Mega Thread AFL: No Trades (READ OP)

[Membling]

If after academy/father son bidding and we didn't get dunkley and mills, burn them. The whole 9 yard. Trade ban this year and if we don't get them both regardless of trades it'd be time to get legal action in.

I can swallow a certain amount but if we don't get both, * 'em

 

[GotTheGoodes]

F'in scum. That polo playing nice guy is a pathetic pretty boy ******* puppet. No idea how the leagues most powerful can be allowed away from his strawberry spritzer to say such moronic things? Where's his handler? Or is it simply they kno no1 seems to give a toss so they'll lay the boots in while every1 else turns a blind eye??

Has the media gone mad? If this was Geelong or Hawthorn there'd be talk of commission/ceo/execs losing their jobs ffs...

 

[Millky95]

F'in scum. That polo playing nice guy is a pathetic pretty boy ******* puppet. No idea how the leagues most powerful can be allowed away from his strawberry spritzer to say such moronic things? Where's his handler? Or is it simply they kno no1 seems to give a toss so they'll lay the boots in while every1 else turns a blind eye??

Has the media gone mad? If this was Geelong or Hawthorn there'd be talk of commission/ceo/execs losing their jobs ffs...

People dont care cause a. We are in sydney therefore "not a real afl club" (direct quote from someone) and b. They think we have cheated the salary cap without looking into the rules

 

[SilentHunter_]

F'in scum. That polo playing nice guy is a pathetic pretty boy ******* puppet. No idea how the leagues most powerful can be allowed away from his strawberry spritzer to say such moronic things? Where's his handler? Or is it simply they kno no1 seems to give a toss so they'll lay the boots in while every1 else turns a blind eye??

Has the media gone mad? If this was Geelong or Hawthorn there'd be talk of commission/ceo/execs losing their jobs ffs...

It is truly baffling in all honesty. I have never seen a more naive type of media anywhere in the world. The fact that they let their hate cloud everything they should stand for is ridiculous. They can't even be bothered to cover this or care about it just because we got two big star forwards? Gtfo... gillon is a ******* for falling into the Eddie trap "you can't have everything" - he said. Go * yourself Gillon, idk what you're on but we fund the academies and hence we get the players, and also if we can afford other players who gives a s**t? Is he seriously going to listen to the everyday whinge of the public? All in all I just think this is a really poor judgement by the AFL commision, and especially Gillon the spud, not to mention the media which is just wtf?

 

[tombomb]

I read Gillon's comments to essentially say that the AFL has determined that COLA is giving us an unfair advantage, yet we still have it for the next 2 years.

The trade ban is an attempt to dilute that advantage for the next 2 years.

I know i'm probably the only one on this board who thinks this, but there is merit to that argument.

 

[SilentHunter_]

I read Gillon's comments to essentially say that the AFL has determined that COLA is giving us an unfair advantage, yet we still have it for the next 2 years.

The trade ban is an attempt to dilute that advantage for the next 2 years.

I know i'm probably the only one on this board who thinks this, but there is merit to that argument.

Okay even if it is, it still isn't our fault is it? They have given us COLA, it wasn't optional. And hence the AFL should pay the contractual obligations to players (the COLA part), take COLA away and let us continue as per every other club.

 

[bungee]

So the AFL have GWS playing us at the SCG to avoid a boycott by Swans fans, 'cause we'd never boycott GWS at the SCG, right

No fans = no rivalry = no publicity = no TV money = AFL wasted all that dough propping up an artificial 'boy band' team for nothing.

What's not to like ?

 

[M F JONES]

I read Gillon's comments to essentially say that the AFL has determined that COLA is giving us an unfair advantage, yet we still have it for the next 2 years.

The trade ban is an attempt to dilute that advantage for the next 2 years.

I know i'm probably the only one on this board who thinks this, but there is merit to that argument.

No merit at all,they negotiated (told us) that COLA will be phased out over a two yr period and replaced with some rental assistance type set up, we then geared ourselves in readiness for this,what has resulted prior to the trade period was nothing short of an ambush by the AFL, no chance to adapt,adjust or strategise around the ruling.
COLA let's remember was never an advantage to our club as we never Our money to ply to contracts,it is a like a flag fall on a taxi, we negotiate the contacts, the player/manager agree and sign we submit contract AFL adds COLA,
They would have merit if the they actually negotiated and went along the lines of-
"We would like to remove COLA sooner, is there a way that would be suitable for all of we can speed this process up?"
We then get to listen to where they have headed, actually have input and direction, that's open, honest transparent negotiation,that allows this to land in the best possible way for all concerned, instead the AFL in their amatuer was prefer to have one of its key stakeholders held out for public execution & imply wrong has been done and we have been dishonest,that's where they lose credibility if they had any to start with.
Ireland's suggestion of once players come in COLA wouldn't apply, hence the end will be quicker, however we are due to AFL rules compelled to pay.
So does the AFL have merit, no they don't.

 

[Tuco]

I read Gillon's comments to essentially say that the AFL has determined that COLA is giving us an unfair advantage, yet we still have it for the next 2 years.

The trade ban is an attempt to dilute that advantage for the next 2 years.

I know i'm probably the only one on this board who thinks this, but there is merit to that argument.

For this to be right COLa would have to be an advantage not an equalisation measure.

But it's not. There is an imbalance and Cola was supposed to help correct this.

If it was an advantage no club would have agreed to it, nor would the AFL have immediately reinvented it as a rent allowance to keep the imbalance corrected.

Speaking of how a meritocracy works...an environment where a governing body intervenes specifically to block player movement or to in fact facilitate taking players off a club to impair its ability to compete on its merits is NOT one...

 

[MarkP]

Simply put this is draft tampering and if a club went down this path to alter the effect of open bidding then they would rightly be penalised.

As I said at the start of this somewhat tongie in cheek we are not allowed to have shiny things but this is criminal and appalling.

Why should I spend my hard earned on a membership if the club is going to be artificially boosted or held back at the whim of the AFL?

How the hell do I know from year to year whether we are "allowed to do good" or not. Whose turn will it be in 2019 for example?

Make no mistake this is a declaration of war from the AFL and there is no way known they will let us keep both of next years F/S and academy picks.

I have zero interest in watching some competition that is run on the whims of a elite cabal of vested interests that want the exposure to the Australian market as a whole but want to keep the spoils of their competition closely held in a group of inner city Melbourne suburban power bases.

If the club doesn't go them pretty much immediately I will be disgusted.

I guess the only question we need to ask the AFL is when is it ok for us to challenge for the flag again because as it stands now there is no way they will let us stay up and they will ensure GWS becomes the dominant Sydney team to boost their membership numbers so as to make the expansion a "success".

Congratulation Melbourne, Bulldogs and the rest. Your continued mediocrity has in no small measure helped this along. I just love "equalisation" and socialism which is all this is. If you are outside of the ruling elite you are screwed. The nomenklatura always look after their own.

At least we put the childish, petty, intellectual weak and pathetic accusations of tin foil hat and conspiracy theory garbage behind us. Shame on you who accused us that see the obvious. They have admitted it. There is no conspiracy. There is simple power politics at play and we are to bear the wrath of the VFL cabal for being a well run club that strives for and achieves excellance.

 

[tombomb]

Okay even if it is, it still isn't our fault is it? They have given us COLA, it wasn't optional. And hence the AFL should pay the contractual obligations to players (the COLA part), take COLA away and let us continue as per every other club.

No merit at all,they negotiated (told us) that COLA will be phased out over a two yr period and replaced with some rental assistance type set up, we then geared ourselves in readiness for this,what has resulted prior to the trade period was nothing short of an ambush by the AFL, no chance to adapt,adjust or strategise around the ruling.
COLA let's remember was never an advantage to our club as we never Our money to ply to contracts,it is a like a flag fall on a taxi, we negotiate the contacts, the player/manager agree and sign we submit contract AFL adds COLA,
They would have merit if the they actually negotiated and went along the lines of-
"We would like to remove COLA sooner, is there a way that would be suitable for all of we can speed this process up?"
We then get to listen to where they have headed, actually have input and direction, that's open, honest transparent negotiation,that allows this to land in the best possible way for all concerned, instead the AFL in their amatuer was prefer to have one of its key stakeholders held out for public execution & imply wrong has been done and we have been dishonest,that's where they lose credibility if they had any to start with.
Ireland's suggestion of once players come in COLA wouldn't apply, hence the end will be quicker, however we are due to AFL rules compelled to pay.
So does the AFL have merit, no they don't.

For this to be right COLa would have to be an advantage not an equalisation measure.

But it's not. There is an imbalance and Cola was supposed to help correct this.

If it was an advantage no club would have agreed to it, nor would the AFL have immediately reinvented it as a rent allowance to keep the imbalance corrected.

Speaking of how a meritocracy works...an environment where a governing body intervenes specifically to block player movement or to in fact facilitate taking players off a club to impair its ability to compete on its merits is NOT one...

This just comes back to a debate about COLA then. My point is, the AFL have determined that COLA as it stands is giving us an unfair advantage.

What the AFL is effectively saying is we are receiving an unfair advantage and it should be corrected immediately. As we have existing contracts in place, rather than immediately changing COLA, they are allowing it to be phased out but with the trade restriction to correct the perceived imbalance.

I just think some of the reaction to this is a bit hysterical and personally I would be happy to have COLA off the agenda. If players start leaving in coming years because it is too expensive to live in Sydney, then I will stand corrected. I cant see that happening.

As it stands, with the trade ban, commencing round 1 next year, we dont have to put up with anymore opp supporters whinging about our success being because of COLA.

... And our list remains more than strong enough to be a contender again next year.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/af...-on-sydney-swans/story-fndv8ujy-1227103904079

 

[Tuco]

This just comes back to a debate about COLA then. My point is, the AFL have determined that COLA as it stands is giving us an unfair advantage.

What the AFL is effectively saying is we are receiving an unfair advantage and it should be corrected immediately. As we have existing contracts in place, rather than immediately changing COLA, they are allowing it to be phased out but with the trade restriction to correct the perceived imbalance.

I just think some of the reaction to this is a bit hysterical and personally I would be happy to have COLA off the agenda. If players start leaving in coming years because it is too expensive to live in Sydney, then I will stand corrected. I cant see that happening.

As it stands, with the trade ban, commencing round 1 next year, we dont have to put up with anymore opp supporters whinging about our success being because of COLA.

... And our list remains more than strong enough to be a contender again next year.

Actually the official line initially was that removing COLa is an expensive process. And so we are banned from trading for our own good so that we can afford to carry the ongoing COLa committments in current contracts.

The AFL has said nowhere that COLa was unfair, let alone an "unfair advantage". The premise you're basing your assertion on is faulty.

The unspoken truth is that COLa is seen as an unfair advantage by a number of clubs that shall remain nameless. And they have pushed to have the choker put on us. The outrage across these boards is not that COLa is gone. The outrage is the manner in which the AFL has cut us off at the knees in order to bring about their policy shift.

When we kicked up a stink, the AFL has belatedly come out (one month later) and said tough t***ies. You can't have all the players you want. What is that all about?

Only now in the end, the AFL is basically coming out and saying they believe COLa was holding our list together. But if that is true, then surely we should be allowed to manage our list without COLa in the contracts?

But we are not being permitted to operate without COLa. They are forcing us to continue it, and banning us from trading to placate the other clubs in the competition.

You say our list is fine? A key component of list management is trading players while they have market value, and bringing in players/picks. Under this regime, we are looking at 2 years where our tradeable players are stuck here getting older and more untradeable. And more importantly from an onfield perspective: more uncompetitive. While there is no restriction on quality players jumping ship for no return to the club.

I'm happy to see COLa go. I'm not happy to see the club effectively treated like Salary Cap rorters.

 

[nottenthagain]

Our Premiership window will be finished if we cant lift the ban for 2016.

Next window opens in 2017 though... we're good

 

[tombomb]

Actually the official line initially was that removing COLa is an expensive process. And so we are banned from trading for our own good so that we can afford to carry the ongoing COLa committments in current contracts.

The AFL has said nowhere that COLa was unfair, let alone an "unfair advantage". The premise you're basing your assertion on is faulty.

The unspoken truth is that COLa is seen as an unfair advantage by a number of clubs that shall remain nameless. And they have pushed to have the choker put on us. The outrage across these boards is not that COLa is gone. The outrage is the manner in which the AFL has cut us off at the knees in order to bring about their policy shift.

When we kicked up a stink, the AFL has belatedly come out (one month later) and said tough t***ies. You can't have all the players you want. What is that all about?

Only now in the end, the AFL is basically coming out and saying they believe COLa was holding our list together. But if that is true, then surely we should be allowed to manage our list without COLa in the contracts?

But we are not being permitted to operate without COLa. They are forcing us to continue it, and banning us from trading to placate the other clubs in the competition.

You say our list is fine? A key component of list management is trading players while they have market value, and bringing in players/picks. Under this regime, we are looking at 2 years where our tradeable players are stuck here getting older and more untradeable. And more importantly from an onfield perspective: more uncompetitive. While there is no restriction on quality players jumping ship for no return to the club.

I'm happy to see COLa go. I'm not happy to see the club effectively treated like Salary Cap rorters.

I thought we were allowed to trade for players, but we would then have the COLA changes immediately brought forward?

This is what I am talking about with an hysterical reaction.

We just started favourite in a Grand Final. Our list is still very strong. We just picked up a top 3 pick for pick 17 in the draft.

Players can't just walk out of the club for no return. We can still trade for draft picks if necessary. We just had the first year of the trade 'ban' ... which players walked out of the club for no return - membrey? The outcome wouldnt have been any different without the trade ban.

 

[FreeAgent1]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/af...-on-sydney-swans/story-fndv8ujy-1227103904079

Ok this is really interesting!!!!!

It means that we were in 'open dialogue' we essentially traded off COLA size or wind down period, in the knowledge that we would get a trade ban.

I understand the AFL saying this is an unfair advantage and you not being able to trade fixes this, but the 'closed door' process of this, who on the council proposed it and supported it etc is the intriguing part.

Its almost as if the Swans management chose this option (as opposed to wind down time shorter etc) as they werent sure the AFL would impose that sanctions due to the terrible PR they percieved they would get, then all AFL wrote about it for a day.....then got over it.

 

[Dan87]

Cordy: Collingwood president Eddie McGuire drove the debate on COLA and had a win, there’s a view in this part of the world he gets his way a lot, how do you respond to that?

McLachlan: I don’t agree with that.

Eddie has been in the industry a long time and he has views on Academies which we disagree with. He has lots of things to say, he says that we are doing things wrong or should do them differently that don’t happen. He’s had a view on COLA for a long time and I think there is an industry acceptance, including from the Swans, that it’s time for a change.

Cordy: You mentioned Eddie’s views on the Academies, are they safe?

McLachlan: The Academies are safe, yes.

Cordy: What about the incentive for Northern state clubs to invest in their academies if their value to them is diluted?

McLachlan: We are reviewing the bidding system so the question is the level of the incentive. We are trying to find the balance between the incentive to invest in these markets with having something that doesn’t completely compromise the draft. Isaac Heeney is a great story and that’s why the academies are there.

 

[FreeAgent1]

Cordy: Collingwood president Eddie McGuire drove the debate on COLA and had a win, there’s a view in this part of the world he gets his way a lot, how do you respond to that?

McLachlan: I don’t agree with that.

Eddie has been in the industry a long time and he has views on Academies which we disagree with. He has lots of things to say, he says that we are doing things wrong or should do them differently that don’t happen. He’s had a view on COLA for a long time and I think there is an industry acceptance, including from the Swans, that it’s time for a change.

Cordy: You mentioned Eddie’s views on the Academies, are they safe?

McLachlan: The Academies are safe, yes.

Cordy: What about the incentive for Northern state clubs to invest in their academies if their value to them is diluted?

McLachlan: We are reviewing the bidding system so the question is the level of the incentive. We are trying to find the balance between the incentive to invest in these markets with having something that doesn’t completely compromise the draft. Isaac Heeney is a great story and that’s why the academies are there.

WTF are the point of academies if you cant bid for your own players in the academy? I mean we only have 1 live draft pick so its not like we have done anything different anyway!!

I can only see this means AFL gearing up for a points based system during f/s + academy selection, which means if your have 2 or more guns under this you have to use XXXX points which is > than your quotient aka you must choose only 1 player and the other gets selected in R1 by highest bidder....

As this is eddies next challenge, I can imagine the clubs realising this straight away and nominating player to put NS/QLD clubs in a position to choose a single player in f/s & academy R1..

 

[Tuco]

I thought we were allowed to trade for players, but we would then have the COLA changes immediately brought forward?

This is what I am talking about with an hysterical reaction.

We just started favourite in a Grand Final. Our list is still very strong. We just picked up a top 3 pick for pick 17 in the draft.

Players can't just walk out of the club for no return. We can still trade for draft picks if necessary. We just had the first year of the trade 'ban' ... which players walked out of the club for no return - membrey? The outcome wouldnt have been any different without the trade ban.

Would you rate a draft pick the equal of an AA player?

Specifically, the impact of the ban was to prevent us from replacing Malceski this year. That's all that occurred. Membrey, Biggs etc do not figure in that at all. We effectively gave them away because we knew this.

BTW COLa changes immediately brought forward would mean honoring all contracts by taking the money up with the cap. That figure could be anywhere from $500k to $1.6M depending on where we are with our TPP. Impossible.

Don't make the mistake of believing we had any real choice to simply continue on as normal here and pick up a Patfull, for example.

 

[Tuco]

It is seen as compromising the draft to groom your own talent via the Academy. But if you are 'paying' for that talent with your equivalent next highest picks you are losing access to the draft. That is fair. It just is.

If you fluke a 15 place differential in the draft order one year, that might be less fair. But 2hen you add in the player you might otherwise have selected in the draft anyway, and the years of ip and funding to get that kid into the AFL in the first place everything comes out in the wash.

The AFL see this, even if they struggle to sell this to the masses...and the leaders of the anti-Swans mass hysteria.

Our rivals see the opportunity, but they fail to acknowledge the opportunity cost.

And $1m in sponsorship largesse is a helluva committment of the club's goodwill towards developing that untested talent.

 

[tombomb]

It is seen as compromising the draft to groom your own talent via the Academy. But if you are 'paying' for that talent with your equivalent next highest picks you are losing access to the draft. That is fair. It just is.

Dude, you are so one-eyed.

 

[Tuco]

Dude, you are so one-eyed.

Actually I'm open to change on the Academy front (just as I campaigned for redefining COLa and later for removing it).

My caveat is I think it's prudent to wait until the Academy is working and producing serious numbers of talent annually. Not just the odd player.

It's not one-eyed to see knee jerk policies for what they are.

 

[RW]

I thought we were allowed to trade for players, but we would then have the COLA changes immediately brought forward?

Yes, but the issue is you can't just wipe the COLA immediately when it's included in existing contracts. We all knew the allowance was going and accepted, even welcomed it, when they said it was going to be phased out over a period of time. Even if you believe McLachlan's claim that they aren't trying to be draconian about it, there is no good reason why our trading activity needs to be restricted.

 

[Leg End]

I read Gillon's comments to essentially say that the AFL has determined that COLA is giving us an unfair advantage, yet we still have it for the next 2 years.

The trade ban is an attempt to dilute that advantage for the next 2 years.

I know i'm probably the only one on this board who thinks this, but there is merit to that argument.

There is no merit.This is Victorian clubs via motor mouth Fat Eddie trying to dilute our potential success.

Sydney is the most competitive dog-eat-dog sports market in Australia. It is also one of the most expensive places to live - globally. The COLA is justified to maintain Sydney as attractive for what is still a predominantly Victorian sport. the major untouched issue is that there are numerous Victorian/Melbourne-based clubs with their natural advantages who have been run incompetently, if not corruptly, who now want to restrain Sydney's growth - a growth based on good management over many years.

The latest incompetence is the AFL throwing tens of millions of dollars at GWS and seeing it frittered away on gimmicks (Israel Folau, campaigner - both gone) and a bunch of high draft picks who will soon be gone a la Boyd. So, the alternative is to weaken the brand (Swans) that made Sydney a vital part of the AFL.

The NRL saw incompetence at this level when News Limited parachuted Gallop in to protect its interests and keep a seat warm. The AFL is no better - but who is Gillon's paymaster? Eddie?

 

[Ticky009]

The more I read about this the less I understand about how & what they believed they were achieving with this decision. Its Big Footy logic applied to a national sports code.

Utterly embarrassing for a so called professional administration.