AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

[Meg]

Ireland has said all the COLA is tied into existing contracts. He has said that when an existing player leaves (such as Malceski) his COLA will not be reallocated to new players but will come off the amount that has to be phased out.

I think what Ireland said is that is what the Swans argued should be the case, and therefore the ban on trading in does not make sense. What is actually happening about the amount allocated to go to Malceski is anyone's guess.

[liz]

It is amusing that he speaks about the need for transparency in one breath and then moves onto speaking about the Swans' situation.

And as for there being no better outcome, Meg has set it out above. I set out something similar a couple of days ago. Ireland has already commented in the media that the total COLA amount had been determined for the two phase out years. It really isn't particularly hard.

[Bloodthirsty]

What if the world ends tomorrow?

Nothing you have said is false, but I don't really see the point of thinking that way as a supporter where you have no influence over how things might pan out. In our own worlds of risk it certainly makes sense to allow for contingencies but as a footy supporter, what gets you revved up is anticipation of what might be.

Also, consider I could tell you now that the Swans will definitely win the premiership next year - ie accept that I have a time machine and I know this to be the case. Will your enjoyment of that premiership be as great, knowing all year it is inevitable? Surely it is the doubt and hope and uncertainty that gives following a footy team its edge, and therefore most of its fulfilment. Otherwise we might just as well go to the theatre or the cinema where we know the outcome is predetermined.

Everything you said is also true. I personally finds that it helps to temper expectations so that they are realistic, otherwise it can be a very disappointing come-down. Movies only go for 1.5 hours, whereas a season of football is a long time to be biting nails. It is amazing that despite the strength of the Swans team, you have a Port and Hawks side that are equally strong, if not stronger. I'm not saying anything bad about anyone, I just couldn't believe the ridiculous level of favourtism for the Swans to win this year. Many people had an unrealistic expectation that is would be a confortable win. But my other point was that we had a perfect run this year with luck and circumstance, and it is unlikely to happen again, making the task harder.

[Kelpie_X]

That is the simpleton conclusion, which assumes that the AFL Commission always acts in the 'best interests of the game' and that there are no other sources of pressure potentially impacting on their decision making process. I'd expect all the 'something huge' may be is some suspicion we haven't acted in the 'Spirit of COLA' - if we had actually broken the rules, we would have heard about it big time from the AFL.
Its not like they are against throwing teams out to dry when they break the rules - think of the Crows a couple of years ago, the Bombers and the drug scandal.

And the penalties are quite similar. So we have done something just as bad as those two clubs. Don't be led by blind faith. And no I am not a simpleton.

[dimelb]

Makes no sense. They should have:

1. Gone through existing contracts that have a COLA clause to calculate the amount required for the next two years.

2. Paid COLA for only those players. So if 3 of those players leave at end of 2015, the amount for 2016 is cut by the relevant amount.

3. Announced now the salary cut off point and conditions for payment of housing assistance and started to pay it from 2015 to qualifying players.

4. Any players recruited through trade or other means for the 2015 season and beyond who do not qualify for the housing assistance get nothing on top of their negotiated salary.

How could these arrangement have "perpetuated the problems" whatever they are supposed to be??

Meg, this is much too logical and much too clear for Gillon to grasp. I am well aware of the difference between the spoken word and the written word, but Gillon's comments are pure gobbledegook and quite incomprehensible, regardless of whether he is talking about the fixture or the Swans. He is not getting off to a good start.

[Dave]

Meanwhile the Dogs have given a 9 game veteran (Boyd) a seven year deal worth more than $6 million. I expect everyone who was outraged at Buddy's contract to be equally so with the Bulldogs because to me, there ain't a lot of difference in the rate, and not much in the length.
I wonder if they will now label him a "Bulldog Billionaire". Somehow I doubt it...

[mcs]

It is interesting listening to the Sen interview with Andrew Ireland that Ireland actually said the Swans could have accepted a ban on recruiting a free or restricted free agent, but they can't accept the total ban on trading. And that is what is completely absurd. For example, having lost Malceski we were not able to even consider (should we have wanted to ) trading in a lower paid player to replace him. Totally absurd!

That's the bit that has most people peeved. Why shouldn't we be able to trade players in that would be up to the same contract value of anyone such as Malceski that leaves, but excluding any COLA value in their contract? We are put at a huge disadvantage as a result, and whereas Port (assuming Ryder comes) and the Dawks (with their unending ability to top up, top up and top up their list without a word being said) will be stronger again next year. Plus, if anyone targets any of our big names over the next trading period, we get the princiely sum of draft picks only to replace them. Its not like we've won the last 5 flags straight and need to come back to the field. Could you imagine the uproar if they did something similar to a melbourne based team?

[Jimitron5000]

I have a theory:
The club doesn't care about trading or the ban on trading this year as it has something far bigger lined up next year.

The savings made from the departures of Malceski, LRT, ROK, Walsh, Lockyer, Dick and presumably Membrey and Biggs this year along with the likely departures of Goodes and Shaw next year will wipe a huge amount of the salary cap move than covering the required absorption of COLA should we elect to trade next year.
The left overs, of which I imagine there to be a fair bit, would be see the club able to go after someone at the end of next season. Given how the Buddy deal negotiations started twelve months before it was revealed, perhaps something similar is going on at the moment, hence the club biting its lip on making too many comments about the unfairness and ridiculousness of the ban.

At least that is what I hope.

[S.S. Bleeder]

Makes no sense. They should have:
1. Gone through existing contracts that have a COLA clause to calculate the amount required for the next two years.
2. Paid COLA for only those players. So if 3 of those players leave at end of 2015, the amount for 2016 is cut by the relevant amount.
3. Announced now the salary cut off point and conditions for payment of housing assistance and started to pay it from 2015 to qualifying players.
4. Any players recruited through trade or other means for the 2015 season and beyond who do not qualify for the housing assistance get nothing on top of their negotiated salary.
How could these arrangement have "perpetuated the problems" whatever they are supposed to be??

Spot on Meg. Spot on. I can only assume that the reason behind the VFL not going down this logical and fair path was to punish or hamper us for some reason. I'm tipping that appeasing McGuire, Gordon and Newbold had something to do with it.

[lwjoyner]

Nothing from the mouths of McGuire and Newbold re Boyds contract wonder whether they will complain about the TAX they have to pay.

[Zlatorog]

Here is my view on all this "soap opera": AFL has gone down the path of NRL of few years back and FIFA where they are trying to protect the interests of big clubs (in VIC) who are bringing most of the revenues to AFL. Lets be hones, with all the success the Swans had from revenue perspective, they can't compare with the clubs like Collingwood. With the introduction of Giants in Sydney market and their strategy (with the help from AFL) to lure Swans supporters to their fold it is obvious that AFL doesn't like the Swans. They want Giants to be more successful club than the Swans and it irked them, the club doesn't want to follow the script to bottom out, so that the Giants can rise up the ladder hence justifying the AFL investment. When the organization like AFL that is suppose to be impartial and not favouring one club over the other is doing exactly to oppose it than you know that something is terribly wrong with the code. It's all about money, isn't it? AFL is now dead to me. Although, I will still support the Swans because I like the club and the way it was managed together with their on field performance, but I will cut back on following everything else re AFL, including watching games when Swans are not playing, trying not to support financially AFL in any shape or form. AFL, if you want more money, go and ask Eddie for it. I just hope that next TV rights negotiations will be a disaster for AFL.

[southsideswan]

Here is my view on all this "soap opera": AFL has gone down the path of NRL of few years back and FIFA where they are trying to protect the interests of big clubs (in VIC) who are bringing most of the revenues to AFL. Lets be hones, with all the success the Swans had from revenue perspective, they can't compare with the clubs like Collingwood. With the introduction of Giants in Sydney market and their strategy (with the help from AFL) to lure Swans supporters to their fold it is obvious that AFL doesn't like the Swans. They want Giants to be more successful club than the Swans and it irked them, the club doesn't want to follow the script to bottom out, so that the Giants can rise up the ladder hence justifying the AFL investment. When the organization like AFL that is suppose to be impartial and not favouring one club over the other is doing exactly to oppose it than you know that something is terribly wrong with the code. It's all about money, isn't it? AFL is now dead to me. Although, I will still support the Swans because I like the club and the way it was managed together with their on field performance, but I will cut back on following everything else re AFL, including watching games when Swans are not playing, trying not to support financially AFL in any shape or form. AFL, if you want more money, go and ask Eddie for it. I just hope that next TV rights negotiations will be a disaster for AFL.

I agree that there is manipulation to try and give the best supposed outcome for the AFL. I think "they" liked that the idea the Swans had a successful period but wished it was over. I follow Manly in NRL and it grates on the hierarchy that they have had a successfully run. They do favours for other teams that they do not do for Manly. This is a dangerous road to travel down for all codes.

I think management sees it as an easier way to increase or maintain their share of market instead of looking how to increase the size of the pie. The best example of this is the academy. All other clubs can see is the advantage that it may/will give Swans.

[ernie koala]

So now I read GWS are making a second, late, play for Ryder...

So while the Swans are effectively banned from trading. AFL's love child gets...Patful, Griffen, possibly Ryder....

That will add up to somewhere in the vicinity of .... $1.7m - 2m pa.

And that's just 2014, there's still 2015 to play out!

Hang your heads in shame AFL, it's a disgrace.

[Meg]

Re my earlier post on the way the AFL should have handled the transition phase from COLA to housing assistance, I subsequently thought of one further modification to my point 3, adding the words after the comma as below.

My reasoning is that I think some existing players, e.g. rookies, would be better off under the housing assistance than under existing COLA if (as has been variously reported) it is set at a flat $10,000 or $15,000. And even more so if it is provided as a fringe benefit by the AFL which means the AFL pays tax on it but not the recipient.

3. Announced now the salary cut off point and conditions for payment of housing assistance and started to pay it from 2015 to new qualifying players, and in place of COLA to existing qualifying players in any cases where they would be better off (with relevant downward adjustment then made to the total COLA amount).

[mcsquirta]

I have a theory:
The club doesn't care about trading or the ban on trading this year as it has something far bigger lined up next year.

The savings made from the departures ... this year along with the likely departures ... next year will wipe a huge amount of the salary cap more than covering the required absorption of COLA {and Salary Cap} should we elect to trade next year.

The left overs, of which I imagine there to be a fair bit, would be see the club able to go after someone at the end of next season. Given how the Buddy deal negotiations started twelve months before it was revealed, perhaps something similar is going on at the moment, hence the club biting its lip on making too many comments about the unfairness and ridiculousness of the ban.

At least that is what I hope.

I agree. I'd be very surprised if there isn't a small team at Swans HQ right now working out how we can manoeuvre in 2016 completely without COLA. At least as being one viable option. (Trying to reverse the ban is an option but I don't think a very viable one.)

If anybody can do it, it's the Swans. We made $646k-ish profit in 2013, which is the AFL funded prediction for COLA in 2016. It's reasonable to expect us to well exceed that figure this financial year and the next. The salary cap is expected to rise a similar amount over the next few years too, from memory, so we should be able to cover the COLA funds from our own revenue & if necessary, we could operate 1 player short in the squad to stay under the cap.

So the bigger picture (I'm hoping for) is that rather than bitch and moan (futilely) about trade sanctions etc now - we have our heads down & bums up working on wiping the slate clean as quickly as possible so we can trade in a year's time. Mathematically its very possible, and so long as we perform fairly injury free, it looks to me like (it should be) the preferred option.

Rather than just playing a core 33-34 players like previously, the rotation should be higher so the talent on the B list can get up to speed with senior footy enabling our much vaunted depth (such as Membrey) to develop to full potential. 2015 may be a "missed by that much" year, but not a major setback and would also see us into 2016 all guns a blazing!