It says MOOPS
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 9
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round 8 Winner: bearweger
Swans told to end COLA - OR be banned from trading in players for 2 years
- Thread starter Zerg
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Well there goes my theory of entering a "deal"
Sure. My opinion is that the AFL player controls were an unreasonable restraint of trade and therefore unlawful. That is largely why free agency was allowed. Whether that is enough I doubt but it may be.
Separate to that, the Sydney situation has zero chance of a successful legal challenge other than in general terms challenging the overall player restraints. The swans have not been prevented from trading. They can trade players out. They can eiither maintain COLA or swap it for the rebaged version and trade players in subject to the same salary cap rules as everyone else except they'd still have a rent allowance for many players. As it is they chose to maintain a higher salary cap and not trade players in.
How problematic the contractual issues would be depends on whether we believe the previous discourse about COLA being paid over and above contracts. If Sydney want contracts to run their course having signed a 9 year conrtact with Franklin then they should be told they have the same salary cap as everyone or else, as would be my prerence, everyone else moves up to Sydney's cap and then all is fair.
You have tried and all but claimed your explanations to be unchallangable but I have disputed them and said why. OK, you don't accept what I say and vice versa but your own club has for a long time claimed COLA works differently to what you argue because it suited them then. The reality is professionals negotiate contracts on all up package basis so I suspect it really would be problematic to remove COLA where it wasn't offset by a rent allowance. That just not in accordance with the Andrew Ireland spin of the last few years. If a contract is negotiated and the COLA is added by the AFL then removing it is simple. Knowing what was going to transpire with COLA what does Buddy's contract say?
I strongly suspect the AFL will let them trade to save itself from bad press in Sydney.
Buddy's contract is for $10m for 9 years. Not one word about CoLA. If anyone seriously believes that Buddy signed a Contract where the AFL could simply reduce it by 9.8% at any moment then they are beyond help.
CoLA is not an add on.
- Aug 27, 2014
- 833
- 1,921
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
I suspect they will let them trade next year now that the AFL have pandered to Eddie's whinging.
Imagine the uproar if Eddie was told that the Pies couldn't trade until they had worked all the channel 9 sponsorship's into Collingwoods cap!
this is the funniest post ever
bungwahl
Premiership Player
Absolutely - the majority of Swans fans agree with you and can't wait til COLA is gone. There was a time it was necessary but that time has passed.
But this thread isn't about the merits of COLA.
bungwahl
Premiership Player
But you do realise that your intense focus on the structure of contracts is close to irrelevant for the topic of this thread?
bungwahl
Premiership Player
I think you're right and would expect the Swans to be able to trade next year.
bungwahl
Premiership Player
References? Sources? Relevance?
Of course the AFL can't just reduce a player's remuneration contract, same as the Swans can't immediately drop COLA.
bungwahl
Premiership Player
This is over simplifying the difficulties Sydney would have faced in attempting to trade players, as we've explained to you previously. Contracted players are not going to be willing to have their pay cut on top of moving from a club they don't want to leave. The players need to agree to be traded, and other clubs need to have the available space to take them in - on top of their existing contractual commitments. Of course, the easiest way for another club to find some space to bring a player in is to trade a player out. However, the AFL in all it's wisdom prevented the Swans from being able to partake in such trades, meaning each deal needs third party involvement.
As I've said a thousand times, the Swans could have used trading to move out a $500k player and bring in a $250k replacement - effectively reducing their TPP by $250k. No matter how you look at it a trading ban was a knee jerk, poorly conceived punishment from an administration scared of the fallout if Sydney were to win a flag before COLA was completely gone.
No it is the most relevant issue. If Sydney's long held claim is accurate then COLA can be replaced with the rent allowance relatively easily. if not it can't. I suspect it is the latter which is actually why COLA is such an issue.
Sydney can adjust their list to fit existing contracts in the standard TPP.
They might not want to, but they could.
The clause inserted into every contract was written by the AFL's Cap Tzar himself. They know it cannot be removed. And the rent allowance won't cover everone on COLa anyway. Just the base payments and sub 300k players (apparently).
bungwahl
Premiership Player
Actually, it has very little to do with this thread which is supposed to be discussing the AFL trade ban, not COLA.
bungwahl
Premiership Player
But that's the whole point of the two year phase out period that was agreed to by all parties. The AFL knew the Swans were unable to instantly drop all contracts to be below standard TPP as the Swans have contractual obligations.
- Banned
- #3,296
Well that's the third (probably only legal) option. Strip the list.
Do you think that is a reasonable thing to do to require a club which has built its playing list over a number of years in accordance with the rules as they stood to immediately have to divest itself of playing talent?
It's clear that plenty of contributors on this forum do.
"Hawthorn, we've decided that the Tasmania deal gives you too much of an unfair advantage over other clubs. Therefore over the next 2 years we're going to transition that arrangement over to St Kilda. But in the meantime, you are to play all of your home matches (other than the Tassie ones) at Etihad on a late Sunday afternoon. Alternatively, you could drop the Tassie arrangement right now".
bungwahl
Premiership Player
Looking back I think it's really only about 4-5 people repeating the same tired lines over and over. We should probably stop feeding the trolls.
MickyG
Club Legend
- Jul 5, 2010
- 1,164
- 1,014
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Hawthorn we've decided that the Tasmania deal gives you too much of an unfair advantage over other clubs. Therefore over the next 2 years we've decided to reduce your cap by $1m per year. Alternatively you can play all your home games in Tasmania." I suspect this is a closer analogy.
bungwahl
Premiership Player
Hawthorn you were really good this year and we suspect other clubs are irritated because you've got that Tasmania deal which gives you some extra coin in the coffers. Other clubs are making rumblings about unfair advantage and if we have to take one more phone call from Eddie we're going to lose our shiz. For the next couple of years we're not going to let you trade in any players - we know it's a knee jerk punishment that won't actually solve any problems but that's not really our goal. You'll be OK because you can still take kids and delisted spuds if you like? You're welcome.
MickyG
Club Legend
- Jul 5, 2010
- 1,164
- 1,014
- AFL Club
- Sydney
The day after it was announced I was listening to a main stream radio station on the way to work. The news story said something like "the Sydney Swans have been banned from trading by the AFL for the next two years. The Swans CEO was at a loss to explain why but it's believed to be connected to the Swans getting Kurt Tippett and Lance Franklin over the last two years. Meantime the club that beat them in the Grand Final has just signed the best player from the number 17th club in the competition."
Similar threads
- Poll
