AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

[sharp9]

It can't possibly be legal....I know I said this before but......

[Meg]

Patfull's manager confirmed they were talking to the swans about 6 weeks ago, wonder if this was the catalyst, given he has now signed with Lesser Western Sydney.
Lions defender Joel Patfull completes switch to GWS - AFL.com.au

Just read this:

"We sort of had some chats to the Swans, probably going back six to eight weeks ago, just to see if there would be any interest and there certainly was.

"I think though the right fit for Joel was to go to GWS and from our point of view they were probably the ones that could make the deal happen more so than Sydney so that was the one we pursued more vigorously."

We certainly now know a major reason the Swans had difficulty making a deal happen (had they wished to do so).

[Reggi]

Lack of news suggests we have rolled over doesn't it

[Meg]

AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

Anyway, Swans are probably going to just cop it. Sick of Andrew Ireland talking diplomatically. He clearly fails to get the truth across dismally to anyone other than Swans supporters. Also, the predictable media tactics of distraction are in full swing. Nothing changes.

I tend to agree with this. I have big respect for the business savvy of the Swans Board but they don't use the media well to put our side of the story across. Both Ireland (and Colless previously) are not polished speakers. And Pridham tends to come across as aggressive rather than persuasive.

I don't understand why they haven't given selected journos (e.g. Caroline Wilson & Emma Quayle) in-depth briefings showing them a typical player's contract with names and figures redacted, so they can see how COLA has been handled. And taken them in detail through the budget numbers so they can see for themselves that the cap space was cleared for the recruitment of Franklin and Tippett.

I assume this hasn't been done as the journos don't seem to know any more than we do. The Swans needed to get some influential journos onside long ago.

[S.S. Bleeder]

Can anyone clarify this for me? Does the removal of the COLA apply to all players or does it only apply to new contracts?

In other words; because Buddy signed his contract prior to the removal, does he get the COLA for his entire contract, whereas, Craig Bird who signed his contract this year doesn't?

I've always been of the assumption that the COLA removal applied to all players but if this is the case I simply can't see any logic in what the AFL has done.

[ernie koala]

- - - Updated - - -

Can anyone clarify this for me? Does the removal of the COLA apply to all players or does it only apply to new contracts?

In other words; because Buddy signed his contract prior to the removal, does he get the COLA for his entire contract, whereas, Craig Bird who signed his contract this year doesn't?

I've always been of the assumption that the COLA removal applied to all players but if this is the case I simply can't see any logic in what the AFL has done.

Yes, it applies to all players.

Then the AFL will pay the rent subsidy of $30k pa to those players whose salary falls under whatever the threshold is.

[Meg]

AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, it applies to all players.

Then the AFL will pay the rent subsidy of $30k pa to those players whose salary falls under whatever the threshold is.

It applies to all players in so far as the AFL paying a separate fund to be used as an allowance outside the salary cap. But from something once said (by Ireland I think) I am of the impression that to the extent there are contracts which extend beyond 2016 and which include a COLA clause, then the Swans will have to pay it from within the salary cap. Buddy was the contract he was implicitly referring to.

That might not be as bad as it sounds as most contracts that go past 2017 have been negotiated since the Swans knew COLA was going. And we are led to believe that a significant part of Buddy's contract is in the form of an additional service agreement to which COLA was never applied.

[S.S. Bleeder]

It applies to all players in so far as the AFL paying a separate fund to be used as an allowance outside the salary cap. But from something once said (by Ireland I think) I am of the impression that to the extent there are contracts which extend beyond 2016 and which include a COLA clause, then the Swans will have to pay it from within the salary cap. Buddy was the contract he was implicitly referring to.

That might not be as bad as it sounds as most contracts that go past 2017 have been negotiated since the Swans knew COLA was going. And we are led to believe that a significant part of Buddy's contract is in the form of an additional service agreement to which COLA was never applied.

Thanks Meg. I would imagine that there wouldn't be many contract where we would have to pay the COLA which is a huge relief. I this is the case it simply confirms that the AFL has no reason to impose this ban on us as there is no way we can abuse the COLA.

Some of you might find the comments on this Daily Telegraph article interesting and great reading; No Cookies | dailytelegraph.com.au.

[yabbadabbado]

I can't help ,but feel this ban by the AFL ,was brought in to make life easy for GWS .

[liz]

Can we please keep the political discussion out of this thread (and indeed, off the main RWO Swans Chat board altogether). If anyone wishes to discuss political correctness, please feel free to do so in the Sandpit.

[Meg]

I can't help ,but feel this ban by the AFL ,was brought in to make life easy for GWS .

Absolutely, particularly if Patfull's interest in coming to Sydney brought it on and in the context that GWS are exempt from the ban. No way was the AFL going to allow a second player to choose the Swans rather than GWS.

[MarshallG]

Sorry for not reading 18 pages to see if this has been brought up already ...

The timing of the announcement, during the trading period, is somewhat odd.

Methinks it possible we had another whopper of a trade in the works and it was put a stop to.

Possible. It's the timing that has me and, the apparent lack of consultation.

[penga]

Why don't we go ahead and make the bumper trade, and tell the players that the Club comes first and we need to stay ahead of the curve. Then let the AFLPA fight it out with the AFL as they would have some very disgruntled clients on their hands. We have done nothing wrong, so we can wring our hands of it, and I would think the players would understand. I would suggest the AFLPA would have a lot more power to fight the AFL than what we do. Then perhaps we could see an American style lock out, who knows.

[Ludwig]

[CureTheSane]

A mate of mine said the Swans should do the trade and then go to court.