AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

[Ampersand]

By the way, Gerard Healy has an inside line on the Swans and would know better than anyone the internal details of the ban. There is absolutely no way he would be coming out as forcefully as he has if there were even an inkling that the Swans had attempted something outside the rules.

[baskin]

Who do you want to speak up on behalf of the club other than the coach (twice), the Chairman, the CEO, and the Football Manager??? Have you been hoping Kenny would show his outrage!

+1

[Swansongster]

Again, that's a pretty big accusation to hurl against a club you claim to support, especially on nothing more than baseless suspicion.

Isn't it far more likely that the AFL got wind that we might be in with a shot at landing the biggest free agent on the market for the third year in a row and decided to head us off at the pass to avoid the endless bitching and moaning from other clubs and their supporters about our "unfair advantages"?

This sounds more like it and perhaps underscores the problem with FA as it now stands. Many eligible players will only be looking to get to clubs with premiership windows that are wide open.

Still, I agree that without transparency, it is a blight on Sydney that infers we have been punished for some sort of breach.

Oh! for one good journalist t get to the bottom of it.

[CureTheSane]

Who do you want to speak up on behalf of the club other than the coach (twice), the Chairman, the CEO, and the Football Manager??? Have you been hoping Kenny would show his outrage!

If you're happy with how it was handled, then good for you.

As Matt would say "That was only my opinion"
It's how I feel.

To answer your question, as has been stated by many members, many times, the Swans have been extremely timid and appearing to be on the back foot in addressing this issue.
Why did they not come out on the attack when this ridiculously unfair decision was made?
I mean Eddie has a go at Swans, Pridham comes out and slams him down, comparing him to Clive Palmer.
Then this happens - something serious which potentially affects our future - and it's all "we are surprised" and "we are disappointed" etc

We're either too weak to stand up to the AFL or there are some things we don't want out in the open.
I'm not accusing the Swans of doing anything wrong, but the way they haven't handled this raises that as a potential option.
Personally I believe that we were weak...

[CureTheSane]

I'll insert my replies to your comments within your quote in blue

If you're going to hurl unfounded slander *roll eyes* against a club we all love and whose administration is highly respected I'd like to know just what the specific allegation you're suggesting the Swans "tried". I'm not - see above post Attempting to recruit Frawley was not against the rules and the only person insulting fans here is you. *roll eyes*

If the AFL had concrete evidence of a rules breach by the Swans they would release the details in a heartbeat given the PR nightmare of the backlash they are facing from the industry. So as per my above quote you are suggesting that the Swans are weak?

[Ampersand]

Guess what, CuretheSane? We are weak. We're in a weak bargaining position and no amount of empty bluster and whining in the media will change that. We can't afford to lose COLA without either breaching the salary cap or losing players and the AFL clearly have it within their power to unilaterally withdraw COLA funding at any time, given that is the sanction for us attempting to trade.

Do you really think a series of forceful statements will make the AFL back down? The only thing that will reverse this decision is a legal challenge and I don't want the club pursuing that action until we are able to function without COLA assistance, which I guarantee will be withdrawn if we take this matter to court.

[The Big Cat]

Then this happens - something serious which potentially affects our future - and it's all "we are surprised" and "we are disappointed" etc

We're either too weak to stand up to the AFL or there are some things we don't want out in the open.

Perhaps its a balancing act between showing annoyance and not burning too many bridges. Afterall Ireland has stated they want to meet the whole commission for a review of the decision. Won't help if the club comes out and "officially" accuses the Commission of "vindictive bastardry". Better to let a favourite son such as Gerald Healy say it for the club.

[111431]

Perhaps its a balancing act between showing annoyance and not burning too many bridges. Afterall Ireland has stated they want to meet the whole commission for a review of the decision. Won't help if the club comes out and "officially" accuses the Commission of "vindictive bastardry". Better to let a favourite son such as Gerald Healy say it for the club.

I agree with this approach. There is clearly something else being played out in the background that us great unwashed are yet to be informed about

[CureTheSane]

Do you really think a series of forceful statements will make the AFL back down? The only thing that will reverse this decision is a legal challenge and I don't want the club pursuing that action until we are able to function without COLA assistance, which I guarantee will be withdrawn if we take this matter to court.

I'm not just talking about statements. If it is all as it seems, then we should have threatened legal action. As many have mentioned here, we appear to have a leg to stand on.
You seem to think that court would have resolved this matter. If this is true, the club should have acted as soon as they heard about it, well before the draft period.
That they didn't, indicates that they won't.
Doing so now may resolve the situation for next year, but unlikely the Swans would receive any compensation, and if they did, it would be financial, which compared to being able to draft players, is pretty much meaningless.

So as far as I am concerned, for 2014/2015, the AFl put us in the naughty corner and we sat there reasonably quietly, perhaps learning our lesson...

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps its a balancing act between showing annoyance and not burning too many bridges. Afterall Ireland has stated they want to meet the whole commission for a review of the decision. Won't help if the club comes out and "officially" accuses the Commission of "vindictive bastardry". Better to let a favourite son such as Gerald Healy say it for the club.

I guess Essendon will be the guinea pig to gauge the extent of the AFL's vindictiveness in retribution to being attacked.

[Ampersand]

I'm not just talking about statements. If it is all as it seems, then we should have threatened legal action. As many have mentioned here, we appear to have a leg to stand on.

If you're going to threaten legal action then you better be prepared to follow through. If the Swans had raised the possibility of taking the matter to court and then balked it would have made them appear even more guilty.

You seem to think that court would have resolved this matter. If this is true, the club should have acted as soon as they heard about it, well before the draft period.
That they didn't, indicates that they won't.

Legal action will certainly resolve this matter, but what you don't seem to understand is that it may not resolve it in our favour. Given it's the AFL's money and their actions suggest they are legally entitled to withdraw it, at best it's a 50/50 proposition.

Let's say that the Swans did mount a legal challenge now. What are the most likely outcomes?

1) The AFL claim that the court action is a functional attempt to facilitate a trade and therefore withdraw COLA effective immediately.

2) We are now in a legal battle with the AFL and contractually liable to cover player payments in the order of $1.4 million over the next two seasons while remaining under a reduced salary cap.

3) As a result we risk losing the following players over the next two years: Dane Rampe, Kieren Jack, Lewis Jetta, Jake Lloyd, Daniel Hannebery, Tom Mitchell, Luke Parker, Nick Smith, Kurt Tippett

4) All that to secure a free agent we don't even know was a legitimate chance to join the club in the first place.

Or, the alternative: wait until next season to see which free agents are available then mount a legal challenge (or, better yet, just make the trade, AFL be damned) knowing we are only risking $600k in COLA and will be in a better position to keep our talented list intact.

As a fan I know which approach I prefer. There are enough fools out there casting unfounded aspersions about our club and their recruitment tactics without our supporters joining the chorus.

[Pmcc2911]

for me it is we get Heeney and Mills back to back because we keep the academies............as the AFL wants the academies to continue but the win win is some pain for the fruits to appease the melb clubs etc

The lack of outrage from the club and the lack of comment from HO points toward a "deal" being done as you have outlined.
Also as pointed out before, this year is done, next year if want some one we have to find an additional $600K, not an onerous ask.

[ernie koala]

The lack of outrage from the club and the lack of comment from HO points toward a "deal" being done as you have outlined.
Also as pointed out before, this year is done, next year if want some one we have to find an additional $600K, not an onerous ask.

Maybe a deal has been done.....

But I'm more inclined to think the reason the Swans are behaving in a restrained manner, has more to do with their hope that they can have next years

trading restrictions overturned, or watered down, and that our academy drafting advantages are not completely removed.

The fact the Swans have protested publicly at all, through numerous club officials, says to me the Swans aren't guilty of any dodgy dealings,

otherwise surely the AFL would speak out and defend their decisions.

[CureTheSane]

If you're going to threaten legal action then you better be prepared to follow through. If the Swans had raised the possibility of taking the matter to court and then balked it would have made them appear even more guilty.

I don't think there is any question of following through. But first you tell the AFL that you will take the matter to court. Often this brings a favorable outcome. If not, you proceed.

Legal action will certainly resolve this matter, but what you don't seem to understand is that it may not resolve it in our favour.

That's where we are different. I see a much more favorable long term resolution in standing up for yourself. As it stands now, the AFL seem to be able to do what they like to us, with only a few squeaks. Yes, I have already read your comment below, and will get to them.

Given it's the AFL's money and their actions suggest they are legally entitled to withdraw it, at best it's a 50/50 proposition.

Nope. One minute you say action would bring a positive outcome, next it's a 50/50 proposition.

Let's say that the Swans did mount a legal challenge now. What are the most likely outcomes?

1) The AFL claim that the court action is a functional attempt to facilitate a trade and therefore withdraw COLA effective immediately.

We have no idea what agreements the Swans made with the AFL. This is a distinct possibility. The Swans should some out and say they signed something during the COLA negotiations and that would have set some minds at rest (and probably dictated a whole different debate)

2) We are now in a legal battle with the AFL and contractually liable to cover player payments in the order of $1.4 million over the next two seasons while remaining under a reduced salary cap.

3) As a result we risk losing the following players over the next two years: Dane Rampe, Kieren Jack, Lewis Jetta, Jake Lloyd, Daniel Hannebery, Tom Mitchell, Luke Parker, Nick Smith, Kurt Tippett

Really? You make some pretty wild worst case scenario projections.
I tend to look at it as the AFL wanting it to go away ASAP. (reference: Essendon)

4) All that to secure a free agent we don't even know was a legitimate chance to join the club in the first place.

Nope, all that to show the AFL and the competition that we refuse to sit around and watch as we are punished unfairly. Stop thinking inside the fishbowl and look to the future.

Or, the alternative: wait until next season to see which free agents are available then mount a legal challenge (or, better yet, just make the trade, AFL be damned) knowing we are only risking $600k in COLA and will be in a better position to keep our talented list intact.

As a fan I know which approach I prefer. There are enough fools out there casting unfounded aspersions about our club and their recruitment tactics without our supporters joining the chorus.

The club has allowed all of the so called unfounded aspersions by not being up front.
Whether that is up front with deals done that they cannot challenge, whether it be with some kind of wild trade which again pushed the boundaries, or anything else.
As a supporter, I think we need to be the harshest critics of the club.

[Ludwig]

I got the impression from the 3AW interview with Caroline Wilson that she will be investigating this and perhaps we will hear something next week. It is hard to know what the best action would have been or will be in the future without knowing the details of the COLA arrangements, since no COLA inclusive contracts have been made public. So we have nothing to judge our opinions on.

I have 4 questions that I would like answered:

1. What were the specific legal obligations of all the parties regarding COLA payments for multi-year contracts entered into prior to 2014 but remaining in effect beyond 2014?
2. Were contracts written in 2014 still based on pre-2014 rules? If not, what were the rule in effect?
3. What are the exact provisions of the 2015-2017 COLA transition rules, and are they the same for the both the Swans and the Giants?
4. Do the same salary cap related provisions apply to Tom Boyd's contract with WB as for Buddy Franklin's contract with the Swans? And if not, why not?

[Ampersand]

Nope. One minute you say action would bring a positive outcome, next it's a 50/50 proposition.

Errr... what? I never said that legal action would bring a positive outcome. In fact, given the unilateral nature of the AFL's actions I think they would be strong favourites to rebuff any legal challenge. Without seeing whatever "Memorandum of Understanding" exists between the AFL and the Swans regarding COLA it's impossible to assess the likelihood of a successful legal challenge, though I think any contract lawyer worth his salt would have included a "no reason" clause for the AFL to terminate the agreement at any time.

Really? You make some pretty wild worst case scenario projections.

I don't think it's wild at all to accept that we may lose one or two of the players I listed. Covering COLA from our salary cap is the equivalent of contracting two decent players per season at ~$350k per year.

Nope, all that to show the AFL and the competition that we refuse to sit around and watch as we are punished unfairly. Stop thinking inside the fishbowl and look to the future.

Again, functionally this means jack to list management. Once COLA is gone in 2017 what future scenario where we are "punished unfairly" are you envisioning that needs to be averted now by acting imprudently like real tough guys?

The club has allowed all of the so called unfounded aspersions by not being up front.

They've been up front. They've said the sanction is unfair, which it is, and that they will be fronting the commission later this year to have it reversed. Just because you don't like the fact they aren't rushing to the High Court doesn't mean they are not being up front or covering things up.

As a supporter, I think we need to be the harshest critics of the club.

I guess your definition of "supporter" differs from mine and would make Eddie McGuire our no. 1 ticket holder in your estimation.