AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

[Scottee]

Towers puts his hand up!

[Sandridge]

On Footy Classified tonight, Caroline Wilson said that the Swans will receive "good news" this week and that the AFL will "back down."

[The Big Cat]

On Footy Classified tonight, Caroline Wilson said that the Swans will receive "good news" this week and that the AFL will "back down."

Not sure if "back down" is the correct term. The Commission appears set to increase the salary limit imposed on Swan trading by taking into account what the average salary increase will be in the next two years. I take it this just means we can get a more expensive player but still only in the average range.

[annew]

Not sure if "back down" is the correct term. The Commission appears set to increase the salary limit imposed on Swan trading by taking into account what the average salary increase will be in the next two years. I take it this just means we can get a more expensive player but still only in the average range.

I agree, backing down would be the AFL Commission coming out and saying they were wrong to do what they did as swans had done nothing wrong and they will never do that. It is still a joke and completely and utterly wrong what they imposed on the swans.

[AnnieH]

The only acceptable "back down" is to remove ALL trading restrictions.
If they ALL aren't lifted, I'd be running to the Supreme Court of Victoria to put an injunction on ALL trading.
See how they like them apples!!

[Meg]

The only acceptable "back down" is to remove ALL trading restrictions.!

I agree Annie. If the Swans accept anything less than a total removal of the trading restriction then, after Pridham's fiery speech last month, it would be a back down by the Swans.

[stevoswan]

The only acceptable "back down" is to remove ALL trading restrictions.
If they ALL aren't lifted, I'd be running to the Supreme Court of Victoria to put an injunction on ALL trading.
See how they like them apples!!

I agree. The Swans will except nothing but a full back down, or it will be straight off to the courts....they only need a court injunction to be able to trade fully, and they will get it! They should not accept anything less than the right to trade like anyone else.

[swanspant12]

When are these AFL *smiles* going to overturn this ABSURD trade ban? Sick of these *smiling* peanuts ruining the integrity of the competition. Fitzpatrick, Demetriou, smug pricks!

[Swanny40519]

When are these AFL *smiles* going to overturn this ABSURD trade ban? Sick of these *smiling* peanuts ruining the integrity of the competition. Fitzpatrick, Demetriou, smug pricks!

Agree 100%.

When are we going to take the VFL D/Heads to court ?

[bloodspirit]

While there is clearly a feelgood factor about going to court and standing up to the establishment, giving them the finger etc etc I hope and believe wiseheads will carry the day. If they believe legal action is best I would back it but I think that a lot of people commenting are underestimating the gravity and destructiveness of legal action for everyone. If legal action happens everyone will lose and suffer, regardless of the result: us and the AFL. For that reason it wouldn't surprise me if another compromise is reached that leaves us less than satisfied but is simply a pragmatic choice - irrespective of whether we have legal advice that we might or would win in court. If that does happen, I won't be quick to criticise it even though it will certainly be disappointing.

Some of the not so tangible costs of going to court include: time and energy diverted from other projects, uncertainty, damage to our brand as we are perceived as whingers, possible damage to the entire AFL system with draft and salary cap restrictions that may or may not amount to illegal restraints of trade, lasting bad feeling from those within the AFL who have made the decision and with whom we'll have to deal on a whole host of issues - big and small - for years to come, possible resentment from other clubs, ammunition for the commentariat to bash us with, especially if we lose (will also be ammo for the commentariat to use against the AFL, especially if they lose) etc. etc. I think the working relationship with the various personnel at the AFL and other clubs/boards is especially significant.

We also have to shoulder some responsibility because we didn't complain last year when the decision was made - and this could be another reason for accepting a less than ideal final outcome.

[Nico]

Agree 100%.

When are we going to take the VFL D/Heads to court ?

Don't think you can implicate AD. It was after his tenure that this happened. I doubt he would have been a party to the ban.

[AnnieH]

While there is clearly a feelgood factor about going to court and standing up to the establishment, giving them the finger etc etc I hope and believe wiseheads will carry the day. If they believe legal action is best I would back it but I think that a lot of people commenting are underestimating the gravity and destructiveness of legal action for everyone. If legal action happens everyone will lose and suffer, regardless of the result: us and the AFL. For that reason it wouldn't surprise me if another compromise is reached that leaves us less than satisfied but is simply a pragmatic choice - irrespective of whether we have legal advice that we might or would win in court. If that does happen, I won't be quick to criticise it even though it will certainly be disappointing.

Some of the not so tangible costs of going to court include: time and energy diverted from other projects, uncertainty, damage to our brand as we are perceived as whingers, possible damage to the entire AFL system with draft and salary cap restrictions that may or may not amount to illegal restraints of trade, lasting bad feeling from those within the AFL who have made the decision and with whom we'll have to deal on a whole host of issues - big and small - for years to come, possible resentment from other clubs, ammunition for the commentariat to bash us with, especially if we lose (will also be ammo for the commentariat to use against the AFL, especially if they lose) etc. etc. I think the working relationship with the various personnel at the AFL and other clubs/boards is especially significant.

We also have to shoulder some responsibility because we didn't complain last year when the decision was made - and this could be another reason for accepting a less than ideal final outcome.

Sorry, what department of the AFL do you work in again?

[Sandridge]

While there is clearly a feelgood factor about going to court and standing up to the establishment, giving them the finger etc etc I hope and believe wiseheads will carry the day. If they believe legal action is best I would back it but I think that a lot of people commenting are underestimating the gravity and destructiveness of legal action for everyone. If legal action happens everyone will lose and suffer, regardless of the result: us and the AFL. For that reason it wouldn't surprise me if another compromise is reached that leaves us less than satisfied but is simply a pragmatic choice - irrespective of whether we have legal advice that we might or would win in court. If that does happen, I won't be quick to criticise it even though it will certainly be disappointing.

Some of the not so tangible costs of going to court include: time and energy diverted from other projects, uncertainty, damage to our brand as we are perceived as whingers, possible damage to the entire AFL system with draft and salary cap restrictions that may or may not amount to illegal restraints of trade, lasting bad feeling from those within the AFL who have made the decision and with whom we'll have to deal on a whole host of issues - big and small - for years to come, possible resentment from other clubs, ammunition for the commentariat to bash us with, especially if we lose (will also be ammo for the commentariat to use against the AFL, especially if they lose) etc. etc. I think the working relationship with the various personnel at the AFL and other clubs/boards is especially significant.

We also have to shoulder some responsibility because we didn't complain last year when the decision was made - and this could be another reason for accepting a less than ideal final outcome.

Not sure we'd be seen as whingers. I think we'd be seen as having the guts to confront the AFL, standing up for ourselves and what is right.

[Mug Punter]

While there is clearly a feelgood factor about going to court and standing up to the establishment, giving them the finger etc etc I hope and believe wiseheads will carry the day. If they believe legal action is best I would back it but I think that a lot of people commenting are underestimating the gravity and destructiveness of legal action for everyone. If legal action happens everyone will lose and suffer, regardless of the result: us and the AFL. For that reason it wouldn't surprise me if another compromise is reached that leaves us less than satisfied but is simply a pragmatic choice - irrespective of whether we have legal advice that we might or would win in court. If that does happen, I won't be quick to criticise it even though it will certainly be disappointing.

Some of the not so tangible costs of going to court include: time and energy diverted from other projects, uncertainty, damage to our brand as we are perceived as whingers, possible damage to the entire AFL system with draft and salary cap restrictions that may or may not amount to illegal restraints of trade, lasting bad feeling from those within the AFL who have made the decision and with whom we'll have to deal on a whole host of issues - big and small - for years to come, possible resentment from other clubs, ammunition for the commentariat to bash us with, especially if we lose (will also be ammo for the commentariat to use against the AFL, especially if they lose) etc. etc. I think the working relationship with the various personnel at the AFL and other clubs/boards is especially significant.

We also have to shoulder some responsibility because we didn't complain last year when the decision was made - and this could be another reason for accepting a less than ideal final outcome.

I certainly don't agree with rushing into legal action but I don't think we have any responsibility to shoulder on this appalling decision. At the time I think it was still a very volatile situation and I think the club took a strategic decision to wait until the future of the academy system had been resolved.

It should only be taken as a last resort but the hardline, black and white thinking of "complete reversal or the courts" is equally unhelpful.

I'll back the club to make the right call and I think they'll only go to court if they feel they are constrained in any meaningful way in the trade period.

This is just my take....

I think if Jetta re-signs we will have so little salary cap room left that this issue is redundant and we'll let it slide. Yes, it will still have been wrong but the club won't undertake expensive legal action just to prove a point - when taking on town hall it makes sense to pick your battles

If Jetta leaves, as is looking likely, then it's game on and we'll take a hard line to ensure that we can trade in someone to the absolute maximum that we want to be able to offer.

I think the club probably have a clear legal route in place once they know of Jetta's decision.

And Annie, please spare me a lecture in response to my post, we are all allowed an opinion on here....

[bloodspirit]

Not sure we'd be seen as whingers. I think we'd be seen as having the guts to confront the AFL, standing up for ourselves and what is right.

I'd like to think so too but having heard Eddie starting to spin it when the topic came up on radio (was it SEN? - anyway it was the subject of comment here on RWO, that's how I heard about it) I'm not so sure. He was making out we have a track record - evidently a reference to the 1996 grand final when we got an injunction from the Supreme Court to allow Dunkley to play and insinuated we were whingers and going off to the external arbitrator was having a sook. Sure, not everyone will copy Eddie's example but I think from this year's experience alone we can see that there will be plenty willing to jump on any anti-Swans bandwagon.