Trade ban.

[AnnieH]

I get a bit peeved at the constant conspiracy theories swans fans have.

The trade ban was made to even the competition. we had an unfair advantage. perhaps it was a necessary unfair advantage as demonstrated by the basket case that brisbane has become. But it was an advantage that only the swans had. The shannon grant anthony rocca situation clearly showed that retention of very good talent was a problem for the northern clubs, but weve had a sequence of good talented players come to us since those days.

since the trade ban was implemented We lost maybe one or two players in consequence but weve picked up two top five players (two players where there was a constant cry of they are so overrated by swans fans before the respective drafts) for bugger all from the academy.

I dont give a rats about the hawks and their trading. They have done exceptionally well and good luck to them. They traded arguably better than us because the key defenders they traded for were the exact players necessary to complement their talented forward line - a forward line of smalls from rookie drafts and late ish picks. they have gone through a coach suffering serious illness, a key forward with serious health issues, the death of a son of their assistant coach and the turnover of their assistant coaches. its time many of you pulled your heads in about the hawks. i hate their fans and their entitlement culture but i also think longmire has it right - its our job to control what we can control and focus on that. be pleased every day that we stole kennedy from them - a player who in my opinion we owe virtually all of our success to over the past 6 seasons. some of you should look at the players that hawthorn has lost over the past five years and stop moaning.

Sorry, but what a load of ....
The trade ban wasn't made to "even the competition". The contracts with Buddy and Tipoff were APPROVED by the AFL, just like EVERY OTHER contract out there.
We copped a trade ban because Eddie is a big fat girly cry baby. Nothing more. Nothing less. It certainly didn't help Collingwood like that fat turd thought it would.
I can't be bothered with the rest of your rant. Seems you have an unhealthy attraction to Hawthorn.
Are you a swans supporter?

[bloodsbigot]

Swans get a couple of good players after 1 measily premiership; we get a trade ban.
Hawks get a couple of good players after 3 umpire assisted premierships, they get a round of applause.

Something is rotten.

[bloodsbigot]

Hawks - not a conspiracy, they're just better looked after than most. They won their Premierships on talent, never questioned that.

Bull@@@@.

They won two or three preliminary finals because of the umpires.

umpires.JPG

The love for Hawthorn and excuses for them by our own supporters is sickening sometimes. Do you guys even support our club? FFS.

[azzzr]

i thought bigfooty was bad but this thread is up there, i mean i don't like hawk supporters as much as the rest of you and don't get me wrong the trade ban was just a bad decision but " umpire assisted triple premierships " and aiding them to a fourth is a conspiracy theory to far for me

[Danzar]

Bull@@@@.

They won two or three preliminary finals because of the umpires.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1579[/ATTACH]

The love for Hawthorn and excuses for them by our own supporters is sickening sometimes. Do you guys even support our club? FFS.

At any given time in any given season you can be right. My point is the Hawks of 2012 - 2015 were an excellent team and legitimately won their Grand Finals. I'm not saying they were the best team each and every one of those years.

This year, I think that they've gotten to where they are through 55-30-15 of skill-umpiring-luck. That's @@@@@@, particularly so because of their attitude to the game, their opponents and the fans.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jono2707]

I'd put the tin hat away but it looks like I'll be getting it back out again....

[Danzar]

Before anyone argues conspiracy theories either way, it's probably a good idea to define what we mean by that.

I don't see a 'conspiracy' in a Hawks vs Swans context. We should have won our last game, we lost because the umps made mistakes. Before that, we won and lost each time fair and square.

In a Hawks only context, I don't believe there is a conspiracy between umps or the AFL to gift them Premierships. I just don't see it. That doesn't mean they haven't benefited from bias.

In a Swans context, I believe the AFL was directly influenced by some big Victorian clubs into concocting a 'penalty' that would prevent a potential Hawks-style dynasty. That's a conspiracy in my books.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bloods05]

I get a bit peeved at the constant conspiracy theories swans fans have.

The trade ban was made to even the competition. we had an unfair advantage. perhaps it was a necessary unfair advantage as demonstrated by the basket case that brisbane has become. But it was an advantage that only the swans had. The shannon grant anthony rocca situation clearly showed that retention of very good talent was a problem for the northern clubs, but weve had a sequence of good talented players come to us since those days.

since the trade ban was implemented We lost maybe one or two players in consequence but weve picked up two top five players (two players where there was a constant cry of they are so overrated by swans fans before the respective drafts) for bugger all from the academy.

I dont give a rats about the hawks and their trading. They have done exceptionally well and good luck to them. They traded arguably better than us because the key defenders they traded for were the exact players necessary to complement their talented forward line - a forward line of smalls from rookie drafts and late ish picks. they have gone through a coach suffering serious illness, a key forward with serious health issues, the death of a son of their assistant coach and the turnover of their assistant coaches. its time many of you pulled your heads in about the hawks. i hate their fans and their entitlement culture but i also think longmire has it right - its our job to control what we can control and focus on that. be pleased every day that we stole kennedy from them - a player who in my opinion we owe virtually all of our success to over the past 6 seasons. some of you should look at the players that hawthorn has lost over the past five years and stop moaning.

.

You give the game away when you allege that we had an "unfair advantage". No. We had an advantage, given to us by the AFL as an equalisation measure. If a club is given an advantage, it is entitled to use it. If, at some point, the AFL decides we no longer need that advantage, it is perfectly entitled to remove it.

What it is not entitled to do is to penalise us for using the advantage it gave us. I am certain that is why no coherent explanation of the trade ban was ever provided: because there wasn't one. In the absence of a clear justification, we are well within our rights to speculate about what the real reasons were.

It is absurd to suggest, as you do, that the Swans were doing something wrong. They were working within the rules stipulated by the AFL, and when they used those rules to achieve an outcome that thwarted the AFL's plans for GWS, they threw a tantrum.

That is not a conspiracy theory. It is a reasonable conclusion to draw from the known facts.

[Velour&Ruffles]

I get a bit peeved at the constant conspiracy theories swans fans have.

since the trade ban was implemented We lost maybe one or two players in consequence but weve picked up two top five players (two players where there was a constant cry of they are so overrated by swans fans before the respective drafts) for bugger all from the academy.

I dont give a rats about the hawks and their trading. They have done exceptionally well and good luck to them. They traded arguably better than us

Jesus Christ, with friends like you who needs enemies?

At the risk of stating the effin' obvious (although not to you apparently), it's a lot easier for the Hawks to trade better than the Swans when we are banned from or limited in trading and they are not. Banned/limited for not breaking any rules, but because we "can't have everything". How many premierships in a row constitute "everything" do you reckon? For us it was one. How many premierships do you think it will be for the Hawks before the same rule is applied? They're at three and so far not a peep from Gillon the Eunuch. That's not a conspiracy theory, it's fact. Until that decision is explained, or similar principles are applied to others, it is fair enough for Swans fans to conclude we've been stiffed by vested Victorian interests. But of course it's a bit hard for the AFL to give a cogent explanation or behave consistently when it was really just spiteful vengeance for us recruiting Buddy when they wanted their unloved, unwanted spawn to get him. Funny that the AFL had no problem over recent years with the Hawks recruiting big ticket players like Lake and Frawley from (then) lowly clubs. No "can't have everything" there.

And before you piffle on about COLA, even at its height it was less than the cost of living premium that applies in Sydney. A "level playing field" of everyone having the same cap means we actually have 15-20% less spending power than other clubs. Again, that's an economic fact. Would that be fair? Also, other clubs didn't need to match the COLA component in free agent bidding so it gave us no advantage in getting Buddy. We were just the only ones prepared to be adventurous, offer the 9 years and jettison a raft of mid-range players in one hit to get it done. Anyone else could have done the same. The Toorak Trillionaire just smelled a lobbying opportunity and pounced. He may be vile, but he isn't stupid (except on matters of race and gender politics).

As for the Academy, you seem to think $5 million is "bugger all". I don't. That's what the Swans invested in the Academy based on a certain set of rules being in place. Hawthorn and Collingwood were very happy for us to do it, until the Academy produced two good players after 5 years and $5 million (Heeney and Mills). Apparently we should invest that money but only so long as it is into a black hole that never produces a return. Based on nothing but squealing from the Toorak Trillionaire when it looked as if there finally would be a return, the AFL just changed the rules and therefore - retrospectively - the value of our investment, made in good faith years earlier. In the real world, that's called "sovereign risk" and it puts off investment in countries that do it. The AFL thinks it is a serious business, yet it behaves like a tinpot third world dictatorship. If they thought the Academy was going to be too productive then by all means change the rules from that point on, but changing them with retrospective effect, after serious money has been committed, is just laughable. You just can't do that in real industries ..... and make no mistake, footy is an industry. Thousands of livelihoods depend on it. That's extra money that could have been spent on talent spotters, development coaches, training facilities, all sorts of things. We didn't get the deal we were promised and it was based on nothing but partisan whining and Gillon the Eunuch's inability to say no to the Toorak Trillionaire.

I reckon the Swans should just exit the Academy. The discount is going to be cut again this year. What is the point of devoting major resources to something for years on end if you only get a minor advantage for doing so? Let the AFL reap what it is furiously sowing because it is too spineless to deny Hawthorn and Collingwood anything they lobby for. The wisdom of that approach can be seen in the current state of the Brisbane Lions.

So the facts are we've been the only club hit with a variety of retrospective, arbitrary and unexplained changes all of which have hurt us, all of which have happened in the name of equalisation at a time when ANOTHER CLUB, not us, has been merrily winning a string of premierships and looks like to win another. Sorry, what is our "unfair advantage" exactly?

Maybe you should listen to less MMM.

[barry]

Gills no 1 priority is now a mid season draft. What a dill.

[Bloods05]

Jesus Christ, with friends like you who needs enemies?

At the risk of stating the effin' obvious (although not to you apparently), it's a lot easier for the Hawks to trade better than the Swans when we are banned from or limited in trading and they are not. Banned/limited for not breaking any rules, but because we "can't have everything". How many premierships in a row constitute "everything" do you reckon? For us it was one. How many premierships do you think it will be for the Hawks before the same rule is applied? They're at three and so far not a peep from Gillon the Eunuch. That's not a conspiracy theory, it's fact. Until that decision is explained, or similar principles are applied to others, it is fair enough for Swans fans to conclude we've been stiffed by vested Victorian interests. But of course it's a bit hard for the AFL to give a cogent explanation or behave consistently when it was really just spiteful vengeance for us recruiting Buddy when they wanted their unloved, unwanted spawn to get him. Funny that the AFL had no problem over recent years with the Hawks recruiting big ticket players like Lake and Frawley from (then) lowly clubs. No "can't have everything" there.

And before you piffle on about COLA, even at its height it was less than the cost of living premium that applies in Sydney. A "level playing field" of everyone having the same cap means we actually have 15-20% less spending power than other clubs. Again, that's an economic fact. Would that be fair? Also, other clubs didn't need to match the COLA component in free agent bidding so it gave us no advantage in getting Buddy. We were just the only ones prepared to be adventurous, offer the 9 years and jettison a raft of mid-range players in one hit to get it done. Anyone else could have done the same. The Toorak Trillionaire just smelled a lobbying opportunity and pounced. He may be vile, but he isn't stupid (except on matters of race and gender politics).

As for the Academy, you seem to think $5 million is "bugger all". I don't. That's what the Swans invested in the Academy based on a certain set of rules being in place. Hawthorn and Collingwood were very happy for us to do it, until the Academy produced two good players after 5 years and $5 million (Heeney and Mills). Apparently we should invest that money but only so long as it is into a black hole that never produces a return. Based on nothing but squealing from the Toorak Trillionaire when it looked as if there finally would be a return, the AFL just changed the rules and therefore - retrospectively - the value of our investment, made in good faith years earlier. In the real world, that's called "sovereign risk" and it puts off investment in countries that do it. The AFL thinks it is a serious business, yet it behaves like a tinpot third world dictatorship. If they thought the Academy was going to be too productive then by all means change the rules from that point on, but changing them with retrospective effect, after serious money has been committed, is just laughable. You just can't do that in real industries ..... and make no mistake, footy is an industry. Thousands of livelihoods depend on it. That's extra money that could have been spent on talent spotters, development coaches, training facilities, all sorts of things. We didn't get the deal we were promised and it was based on nothing but partisan whining and Gillon the Eunuch's inability to say no to the Toorak Trillionaire.

I reckon the Swans should just exit the Academy. The discount is going to be cut again this year. What is the point of devoting major resources to something for years on end if you only get a minor advantage for doing so? Let the AFL reap what it is furiously sowing because it is too spineless to deny Hawthorn and Collingwood anything they lobby for. The wisdom of that approach can be seen in the current state of the Brisbane Lions.

So the facts are we've been the only club hit with a variety of retrospective, arbitrary and unexplained changes all of which have hurt us, all of which have happened in the name of equalisation at a time when ANOTHER CLUB, not us, has been merrily winning a string of premierships and looks like to win another. Sorry, what is our "unfair advantage" exactly?

Maybe you should listen to less MMM.

A fine rant. Well said sir (madam?).

[Meg]

V&R said "other clubs didn't need to match the COLA component in free agent bidding". I believe that is actually not correct - they did (according to what was said at the time of the Buddy recruitment). Which in my view was both wrong and unfortunate because it undermined the case for COLA as something that should only be paid in Sydney as an equalisation measure.

[CureTheSane]

On topic, I still seethe at that ban. Unprecedented. My chief concern at the time was the damage it would do to our club in years to come, given the potential impact on maintaining depth. I wonder whether this is partly behind Horse's deliberate strategy to develop as many rookies as we can as fast as we can.

I still hate that they did that to us, with no real valid reason, and got away with it.

Imposing an equally unfair ban on Hawthorn won't make me feel any better.

The positives are that 'maybe' it forced us to work harder with rookies, but likely not. Maybe there were more opportunities for them and they rose to the occasion.

This was all done to death last year. Not sure why we need to rehash it all again. It's history now, and the Swans seem to not have been too damaged by it.

[KTigers]

I was always slightly bemused during the whole COLA ruckus that it was rarely mentioned that COLA stood for Cost Of Living Allowance. My understanding is that it was brought in to even up the playing field for Sydney by helping them get players that might be dissuaded from moving here partly because of the high cost of living here compared to other cities. I could never see the problem with it. It really does cost more to live in Sydney than elsewhere in Australia. A footy player with the average expected career span of five or six years on the average AFL salary can't afford to buy a decent house here. They just don't make enough money. The dismantling of COLA was a result of a bandwagon started by Melbourne clubs griping. The trade ban was outrageous, and completely unprecedented. But really these things just serve to remind many of us long-term footy fans in Sydney just how Melbourne centric the whole comp is.
The media bias I expect, but the AFL hierarchy is meant to be impartial and they are meant to run the Australian Football League, not the Victorian Football League. The start up draft concessions given to get GWS rolling have produced one of the most exciting teams to watch in decades, but can the Giants get much more seven thousand of their own fans and a thousand bored Swans members to watch them every week? There are 2.5M people living in western Sydney and because the incompetent AFL hierarchy and organisation can't see past the end of Punt Road the opportunity to reach these people will likely be lost. All this conspiracy banter is just that, banter. I'm sure some of the umpires are quasi football groupies and end up favouring some players over others. That is just a common aspect of human nature. But I don't think they are all secretly texting each other before the Hawthorn games to make sure Hodgey and Cyril get plenty of free kicks. If we (the Swans) had actually turned up mentally for the 2014 GF we probably would have won, and the four-peat/conspiracy theory never would have got started in the first place.
The haphazard development of junior footy in Sydney, the lack of traction in the community GWS are getting, the Sydney bashing from certain Melbourne footy blowhards, not to mention the appalling treatment of Sydney's Adam Goodes and his lack of support from the AFL hierarchy are just some of things that partly occur because the code is so Melbourne focused.

[bloodsbigot]

My point is the Hawks of 2012 - 2015 were an excellent team and legitimately won their Grand Finals. I'm not saying they were the best team each and every one of those years.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No they bloody well didn't. If you call that Preliminary Final of theirs 'legitimate' in 2014 you're just as bad as a Hawks supporter. They shouldn't have even been in the Grand Final with us in the first place. It should have been us and Port.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd put the tin hat away but it looks like I'll be getting it back out again....

Closet Hawks supporter I suppose.

They trot out that line every bloody time to kill a legitimate argument.

- - - Updated - - -

I was always slightly bemused during the whole COLA ruckus that it was rarely mentioned that COLA stood for Cost Of Living Allowance. My understanding is that it was brought in to even up the playing field for Sydney by helping them get players that might be dissuaded from moving here partly because of the high cost of living here compared to other cities.

We weren't over the cap to begin with. Wanna talk conspiracies? Look at Hawks supporters and all their dribble about us being over the cap in 2012. How in the holy hell did we manage to get Tippett and Buddy if we were over the cap?