AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

[annew]

I've made the article accessible by putting the cursor after the url and hitting return.

Thanks I meant to do that.

[6'2, 220, 4.53]

This in the Hun yesterday: 'Top lawyer David Galbally QC, says Sydney would defeat the AFL in a federal court showdown over the club's trading restrictions.' and this; 'Galbally told the HS the trade ban was a clear breach of trade practices. He said, "I would have no hesitation in issuing a writ. I think they would be successful. My advice would be proceed and issue the legal proceedings. If this is the way we are going to be treated, then we'll let the courts decide if it's fair and proper. Of course it's an explosive move, absolutely. But isn't what is being done to them explosive?"' Very interesting indeed, and IMO a green light to take those MF's at AFL house, down. Do it.....and I think they will.

Legal proceedings are very explosive. You may win the proceedings, but you make enemies of people and they will hate you forever.

A win in legal proceedings may end the trade ban, but the AFL executive and commission will hate the Swans forever. They will feel angry by being embarrassed by the Swans and will not accept the Swans case for fairness even if the court does.

Most of the commissioners are not going anywhere. They will find a way to quietly hurt the Swans if we hurt them.

Is it really worth the repercussions for one off-season? Compared to the AFL, the Swans are the small guy. The small guy rarely triumphs agains the big guy.

[Mug Punter]

Legal proceedings are very explosive. You may win the proceedings, but you make enemies of people and they will hate you forever.

A win in legal proceedings may end the trade ban, but the AFL executive and commission will hate the Swans forever. They will feel angry by being embarrassed by the Swans and will not accept the Swans case for fairness even if the court does.

Most of the commissioners are not going anywhere. They will find a way to quietly hurt the Swans if we hurt them.

Is it really worth the repercussions for one off-season? Compared to the AFL, the Swans are the small guy. The small guy rarely triumphs agains the big guy.

I think you are correct here but we cannot accept the current situation.

I think that the idea is for us to get a relaxation so that we are not overly restricted but so the AFL also keeps some face. The reality is if Jetta stays then we probably won't have either the cash or draft picks to pick anyone substantial up. If we do lose him then the money we had earmarked for his offer, probably about $500K, then becomes available and if we can't use it to get a like for like swap becomes very important.

I think we have been very controlled and measured here and you'd hope once we get through the next 12 months things will start to calm down.

If we get the concessions we need then then there is nothing to be gained and a lot to be lost from taking legal action for a total overturning of the bans when all we want is some extra leeway.

All the same, if they refuse to relax the restrictions then the reality is we will have no alternative but take it to the courts.

I think that common-sense will prevail and that once things cool down that the Commissioners will appreciate that we have actually been quite diplomatic and reasonable in this dispute

[Ajax]

Legal proceedings are very explosive. You may win the proceedings, but you make enemies of people and they will hate you forever.

A win in legal proceedings may end the trade ban, but the AFL executive and commission will hate the Swans forever. They will feel angry by being embarrassed by the Swans and will not accept the Swans case for fairness even if the court does.

Most of the commissioners are not going anywhere. They will find a way to quietly hurt the Swans if we hurt them.

Is it really worth the repercussions for one off-season? Compared to the AFL, the Swans are the small guy. The small guy rarely triumphs agains the big guy.

Are you serious? This is the sort of spineless response that got us into this predicament - a morale-sapping, gutless, rollover response that has filtered down through the Swans hierarchy to the playing group ever since the ban was announced in the week prior to the GF. Pridham should have pushed back right from the start. He admits that now. You seem to be the sort of person who loves to live on their knees - but you will never achieve greatness in that position. You'll never win a GF by being gutless.

[Mug Punter]

Are you serious? This is the sort of spineless response that got us into this predicament - a morale-sapping, gutless, rollover response that has filtered down through the Swans hierarchy to the playing group ever since the ban was announced in the week prior to the GF. Pridham should have pushed back right from the start. He admits that now. You seem to be the sort of person who loves to live on their knees - but you will never achieve greatness in that position. You'll never win a GF by being gutless.

I share that emotional response but ultimately what we need is a solution that means we are not penalised this trade period - I don't think it matters if it is a relaxation we are happy with or a complete overturning of the ban.

If we will only be active in getting a player if Jetta leaves and if Jetta leaves we would have $500K in the kitty for a replacement then why make enemies needlessly in trying to get the whole thing overturned when all we need is a relaxation?

[Ajax]

I share that emotional response but ultimately what we need is a solution that means we are not penalised this trade period - I don't think it matters if it is a relaxation we are happy with or a complete overturning of the ban.

If we will only be active in getting a player if Jetta leaves and if Jetta leaves we would have $500K in the kitty for a replacement then why make enemies needlessly in trying to get the whole thing overturned when all we need is a relaxation?

I think the enemies have already been made: Fitzpatrick. McLachlan. Evans. Langford. These are the guys responsible for the ban. The ban was not a friendly act. It was the sort of thing you would expect from an enemy.

[Mug Punter]

I think the enemies have already been made: Fitzpatrick. McLachlan. Evans. Langford. These are the guys responsible for the ban. The ban was not a friendly act. It was the sort of thing you would expect from an enemy.

And we've called them out and exposed them. Is there anyone in the AFL world that can't see that Langford was totally and corruptly conflicted when he put the knife into the Swans? Is there anyone in any doubt as to how incompetent the AFL and Gill the Dill are? I don't think so - we have exposed then for what they are but as much as I'd like to see those guys in the witness box I think cool heads do need to prevail here if at all possible.

I like the term keeping the powder dry - The one area I would hope we would always defend with legal action if it was ever threatened again is the Academy System

[ernie koala]

Do you have a crystal ball or are you Caroline Wilson?

- - - Updated - - -



Swans look for trade ban relief

I'll take the crystal ball option.

Seems like common sense..Swans will not be overly impeded given our already tight cap situation, and the AFL save a little face by not having to completely rollover.

[barry]

Pridhams suitability should be under questiin if he rolls over again on this.

[Mug Punter]

Pridhams suitability should be under questiin if he rolls over again on this.

I agree but I do think he has set out his stall strongly on this.

Only our management will really know what our cap wriggle room is but provided we are not hampered in the trading we need to get done, and I think it is probably just enabling a like for like replacement salary wise for Jetta is he leaves, then we don't need to have a victory as such, just justice.

In hindsight we should have fought it - I suspect we were not in a position to do any free agency trading last year with the Buddy salary impact so we just thought we'd keep our noses clean until the following year once things had calmed down a bit. Not saying I agree with it but they made a call that they felt was in the club's best interests.

[dimelb]

The prospect of legal action should be enough to nudge the Commission into a face-saving modification of the ban. I think the club ought to present their case with this in mind and be prepared to announce a mutually agreed decision, most likely by raising the payment. If the Commission won't play ball, then would be the time to make the threat a reality. I'd hope the Commission would have the nous to accept the olive branch rather than cop a clobbering which has the risk of being harmful to both sides.

[6'2, 220, 4.53]

Are you serious? This is the sort of spineless response that got us into this predicament - a morale-sapping, gutless, rollover response that has filtered down through the Swans hierarchy to the playing group ever since the ban was announced in the week prior to the GF. Pridham should have pushed back right from the start. He admits that now. You seem to be the sort of person who loves to live on their knees - but you will never achieve greatness in that position. You'll never win a GF by being gutless.

A compromised position is being discussed by the Swans and the AFL. The Swans are proposing to be able to trade in a player of equal monetary value that they trade out.

The Swans are at the AFL table. Pridham was able to secure a meeting with Fitzpatrick to discuss the matter.

We may achieve a compromised outcome before having to think about legal proceedings.

[Auntie.Gerald]

did the ban state only one player or more then one that we can trade at the $340k pa cap

I suppose if we have 3 players retiring we would want the ability to trade 3 ?

[aardvark]

Here's an idea, with Jetta going and Shaw retiring that would eliminate the 600k we are over the salary cap with Cola for 2016 thus triggering the end of the trading ban. Then everyone could get on with their lives. With Mills and possibly Dunkley coming in and Heeney and Rose looking the goods we would still have a strong exciting list.

[AnnieH]

This in the Hun yesterday: 'Top lawyer David Galbally QC, says Sydney would defeat the AFL in a federal court showdown over the club's trading restrictions.' and this; 'Galbally told the HS the trade ban was a clear breach of trade practices. He said, "I would have no hesitation in issuing a writ. I think they would be successful. My advice would be proceed and issue the legal proceedings. If this is the way we are going to be treated, then we'll let the courts decide if it's fair and proper. Of course it's an explosive move, absolutely. But isn't what is being done to them explosive?"' Very interesting indeed, and IMO a green light to take those MF's at AFL house, down. Do it.....and I think they will.

... well, if the QC says so...