AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

[Ludwig]

I think we should add a small black swan to our jumper next season, perhaps just above or below the AFL logo, as a symbol of protest. But no one should publicly say what it means. Then we just remove it when the ban period is finished.



Sometimes you have to find your own pathway to show how you feel.

[liz]

By JL's cool, calm, polite and non-controversial standards, he sounds pretty ropable to me!

"We've clearly run foul of someone somewhere."

"From a coach's perspective we're trying to manage our list to try to get better and this is being done to us."

And surely this puts pay to the suggestion that the Swans were trying to do something a bit sneaky this trade /FA period that caused the AFL to respond in this way? If the club was aware of this, they would probably not be throwing their hands up in disbelief. That's not to say they wouldn't still be raising an objection, because there is a difference between them actually doing (or attempting to do) something underhand and someone somewhere in AFL land forming a perception that they were doing something underhand.

I like the reference in the article to both the phased out Lions allowance and the fact that we are being treated differently to GWS. The article might also have referred to the phasing out of the veterans allowance - or moreso the two year advance warning that all clubs have received. How any reasonable body can think it is "fair" to reduce a salary cap overnight, when you work in a system with multi-year contracts in place, is completely beyond me.

[Meg]

AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

I like the reference in the article to both the phased out Lions allowance and the fact that we are being treated differently to GWS. The article might also have referred to the phasing out of the veterans allowance - or moreso the two year advance warning that all clubs have received. How any reasonable body can think it is "fair" to reduce a salary cap overnight, when you work in a system with multi-year contracts in place, is completely beyond me.

Indeed. In fact back in May this year Eddy McGuire himself said:

"At some stage it was going to be immediately stopping but we just thought it would be fairer to ease it in."

"To be fair to the Swans, they need time to pull it back. To do it in one foul swoop would be too onerous."

"Two years, with this year, there aren't too many contracts over three years, so that should be able to get everyone through."

Eddie McGuire: Swans given a fair go

[Ludwig]

If the COLA is a separate 'line item' written into contracts, then I would assume that if a player had a contract that said 'you will be paid $100,000 in 2015 plus $9,800 in COLA in accordance with AFL rule blah blah blah, and then the AFL decides to stop the COLA, then the player simply has to cop it and receive only the base portion of the salary. The money to pay the COLA item will not be forthcoming from the AFL. What legal remedies the player might have is not clear to me. I suppose it depends on the AFL's right to modify the COLA as it pleases. There doesn't seem to be a salary cap issue since the players will just be paid less. The players obviously won't be happy, but they can complain to the AFLPA or the AFL. It's not the club's fault.

[The Big Cat]

I think this statement from Caro pretty much says it all:

"The prevailing view in the AFL is that the decision is directly linked to pressure from some AFL clubs following the club's securing of Kurt Tippett and Lance Franklin."

[Matt80]

Matt, you're now fixating on this whole Eddie's turning on Andrew thing. A bit of perspective, if I may. Andrew Ireland's last game for for the Magpies was in 1980 ... that was some 18 years before Eddie became Collingwood's President. Before joining Sydney, Ireland was the CEO of Brisbane (through a very successful period). I'd say Andrew was pretty removed from Collingwood by now. Why on earth would Eddie have any allegiance to a relic of a long passed age? Some people on RWO have far less allegiance to currently contracted Swans players, incessantly & unrelentingly insisting they be traded, & when it's obvious they are staying, they move on to another currently contracted player, wanting to move them on because they're "too slow" & "it'll make room under the cap". Seriously, what on earth does Eddie owe Ireland as a former Collingwood player??
That aside, Eddie is wrong, wrong, wrong.

My views about trading certain players is a business decision. I don't hold any ill will towards them after they leave.

Eddie holds people who play for Collingwood in the highest of regards. I'm sure Eddie would never say a bad word about the Swans if the deal gave him one AFL game for the Magpies.

That's why I'm surprised that he holds so much contempt for Ireland. I'm also surprised that he has never tried to hire Ireland as Collingwood CEO after his amazing Brisbane years and now his great Swans years.

Does anyone have any insight into the reason Ireland and Eddie don't get along as they both have significant history with the Collingwood Football Club? Is it all about Collingwood losing those two Grand Finals to Brisbane.

[liz]

Jon Ralph reporting in the HS that the commission wanted to remove the COLA this year but only relented when Swans gave an assurance that they would not trade in more players this year. He goes on to say that Swans hope to reverse the Commission's ruling for next year.

No Cookies | Herald Sun

It is hard to accept that that article has any credibility at all. If there is even a skerrit of fact behind it, why are the Swans now "dismayed". Why is the AFLPA up in arms that it was not consulted? It is just nonsensical.

And why are the Swans trying to get the ban overturned "before 2017" given it is only relevant for 2014 and 2015.

And why hasn't an AFL spokesman come out and explained to the world that this was a negotiated outcome. Indeed, the silence from the AFL on this matter is astounding. Over the weekend, fair enough. But I was expected to hear some comment today.

[Flying South]

And why are the Swans trying to get the ban overturned "before 2017" given it is only relevant for 2014 and 2015

It is relevant for the 14/15 drafts that determine our playing lists for 15/16 seasons.

Just throwing it out there, but could it have anything to do with Jeremy Cameron being available for 2016? IMO the Swans will make a play for Cameron. He is a gun. Even if that means the COLA for 2016 is canned. The accountants will weave their magic. I believe Tippett is contracted till end of 2016. But if Nankervis comes on, he can perform that power forward, relief ruck role, so they may look at offloading Tippett. I imagine a few clubs would be interested in him. But it would be so much easier if they didn't have to find another 600K. Thoughts??

[Matt80]

It is relevant for the 14/15 drafts that determine our playing lists for 15/16 seasons.

Just throwing it out there, but could it have anything to do with Jeremy Cameron being available for 2016? IMO the Swans will make a play for Cameron. He is a gun. Even if that means the COLA for 2016 is canned. The accountants will weave their magic. I believe Tippett is contracted till end of 2016. But if Nankervis comes on, he can perform that power forward, relief ruck role, so they may look at offloading Tippett. I imagine a few clubs would be interested in him. But it would be so much easier if they didn't have to find another 600K. Thoughts??

People on this forum are a bit harsh on the big Kurt. He has made some significant contributions when he has played. His average goal per game for the Swans is very good. Later in the season he was beaten by Alex Rance and Brian Lake, but I would not write him off.

Talking to an individual with knowledge on the Swans camp, the issue that Kurt has is he likes to " train too hard and do too much". Hopefully he gets this tendency under control. He can never be accused of not working hard by Swans fans, but needs to monitor his training work load.

I think he will have a great season in 2015 as long as he can start the early rounds.

[Flying South]

People on this forum are a bit harsh on the big Kurt. He has made some significant contributions when he has played. His average goal per game for the Swans is very good. Later in the season he was beaten by Alex Rance and Brian Lake, but I would not write him off.

Talking to an individual with knowledge on the Swans camp, the issue that Kurt has is he likes to " train too hard and do too much". Hopefully he gets this tendency under control. He can never be accused of not working hard by Swans fans, but needs to monitor his training work load.

I think he will have a great season in 2015 as long as he can start the early rounds.

You misunderstood me. I am not being critical of Tippett. Though you could ask the question about return on our 3.5mil investment. In 2 years he has played 26 games, @ $67,000 per game, 69 goals @ $25,000 per goal. I am just asking the question, if the swans have a value replacement for Tippett in Nankervis, would they chase after Cameron. Hence the request for a review of the 2015 trade embargo.

[The Big Cat]

Patrick Smith has called the Commission's decision Putrid.

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/sport/opinion/afl-commission-once-again-shows-itself-as-a-model-of-inconsistency/story-e6frg7uo-1227089352200

[floppinab]

Any change to the Academy system should lead to a restraint of trade claim by the Swans in that kids who enetered our system assuming a pathway to a Sydney team

Trouble with that MP is that even currently the Academy can't guarantee a pathway to the Swans. We've got three this year but if the floodgates possibly open in coming years with 5, 6 or more players vying for a spot during the same year not all them will be able to come to the Swans.

If there is any sort of sensibility about this issue (a broad assumption I know) the only change we'll see is some sort of penalty associated with the depth of our picks against a higher pick equivalent round bid from another team. i.e. we get Heeney this year @ 16 when the Dees bid pick 2. Maybe that would push our second round pick back 15 spots to compensate for the difference

I'm not sure why they have the bidding prior to the trade period, would make sense to reverse them IMO. Teams would then be able to trade in picks for their Academy & F.S. selections.

[ugg]

I'm not sure why they have the bidding prior to the trade period, would make sense to reverse them IMO. Teams would then be able to trade in picks for their Academy & F.S. selections.

You could then trade out your early picks then match a F/S or Academy Round 1 bid with a very late pick for example.

[Cosmic Wizard]

Would love the club to trade a player in and tell the AFL to see you in Court!!!!

You cannot not stop player payments which are in a contract full stop.

The AFL have sign off on all player contracts so don't have a leg to stand on!

Can not see why there is no threats of legal actions from the Swans???

Because people, this in not the first and last retaliation from the AFL.

I really fear this is the first in a series of actions, many behind the scenes, to nobble the Swans.

[ernie koala]

An excellent piece from Patrick Smith....Here's an extract...

"The Swans had accepted that the COLA benefits would be phased out over the next two seasons but had no expectation that they would be prevented from trading players. The ruling effectively bans the Swans from improving their list.

The decision to handicap the Swans in this manner shows the commission?s lack of judgment; its inability to stand up to the clubs with big followings and presidents who have platforms to exploit the commission?s weaknesses.

The COLA allowance that Sydney have enjoyed is, in fact, an AFL rule. Sydney did not promulgate the allowance, the commission did. The AFL has considered it so intrinsic to Sydney?s viability that the league has provided the money (last year just under $1m).

The AFL is effectively calling its own rule a rort while still believing in the principle. The COLA will eventually be replaced by a rent allowance to Sydney players on more modest wages. Which is a cost-of-living payment. This muddled thinking, contradictory rule-making, is emblematic of this commission?s work and explains how the game has so offended fans over the past two years.

Sydney?s error was to be very good at their job, gaining Kurt Tippett and then Buddy Franklin through precise and visionary thinking. And that?s something for which this commission will never be accused."