Tweet
Don't know if its true - but heard on SEN radio someone rang in and said the Shane Mumford is living in the same house as when he played for the Swans - he has COLA added to his GWS contract but would not have it if he played for the Swans - it has served its purpose - will interesting to see how GWS eventually handle the loss of their COLA !!!
-
-
Yeah, the timing of this long overdue rebuttal is interesting....
I'm not a lawyer but, any court action by the Swans would more than likely mean an injunction on the existing trade ban until the case is judged.
The timing of any court action is therefore very important, so that the ban is lifted during this years trade period.
I'm probably just pissing in the wind..But Carro's comment gives me hope.Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect... MTComment
-
I've said it a gazillion times.
This issue needs to be taken to the Supreme Court of Victoria post haste.
If QCs have offered their time for free, swans... you gratefully accept their offer and take it to court.
I can guarantee the Commission will roll over before it gets to the first directions hearing.
They've got nothing to stand on.Wild speculation, unsubstantiated rumours, silly jokes and opposition delight in another's failures is what makes an internet forum fun.
Blessed are the cracked for they are the ones who let in the light.Comment
-
Whether the swans knew that Colless was going to bitch slap Fitzpatrick or not, I reckon this was the reason for the timing.
2-3 months before the trade period, to get the ball rolling again.Comment
-
Let the show begin.Comment
-
Imagine if it went to court and swans won or if AFL backed down what if any compensation could there be for not being allowed to trade last year. Sounds very messy and I assume the AFL are seeing what they can make up to justify it.Comment
-
There is no compensation payable, unless we were in talks specifically to get a player and missed out because of the ban.
As far as I know, the swans have said they weren't after any specific player.
The court case would be to contest the legality of the ban, and to have the ban lifted.
I can pretty much guarantee the banning will be overturned without it going through the whole court process.
Please swans, let me draw up the paperwork!!Wild speculation, unsubstantiated rumours, silly jokes and opposition delight in another's failures is what makes an internet forum fun.
Blessed are the cracked for they are the ones who let in the light.Comment
-
Anyone who thinks northern clubs don't need extra cap space compared to traditional states need only look at brisbane. They are right back where they started, like the Bears days. Could easily happen to us as wellComment
-
I honestly don't understand the difference between every player getting 10% extra or using the cola allowance to pay for Tippett / Franklin. Maybe it's just a conceptual thing as the amount of money in the cap is the same one way or another.
Whether we need it or not is a separate discussion but to me the allocation of it is just semantics.He ate more cheese, than time allowedComment
-
This is a myth and demonstrates a common and insidious misunderstanding of COLA and player recruitment. Under the example you site, the player is a Restricted Free Agent and Richmond would be able to retain the player's service by matching Sydney's pre-COLA offer of $800k. There is NO advantage under COLA in this circumstance.
It's bad enough having opposition supporters drinking Eddie's koolaid and pedalling this nonsense let alone our own supporters.Comment
-
Well, it's like this:
The COLA was supposed to go into the left pocket. The AFL checked. They looked into the left pocket and said it was there. But Eddie McGuire and Dermott Brereton said that despite all the repeated checking and signing off that the COLA was in fact in the left pocket, the Swans pulled off a sleight of hand and moved the COLA from the left pocket to the right pocket.
The AFL countered by pulling off a sleight of tongue, by saying that the Swans had agreed to a trading ban even though after repeatedly checking and rechecking no such thing ever happened.
Richard Colless re-countered with a sleight of finger in the face of Mike Fitzgerald.
And Andrew Pridham added a sleight of foot in the butt of the AFL Commission.Comment
-
Nicely put. Now we wait to see if all this changes anything, ie; how stubborn and corrupt the AFL wants be, or, if they have any integrity at all....I suspect they are drawing up a new version of history, ie; more bull@@@@ to cover their arses, as we speak. Legally though, you would like to think whatever their version of events, they don't have a leg to stand on.....we can only hope. Go Swans, it's time to return the shafting....Well, it's like this:
The COLA was supposed to go into the left pocket. The AFL checked. They looked into the left pocket and said it was there. But Eddie McGuire and Dermott Brereton said that despite all the repeated checking and signing off that the COLA was in fact in the left pocket, the Swans pulled off a sleight of hand and moved the COLA from the left pocket to the right pocket.
The AFL countered by pulling off a sleight of tongue, by saying that the Swans had agreed to a trading ban even though after repeatedly checking and rechecking no such thing ever happened.
Richard Colless re-countered with a sleight of finger in the face of Mike Fitzgerald.
And Andrew Pridham added a sleight of foot in the butt of the AFL Commission.Comment
-
If the trade ban comes off and where allowed to trade with no limits then what are we going to do with our list.
Surely Goodes and Shaw will retire replaced by Mills and hopefully Dunkley, Naismith will have to be upgraded permanently or delisted next year thats three picks in the draft which is the minimum you can have. There looks like a lot of hard calls to be made with some of our current list players.Comment
Comment