Andrew Pridham on the warpath; claims Swans ban unconstitutional and illegal

[Gongswan]

Um, best free agent for 1 year. And one steal trade end of 2011. Everything else market price (there were much lols at hawthorn for paying 2 first rounders for Burgoyne, or a first rounder and savage for McEvoy, 2nd rounders for hale, Gibson). Unless you are calling Simpkin and Spangher top line free agents.

You still have more imported players on your list than we do, the fact that the 2 we got were key forwards was always going to skew the money side of things. It's sad to me that we have had to use Tippett as a ruckman for more than a 5 or 10% span in hte game, as number one ruck, his forward output has to be on a par with Pyke, the money we pay him is irrelevant from that perspective

 

[Gongswan]

it may have been introduced for retention, but it was certainly used to sign.

Since the swans are so good at following rules they can be good at following the trade ban another rule.

clearly? how is it clear, explain it to me, I really want to hear this, given that the AFL pays the COLA, how did we get our hands on it

 

[MadDawg]

Of course being a club insider, you know the facts of this, by all means speculate away, but don't claim it as fact

Are you arguing with yourself or me?

 

[Gongswan]

Victoria? You're not one of these people that still believe in the VFL mentality?
I couldn't give a stuff about ANY other club winning Premiership except mine and I daresay most others feel the same way.
And it's strange you hold anti Victorian feelings, don't the Swans market themselves as 1 team, 2 cities? Did on the GF banner if I recall correctly

Narrr, there's no VFL boys club going on, Brisbane destroyed themselves, Gold Voast haven't been left to sort themselves out, Melbourne didn't get extra cash from AFL house to pay Roosy,there isn't a set against the Swans in Melbnourne, just ask Luke Darcy

 

[Gongswan]

Please read my post, I was commenting how the AFL tried to engineer two of the games best players to franchise clubs in Ablett and Franklin and nobody cared, even the Swans. And that now they are only outraged in the AFLs dodgy activities through self interest. I believe in most part even a tosser like Eddie has the best interests of the game in mind when he cries foul. Yes, he has Collingwood bias, but he generally hits the mark on behalf of all Presidents with his high profile. Pridham only speaks on behalf of his club, which is fair enough but don't expect any sympathy when you operate like this and pull sneaky Tippett and Franklin deals.

James Frawley aside, please list all the free agents Hawthorn have acquired. None! Peddling a myth doesn't make it any more true.
Hawks have been very good in their targeted trading recruitment, but clubs aren't forced to trade them. Much like McGlynn and Kennedy. Players get a better offer or get more opportunity in a different environment, clubs make a deal, life goes on. But please, stop confusing trading with free agency, it makes you look a little silly. It's not our fault North wanted rid of Gibson and Hale, whilst Adelaide could've let Gunston walk in the draft if they wanted. Choices made by their clubs, not free agency.

Yes I could have worded that post better, still, all these players you recruited who were top liners at their respective clubs nobody bats an eye, we recruit 2 players and Gil sudddnely feels we can't have everyone, what's the big difference uther than we got key forwards which was what we needed at the time

 

[Tuco]

"Culture: a way of thinking, behaving, or working that exists in a place or organization"

When your culture is turned from one of even contribution were your players think, behave and work in this manner to one where a team leans heavily on few individuals and your players, think, behave and work in this manner, that's a culture change.

Or are you structurally changing the team to rely on few players because Buddy's a swell guy?

And you think any of that changes when a player kicks a lot of goals? Nope. Just nope.

 

[Crankyhawk]

We recruited top liners like who?
Gibson and Hale? Who Norf could not get rid of quick enough with trades.
Gunston? Who had played 10 games and we were made to pay a heavy price in a trade.
Guerra? Neither Port or St.Kilda could get rid of him quick enough.
Burgoyne? Paid two first round picks for a bloke who everyone said knees were shot.
Simpkin? Top liner? Delisted free agent.
Spangher? Ditched by two clubs.
McEvoy? Top liner? Gotten rid of by St.Kilda for a 1st rnder and Savage.
Jono O'Rouke? Top liner? Gotten rid of for a 1st rnder
James Frawley - Free agent.
John Ceglar - Delisted rookie

Please name the others I've missed.
On that list I'm not seeing any player comparable to Tippett and Franklin, with the exception of Burgoyne.
What did you give up to get those guys, not two first round draft picks I'm guessing?

We paid unders for Gunston and that was said at the time. The others we paid overs.

 

[Gongswan]

Again, we TRADED for these players or they were delisted free agents.
It's not comparable with how we acquired because a) Their parent clubs had a choice and b) We were forced to pay their parent clubs valuation of said players. Something you did neither for with Franklin and Tippett. As I said before, just like the McGlynn and Kennedy recruitments, we TRADED for our players.

so what, you traded for tehm, still raided lower placwd clubs for teh ones you wanted, we got Buddy and Tippett the best way we could, if we had to pay overs then that's what we did because we needed key forwards and Buddy hte marketing player jas been worth it regardless of cost. We also sacrificed all our depth players to get them. The point that has been made itt is that we used the cola to get them and I still want to know how we managed that. The fact that you trade from a position of strength is part of the deal, players get to stay in Victoria instead of uprooting their lives to go interstate and change their lives completely, ask Darren Jolly about moving to Sydney and the difficulties involved. Seriously there is no comparison. When we have equalisation on all fronts, like when we have a reserves comp to the VFL standard then you mob can start whining, the fact is you have more players from other clubs than we do, I've seen hte list and it is a fact, but as Gil said "you can't have everyone" (unless you're Hawthorn, then do as you please)

 

[Gongswan]

I have to say it was 3am when I was going thru this thread and by the time I got to page 12 I was laughing so hard at the narrow anti Sydney views on display from most of you lot I guess it's no surprise we would be targeted by hte VFL, You all fit into the Luke Darcy mode, it was fun for a while but in the light of day, equalisation is sprouted by all, but lived ny few. I might start going to league games again, at least they're up front about their mess

 

[Gongswan]

We paid unders for Gunston and that was said at the time. The others we paid overs.

your avatar is a disgrace

 

[Crankyhawk]

your avatar is a disgrace

What are you on about? Are you that type of poster that you want to troll another poster who is actually backing your club in the trade ban?
You seriously want to go there about my av?
It's not like I post on Essendon board, that would be bad.
You come across somewhat melty. Melted swan.

 

[Tyrone Time]

We paid unders for Gunston and that was said at the time. The others we paid overs.

Adelaide could've sent him to the draft, they didn't have to deal with us.
Just like we didn't have to accept the packet of chips for Cheney. Swings and roundabouts.

 

[MightyHawks]

that's an opinion, not a fact

Just wondering would you like to be treated just like the other clubs?

It's a simple yes/no question - no need for any additional rubbish you might want to add in

 

[Colonial]

Just wondering would you like to be treated just like the other clubs?

It's a simple yes/no question - no need for any additional rubbish you might want to add in

No club is treated the same. Soooo

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[papabear]

no its like mario kart.

 

[MightyHawks]

No club is treated the same. Soooo

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Every club is treated a little differently but there's usually swings and roundabouts

The favourable treatment that the Swans have received at the MRP and Tribunal has been long standing and consistent

With all other clubs, there's times you say the MRP was a bit harsh there, or he was a bit lucky there

i don't think anyone has ever said a Sydney Swans player was treated harshly by the MRP

 

[1892]

Since teh academy bidding has changed and we have effectively no preferential access to our academies tha twe pay for, your point is a pile of steaming horse manure

Putting aside childish retorts, sure a fairer price is now required, but there's no doubt that all of the 14 other clubs would love to have access, yet alone exclusive access to a huge yet under developed talent pool with the right to veto the interest of any other club by simply matching their offer. The principle of the draft is equalisation yet with the academy system in place the worst performed clubs can't draft the player they feel is best. Yeah they can bid on an academy player if they feel they're the best recruit at their pick, but let's face it there's no way a northern club isn't going to not match the bid if the talent is there.

Either all clubs should have access with obvious requirements to develop footy or programs should be ran by the AFL. My preference would be a system similar to the NSW scholarship scheme, which allows players to chose which club they sign with and therefore stay in their home state if that is their desire. Unfortunately that won't happen as it wouldn't boost the on field performance of the northern clubs in order to increase market share in terms of TV ratings or fans.

 

[Colonial]

Putting aside childish retorts, sure a fairer price is now required, but there's no doubt that all of the 14 other clubs would love to have access, yet alone exclusive access to a huge yet under developed talent pool with the right to veto the interest of any other club by simply matching their offer. The principle of the draft is equalisation yet with the academy system in place the worst performed clubs can't draft the player they feel is best. Yeah they can bid on an academy player if they feel they're the best recruit at their pick, but let's face it there's no way a northern club isn't going to not match the bid if the talent is there.

Either all clubs should have access with obvious requirements to develop footy or programs should be ran by the AFL. My preference would be a system similar to the NSW scholarship scheme, which allows players to chose which club they sign with and therefore stay in their home state if that is their desire. Unfortunately that won't happen as it wouldn't boost the on field performance of the northern clubs in order to increase market share in terms of TV ratings or fans.

Stop with the exclusive bullshit.
If thats true how did port end up with a couple of our academy boys.....

The northern clubs would love to have 90% of our players home grown to ease go home factor. Oh well.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[Gongswan]

Every club is treated a little differently but there's usually swings and roundabouts

The favourable treatment that the Swans have received at the MRP and Tribunal has been long standing and consistent

With all other clubs, there's times you say the MRP was a bit harsh there, or he was a bit lucky there

i don't think anyone has ever said a Sydney Swans player was treated harshly by the MRP

Possibly because we have been one of teh most disciplined clubs in hte league, Barry Hall aside

 

[Gongswan]

What are you on about? Are you that type of poster that you want to troll another poster who is actually backing your club in the trade ban?
You seriously want to go there about my av?
It's not like I post on Essendon board, that would be bad.
You come across somewhat melty. Melted swan.

No, I've been laughing about all this nonsense, well I was last night as I sifted through the first 12 or so pages, but it wears thin after a while, if it was your club I'm sure you'd be jumping for joy about following the rules abd getting penalised for it

 

[Gongswan]

What are you on about? Are you that type of poster that you want to troll another poster who is actually backing your club in the trade ban?
You seriously want to go there about my av?
It's not like I post on Essendon board, that would be bad.
You come across somewhat melty. Melted swan.

Like the player himself, a disgrace, good on the bay I suppose, knees up mother brown

 

[Gongswan]

So what? It makes a big difference to the argument I'm trying to put across. We had to give up something to get something. A lot of the players we acquired were actually not wanted at their clubs. Yet, we still paid a price for them and had to fit them into the salary cap. Now whether factual or not, there is a perception that you were able to acquire Tippett and Franklin, via use of the COLA. I do know however that Hawthorn were not able to financially match the offer the Swans put to him. This added more fuel to the fire of COLA being involved in Franklin's decision. Again, I have no position on this being factual.

We have also scarified depth players. You have two of them at your club now in McGlynn and Kennedy. We have sacrified Renouf, Hallahan, Williams, Gilham, Cheney, Young, Murphy, Ellis, the 2 at the Swans now and a few other bit part players to keep this list together. So you are not alone there. We also lost argubly the best player in the game to Free Agency, whilst acquiring Ceglar, Simpkin and Frawley. None of who are Hawthorn Premiership players.

In 1996 our club was broke and nearly merged. Where was our assistance? How much did the AFL tip in? ZERO. Through clever marketing and administrative decisions and members talking with their wallets, we got back on our own feet. Do I think there are too many Victorian clubs? Absolutely! Do I wish the AFL stopped propping up the same basketcases and ran the franchises like a business? Absolutely! But lets call a spade a spade, there have been fewer clubs that have benefited from AFL assistance for the last 25 years more than the Swans due to the AFL's obsession with succeeding in Rugby League markets.

Personally, I have no issue with a COLA, administered by the AFL, not the club. But then, what about places where it's cheaper to live? Do we dock their salary cap and pay that money to the Swans and Giants players? Slippery slope.

Equalisation you say? Like the 2013 Prelim? Like COLA? Like the Swans academy? Like playing GWS twice? You guys do get a pretty fair run of things, so don't throw the toys out of the pram now. Whilst I might not agree with Mike Fitzpatick and your trade ban, if it's true that you were warned before recruiting Buddy to not do it, but did it anyway, then you can't cry when your hand gets smacked. But to bring Victoria or Hawthorn into this and act we rape the competition and are the AFLs lovechild is just plain ridiculous.

Would you be complaining if Gunston turned out a spud or Burgoyne's knee didn't last 2 years? Like the ban, can't have it both ways.

wow, that is a melt and a half, tl:dr

 

[1892]

Stop with the exclusive bullshit.
If thats true how did port end up with a couple of our academy boys.....

The northern clubs would love to have 90% of our players home grown to ease go home factor. Oh well.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Pretty simple really GWS opted not to exercise their exclusive rights. Had they elected to do so the players would be wearing GWS jumpers.

I'm sure Fremantle and West Coast would both love to have Jesse Hogan running around for them too, but it doesn't mean that equalisation should be compromised by granting WA clubs first rights to West Australians. Also while he was born and raised in NSW doesn't one of your academy players in Hopper now live and play footy in Ballarat?

 

[Colonial]

Pretty simple really GWS opted not to exercise their exclusive rights. Had they elected to do so the players would be wearing GWS jumpers.

I'm sure Fremantle and West Coast would both love to have Jesse Hogan running around for them too, but it doesn't mean that equalisation should be compromised by granting WA clubs first rights to West Australians. Also while he was born and raised in NSW doesn't one of your academy players in Hopper now live and play footy in Ballarat?

So clubs cant put forward picks for academy players? Hardly exclusive. You really need to look up the meaning of the word.
Slightly different considering the amount of kids coming through in wa being footy is number 1 there.


Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[Gongswan]

Putting aside childish retorts, sure a fairer price is now required, but there's no doubt that all of the 14 other clubs would love to have access, yet alone exclusive access to a huge yet under developed talent pool with the right to veto the interest of any other club by simply matching their offer. The principle of the draft is equalisation yet with the academy system in place the worst performed clubs can't draft the player they feel is best. Yeah they can bid on an academy player if they feel they're the best recruit at their pick, but let's face it there's no way a northern club isn't going to not match the bid if the talent is there.

Either all clubs should have access with obvious requirements to develop footy or programs should be ran by the AFL. My preference would be a system similar to the NSW scholarship scheme, which allows players to chose which club they sign with and therefore stay in their home state if that is their desire. Unfortunately that won't happen as it wouldn't boost the on field performance of the northern clubs in order to increase market share in terms of TV ratings or fans.

A fairer price, six million for 12 senior games out of the academy, unfair on whom?