AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

[chalbilto]

Here's the update.
AFL statement - Trade restrictions update - sydneyswans.com.au

"AFL General Counsel Andrew Dillon said the Swans had raised with the AFL that the upcoming Exchange Period and List Lodgment dates may present a number of potential eventualities including losing a player whose contract was beyond the average-wage mark and the club would not be able to adequately replace that player with the restrictions in place."

"Mr Dillon said the club and the AFL had agreed that the Swans would be permitted to replace one player who leaves the club as either a free agent or as part of a trade, with a contract offer of up to $450,000 per year. If the club chooses to replace a departing player with this option, the Sydney Swans? transitional COLA amount of $600,000 for the 2016 season will be lowered by 9.8 per cent of the traded-out player?s contract, if that player was contracted for 2016."

Does this mean that we are only permitted to replace only one player? What would happen if the club wanted to place 2 or 3 players?

[707]

$450K is what we intend to offer a player we have our eyes on or what Jetta is on for 2016.

Still very unhappy we are restricted in any way having done nothing wrong but this is better than $340K I suppose.

So with the sub going and rotatrions down to 90, if we bring in Leuenberger will we play two rucks, Luey and Pike and leave Tippett at FF?

[stevoswan]

Geez this is frustrating. Off to the courts I say, armed with this key sentence from the AFL's own statement today, "At all times, the Sydney Swans have complied fully with the AFL?s rules around the Total Player Payments (TPP) and the use of the COLA payment." Yet still there is no fair and justifiable reason forthcoming from the AFL for our trade ban! It's obvious to all but those who are plain stupid or ignored by those who stand to gain from our loss, that this is vengeful and unjust treatment. I would call it 'punishment' but you have to have done something wrong to require punishment. Stop being gutless Swans and take these cheating clowns to court! QC's are queuing up to help get the job done.......just do it! FFS, this corporate bullying has to stop, or the fast diminishing integrity of this league will be gone for good, and teams like us will be pushing @@@@ uphill forever more..............

[erica]

Dan Hannebery has tweeted about it: Dan Hannebery on Twitter: "@RalphyHeraldSun Shouldn't be any restrictions in the first place, no rules were broken...."

[WauchopeAnalyst]

$450k seems kinds of cheap to me for Leuenberger.

Massive overs! Another Giraffe. No pack marks, plays about 10 to 12 games a year. 108 games in 9 years with 27 goals. How the hell are the Swans talking to Leuenberger unless using it as a misdirect. ????

[Ludwig]

Ludwig, like Meg I agree with all you say, but the remaining problem is that there is no acknowledgment of misapplied authority and thus no public recognition that the same, or a similar, misuse of authority may happen again. I still wish we had rolled out a suitable lawyer (acting pro bono, and they apparently did offer) as a hedge against future misuse of power.

They have admitted that we did not break any rules. We've been punished 4 times over. Sometimes you have to acknowledge who has the power in these situations and take what you can get. I think we got what we want without the pleasure of dragging this through the courts. The settlement made that a moot exercise.

$450k seems kinds of cheap to me for Leuenberger.

I wish you were my boos.

I still feel its incredibly weak by the Swans! Yes we may not have the money but it effectively still puts us out of the running for anyone with high end talent, even if they wanted to come to us. It sounds as though we are only a week or 2 from Jetta announcing a desire to leave the club so looks like it'll be Jetta out and possibly Leunberger in. Doesn't fill me with much hope for 2016 with the gaping holes on our list being that of genuine speed and most notably skills!

If we can't afford to pay a player's salary demands, then we really aren't in the running.
I agree that Jetta would be a big loss in speed and skill, but there is no easy replacement for him around the league who is available. I don't think we have gaping holes in our list. We have plenty of speed, but agree that our skill level can use improvement. Jetta's not gone yet. Let's hope for the best.


I think we can trade anyone out, even Tom Derickx, and would be able to recruit a player up to 450k. I doesn't sound like there's a link between the salary of the player going out and the one coming in.

[troyjones2525]

To be honest I'd probably rather us go after Zac Smith than Leunberger. 2 years younger and probably more upside.

[barry]

The AFL are cheating scum

[annew]

The AFL are cheating scum

Agree

[bennyfabulous]

Tell em to shove the 600k cola & after goodesy & shaw retire & jetts leaves for WA, just get in Dangerfield and we will call it even!

[Ajax]

Tell em to shove the 600k cola & after goodesy & shaw retire & jetts leaves for WA, just get in Dangerfield and we will call it even!

Good call.

"The AFL's become quite bitchy, quite frankly," says Colless. "Where we find ourselves is, 'We're the Swans. We have no allies. We are part of no blocs. It's the Swans versus the rest'. Brisbane is basically insolvent. The other two clubs are probably costing the AFL and the clubs themselves $40 million a year. The only club that is remotely viable and successful is the Swans. I honestly despair. Why are others going out of their way to bring this club down when its achieved so much? Against the odds?"

Read more: 'I want your respect': Why Buddy Franklin belongs at the Sydney Swans


Colless

[bloodsbigot]

I'd prefer the swans take AFL to court.

[stellation]

Massive overs! Another Giraffe. No pack marks, plays about 10 to 12 games a year. 108 games in 9 years with 27 goals. How the hell are the Swans talking to Leuenberger unless using it as a misdirect. ????

I wish you were my boos.

I dunno- ruckmen are expensive normally anyway- 6 years ago it cost us $300k bidding against ourselves to take a chance on Mummy. Sub rule going next year, even with reduced rotations, probably gets every big man that signs a deal this off season a bump in their contract? There's a few other clubs interested in him, too.

I'm not saying I particularly think it's fair value, more that the figure is probably a little low to lock it in as a done deal.

[CureTheSane]

Doubt the Swans would have bothered with this unless they knew that Jetta was gone at the end of the year.

[moocher]

Doubt the Swans would have bothered with this unless they knew that Jetta was gone at the end of the year.

Can someone expalin to me what we are able to 'trade or buy' in the event of Shaw and Goodes retiring and Jetta going west? That's alot of talent and experience lost! Am I right in thinking we can trade with Jetta for a player worth $450K but to replace the other 2 on the list we can only contract free agents to the value of $350K? It just seems incredibly unfair. I think the Swans have been very compliant in accepting this outcome