AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • i'm-uninformed2
    Reefer Madness
    • Oct 2003
    • 4653

    The AFLPA up for it

    AFL Players Association joins fight over Sydney Swans trading ban
    'Delicious' is a fun word to say

    Comment

    • 707
      Veterans List
      • Aug 2009
      • 6204

      Got the feeling we'll go the whole hog on this, either the VFL lift the ban or it's off to an ugly (for the VFL) court hearing.

      Go Swans, I'm happy to chuck in a few $ if they need support!

      Comment

      • annew
        Senior Player
        • Mar 2006
        • 2164

        Originally posted by 707
        Got the feeling we'll go the whole hog on this, either the VFL lift the ban or it's off to an ugly (for the VFL) court hearing.
        Go Swans, I'm happy to chuck in a few $ if they need support!
        I am pessimistic about the VFL Commission changing their minds but I so hope the swans go legal with it if they refuse to budge.

        Comment

        • WauchopeAnalyst
          Regular in the Side
          • Sep 2008
          • 834

          Lift the trade ban or we go to court and will get an injunction stopping the trade period and draft. Pretty easy choice for the VFL with a "even playing field"!
          Last edited by WauchopeAnalyst; 21 August 2015, 06:42 AM.

          Comment

          • AnnieH
            RWOs Black Sheep
            • Aug 2006
            • 11332

            Originally posted by WauchopeAnalyst
            Lift the trade ban or we go to court and will get an injunction stopping the trade period and draft. Pretty easy choice for the VFL with a "even playing field"!
            This is what I called for last year.
            IF they had done what I asked, they wouldn't be in this position now.
            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

            • Mug Punter
              On the Rookie List
              • Nov 2009
              • 3325

              Originally posted by AnnieH
              This is what I called for last year.
              IF they had done what I asked, they wouldn't be in this position now.
              I actually think we have handled this quite well.

              We held our tongue last year and to be quite honest I think we were going to do little business anyway with our cap pressures and I am happy that any money we "saved" from the sanctions was used to re-invest in the new squad new contracts

              We have been penalised and been very diplomatic until now and I'm sure we have been trying to get this over-turned behind the scenes.

              We've kept our powder dry. Taking on head ofice should always be a last resort but we are most certainly at that stage now

              Comment

              • aardvark
                Veterans List
                • Mar 2010
                • 5685

                I heard Gil the Dill on 774 this morning. He said we agreed to the trade restriction and we could have it removed immediately if we drop 600k off our salary cap. He also said they are always happy to talk to the Swans.

                Comment

                • Mug Punter
                  On the Rookie List
                  • Nov 2009
                  • 3325

                  Originally posted by aardvark
                  I heard Gil the Dill on 774 this morning. He said we agreed to the trade restriction and we could have it removed immediately if we drop 600k off our salary cap. He also said they are always happy to talk to the Swans.
                  So this silver spooned tosser is basically calling us liars and calling our bluff.

                  He is also perpetuating the myth that we had extra salary capo - we won't have to lose a player, the players will simply lose an allowance the AFL said they could maintain.

                  We need to seek legal advise on this and act on it.

                  The players will probably also need to be consulted as if we lose then they will lose some of their package for 2016

                  Comment

                  • AnnieH
                    RWOs Black Sheep
                    • Aug 2006
                    • 11332

                    Originally posted by aardvark
                    I heard Gil the Dill on 774 this morning. He said we agreed to the trade restriction and we could have it removed immediately if we drop 600k off our salary cap. He also said they are always happy to talk to the Swans.
                    Why do we need to drop 600K off our salary cap? That's a bit more unequal isn't it?
                    They've removed the COLA.
                    Making us drop 600K is just another form of punishment... for what, I don't know.
                    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

                    • dimelb
                      pr. dim-melb; m not f
                      • Jun 2003
                      • 6889

                      Originally posted by AnnieH
                      Why do we need to drop 600K off our salary cap? That's a bit more unequal isn't it?
                      They've removed the COLA.
                      Making us drop 600K is just another form of punishment... for what, I don't know.
                      Not quite: if I understand it correctly it isn't phased out completely for a while yet.

                      But (again, if I understand correctly) the trade embargo is a separate, additional issue.
                      He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball)

                      Comment

                      • AnnieH
                        RWOs Black Sheep
                        • Aug 2006
                        • 11332

                        Originally posted by dimelb
                        Not quite: if I understand it correctly it isn't phased out completely for a while yet.

                        But (again, if I understand correctly) the trade embargo is a separate, additional issue.
                        Yes, but if they're making us drop an additional 600K on top of the removal of COLA payments, then what's the point of having a salary cap in the first place?
                        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

                        • WauchopeAnalyst
                          Regular in the Side
                          • Sep 2008
                          • 834

                          Originally posted by dimelb
                          Not quite: if I understand it correctly it isn't phased out completely for a while yet.

                          But (again, if I understand correctly) the trade embargo is a separate, additional issue.
                          I just can't see how the COLA is link to the trade ban. COLA belongs to VFL. Trading belongs to the Swans. Salary Cap belongs to the Swans. List Management belongs to the Swans. Coaching belongs to the Swans.

                          F%$&&$ Off VFL, and leave the Swans alone, because you guys F*&$&% the COLA, not US.

                          Comment

                          • Ludwig
                            Veterans List
                            • Apr 2007
                            • 9359

                            It is true that we agreed to the current limited trading restrictions, so Gil and Dil haven't lied about that. They will use that line rather than how the original trade ban was imposed, which is what Pridham addressed in his speech.

                            The 600k is the amount of COLA we will be getting next year. That is what they are talking about that we will have removed if we prefer having the trade ban lifted. If course this is impossible.

                            In 2017 we will lose this remaining COLA and it will be replaced by the rent allowance.

                            Rumours are that we are interested in Leuenberger or Zak Smith. I wouldn't offer either more than the 350k a year. Both are injury prone and inconsistent. I'd stick with our current group. It's not like we're chasing Todd Goldstein.

                            If in fact it is Leuenberger that wants to come to the Swans, but the trade ban is restricting his movement here, then it is quite possible the AFLPA will join the fight against the trade ban. That's our best hope. I may not agree with the decision to chase Leuenberger for around 500k a year, but I can certainly see our interest in him.

                            Comment

                            • Ampersand
                              On the Rookie List
                              • Apr 2014
                              • 694

                              Surely we can get Leuenburger in for a one year contract at $350k with an under the table handshake agreement to sign him to a higher/longer contract pending performance the next year. I just can't see how the AFL could prevent this.

                              That said, I wouldn't be devastated if we don't get him. Hopefully Pyke has surgery to clean up his knee in the off-season for the 1 year remaining on his contract and Nank and Naismith get a solid preseason under their belts. That way we can begin an orderly transition to one of our young charges.

                              Comment

                              • aardvark
                                Veterans List
                                • Mar 2010
                                • 5685

                                Originally posted by Ludwig
                                If in fact it is Leuenberger that wants to come to the Swans, but the trade ban is restricting his movement here, then it is quite possible the AFLPA will join the fight against the trade ban. That's our best hope. I may not agree with the decision to chase Leuenberger for around 500k a year, but I can certainly see our interest in him.
                                If Leuenberger for 500k is the best we can do i'd keep the trade ban thanks.

                                Comment

                                Working...