AFL slaps trade ban on Swans

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Untamed Snark
    Senior Player
    • Feb 2011
    • 1375

    Originally posted by CureTheSane
    Doubt the Swans would have bothered with this unless they knew that Jetta was gone at the end of the year.
    Sadly I agree
    Chillin' with the strange Quarks

    Comment

    • jono2707
      Goes up to 11
      • Oct 2007
      • 3326

      Originally posted by moocher
      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
      Buddy Franklin, Kurt Tippett and probably keeping Hanners, Reid and various other young players who'd be in demand elsewhere.

      Comment

      • bloodsbigot
        Regular in the Side
        • Mar 2010
        • 813

        Originally posted by CureTheSane
        Doubt the Swans would have bothered with this unless they knew that Jetta was gone at the end of the year.
        I like Jetta, but I feel his best is probably behind him now. Not kicking goals like he used to in 2012. Ineffective filling Malceski's role. Probably a good decision by the swans. Nice trade bait.

        Need a defender and a decent ruckman after Pyke.

        Comment

        • Mug Punter
          On the Rookie List
          • Nov 2009
          • 3325

          Originally posted by Ludwig
          This was a pragmatic compromise that effectively lifts the trade ban on the Swans. There are 2 main points:

          1. The AFL admitted that the Swans had not broken any rules. So it places the trade ban clearly into a ruling based on vindictiveness and retribution. It can hardly be argued otherwise.
          2. We can now bring in a player up to what was almost certainly the effective maximum in compensation that we could afford, given the squeeze on salary cap created by the loss of COLA. We probably went through the available candidates we might have interest in and what we might be able and willing to offer and this was the number we came up with.


          The AFL saved face (undeservedly) and the Swans saved the anguish of continuing the battle for no practical gain.

          We can move on now, but the memories will linger.
          I agree 100% with this summary.

          At a practical level if we re-sign Jetts we'll go Mills, Dunks, Sam upgraded plus 1 or 2 other draftees - Jetta, Shaw, Robbo, Bird out (plus maybe Goodes or another)

          If we lose Jetta we'll want to bring a player in and I suspect that the $450,000 is what our budget would have been.

          It's a victory of sorts but like many on here I wish we had taken then to court but looking at the bigger picture I really do feel we need to keep that as a last resort. Because without a doubt we are going to need lawyers at some stage re our academy system.

          Colless made some very salient points in his summation of the game in the Northern States. Lions are insolvent and Suns and GWS are on a $40M a year combined life support package. Yet we all get punished because we have the temerity to be successful.

          I'll be glad when next year comes around and our COLA is completely gone. But the terrible state of the Northern teams really is a massive cause for concern and for mine the academy system is the only long term solution - for the clubs and for the game.

          Glad this issue is now closed, for better or worse. Overall I think the Swans have handled it all reasonably well

          Comment

          • stevoswan
            Veterans List
            • Sep 2014
            • 8559

            And the bull@@@@ continues from the Melbourne press.....this is the final sentence from an article by Michael Warner in todays Hun, regarding the softening of the trade ban; "The ban followed the phasing out of the club's cost of living allowance, used to recruit superstar forwards Lance Franklin and Kurt Tippett." Why does this utter crap still eminate from journo's who know better? @@@@ing a**holes......

            Comment

            • Mug Punter
              On the Rookie List
              • Nov 2009
              • 3325

              Originally posted by stevoswan
              And the bull@@@@ continues from the Melbourne press.....this is the final sentence from an article by Michael Warner in todays Hun, regarding the softening of the trade ban; "The ban followed the phasing out of the club's cost of living allowance, used to recruit superstar forwards Lance Franklin and Kurt Tippett." Why does this utter crap still eminate from journo's who know better? @@@@ing a**holes......
              So, if we didn't have COLA would we have been able to recruit both?

              We didn't do anything wrong and their logic is skewed but it is hard to answer yes to that question above.

              Glad it is out next year and a fairer system for all clubs is in place and that we have a mechanism now for recruiting developing a home grown list

              Comment

              • Mel_C
                Veterans List
                • Jan 2003
                • 4470

                Originally posted by stevoswan
                And the bull@@@@ continues from the Melbourne press.....this is the final sentence from an article by Michael Warner in todays Hun, regarding the softening of the trade ban; "The ban followed the phasing out of the club's cost of living allowance, used to recruit superstar forwards Lance Franklin and Kurt Tippett." Why does this utter crap still eminate from journo's who know better? @@@@ing a**holes......
                This has been the problem all along...everyone thinks that we used the entire COLA amount to pay for Buddy and Tippett. This is what is spewed by Eddie, Dermie and various journalists even though it is not true. So of course the public believes what they hear, hence the backlash.

                Comment

                • cherub
                  Warming the Bench
                  • May 2010
                  • 239

                  Originally posted by Mug Punter
                  So, if we didn't have COLA would we have been able to recruit both?

                  We didn't do anything wrong and their logic is skewed but it is hard to answer yes to that question above.

                  Glad it is out next year and a fairer system for all clubs is in place and that we have a mechanism now for recruiting developing a home grown list
                  I saw Ireland quoted somewhere that the total COLA for Buddy and Tip was somewhere around $60000. So yes, we could still have recruited them. They attract a lot of ASA money. I think the issue is more could we have held onto some of our other players.

                  Comment

                  • stevoswan
                    Veterans List
                    • Sep 2014
                    • 8559

                    Originally posted by Mel_C
                    This has been the problem all along...everyone thinks that we used the entire COLA amount to pay for Buddy and Tippett. This is what is spewed by Eddie, Dermie and various journalists even though it is not true. So of course the public believes what they hear, hence the backlash.
                    They (the Vic media) remind me of umpires appeasing feral crowds in the West, ie; churn out bull@@@@ that you know will please the locals.......

                    Comment

                    • Ludwig
                      Veterans List
                      • Apr 2007
                      • 9359

                      The Swans should take down the 'At Home With the Swans' video from the website before Eddie McGuire or Mike Fitzpatrick see it.
                      At home with the Swans thanks to airbnb - Ep 1, 2015 - sydneyswans.com.au

                      It's conclusive evidence that the COLA money was not being spread around equitably.

                      Comment

                      • Auntie.Gerald
                        Veterans List
                        • Oct 2009
                        • 6480

                        interesting they picked these guys

                        if they were wanting to let Harrison go at the end of this season would they have got Swampy to host this segment ?
                        "be tough, only when it gets tough"

                        Comment

                        • AnnieH
                          RWOs Black Sheep
                          • Aug 2006
                          • 11332

                          I'd still be taking them to Court. The AFL really haven't got a leg to stand on. They've totally admitted we've done nothing wrong (yet we are still being punished).
                          What the what??
                          I'd be putting an injunction on ALL trading unless our restrictions are removed in full.
                          Wild speculation, unsubstantiated rumours, silly jokes and opposition delight in another's failures is what makes an internet forum fun.
                          Blessed are the cracked for they are the ones who let in the light.

                          Comment

                          • Levii3
                            Regular in the Side
                            • Jun 2015
                            • 655

                            Originally posted by AnnieH
                            I'd still be taking them to Court. The AFL really haven't got a leg to stand on. They've totally admitted we've done nothing wrong (yet we are still being punished).
                            What the what??
                            I'd be putting an injunction on ALL trading unless our restrictions are removed in full.
                            They've raised it to 450K which is what we can afford anyway next year there will be no restrictions. We weren't going to go get a 600k backman or anything this year.

                            Comment

                            • AnnieH
                              RWOs Black Sheep
                              • Aug 2006
                              • 11332

                              Originally posted by Levii3
                              They've raised it to 450K which is what we can afford anyway next year there will be no restrictions. We weren't going to go get a 600k backman or anything this year.
                              That's totally irrelevant.
                              We've been restricted in our trading.
                              When your team is manned by "trading" during the "trade period" (only), for a team that has done NOTHING wrong (AFL's words), we are STILL restricted.

                              We can afford a $600K player... we're not getting that quality just because the AFL are a pack of petty beyatches.

                              Injunction on all trading. That is the only thing that's going to make them take us seriously.
                              Wild speculation, unsubstantiated rumours, silly jokes and opposition delight in another's failures is what makes an internet forum fun.
                              Blessed are the cracked for they are the ones who let in the light.

                              Comment

                              • barry
                                Veterans List
                                • Jan 2003
                                • 8499

                                Totally agree

                                Comment

                                Working...