Mega Thread AFL: No Trades (READ OP)

[Mister B]

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.

Agreed, what the * does it mean we are getting more COLA in 2015 than we were in 2014? Does that mean we were well below the TPP in 2014 and weren't paying out anywhere near the 900k extra? In fact, the way it reads we were below our 2015 reduced amount of 800k. If this is the case, the AFL's statement that they were "protecting us" from being caught out by the reducing COLA was and is a complete load of s**t.

The whole thing is nothing more than an attempt to artificially create a rivalry in Sydney by making rules on the run and punishing a team for following the rules.

 

[Leg End]

This needs full examination and large, constant exposure. Bullies and incompetents thrive when no-one challenges them.

The club may be further punished if they challenge. But there are many thousands of Swans members (well funded) who can keep the microscope on and pressure the AFL for explanation - plus many non-compromised ex-players who can speak out.

Take them on.

 

[stevoswan]

This needs full examination and large, constant exposure. Bullies and incompetents thrive when no-one challenges them.

The club may be further punished if they challenge. But there are many thousands of Swans members (well funded) who can keep the microscope on and pressure the AFL for explanation - plus many non-compromised ex-players who can speak out.

Take them on.

I agree, but unfortunately down here in the heartland, the silence of the press on this issue is DEAFENING. Not one of the leading journo's has done an opinion piece on an AFL move that amounts to an affront to fairness and 'a level playing field' (Eddies favourite catchcry and code for anything that favours Collingwood!). It's a huge controversy and no one in the press seems to care. A few small articles on the facts of the decision and one on Michael Voss anger, otherwise smug and silent satisfaction it seems.....

 

[Maenad]

It seems discussions are ongoing but it appears that COLA is not being phased out, but being paid in full for the next two years. Swans admin new this but still wanted to be able to trade aswell. Then the ban came, which was expected by Sydney. So, a cost benefit analysis done by the swans lead thm to take the money over trading players which is up to them.
I don't have an opinion as I don't have all the information.

poloboy says,
"This is a nuanced conversation we had with them where in the end we had to make a decision where you couldn’t have it all."

"We accept that the Swans have followed our rules which is why we have kept the COLA rather than phasing it down which is why we’ve kept it at the same level for the next couple of years."

"It’s not as though we are trying to be draconian about it. There are nuances to that where you could trade at the lower level."

For Swans to get a meeting in 6 weeks won't help poloboy or the AFL looking like biased hicks.
Its an ongoing matter and very messy. I wonder what GWS think?

 

[Leg End]

I agree, but unfortunately down here in the heartland, the silence of the press on this issue is DEAFENING. Not one of the leading journo's has done an opinion piece on an AFL move that amounts to an affront to fairness and 'a level playing field' (Eddies favourite catchcry and code for anything that favours Collingwood!). It's a huge controversy and no one in the press seems to care. A few small articles on the facts of the decision and one on Michael Voss anger, otherwise smug and silent satisfaction it seems.....

Generate some exposure from NSW along the lines of " look at what the AFL did to our Swans". Suddenly, there is an angle about cowboys running the AFL etc.

There are many desperate journos out there who can't find a story without hacking phones. Let's help them.

 

[Leg End]

Its an ongoing matter and very messy. I wonder what GWS think?

GWS are preoccupied with the fact that they have blown millions on gimmicks and that they will soon be a sausage machine developing talented youngsters going back home to Victorian clubs. They will also be a haven for fading players looking to squeeze some cash out at the twilight of their career.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

GWS? there was a article last week saying "they feel for us" which is the ultimate insult.

 

[M F JONES]

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.

Hysterical? No it has been quite rightly anger.
I get where your coming from regarding losing COLA, and like you my attitude is- what will there excuse be when the COLA is removed & we are still successful, so fully on board, sadlysome idiots will still make an excuse as to why the world is unfair.
However the way the AFL has conducted themselves, to the point Gill M came out via media to defend their position clearly lacks respect & professionalism,
Had our club had the opportunity to discuss, negotiate and help land a suitable outcome then I would agree these types of responses would be hysterical, however we were never given the courtesy of buy in,thought we had the platform in place to move on from COLA only to be blind sided days out from the trade period, factor all the background work we would've put in place to ready ourselves for the trade,draft,FA players, You can understand the anger,
So hysteria No, rightful anger yes,
But we all have opinions and happy to agree to disagree, it's all about perception and we can all perceive things differently..
Onward we roll

 

[Keyter]

GWS are preoccupied with the fact that they have blown millions on gimmicks and that they will soon be a sausage machine developing talented youngsters going back home to Victorian clubs. They will also be a haven for fading players looking to squeeze some cash out at the twilight of their career.

With the AFL in their corner, you just know GWS will fail, where it counts, for the next ten years. (Hell, they could win a flag and still fail.)

For proof, look at the Swans when the AFL ran the show - they failed big time and they will do so again with the GWS, bet on it.

They, the GWS cheque signers/AFL, are not in the market place, day in, day out, but are instead sitting in docklands taking advice from no responsibility, all gain, wannabes and would be's if they could be's.

They are simply not football business people. They, Mike P and co, the crawlers up the ladder of power, will fail to win the hearts and minds of their target audience while they pull the strings at GWS because they have nothing personally at stake. Thats not to say they, GWS, won't put a good team on the park, (thats what the AFL can do), but while the AFL are running the show, they will never capture enough paying hearts of potential members, to make it viable. Not until the AFL get out of their way, who ironically think getting in the Swans way is the answer to their problems, will they achieve the succes in Greater Western Sydney this great game deserves - f'ing wannabe socialists/self serving pricks.

 

[hairy biker]

With the AFL in their corner, you just know GWS will fail, where it counts, for the next ten years. (Hell, they could win a flag and still fail.)

For proof, look at the Swans when the AFL ran the show - they failed big time and they will do so again with the GWS, bet on it.

They, the GWS cheque signers/AFL, are not in the market place, day in, day out, but are instead sitting in docklands taking advice from no responsibility, all gain, wannabes and would be's if they could be's.

They are simply not football business people. They, Mike P and co, the crawlers up the ladder of power, will fail to win the hearts and minds of their target audience while they pull the strings at GWS because they have nothing personally at stake. Thats not to say they, GWS, won't put a good team on the park, (thats what the AFL can do), but while the AFL are running the show, they will never capture enough paying hearts of potential members, to make it viable. Not until the AFL get out of their way, who ironically think getting in the Swans way is the answer to their problems, will they achieve the succes in Greater Western Sydney this great game deserves - f'ing wannabe socialists/self serving pricks.

Totally agree.

Even if GWS wins a premiership. In isolation, so what?

The presumed purpose of establishing GWS was to increase the presence of AFL in the Western suburbs of Sydney, increase participation at grassroots level, ensure significant attendances, deliver larger TV audiences/sponsorship etc.

There was essentially perceived to be a long term financial benefit, for the AFL as a whole, from setting up GWS.
Unless a GWS premiership produces flow on effects it would, from a business perspective, be relatively meaningless.

Without those benefits accruing all that has occurred is that millions of dollars of AFL expenditure has been outlayed to deliver a particular club a premiership.

 

[bedford]

I agree, but unfortunately down here in the heartland, the silence of the press on this issue is DEAFENING. Not one of the leading journo's has done an opinion piece on an AFL move that amounts to an affront to fairness and 'a level playing field' (Eddies favourite catchcry and code for anything that favours Collingwood!). It's a huge controversy and no one in the press seems to care. A few small articles on the facts of the decision and one on Michael Voss anger, otherwise smug and silent satisfaction it seems.....

Yes they have ! no one is for this

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

So looking back in June at the AFL statement regarding equalization and competitive balance policy.

PHASED REFORM OF THE COST OF LIVING ALLOWANCE (COLA)
• Abolish COLA in its current form for season 2017 for both the Sydney Swans and GWS Giants
• COLA to be transitioned down over 2015 and 2016, taking into account existing contractual obligations so as to not unfairly disadvantage either Club and their contracted players
• New fixed accommodation subsidy to be introduced for newly contracted players (from season 2015) below a salary threshold to be determined, that will be paid directly by the AFL.

Nowhere does it mention anything about not being able bring in new players, everything was on track so where did this trade ban come from?


http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-06-04/afl-statement-competitive-balance-policy

 

[SB70]

So looking back in June at the AFL statement regarding equalization and competitive balance policy.

PHASED REFORM OF THE COST OF LIVING ALLOWANCE (COLA)
• Abolish COLA in its current form for season 2017 for both the Sydney Swans and GWS Giants
• COLA to be transitioned down over 2015 and 2016, taking into account existing contractual obligations so as to not unfairly disadvantage either Club and their contracted players
• New fixed accommodation subsidy to be introduced for newly contracted players (from season 2015) below a salary threshold to be determined, that will be paid directly by the AFL.

Nowhere does it mention anything about not being able bring in new players, everything was on track so where did this trade ban come from?


http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-06-04/afl-statement-competitive-balance-policy

 

[SB70]

So looking back in June at the AFL statement regarding equalization and competitive balance policy.

PHASED REFORM OF THE COST OF LIVING ALLOWANCE (COLA)
• Abolish COLA in its current form for season 2017 for both the Sydney Swans and GWS Giants
• COLA to be transitioned down over 2015 and 2016, taking into account existing contractual obligations so as to not unfairly disadvantage either Club and their contracted players
• New fixed accommodation subsidy to be introduced for newly contracted players (from season 2015) below a salary threshold to be determined, that will be paid directly by the AFL.

Nowhere does it mention anything about not being able bring in new players, everything was on track so where did this trade ban come from?


http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-06-04/afl-statement-competitive-balance-policy

I guess they wanted to get rid of COLA quickly and we said we can't as we have existing contracts and can't be forced to dump players. Then maybe they were hearing that we were looking at Ryder or someone and paying for it by offloading a player or two. They then say if you couldn't offload players to reduce the cap by the COLA we are not about to let you do it to get another star.

Not sure why they wouldn't just say you have the same cap as everyone else plus the COLA on any contract written prior to July 2014 until end of 2016 when it is all gone I do not understand. In that case you would think they would like us to trade guys with COLA for new guys without.

 

[nottenthagain]

I guess they wanted to get rid of COLA quickly and we said we can't as we have existing contracts and can't be forced to dump players. Then maybe they were hearing that we were looking at Ryder or someone and paying for it by offloading a player or two. They then say if you couldn't offload players to reduce the cap by the COLA we are not about to let you do it to get another star.

Not sure why they wouldn't just say you have the same cap as everyone else plus the COLA on any contract written prior to July 2014 until end of 2016 when it is all gone I do not understand. In that case you would think they would like us to trade guys with COLA for new guys without.

That's my main point too, surely us trading players out (and their COLA component) and replacing them with new players (with no COLA) is actually speeding up the transition. The best we can hope for is natural attrition will get us below the required bar because if we have to leak players every bidding club will know we've got one hand behind our back..

 

[Tuco]

No explanation makes sense. I've given up trying to join the scatalogical dots spraying from the AFL's arse.

All COLa is currently committed. No COla would apply to new contracts. So all retirements/FA losses such as Mal should be coming straight off our cap.

If any future trade was within TPP, with no COLa and our overall COLa committment was dropping with ever player exit what is the true reason for the ban? It surely has nothing to do with leveraging our position.

It would by DEFINITION be us falling faster under the cap and finding room to manage existing players.

Trading in Patfull would still have seen a significant net drop in cap with Rok, LRT, Mal etc leaving.

The ban is designed to add pain to the equation, and degrade our competitiveness for no reason.

 

[The King!]

The ban is designed to add pain to the equation, and degrade our competitiveness for no reason.

the ban is to appease hawthorn and collingwood

 

[The Brabazone]

Interestingly, slightly different wording on the AFL site compared to The Age.

AGE
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-sport/swans-cant-have-everyone-afl-20141027-3iz97.html


AFL site
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-10-27/swans-cant-have-everything


All other quotes exactly the same and both reports with the same byline and sourced from the AAP.

Interesting, as I read this article in The Age I found McLachlan's quote very intriguing: “There have to be some constraints. You can’t have everyone.” I took this to mean that Sydney were very close to signing another big name, either Ryder or Frawley. Both make sense from Swans list management positions, our two most required positions are ruck and KPD. The uproar when we signed first Tippett and the Franklin was deafening down here, and I just don't think the AFL was prepared for Sydney, legally, to sign another big name, in this case a player leaving an embattled Victorian club.

 

[Tuco]

Interesting, as I read this article in The Age I found McLachlan's quote very intriguing: “There have to be some constraints. You can’t have everyone.” I took this to mean that Sydney were very close to signing another big name, either Ryder or Frawley. Both make sense from Swans list management positions, our two most required positions are ruck and KPD. The uproar when we signed first Tippett and the Franklin was deafening down here, and I just don't think the AFL was prepared for Sydney, legally, to sign another big name, in this case a player leaving an embattled Victorian club.

Indeed. And yet the AFL were quite happy to see Frawley leave an embattled Victorian club for a Victorian Premiership winning club, and for Ryder to move to a top 4 club in Adel.

 

[Leg End]

The AFL (and Fat Eddie etc) could be guilty for bringing the game into disrepute.
Imagine any outsider watching the performance of the AFL in recent weeks:
1. restraint of trade
2. anti-competitive behaviour
3. policy on the run without proper consultation
4. denial of natural justice.
5. potentially misleading and deceptive conduct
6. possible cartel/collusion accusations

Any half-decent lawyer/journalist could have a field day with this.
Exposing this whole sordid affair would also mean that any future decisions involving the Swans would come under immense scrutiny. Can only be good for our club.

 

[Leg End]

AFL Constitution

Rule 1.6
Where the Commission is of the opinion that a person (or club) has contravened the provisions of the Memorandum or Articles of Association or the AFL Regulations or the AFL Player Rules or has been involved in conduct which is unbecoming or likely to prejudice the interests or reputation of the AFL or to bring the game of football into disrepute, the Commission may deal with any such matter in such manner as the Commission in their absolute discretion think fit and without limiting their power they may:

(a) refer any matter to the Tribunal or other body or person appointed by the
Commission:
(b) appoint any person to inquire into any matter;
(c) conduct their own disciplinary inquiry into any matter; and/or
(d) impose a monetary sanction as provided in these Regulations/Player Rules


Now - Gillon, Eddie and some of the other VFL boys might have a case to answer here. Wouldn't it be fun to get them to defend their actions?

 

[Leg End]

Another article - albeit around the Essendon drugs scandal, but relevant:

"This involves ascertaining the meaning of the contractual words (''bringing the game of football into disrepute'') as understood by a reasonable person, having regard to relevant background information, including the commercial context and the sporting market.

The AFL is increasingly a big commercial machine and any unsavoury behaviour which could jeopardise its profitability or success is frowned upon.

Precisely what conduct will violate the disrepute clause has yet to be determined by a Victorian court.

However, such charges will likely be determined according to whether the Commission is "comfortably satisfied'' (a standard "below beyond reasonable doubt'') that the sport has been, or is likely to be, significantly lowered in the eyes of the general public (ie, they think "less or poorly'' of the game)."

If the AFL argues "we can do what we want", this again would be terrible look for the game.

 

[RW]

the ban is to appease hawthorn and collingwood

Lesser Western Sydney more likely. Not even Eddie was pushing for COLA to be scrapped immediately.

 

[SB70]

Indeed. And yet the AFL were quite happy to see Frawley leave an embattled Victorian club for a Victorian Premiership winning club, and for Ryder to move to a top 4 club in Adel.

Doubt they were much happier to see Frawley and Ryder going to top clubs than they were when Buddy came to us. It is one aspect of equalisation they really cannot control as players want to play for strong teams, even for less money.

 

[GotTheGoodes]

Doubt they were much happier to see Frawley and Ryder going to top clubs than they were when Buddy came to us. It is one aspect of equalisation they really cannot control as players want to play for strong teams, even for less money.

E.g. Lake. McEvoy. Etc. It isn't just us that uses this to our advantage. We are the only ones punished for doing so though.