs Swans spat, and it doesn't take a genius to see what kind of pain that will heap on Gill. If they take the path of least resistance, they still have to justify their position or accept whatever move the Swans make.

[Meg]

Done

Danzar, now there seem to be two threads with the same name? Getting very confusing.

[CureTheSane]

...but there is a point at which you need to get off your knees.

And this is it

Yep

[dimelb]

Done

Thanks Danzar - much tidier!

[Ludwig]

I hope that the widespread criticism of this ruling forces a modification of the decision to something along these lines:

The Sydney Swans will be prohibited from trading in players or acquiring free agents until the end of the COLA transition period deemed not to be in the spirit of the transition rules. The intent of this ruling is to prevent the usage of COLA funds being redirected to acquire players that would not otherwise been available had such rules not been in place. The AFL will review all trades entered into by the Swans to assure that these provisions are complied with.

I am making this suggestion as a face saving compromise by the AFL, while they will still appear to be cracking down on any alleged COLA abuse. I think it was the intent of the AFL to prevent the Swans from acquiring another high profile player, like Paddy Ryder, which would be seen by many as yet another abuse of the COLA provisions. There may well have been some worry by Eddie that we were after Lumumba. Who knows?

We probably are not in a position to make another big play in any case, so I think we can live with this. But we should be able to engage in trades like offering a draft pick or player for Patfull, as this would have nothing to do with the COLA transition rules. It makes no sense that if Patfull was delisted we could sign him for exactly the same contract terms and not be in breach of the rules.


We might as well get used to this sort of crap, because it's not going to stop as long as Eddie McGuire is still in the game. I expect the AFL to come down real hard on the Swans Academy once Heeney and Mills start playing and looking like stars. We've only seen the start of this.

[Danzar]

Danzar, now there seem to be two threads with the same name? Getting very confusing.

Hang on. Two threads?

Looks good at my end (noting that this is the first time I've done this sort of admin so was kind of flying by the seat of my pants). Does it still show up as two threads Meg??

[Ludwig]

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH (George Orwell - 1984)

[Meg]

Hang on. Two threads?

Looks good at my end (noting that this is the first time I've done this sort of admin so was kind of flying by the seat of my pants). Does it still show up as two threads Meg??

Hi Dan, all OK I was using my iPad and don't think I had opened the thread properly.

[Melbourne_Blood]

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/swans-to-fight-against-ban-on-senior-player-trading-until-2017/story-fnca0u4y-1227085721504

[Meg]

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/sport/...-1227085721504

The headline on this Oz article says "Swans to fight against ban on senior player trading until 2017" but if you listen to the Andrew Ireland interview he was less dogmatic than that. Hope they do though.