Swans told to end COLA - OR be banned from trading in players for 2 years

[Tedeski]

Being unable to trade a Frawley in & losing Malceski has forced our salary cap down.
The AFL have seemingly taken it from our hands reneging on giving us two years to scale things down.
They left it until very late so that we had no choice but to just lose a player but not use the amount saved to attract another gun, all while gathering cuts elsewhere with other players. Not to mention we already began the cost cutting by moving players on such as Everitt, Lamb, Mummy, White, armstrong etc, all who were on, or were asking overs for what their output was.

That we have been brilliant at trading out players on bigger salaries & bringing in players on a second chance & on less money to fill our needs has not even given us the respect & trust we deserve as a club, to bring down the cap over the two years initially granted by the AFL.

That's OK!

We'll have no choice but to deal with it.........................until they realise that we are dealing with it too well & make another rule on the run.
This will get nasty & will be played out over a few years to come.

Gillon & Eddie won't be in charge in 3 years time.
Mark my words!

 

[Mcveigh]

In 2011 you were already 9.8% over the normal salary cap. No one is arguing that you have gone above your salary cap, people are arguing that giving you an extra 9.8% in the salary cap gives you an unfair advantage.

This makes your point mute.

Nope, we were paying close to or 100% of the same salary cap as everyone else, the afl then added 9.8% on top to each players contract. Yes, this is an advantage. Just refuting that Cola never gave us a pool of money to lure big players. Thats just good list management.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Have you got the figures for resigning Kennedy/Hannebury/Parker/Bird/Smith/Mitchell (lol)/Jack/Jack/McGlynn etc. And have you got the figures for the players they were replaced with? Or do the new players play for free?

You asked how we found the space. I answered.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

In 2011 you were already 9.8% over the normal salary cap. No one is arguing that you have gone above your salary cap, people are arguing that giving you an extra 9.8% in the salary cap gives you an unfair advantage.

This makes your point mute.

The word is "moot". And the argument is actually about whether the punishment imposed on Sydney was justified in the absence of a rule breach by Sydney.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Maybe a backroom deal has been made?

I would like to believe we are behaving in a restrained and calm manner in hope that we can have next year trading restrictions overturned or at least watered down, afterall what point is there in blasting the AFL publicly and then trying to sit down with the commission and plead our case.

I think strong media people with ties to the club (Healy) have echoed what we think about this decision.

On the back of this decision going into next year our academy selections Mills, Dunkley(FS) are relatively safe and will be acquired with our first/second round picks i doubt they will hit us twice consecutively.

I would like to believe this is a accounting decision like Wallace described and not anything more sinister.

 

[Furn2]

So after like a million posts going around in circles, the conclusion is that Sydney can't just get rid of cola because that would mean losing a couple of quality players.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

The word is "moot". And the argument is actually about whether the punishment imposed on Sydney was justified in the absence of a rule breach by Sydney.

The word is mute, meaning silent, nonexistent

Moot refers to being debatable

Very different words, and in this case, mute is the correct term

 

[sherb]

The word is mute, meaning silent, nonexistent

Moot refers to being debatable

Very different words, and in this case, mute is the correct term

Actually the word is moot.

 

[bungwahl]

The word is mute, meaning silent, nonexistent

Moot refers to being debatable

Very different words, and in this case, mute is the correct term

The phrase is "moot point" meaning irrelevant.

 

[bungwahl]

So after like a million posts going around in circles, the conclusion is that Sydney can't just get rid of cola because that would mean losing a couple of quality players.

After a million posts going round in circles, we still have elementary over simplification of the issue and an unwillingness to comprehend.

Just say "I hate you Sydney" and leave this thread for those who want to discuss like adults.

 

[bungwahl]

Maybe a backroom deal has been made?

I would like to believe we are behaving in a restrained and calm manner in hope that we can have next year trading restrictions overturned or at least watered down, afterall what point is there in blasting the AFL publicly and then trying to sit down with the commission and plead our case.

I think strong media people with ties to the club (Healy) have echoed what we think about this decision.

On the back of this decision going into next year our academy selections Mills, Dunkley(FS) are relatively safe and will be acquired with our first/second round picks i doubt they will hit us twice consecutively.

I would like to believe this is a accounting decision like Wallace described and not anything more sinister.

I'd say that's very much true. The Swans took the unwarranted punishment this year and the AFL will dismiss the ban next year. Otherwise it's going to go legal you'd have to think.

 

[MarkT2]

Go Legal?
How?

 

[QuietB]

Go Legal?
How?

The vibe Hirdashians to provide legal counsel

 

[bungwahl]

Go Legal?
How?

Any manner of ways - these are the days where you can sue for something like use of image, failure to protect against concussion, etc. It's easy to see the possibility of the AFLPA considering it a restriction of trade. Unfortunately the world of professional sport is not as innocent as it seems.

Commentators such as Gerard Healy alluded to it already "Surely not the AFL legal man Andrew Dillon who must have questioned its legality, who’d expect he would need to defend it in court if it goes to a second year."

The AFL wouldn't want a legal battle, nor would the Swans, nor would the players or the fans. But of course it's a possibility if the ban continues next year.

 

[Furn2]

How can the Swans go to court when they agreed to this.

 

[bungwahl]

How can the Swans go to court when they agreed to this.

They never agreed to a trade ban, it was imposed upon them.

 

[Furn2]

They agreed not to trade in exchange for two more years of cola.

They had the choice and chose not to trade.

 

[bungwahl]

They agreed not to trade in exchange for two more years of cola.

They had the choice and chose not to trade.

This is getting ridiculous now. Maybe go back and read where we've corrected that sentiment the past 30-40 times in this thread.

 

[MarkT2]

Any manner of ways - these are the days where you can sue for something like use of image, failure to protect against concussion, etc. It's easy to see the possibility of the AFLPA considering it a restriction of trade. Unfortunately the world of professional sport is not as innocent as it seems.

Commentators such as Gerard Healy alluded to it already "Surely not the AFL legal man Andrew Dillon who must have questioned its legality, who’d expect he would need to defend it in court if it goes to a second year."

The AFL wouldn't want a legal battle, nor would the Swans, nor would the players or the fans. But of course it's a possibility if the ban continues next year.

Except Sydney have not been banned from trading players out at all and not banned even from trading players in given it is their choice to not swap the COLA for the rent allowance. What would be the basis for an action by Sydney? As for the AFLPA, their basis lies more in the overall rules being potentially an unreasonable restraint of trade but that is unrelated to the Sydney situation. FWIW restraint of trade of itself is not illegal.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Except Sydney have not been banned from trading players out at all and not banned even from trading players in given it is their choice to not swap the COLA for the rent allowance. What would be the basis for an action by Sydney? As for the AFLPA, their basis lies more in the overall rules being potentially an unreasonable restraint of trade but that is unrelated to the Sydney situation. FWIW restraint of trade of itself is not illegal.

The basis for the action is that the AFL are 1. trying to unlawfully force the Swans to bring about a breach of contract with their layers or 2. unreasonably restraining the Swans from the trade process.

The Swans didn't agree to the trade ban. That is plain bullshit by the AFL. The Swans agreed that no COLA would apply to new contracts and it doesn't as far as anyone is aware.

 

[bungwahl]

Except Sydney have not been banned from trading players out at all and not banned even from trading players in given it is their choice to not swap the COLA for the rent allowance. What would be the basis for an action by Sydney? As for the AFLPA, their basis lies more in the overall rules being potentially an unreasonable restraint of trade but that is unrelated to the Sydney situation. FWIW restraint of trade of itself is not illegal.

Ok... I've already explained this to you and others. Sydney were absolutely banned from trading as the AFL knew they couldn't remove COLA immediately, etc. We've been through this so please either expand upon your point or stop repeating incorrect facts. Only a politician would argue there wasn't a trading ban, probably calling it a "temporary market exchange limitation" or some such nonsense. It was a ban and anyone who is not kidding themselves knows it.

I'm not entering in to the legal debate.

Mods - maybe it's time to lock the thread until there are more developments?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Except Sydney have not been banned from trading players out at all and not banned even from trading players in given it is their choice to not swap the COLA for the rent allowance. What would be the basis for an action by Sydney? As for the AFLPA, their basis lies more in the overall rules being potentially an unreasonable restraint of trade but that is unrelated to the Sydney situation. FWIW restraint of trade of itself is not illegal.

I suspect you haven't got the faintest idea what you are talking about. Reasonable restraint of trade may not be illegal. The question is, is the restraint of trade as it applies to the Swans in this circumstance unlawful? Care to offer an opinion?

 

[tonk]

more stuff
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...e-trading-ban-overturned-20141022-119vsk.html

 

[TazHawk15]

Just say "I hate you Sydney" and leave this thread for those who want to discuss like adults.

I for one don't hate Sydney, I do however hate the unfair advantages they have received.

Are you adult enough to see the difference?

 

[MarkT2]

The basis for the action is that the AFL are 1. trying to unlawfully force the Swans to bring about a breach of contract with their layers or 2. unreasonably restraining the Swans from the trade process.

The Swans didn't agree to the trade ban. That is plain bullshit by the AFL. The Swans agreed that no COLA would apply to new contracts and it doesn't as far as anyone is aware.

Not a hope in hell.