AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

[Industrial Fan]

Would be interesting to see how match payments and incentives would work under that system. Is $350k the baseline salary or complete income for that player?

[barry]

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.

I'd say Leuenburger is in the $450K+ group. We could easily free up space by getting rid of Derickx.

Pyke is done. Naismith is not ready, and may never be. Nank is unknown.

The other problem is Jetta. We'd want a like-for-like replacement, otherwise we are entering a rebuilding phase which nobody wants.

[Swanny40519]

One item I am not clear on - GWS receive COLA ?

As far I understand they do, but they will not be penalised with trade restrictions.

So how is the AFL reducing their love child's COLA allowance

[barry]

One item I am not clear on - GWS receive COLA ?

As far I understand they do, but they will not be penalised with trade restrictions.

So how is the AFL reducing their love child's COLA allowance

This is the basis of our case really.

Swans are playing it smart. Get all the academy stuff sorted while we are playing ball, then get a court injunction just prior to the trade period to let us trade. They wont have time to stuff the academy in retribution until after we have Mills safely signed.

[Swanny40519]

This is the basis of our case really.

Swans are playing it smart. Get all the academy stuff sorted while we are playing ball, then get a court injunction just prior to the trade period to let us trade. They wont have time to stuff the academy in retribution until after we have Mills safely signed.

I hope you are right and we take the AFL &^*(&*&^%% to court. This really is one of the worst acts of vilification by the VFL/AFL in its long history.

[Ludwig]

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.

This matter has already been specifically addressed by the AFL and we are prohibited from doing it. Even if we signed Leuenberger on a 1 year deal for 350k, we could only pay him up to 350 the next 2 years, even though the trade ban would not be in effect.

[Ampersand]

This matter has already been specifically addressed by the AFL and we are prohibited from doing it. Even if we signed Leuenberger on a 1 year deal for 350k, we could only pay him up to 350 the next 2 years, even though the trade ban would not be in effect.

What could they do? COLA would be gone and the trade ban will be over.

[Bloods05]

Has anyone - like ANYONE - in the football media asked McLachlan why the trade ban doesn't apply to GWS? I would love to hear his obfuscating answer.

[dimelb]

Has anyone - like ANYONE - in the football media asked McLachlan why the trade ban doesn't apply to GWS? I would love to hear his obfuscating answer.

Working on the basis of "You can't have everything" the logical candidate for the ban is Hawthorn.

[Ajax]

Working on the basis of "You can't have everything" the logical candidate for the ban is Hawthorn.

Absolutely. And what a wonderful statement from Gillon - someone who has always had 'everything' on a silver spoon. When was the last time Gillon, with his privileged background, not had everything handed to him on a platter?

[Bexl]

What could they do? COLA would be gone and the trade ban will be over.

The afl have to sign off on every contract for a player to be allowed to play. They just don't sign off the contract.

[707]

Herald Sun this morning says we are after FA Leuenberger.

Big news is that "The Swans will lodge a formal submission with the AFL Commission NEXT WEEK (That's this coming week) seeking the right to take part in this years trade and Free Agency period"

Goes on to say "the Swans are exploring legal options. A possible compromise deal could allow them to spend up to $500,000 on a player."

BUT the really thing thing in this morning Herald Sun is a piece from Jon Ralph in his 360 View column entirely about the ban slamming the AFL Commission saying "they don't pass the sniff test". He implores them to remove the ban finishing off by saying "The commission is a little on the nose, but this is the perfect chance to show it is listening to it's constituents again."

Maybe someone can paste a link to this?

[mcs]

Working on the basis of "You can't have everything" the logical candidate for the ban is Hawthorn.

Don't worry about the poor down trodden Hawks dimelb..... couldn't stop them from recruiting another big name free agent in Dangerfield, who they so clearly need..... (the rumours continue to circulate that they are keen on him, despite Geelong being a clear favourite).

[Mug Punter]

Herald Sun this morning says we are after FA Leuenberger.

Big news is that "The Swans will lodge a formal submission with the AFL Commission NEXT WEEK (That's this coming week) seeking the right to take part in this years trade and Free Agency period"

Goes on to say "the Swans are exploring legal options. A possible compromise deal could allow them to spend up to $500,000 on a player."

BUT the really thing thing in this morning Herald Sun is a piece from Jon Ralph in his 360 View column entirely about the ban slamming the AFL Commission saying "they don't pass the sniff test". He implores them to remove the ban finishing off by saying "The commission is a little on the nose, but this is the perfect chance to show it is listening to it's constituents again."

Maybe someone can paste a link to this?

I am going to be un-swanslike here and can that part of me understands the trade ban at the time but it has no justification now.

I just think the AFL got spooked we'd sign Frawley, and there were some pretty heavy rumours out there that we would, and if we had then the uproar would have been pretty understandable.

Perhaps an increase of the salary level to $500,000 per year is a compromise to save face for the AFL - it avoids any chance of us suddenly signing a gun player but should be enough to allow us to trade in the quality of player we need in exchange for Jetta should he leave or any other player for that matter.

I think it makes sense to avoid legal action if possible but if they are inflexible on this we really have no choice.

[dimelb]

From Tim Lane, an interesting history lesson with relevance to "the South Melbourne/Sydney Swans", along with a great Packer yarn:

How a local football competition became a national goldmine