AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

[ScottH]

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?

I have no problem with any of your questions, but I imagine the difference between Boyd and Buddy, is that, barring serious injury, Boyd is more likely to make it to the end of his contract than Franklin before father time catches up with either.

[Ampersand]

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?

Regarding your first question, I think the likely scenario is that the Swans have a two-party contract directly with the players to pay them a certain sum, inclusive of the COLA component. The Swans then have a separate agreement with the AFL to reimburse the COLA portion of the cost of the contract.

For contracts that extend beyond 2017, namely Buddy Franklin's, we will be effectively paying the COLA component without reimbursement and from within our salary cap. That is, Buddy will still be effectively getting 10% more than he would have at another club for the duration of his contract only it won't be called COLA anymore.

[Ludwig]

I have no problem with any of your questions, but I imagine the difference between Boyd and Buddy, is that, barring serious injury, Boyd is more likely to make it to the end of his contract than Franklin before father time catches up with either.

But what are the answers? Why hasn't anyone, AFL officials, Swans' officials or media people offered any details? That's why everyone is left guessing and the air is filled with innuendo, rumours and suspicion.

[Ludwig]

Regarding your first question, I think the likely scenario is that the Swans have a two-party contract directly with the players to pay them a certain sum, inclusive of the COLA component. The Swans then have a separate agreement with the AFL to reimburse the COLA portion of the cost of the contract.For contracts that extend beyond 2017, namely Buddy Franklin's, we will be effectively paying the COLA component without reimbursement and from within our salary cap. That is, Buddy will still be effectively getting 10% more than he would have at another club for the duration of his contract only it won't be called COLA anymore.

You are making my very point. We are taking stabs at the likely scenarios without actually knowing the legal certainty. Statements such as the COLA being a separate line item in every contract, and the Swans being obliged to pay to COLA by the AFL, although the money will be coming from the AFL, make you wonder what right the AFL have to alter these contracts.

We were led to believe that if Buddy decided to quit football after 3 years, even though he wouldn't be paid, his contracted salary would still be included in our salary cap for the full 9 years of his contract. If Tom Boyd decides to quit football after 3 years will the full amount of is 7 year contract be included in the Bulldogs salary cap?

[Dosser]

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

I guess that is the difference between being one-eyed and being blind. I can appreciate that you believe that the swans are always above reproach but I also view them as normal people who are naturally always looking for a competitive advantage and may test the limits accordingly.
Having said that, I am also inclined to speculate that a lot of this had to do with appearances and that an agreement has been reached to protect our academy.
Who knows?

[Ampersand]

I don't believe the club is above reproach. I believe in judging the situation based on the available evidence and, given there is absolutely no evidence of wrong doing, the sensible position is to not to engage in baseless conjecture or disparage the integrity of the club administration unless the facts tell us otherwise.

[CureTheSane]

[QUOTE=Ampersand;660914]Errr... what? I never said that legal action would bring a positive outcome.

Apologies, I misread you reference as to what might be 'withdrawn' in post 531
Aside from that you don't seem to understand what I am getting at, and that very basically, is standing up for ourselves.
In a nutshell, not doing so leaves us with....

But what are the answers? Why hasn't anyone, AFL officials, Swans' officials or media people offered any details? That's why everyone is left guessing and the air is filled with innuendo, rumours and suspicion.

It's really quite simple.
All the 'dirty dealings' are still pretty much under wraps OR the Swans are waaaaay to subordinate to the AFL, which could (and will) be interpreted as weak.
^ I don't want that ^
I'd rather hear about how the club were pushing the boundaries and the AFL had to wind it all back and we couldn't challenge it because of deals we had signed.

[ScottH]

The Sydney Swans remain hopeful of appearing before the AFL Commission in December in a bid to have their ban from trading in players next year overturned.

Fairfax Media has been told the Swans have even sought legal opinion about the recently enforced ban, should the AFL not seriously rethink its move.

The Swans have officially written to the AFL seeking to have their case for a reversal heard and continue to plot counter arguments.

The Swans were stunned when told they would be banned from trading in players - unless they were delisted free agents - during this month's trade period. The ban stands for 2015.

Swans ramp up bid to have trading ban overturned

[dimelb]

Now that's what I call good news.

[barry]

I wonder what oyr compensation will be ?. Pick 1 ?

[CureTheSane]

Really did make a mockery of the AFL PLayers Association.

[Dosser]

Swans ramp up bid to have trading ban overturned

Apart from the first 3 paragraphs the rest of the article was simply cut and paste.

[ScottH]

Apart from the first 3 paragraphs the rest of the article was simply cut and paste.

Lesson 101 in Journalism. No???

[S.S. Bleeder]

I hope all of you have written letters to the AFL sponsors?

ScrewIn Studs on BigFooty has been kind enough to supply the email addresses for many of the AFL's corporate partners (Mega Thread - AFL: No Trades (READ OP) | Page 33 Swans | BigFooty AFL Forum). Make sure you send them an email. I have written them a letter using a few lines supplied by ScrewIn Studs. Many of the email addresses bounced back so if someone has a better list can you please pass it on?

To whom it may concern,

You have probably received previous emails on this topic but if you could take a couple of minutes to read about my concerns it would be greatly appreciated.

I would like to voice my concerns regarding the AFL?s recent decision to ban the Sydney Swans from trading in players for two years.

On October 9th 2014 the official AFL website reported that the AFL had advised the Swans (on the eve of the Grand Final) that they were banned from trading in players for 2 years. Failure to comply with this ban would result in the immediate removal of COLA, which would in turn result in the Swans exceeding their salary cap and facing further sanctions. This ban was not a result of the Swans breaking any league rules and has no precedent in AFL history.

The result of this decision was that the Swans had to choose one of the following;
1) Withdraw from trading in any players from other clubs. Historically the Swans have had very few high draft picks. Because of this, the Swans have had to recruit players from other clubs at a higher cost.
2) Immediately cut the COLA payments and breach the players contracts, or
3) Pay the COLA in accordance with their players contracts and breach the salary cap.

The Swans have been placed in a position of duress by the AFL; either breach contracts or reduce your ability to win matches. Placing an entity under duress to breach a contract/s is called "Tortious Interference" and in my opinion the AFL has left itself exposed to this accusation. We still haven?t heard a real reason as to why the AFL made this decision. The AFL is a game owned by all Australians yet the AFL Commission do not believe that they are answerable to the public.

As a corporate partner/sponsor of the AFL I feel that this decision reflects poorly on your own organization and any other organisation who associates themselves with the AFL. As you are in a position of influence with the AFL I urge you to use your influence to persuade the AFL to reverse this unreasonable and unjustifiable decision as soon as possible. I will be boycotting the products and services of the sponsors which I do not have a professional relationship with until this decision is reversed.

Please note this decision has also been criticized by organizations including the AFL Players Association, all media commentators whom have commented on the subject and nearly everyone involved in football who comes from an impartial position.

Once again, I urge you to use your influence to persuade the AFL to reverse this stupid decision as soon as possible. Failing that, I would suggest that you reconsider your association with the AFL on the basis that your brand will be damaged as a result of your association that goes about business in an unprofessional demeanour and has a ?boys club? mentality.

Thanks for your time.

[The Big Cat]

After listening to Carolyn Wilson with Gerrard Healy earlier in the week I finally maybe got an inkling of what the AFL's flawed reasoning may have been. O'Keefe, LRT and (probably assumed at the time) Goodes were retiring, thus freeing up money which they, the AFL, assumed would be about equivalent to what was in the COLA for next year. Thus, they may have felt, by preventing the Swans from spending the freed up money (from the retirements) on new listed players they were effectively cancelling the COLA "advantage".