AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

[Nico]

OK. I have been reading the contents re COLA on all the newspaper articles and once again I want to make something clear. I was a foundation member of the Sydney Swans and have followed the through thick and thin since. I distinctly remember that when the COLA was brought in, it was done so for 2 reasons:
1. It was more expensive to live in Sydney and there had to be a financial attraction for players, but something that is forgotten about in most COLA conversations is,
2. Most players in all other states (except maybe Qld) receive a lot of extra income through endorsements, appearance money, etc, while players in Sydney forfeit that because it all goes to League players.
I specifically remember that this was the discussion at the time. Victorian players earn more outside of their contracts than NSW players, and that is one of the reasons the COLA was introduced.
Why had this been forgotten? !?

Convenient to forget.

[Matt80]

What happens if the AFL have said to the Swans:

" Accept this deal and we won't touch the Academy and Father / Son bidding process in the future. You can have Mills and Dunkley for your first two picks next year. We needed to silence the AFL community on the perceived advantages the Swans have "

If they leave the academy bidding process in place, I would take the deal.

What does Red and White think?

[Mug Punter]

What happens if the AFL have said to the Swans:

" Accept this deal and we won't touch the Academy and Father / Son bidding process in the future. You can have Mills and Dunkley for your first two picks next year. We needed to silence the AFL community on the perceived advantages the Swans have "

If they leave the academy bidding process in place, I would take the deal.

What does Red and White think?

I would too!! The Swans' acceptance of this penalty seems to indicate that we have had to take one for the team with the bigger picture in mind.

I would even accept us opting out of the first three rounds of the Draft so we can't have our cake and eat it too if the Academy crop is not up to scratch.

I guess anything is possible given the complete lack of transparency in the game.

[mcs]

What happens if the AFL have said to the Swans:

" Accept this deal and we won't touch the Academy and Father / Son bidding process in the future. You can have Mills and Dunkley for your first two picks next year. We needed to silence the AFL community on the perceived advantages the Swans have "

If they leave the academy bidding process in place, I would take the deal.

What does Red and White think?

That's nice on paper, till Eddie and co. whine to the AFL and they change the rules again.

After this farce, what faith does anyone genuinally have that the AFL won't look to screw us again as soon as they can?

[liz]

What happens if the AFL have said to the Swans:

" Accept this deal and we won't touch the Academy and Father / Son bidding process in the future. You can have Mills and Dunkley for your first two picks next year. We needed to silence the AFL community on the perceived advantages the Swans have "

If they leave the academy bidding process in place, I would take the deal.

What does Red and White think?

Then think the Martians will land and take over the world by tea-time.

What you have suggested makes no sense. The two issues are completely distinct and it is outside the AFL's ability to make them linked.

The Academy programme is NOT an advantage, perceived or real, for the Swans alone. If it is an advantage, it is an advantage for the Swans, Lions, Suns and Giants. Where are their trading bans, to balance out this inequality. Or have the Swans been asked to "take one for the team"?

COLA, too, is not solely a Swans issue. It is a Swans and Giants issue. If the AFL have decided that the transition process they agreed to months ago is open to the perception of manipulation, why do their measures to address it not apply equally to the Giants too?

There is no way this ruling can be explained in any rational way. I wouldn't be surprised if imposing a penalty on a club for having done nothing wrong is actually a breach of the AFL's charter and documents that rule the way the clubs and league interact.

[Beerman]

Did anyone hear Terry Wallace on trade radio? He took a pretty standard line - COLA is unfair advantage for the Swans, but this is unreasonable. He came out pretty strong on both points; swans have had every advantage, much loved by the AFL and that's why he tried to come to us - "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em". But this makes it extremely difficult for Swans to maintain their list, particularly given the age of our list, (particularly players like Pyke, Goodes etc.).

In actual fact, I don't think it will affect us much this year. In reality, I don't think we were looking to be that active. With Goodes and Shaw taking up cap space, only one decent draft pick and no-one much on the table I don't think we were ever going to be doing that much. The type of player we would be likely to get for Membrey wouldn't be much, we may as well have a punt on a late pick.

Next year is when it is really going to bite, and maybe by then we'll be in a better position to take the hit on the cap and just do the trade anyway and say "screw you" to the AFL.

[chalbilto]

What happens if the AFL have said to the Swans:

" Accept this deal and we won't touch the Academy and Father / Son bidding process in the future. You can have Mills and Dunkley for your first two picks next year. We needed to silence the AFL community on the perceived advantages the Swans have "

If they leave the academy bidding process in place, I would take the deal.



What does Red and White think?

This is a logical argument if he Swans were the only one to have an Academy. Any changes to the bidding process with regards the Academies would also have to affect GWS, Gold Coast & Brisbane.

[Matt80]

Then think the Martians will land and take over the world by tea-time.

What you have suggested makes no sense. The two issues are completely distinct and it is outside the AFL's ability to make them linked.

The Academy programme is NOT an advantage, perceived or real, for the Swans alone. If it is an advantage, it is an advantage for the Swans, Lions, Suns and Giants. Where are their trading bans, to balance out this inequality. Or have the Swans been asked to "take one for the team"?

COLA, too, is not solely a Swans issue. It is a Swans and Giants issue. If the AFL have decided that the transition process they agreed to months ago is open to the perception of manipulation, why do their measures to address it not apply equally to the Giants too?

There is no way this ruling can be explained in any rational way. I wouldn't be surprised if imposing a penalty on a club for having done nothing wrong is actually a breach of the AFL's charter and documents that rule the way the clubs and league interact.

In the public relations battle, the majority of members, the AFL viewers and sections of the media believe the Swans have advantages. Don't ask me for stats "this is just my opinion".

The AFL needed to take some action on the Swans to relieve public pressure. The Swans were the AFLs Carbon Tax and something needed to be done. The Swans are not wining the PR fight in the wider AFL.

They don't want to touch the Academy or Father / Son bidding process, because three other teams lose and father / sons are sentimental to all teams.

The AFL has proactively whacked us to take steam out of the Academy debate. The next time Eddie or Newbold are pissed of, the AFL can now claim that they limited the Swans big time.

They are two separate issues, but the AFL will use one to defend the other.

Having said that I don't agree with what the AFL have done this week.

This is just my opinion.

[S.S. Bleeder]

Did anyone hear Terry Wallace on trade radio? He took a pretty standard line - COLA is unfair advantage for the Swans, but this is unreasonable. He came out pretty strong on both points; swans have had every advantage, much loved by the AFL and that's why he tried to come to us - "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em". But this makes it extremely difficult for Swans to maintain their list, particularly given the age of our list, (particularly players like Pyke, Goodes etc.).

In actual fact, I don't think it will affect us much this year. In reality, I don't think we were looking to be that active. With Goodes and Shaw taking up cap space, only one decent draft pick and no-one much on the table I don't think we were ever going to be doing that much. The type of player we would be likely to get for Membrey wouldn't be much, we may as well have a punt on a late pick.

Next year is when it is really going to bite, and maybe by then we'll be in a better position to take the hit on the cap and just do the trade anyway and say "screw you" to the AFL.

I heard Wallace. He did mention the advantages of COLA and that he wanted to come to us largely because we had it. However, I was very satisfied with his comments on the academies and the ban on trading. I've heard people get on Trade Radio previously criticizing the academies and he always supports them and supports our rights to select the best of the academy players with the main argument that we can only attract the Sydney youth by giving them a good chance of not having to leave Sydney. Otherwise they will play NRL, soccer, etc as they don't have to leave Sydney to play these sports. He was also very critical of the trading ban as we had done nothing wrong and only worked within the rules that AFL had created.

[S.S. Bleeder]

Then think the Martians will land and take over the world by tea-time.

What you have suggested makes no sense. The two issues are completely distinct and it is outside the AFL's ability to make them linked.

The Academy programme is NOT an advantage, perceived or real, for the Swans alone. If it is an advantage, it is an advantage for the Swans, Lions, Suns and Giants. Where are their trading bans, to balance out this inequality. Or have the Swans been asked to "take one for the team"?

COLA, too, is not solely a Swans issue. It is a Swans and Giants issue. If the AFL have decided that the transition process they agreed to months ago is open to the perception of manipulation, why do their measures to address it not apply equally to the Giants too?

There is no way this ruling can be explained in any rational way. I wouldn't be surprised if imposing a penalty on a club for having done nothing wrong is actually a breach of the AFL's charter and documents that rule the way the clubs and league interact.

GWS are losing the COLA too. Confirmed in this article; AFL bans Sydney from trading over COLA. However, in GWS's situation it has been replaced by another allowance; from memory it was called an establishment allowance or similar but I can't find it on the interweb.

[S.S. Bleeder]

I've heard a lot of people online saying that Sydney isn't more expensive than other cities or that Perth is far more expensive than Sydney for example. This is incorrect. I found the following article and what do you know? Rent in Sydney is exactly 10% more than Melbourne. Wasn't the COLA 9.8%? Cheapest Cities to Live In | Student Cities Australia.

I agree with peoples argument on capital growth in the real estate market but the younger Sydney players are far more likely to rent than buy because the real estate market is harder to enter in Sydney. I'm concerned that the new rent allowance won't be sufficient for us to retain the youths from interstate and we will head back to the days of Rocca, Grant, Gasper, etc.

[annew]

We as the fans need our voice to be heard. We need to make up posters and display them at our first home game to voice our anger. Imagine 20000 people holding a poster (like what they do at half time with citibank) with the same simple message - a protest if you like. Something like: Why are the AFL punishing Sydney - we did not cheat - I am sure someone can come up with something better than that. I cannot get my head around why we are being punished more than Essendon were over supplements scandal, Adelaide over rorting salary cap, West Coast for the whole Ben Cousins drug scandal. Unless there is more to thsi we do not know it is completely outrageous.

[Ludwig]

We are in fact challenging this ruling with the AFL Commission, and I feel that it will be overturned or sufficiently modified. The pressure from the greater AFL community, including the AFLPA has been considerable. Although many AFL rulings seem arbitrary, this one goes beyond anything reasonably defensible. If we lose this one, then there's no way to predict anything going forward. It's just a lottery.
........................

Terry Wallace's 'list manager' analyses demonstrate why he was a failure as a coach. He took over a very talented team in the Bulldogs, had several good years, then drove them down the table. His record at Richmond speaks for itself. If you want to portray yourself as a list manager, you would think that you would do your homework and become familiar with the developing players at every club. But he only seems to know star players or what the average fan would know from following footy on regular basis. He knows nothing about second tier players and their prospects of making senior level.

[Matt80]

We are in fact challenging this ruling with the AFL Commission, and I feel that it will be overturned or sufficiently modified. The pressure from the greater AFL community, including the AFLPA has been considerable. Although many AFL rulings seem arbitrary, this one goes beyond anything reasonably defensible. If we lose this one, then there's no way to predict anything going forward. It's just a lottery.
........................

Terry Wallace's 'list manager' analyses demonstrate why he was a failure as a coach. He took over a very talented team in the Bulldogs, had several good years, then drove them down the table. His record at Richmond speaks for itself. If you want to portray yourself as a list manager, you would think that you would do your homework and become familiar with the developing players at every club. But he only seems to know star players or what the average fan would know from following footy on regular basis. He knows nothing about second tier players and their prospects of making senior level.

I thought Terry Wallace took over the Bulldogs when they were nearly extinct and drove them to two Preliminary finals.

[Beerman]

I should add that the timing of this is extremely convenient for the AFL. So much so that I'm reaching for the aluminium foil and thinking that the AFL have deliberately timed the release of this information. The Bulldogs exploding is a massive story. You've got the captain walking out, emergency board meetings, the coach being sacked. Forget what happened to Sanderson, this is much bigger.

The fact that anybody is talking about the Swans trade ban *at all* is a testament to how ridiculous and unfair it is. Even those who have slammed COLA all year are thinking this is a bit extreme.

I'm with Ludwig. I think it will be sufficiently watered down by the time it really matters to have too much impact on us.