AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

[Mel_C]

For the past 2 weeks Caroline Wilson has said that the Swans will hear from the AFL "in the next couple of days" with a revision to the salary restriction. Still waiting!

[Ajax]

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.

Oh please, this 'better to live on your knees than die on your feet' attitude is just what the AFL and Eddie want from the Swans.

[6'2, 220, 4.53]

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.

What an outstanding post. Beautifully written.

I would really like to know how many posters who call for aggressive legal action, have ever been involved in a costly and protracted legal process themselves?

Have these posters sold their house and given up years of their lives to put up a legal fight against the bad guys.

Legal action is costly, time consuming and their are no real winners accept the lawyers.

[stevoswan]

Oh please, this 'better to live on your knees than die on your feet' attitude is just what the AFL and Eddie want from the Swans.

Correct, better to challenge sooner rather than later or never, to stop the ever rising tide of Vic-centric influence on the AFL. Can't let them steamroll us forever more.....which they will while jerks like Eddie and Dermot are around.

What an outstanding post. Beautifully written.

I would really like to know how many posters who call for aggressive legal action, have ever been involved in a costly and protracted legal process themselves?

Have these posters sold their house and given up years of their lives to put up a legal fight against the bad guys.

Legal action is costly, time consuming and their are no real winners accept the lawyers.

Legal action by a wealthy, well organised professional sporting club is hardly the same as an individual taking on any form of legal action, in terms of the toll it would take. I think the Swans can handle it. As far as repercussions go, I think standing up to them now will be far more fruitful in the long run than being meek in the face of corruption. The Swans should challenge on principle because it is right, and because they have been wronged, basically illegally. Slay the beast before it grows too many heads(Victorian anti Swans heads), but maybe after Jetta makes his decision.....a good point made by Mug Punter earlier.

[6'2, 220, 4.53]

Correct, better to challenge sooner rather than later or never, to stop the ever rising tide of Vic-centric influence on the AFL. Can't let them steamroll us forever more.....which they will while jerks like Eddie and Dermot are around.


Legal action by a wealthy, well organised professional sporting club is hardly the same as an individual taking on any form of legal action, in terms of the toll it would take. I think the Swans can handle it. As far as repercussions go, I think standing up to them now will be far more fruitful in the long run than being meek in the face of corruption. The Swans should challenge on principle because it is right, and because they have been wronged, basically illegally. Slay the beast before it grows too many heads(Victorian anti Swans heads), but maybe after Jetta makes his decision.....a good point made by Mug Punter earlier.

The Swans posted a profit of only $800,000 last year. That money would be easily chewed up in a legal process against the AFL.

What's more the AFL is the Swans lender of last resort. Think about the money that the Swans required from the AFL to stay alive in the early 90s.

Do you really want to damage the Swans coffers through a court process, and make a bigger enemy of your lender of last resort.

There are free agents coming available every year. If Jetta leaves then front end some contracts with the spare money and then get ready to go for your free agency target in late 2016.

[CureTheSane]

While there is clearly a feelgood factor about going to court and standing up to the establishment, giving them the finger etc etc

Sorry. I got to there and realised that whatever else you said would pale in comparison to the opening line.

The Swans posted a profit of only $800,000 last year. That money would be easily chewed up in a legal process against the AFL.

And here I was seeing the words pro bono thrown around a lot....
Perhaps the Swans might research these options before proceeding?

[Mug Punter]

Correct, better to challenge sooner rather than later or never, to stop the ever rising tide of Vic-centric influence on the AFL. Can't let them steamroll us forever more.....which they will while jerks like Eddie and Dermot are around.


Legal action by a wealthy, well organised professional sporting club is hardly the same as an individual taking on any form of legal action, in terms of the toll it would take. I think the Swans can handle it. As far as repercussions go, I think standing up to them now will be far more fruitful in the long run than being meek in the face of corruption. The Swans should challenge on principle because it is right, and because they have been wronged, basically illegally. Slay the beast before it grows too many heads(Victorian anti Swans heads), but maybe after Jetta makes his decision.....a good point made by Mug Punter earlier.

Don't get me wrong, I strongly think we need to fight this and if the club need to seek an injunction to get this hear before the courts then I support it 100%

I just think that legal action needs to be a last resort and if we don't need to on a practical level then we should keep our lawyers until we really need them, like if the academy system is ever further watered down

[Auntie.Gerald]

it is swings and roundabouts and we will become even stronger with our lobbying power with the academy clubs if we don't go to court

the AFL will back down one further step i believe with out us going to court

[Ajax]

What an outstanding post. Beautifully written.

I would really like to know how many posters who call for aggressive legal action, have ever been involved in a costly and protracted legal process themselves?

Have these posters sold their house and given up years of their lives to put up a legal fight against the bad guys.

Legal action is costly, time consuming and their are no real winners accept the lawyers.

It is on the record that a number of silks have offered pro bono support to the Swans over this issue. Therefore cost is not an issue in the sense that you imply. There is no 'house' to be sold. Also 'bad guys' sounds like something George Bush would say i.e. hello?
Any intelligent lawyer would jump at the chance to take this to court, pro bono, because:
1. Legally this case is a 'lay down misere' for the Swans.
2. It would attract so much media attention, and because the Swans legal representative would win - he/she would garner enough positive PR and kudos from it to make millions going forward as a successful celebrity lawyer.

[stevoswan]

It is on the record that a number of silks have offered pro bono support to the Swans over this issue. Therefore cost is not an issue in the sense that you imply. There is no 'house' to be sold. Also 'bad guys' sounds like something George Bush would say i.e. hello?
Any intelligent lawyer would jump at the chance to take this to court, pro bono, because:
1. Legally this case is a 'lay down misere' for the Swans.
2. It would attract so much media attention, and because the Swans legal representative would win - he/she would garner enough positive PR and kudos from it to make millions going forward as a successful celebrity lawyer.

I like the way you're thinking.....I can see a Jim Main book down the track, and it's going to be a brilliant yarn......and if I can indulge for a moment, finishing with the words "and against all the odds, the Swans went on and won the 2015 premiership! A very good year indeed."

[Ajax]

The Swans posted a profit of only $800,000 last year. That money would be easily chewed up in a legal process against the AFL.

What's more the AFL is the Swans lender of last resort. Think about the money that the Swans required from the AFL to stay alive in the early 90s.

Do you really want to damage the Swans coffers through a court process, and make a bigger enemy of your lender of last resort.
.

The Swans have the biggest TV fan base of any AFL club. Around the 1,000,000 mark I think, at last count. Collingwood trail by about 200,000. In terms of TV revenue who would you say is the 'lender' - the AFL, or the Swans? Which team is at the forefront of the AFL's battle to win the hearts and minds of NSW and the national TV audience?

[DamY]

The Swans have the biggest TV fan base of any AFL club. Around the 1,000,000 mark I think, at last count. Collingwood trail by about 200,000. In terms of TV revenue who would you say is the 'lender' - the AFL, or the Swans? Which team is at the forefront of the AFL's battle to win the hearts and minds of NSW and the national TV audience?

The club doesn't receive any direct benefit from it. It's good to have, but I think the AFL would find a way around it.

[mcsquirta]

If they are going to go to court, they better get hoppin. Trade period starts in a month.

[AnnieH]

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....

I would, but you keep changing your mind.

[Ludwig]

Now Greg Denham has chimed in saying that Jetta is going to West Coast, the trade ban will be lifted or adjusted sufficiently so we can sign Leuenberger.

What a terrible outcome if that should come to pass.

I think we should go to court and get the trade ban reinstated. Then we tell Jetta, sorry, but we can't do the deal because we can't get another player to cover you, and we won't waste our money on a mediocre ruckman who can't even be the number 1 for Brisbane, and spends half the time on the injury list anyway.

The trade ban is necessary to keep us from harming ourselves.