AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

[barry]

The VFL are treating us with contempt by not announcing the decision.

[Ludwig]

Well, it seems that the AFL has substantially lifted the trade ban. See Swans website for article.

There are some restrictions, which stop us from trading in any high profile players by a limitation on the salary that can be offered set to the average AFL salary. I don't see this as much of a problem since we really can't afford any of those sorts of players anyway; it was probably more of a face saving caveat for the AFL. Tom Harley seems happy enough with the result and looks pleased to avoid any open conflict with the AFL.

There are still some battles ahead over the academy picks, so it's good for PR to see the AFL putting some clamps on the Swans that from a practical standpoint won't have any real impact. So they showed that they will make sure the Swan can't have everything. They took something away without just cause. Perhaps it's time to ease up a bit.

[S.S. Bleeder]

Still neither fair nor reasonable but probably acceptable given the smile on Tom's face.

I assume this means that we still can't trade in player which is above average regardless of what we trade out. For example (example only), what if we wanted to trade in Dane Swan for our first round draft pick or if a player like Hannas wanted to go home but we wanted a player not a draft pick? Lets hope this scenario doesn't occur. Maybe the AFL will now feel they've had a win and won't need to destroy us on their academy and F/S decision.

[goswannies]

Still no explanation as to why we are being punished?!

How about we sign a free agent (a young one that has say 4 good years in them, & because they are a FA they can go where they want) on the AFLs pitifully pathetic compromised salary restrictions for a 1 year deal on the understanding with that player that they will be offered a 3 year contract extension during that year that will reflect their true worth.

No sir, not happy with this compromise. Tell us why we are being punished & I might be more accepting.

[annew]

Not happy with the result either as another has said what if Hanners or Kennedy or Parker or anyone else wants to go home we cant trade them for a decent player in return so it is still a massive punishment for not doing anything wrong plus we were already punished last yea by not being able to trade. A weak move by the AFL and I will stand by my decision to not attend any GWS games whether the swans are playing them or not as I suspect part of this decision is because the AFL cant risk a super swans team when trying to get GWS up and running.

- - - Updated - - -

In addition to my other comments I thought the salary cap dictated who you could and could not trade and GWS dont have any restrictions. Pathetic

[sharp9]

So...no Dangerfield then ;-0

[Nico]

Must be the only sporting competition in the world where one club has restrictions on it's business activity. Imagine if the PL did this to Chelsea, Manchester City or Manchester United. If we took it to the courts the AFL would be laughed out of court. I will never be able to get my head around the rationale behind the trade ban or even alluding to changing the Academy and F/S rules to the detriment of one club out of 18. In the 90's when we were on our knees the AFL didn't want us to go out of existence. We turn it around in a couple of years and have continued that success in the name of a National Competition that the AFL wanted, but now we get punished for that success? It defies logic.

[ScottH]

So...no Dangerfield then ;-0

Not until 2016

[frankee]

So the afl had concerns of the Sydney Swans attracting high profile players. Sounds like we definitely had some one lined up.

[churry]

It was probably Patful and the AFL wouldn't have wanted us getting another GWS target. I

f we lose a top player at the end of the year then this should go to court despite accepting the deal.

[S.S. Bleeder]

Imagine if the PL did this to Chelsea, Manchester City or Manchester United.

You can add Collingwood, Essendon and Carlton to that list. They never would have tolerated this. It's my understanding the we didn't have any players in our sites when this was introduced but then again the AFL didn't know that. That said, I'm sure we would have looked at Patful if we were able to.

[Ludwig]

I was livid about the AFL restrictions on trading last year, but pleased with this outcome. I think we need to put this into perspective and see the bigger picture from a pragmatic viewpoint. I'm calling this a big win for us. Here are some of my reasons:

• This only affects this 2015 post season, then it's business as usual.
• We'll be getting Mills and Dunkley this year, so no need, or even room, for another big star player. Let's not give Eddie another reason to cut us down.
• With $200,000 coming off the salary cap each of the next 2 seasons, we will hardly be in a position to trade in a player and pay more than $340,000 anyway. We still need to keep our growing list or stars happy and will have to conserve salary cap for when current players come off contract and signed without the benefit of COLA, meaning some players may have to take cuts. My feeling is that we will have to trade out a player or 2 over the next couple of years in exchange for draft picks just for salary cap relief.
• We may have been able to fight and win a case to get back into full trading without restrictions, but it would have defeated our purpose of getting what was a feasible outcome, while not embarrassing Gilly by making him admit it was a stupid and unreasonable decision that he made in the first place. He owes us one.
• Some of the comments of big name players getting homesick and leaving are not realistic. Most of our non-NSW star players are contracted beyond this season. Probably the biggest name that isn't is Lewis Jetta. I don't want to lose Jetts, but we probably could get a 1st round pick for him if he wants to go. We also may want to trade him to open space in our midfield. We have lots of speedsters on our list.
• We are already stocked with stars in the midfield and forward line, the position which commands the most money. It's only really tall defenders where we may have a need, and most can be had for less than 340k a year. (Forget Alex Rance.)

This is why Tom was smiling. He knows it's a good outcome. Everyone's happy. We even got the AFL to admit that we did nothing wrong.

[Matt80]

I was livid about the AFL restrictions on trading last year, but pleased with this outcome. I think we need to put this into perspective and see the bigger picture from a pragmatic viewpoint. I'm calling this a big win for us. Here are some of my reasons:

• This only affects this 2015 post season, then it's business as usual.
• We'll be getting Mills and Dunkley this year, so no need, or even room, for another big star player. Let's not give Eddie another reason to cut us down.
• With $200,000 coming off the salary cap each of the next 2 seasons, we will hardly be in a position to trade in a player and pay more than $340,000 anyway. We still need to keep our growing list or stars happy and will have to conserve salary cap for when current players come off contract and signed without the benefit of COLA, meaning some players may have to take cuts. My feeling is that we will have to trade out a player or 2 over the next couple of years in exchange for draft picks just for salary cap relief.
• We may have been able to fight and win a case to get back into full trading without restrictions, but it would have defeated our purpose of getting what was a feasible outcome, while not embarrassing Gilly by making him admit it was a stupid and unreasonable decision that he made in the first place. He owes us one.
• Some of the comments of big name players getting homesick and leaving are not realistic. Most of our non-NSW star players are contracted beyond this season. Probably the biggest name that isn't is Lewis Jetta. I don't want to lose Jetts, but we probably could get a 1st round pick for him if he wants to go. We also may want to trade him to open space in our midfield. We have lots of speedsters on our list.
• We are already stocked with stars in the midfield and forward line, the position which commands the most money. It's only really tall defenders where we may have a need, and most can be had for less than 340k a year. (Forget Alex Rance.)

This is why Tom was smiling. He knows it's a good outcome. Everyone's happy. We even got the AFL to admit that we did nothing wrong.

Wonderful post Ludwig. I agree with all you have said. Well done.

[liz]

I think it is a bull@@@@ response by the AFL. As others have pointed out, what if we lose an important experienced player at the end of this year. Why should we be restricted to replacing them with a kid or a nobody?

[Ludwig]

I think it is a bull@@@@ response by the AFL. As others have pointed out, what if we lose an important experienced player at the end of this year. Why should we be restricted to replacing them with a kid or a nobody?

Can you supply the name of an uncontracted player beyond 2015 that you fear may leave and cannot be adequately replaced, just for argument's sake?