AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

[JPK12]

How would you people feel if say the bombers get a token fine and thats all and in a few years time are challenging for the flag with james hird as head coach being praised by his mates in the melbourne media whilst the swans, who have done nothing wrong whats so ever, have built an honest culture and one that is lauded by other codes have been engineered to sit mid table for a decade?

Because thats exactly the outcome i can see happening.

[Meg]

Gillon McLachlan October 27. 2014

"When you have made the decision that the Cost of Living Allowance was going to be phased-out the phasing and execution was challenging."

"The Swans mounted a compelling case over many meetings that it was our (AFL) rules under which they contracted these players. Under the phasing system they get more COLA next year and almost as much in 2016." "........it?s an accommodation to keep the phasing out for a couple of years. If you want to keep all those players there has to be some constraints, you can?t have everything."

Comment: Actually the phasing and execution could have been done in a manner fair to all parties (as both Liz and I have set out previously). I have managed changes in employee conditions in a past job and it is standard practice to phase out conditions for existing employes over a (fair according to local circumstances) period of time while adjusting the conditions for NEW employees immediately. One of the mad things here seems to be ("seems" because who knows what McLaughlan is really saying) that 9.8% COLA will be paid to new players/contracts in 2015 and 2016. The AFL should have announced the amount and rules for the replacement accommodation assistance now and introduced it for new players/contracts immediately. And even the fact that it still regularly gets referred to as "rental assistance" not "accommodation assistance" is confusing. They are not the same so what is intended?

It sounds as if the AFL wanted the two year phase-out to be a phase-down, (for example) from 9.8% to (say) 6.8% in 2015, 3.8% in 2016 and zero in 2017 when the accommodation assistance would replace it. When the Swans "mounted a compelling case" that 9.8% COLA was written into many players' contracts under AFL rules, and they would have to shed players to cut it back in the next two years, the AFL then said fine, but "you can?t have everything" so our condition is that you can't trade during the next two years. This was an unfair and unjustifiable non-sequitur to the whole equalisation debate.

[yabbadabbado]

It will be interesting to see ,if the AFL use ANZ staduim as a bargaining tool to lift the ban . Mike Fitzpatrick has financial interest in the stadium from what I remember

[Bloodthirsty]

My reading of what he is saying is :
1. The Swans have been too successful for their own good, so we have to do something to bring that back.
2. We want GWS to be more successful as currently nobody is on the bandwagon and in melbourne we think that sydney people will immediately jump on the bandwagon if they are.
3. We dont want either team to be too successful though so as to win the actual competition - thats reserved for Hawthorn with occasional wins for Geelong , Collingwood , Carlton , Essendon and hopefully Richmond one day.
4. We just want them to sit mid table but have a really good rivalry between themselve like the other interstaters have so that way they can all be happy about winning the local derby each year and not worry about the premiership as thats for Victorian power house teams.
5. If the academies sprout any more top draft talent we will definitely adjust the rules so that the swans cant have them and if GWS dare to get too successful we will do same (we just havent told them yet). After all GWS is an excellent nursery for future Hawthorn players at the moment .

You are exactly right. Could not have written it better.

@@@@ the AFL, @@@@ the media, @@@@ ANZ 'Fitzpatrick' Stadium and @@@@ anyone else that wants to ruin this great game.

I think I will spend most of my football time improving my own life from now on instead of watching other dudes. Fair enough if it was legit and not rigged.

[i'm-uninformed2]

My question, at the imaginary press conference, to Gill:

"Why are you a ----head?"

[annew]

McLachlan’s Swans remarks undermine the AFL’s Sydney dream | The Roar

Excellent article by The Roas

[i'm-uninformed2]

The best piece written on it yet

[Ludwig]

Gillon McLachlan October 27. 2014

"When you have made the decision that the Cost of Living Allowance was going to be phased-out the phasing and execution was challenging."

"The Swans mounted a compelling case over many meetings that it was our (AFL) rules under which they contracted these players. Under the phasing system they get more COLA next year and almost as much in 2016." "........it?s an accommodation to keep the phasing out for a couple of years. If you want to keep all those players there has to be some constraints, you can?t have everything."

Comment: Actually the phasing and execution could have been done in a manner fair to all parties (as both Liz and I have set out previously). I have managed changes in employee conditions in a past job and it is standard practice to phase out conditions for existing employes over a (fair according to local circumstances) period of time while adjusting the conditions for NEW employees immediately. One of the mad things here seems to be ("seems" because who knows what McLaughlan is really saying) that 9.8% COLA will be paid to new players/contracts in 2015 and 2016. The AFL should have announced the amount and rules for the replacement accommodation assistance now and introduced it for new players/contracts immediately. And even the fact that it still regularly gets referred to as "rental assistance" not "accommodation assistance" is confusing. They are not the same so what is intended?

It sounds as if the AFL wanted the two year phase-out to be a phase-down, (for example) from 9.8% to (say) 6.8% in 2015, 3.8% in 2016 and zero in 2017 when the accommodation assistance would replace it. When the Swans "mounted a compelling case" that 9.8% COLA was written into many players' contracts under AFL rules, and they would have to shed players to cut it back in the next two years, the AFL then said fine, but "you can?t have everything" so our condition is that you can't trade during the next two years. This was an unfair and unjustifiable non-sequitur to the whole equalisation debate.

I've read both yours and Liz' plans which make total sense, and would have been easy to implement. There has always been the yet unanswered question as to which parties are responsible for paying the COLA portion of contracts already approved by the AFL, and perhaps this is the legal sticking point.

Let's use Sam Reid as representative of the entire contractual situation at the Swans (just a hypothetical for illustration). He is reputed to be 3 years into a 5 year contract at 500k p.a. So let's say for simplicity that his normal salary is $455k plus a Cola portion of $45k paid by the AFL. Also assume that we pay 100% of the salary cap and there are no player movements at the end of season. If the AFL puts and end to the COLA immediately:

1. Reid is a contracted player, so cannot be traded or have his salary removed from the salary cap against his will.
2. Since the COLA is removed by the AFL, does that mean that Reid's salary is reduced to $455k for the next 2 seasons, without legal recourse?
3. If Reid is legally contracted to receive a total salary of $500k pa, then who has to pay the 45k Cola portion in years 2015 and 2016. If the AFL says the Cola is over, then I suppose they don't want to pay, but if the Swans pay, then they are forced to be in breach of the salary cap.

The possible elimination of the COLA must have been an issue when we did the 9 year deal with Buddy. How were the COLA provisions expressed in his contract, particularly in the years toward the end? Since COLA was part of the AFL rules at the time of the contract, it must have been included in the payment amounts for every year. Were there any contingencies written into the contract should the COLA be eliminated?

I would think that the legal obligations regarding COLA in existing multi-year contracts would dictate the post-COLA transition. The AFL may have felt that the Swans entered into long-term contracts to fix the AFL COLA liability beyond what it intended to do. Although it's never been mentioned, the 'rort' may have been (and in particular with Buddy) as seen from the AFL's perspective, that the Swans, anticipating a near term end to the COLA, entered into extraordinary contracts to lock in the AFL's obligation to pay COLA in future years on some contracts of key players. Perhaps this is what the negotiating is about.

Although the Swans never broke the rules by signing Buddy to a 10 mil - 9 year deal, they may have been seen to have exploited the COLA provisions by getting the AFL to subsidise nearly 10% of the contract by extending it over 9 years and the AFL, and particularly Eddie, was not going to buy it.

My feeling is that the AFL is actually legally obligated to pay the COLA portion of contracts already in place for as long as a contract is in effect. But they have forced the Swans into renegotiating these provisions by threat of punishing the Swans if they don't agree to the new rules. Some threats may involve the treatment of the academy. The Swans may be in a good legal position to win this battle, but clearly the AFL has the power to punish the Swans in the long term if they so chose. I don't think the Swans are being timid, as some have suggested, but just being realistic about the situation they are in.

I am trying to read between the lines of McLaughlin's remarks, which seem so hollow and vague. But there may not be much he can say, because the truth may not be what either party want to become public. It appears that his position is (or Eddie's position is) as follows:

1. The Swans knew that the COLA was going to be phased out.
2. With this knowledge, they recruited the game's highest profile free agent by abusing the last year of the existing COLA provisions by having a COLA inclusive contract extending out to 9 years.
3. Although legal under the rules, it was clearly not what the COLA was intended for, but the AFL were forced to approve the deal as they were caught between the free agency player rights as provided under the AFLPA agreement and their own COLA rules.
4. Eddie McGuire goes into meltdown and sets out to get back at the Swans for what he would call a rort of the system.
5. Since the AFL is obligated to pay the COLA, the best they can legally do is follow a Meg/Liz type plan to phase out the COLA over the life of the existing contracts. But this is not enough. Mainly because of Buddy's long-term deal. And perhaps of bit of retribution as well.
6. The AFL had to get the Swans to relieve the AFL of its COLA obligations. But what could they do? They couldn't force the Swans to pick up the tab without their agreement. Therefore, a period of negotiation has been taking place.
7. So far the Swans seem to have agreed to pick up the AFL's long term COLA obligations by receiving a fixed subsidy of $1.4 mil over 2 year plus a rent subsidy allowance coming into place in 2017. But apparently the AFL sees this transition as going too lightly on the Swans, so has imposed some trading penalties to try to even the score.
8. I think the Swans would have accepted the trading limitation for this year, but 2015 would be too harsh, and are thus appealing to the full commission to get the ban lifted for next year.

The problem arises because the Swans are in the legal right, but Eddie doesn't like being made to look the fool too often, and the Swans keep on playing him for the fool that he is.

It's very long winded, but that's my reading of the situation. I'm probably wrong and the right answer is that Eddie is a fool and Gill is an idiot - simple as that.

[Jewels]

So will you be happy to follow a code blindly that is ready to engineer negative otucomes for the club you love so much that might see no more success for a long time while they artificially create scenarios for a club in our region that no one wants?

Will you still be enamored and in love with "the best sport in the world" that only victorians care a lot about btw, in say 5 years time when the swans are hovering at the wrong end of the ladder thanks to efforts of the AFL whilst the hawks are winning flag after flag?

No wonder the AFL does what it wants, its fans are nothing short of subservient docile happy little consumers.

What an offensive statement.
It is infuriating what the AFL are doing to my team but seeing as I am not a fair weather supporter, I plan on following The Sydney Swans through thick and thin and find it highly insulting of you to call me and anyone else who feels passionately about the team subservient and docile.
Stick with your Western Sydney Wanderers and its hooligan fans, or at least stick with them till the going gets tough for them and you then jump onto the next bandwagon.

[penga]

Does anyone happen to know what the increase in the salary cap is for next year? As Gill the Pill stated that the 6% COLA would be worth more than the 9.8% this year. Thereby there is no great difference in the phasing out. To me, that actually starts to make sense, as there has to be more implemented for the whingers to stay quiet; it's just that a trade ban, and only access to the SFAs, is far too extreme a measure.

[Matt80]

I'm hoping that the appointment of Rodney Eade to the GCS will give the Northern Clubs a bigger and better voice. He may be able to also reach out to Eddie and repair the relationships between Eddie and the Northern Clubs.

[Auntie.Gerald]

eddie only likes to win............

[Melbourne_Blood]

I'm hoping that the appointment of Rodney Eade to the GCS will give the Northern Clubs a bigger and better voice. He may be able to also reach out to Eddie and repair the relationships between Eddie and the Northern Clubs.

From what I heard, Eddies not to pleased with the idea of Rocket leaving..

[i'm-uninformed2]

Can you imagine how hysterical he'll get to deflect as his rotten carcass of a club slips down the pecking order further

[Meg]

An article by Emma Quayle on the Swans taking their case to the full Commisssion. Largely a repeat of what has already been said. She does say:

"The cost of living allowance will be replaced from 2017 by an AFL-controlled rent subsidy of $10,000 for players earning $300,000 or less."

Which as I said in a previous comment 1. Seems to suggest that new players/contracts for 2015 & 2016 will still be paid COLA (mad in my view) and 2. Again the use of the words "rent subsidy" rather than "accommodation assistance" which implies a player who chooses to buy rather than rent will not get assistance (inequitable in my view).


Sydney Swans to challenge AFL trade ban