Sydney refused to communicate trade ban to recieve 'maximum leverage' - Gillon Mclaughlan

[Boxhead_31]

The concept of growing the game a bit tough to comprehend?

One club has been in Sydney since the early 80s, just won a flag, and has appeared in several grand finals. If you as That alone should be cause to can their COLA. It did it for Brisbane who were 6 years younger. The Swans should have lost it in 2004 when the Lions did. New teams I can kind of understand, but after 30 years perhaps its time to stand on their own feet.

The stated reason for Sydeny not being able to trade is that the AFL said they need to get down to non COLA levels in 2017.
Nothing about growing the game etc. If they want to enforce the rule as they have stated they need to apply it to all teams it applies to or not at all, otherwise it is the very definition of restraint of trade

 

[Leg End]

No, saying it's all down to that is about as silly as Sydney fans saying it's not a factor at all.

Compare Sydney's performance on and off the field to Richmond in the last 10 years.
One club fighting against all major codes in Australia's busiest, nion-AFL market VERSUS a huge Victorian club in AFL's main city.
The former's performance has been outstanding - consistent finalist, 2 flags, great popularity, great reputation forged amongst a huge number of codes.
Richmond - continual litany of failure after failure.

Yet, you put our success down to an allowance.
Have you any idea how petty and pathetic that really is?
Do most Victorians genuinely believe this? Are you seriously this ignorant?

 

[MrFujiMoto]

That is barely intelligible.

"I'll take responsibility. I think it was poorly communicated,"

"And that was a bit in response to the Swans not wanting to communicate it (the ban) because they wanted to use maximum leverage going into that trade period."

"I think in retrospect we should've communicated that properly."

Huh?

So while it was the AFL's fault for not communicating something, t was also the Swans fault for not wanting to communicate it, and in retrospect this was a failure of the AFL to communicate properly?

Fufuxsake. If this is how Gill helps to "clear everything up" we're in for a long, obtuse period of obfuscating bollox from the AFL for the next decade or so.

Gibberish.

I think you can read between the lines that the Swans asked the AFL not to communicate it until they were ready to communicate it and the AFL (foolishly, in my opinion) agreed. The AFL seems to regret agreeing and would be more transparent, should this ever happen in the future.

 

[telsor]

Compare Sydney's performance on and off the field to Richmond in the last 10 years.
One club fighting against all major codes in Australia's busiest, nion-AFL market VERSUS a huge Victorian club in AFL's main city.
The former's performance has been outstanding - consistent finalist, 2 flags, great popularity, great reputation forged amongst a huge number of codes.
Richmond - continual litany of failure after failure.

Yet, you put our success down to an allowance.
Have you any idea how petty and pathetic that really is?
Do most Victorians genuinely believe this? Are you seriously this ignorant?

I didn't say that. I said it was a factor. I didn't say it was the only factor.

The AFL has also spent a considerable amount of money (earned by Victorian clubs among others) on marketing, development and promoting the game throughout NSW and QLD.

The AFL also put Sydney back together several times after it failed, ensuring that it had good management/players/coaches (such as how Barassi and Lockett ended up there).

Admittedly, the latest AFL management team sent there did a good job and established things for their successors (also appointed by the AFL as they are, after all, the owners of your club).

 

[B0SK]

There's something really grubby about the AFL agreeing to keep it a secret for Sydney's benefit.

Agreed, but have we any right to act surprised when its common knowledge the AFL has been bowing to the Swans' wishes for literally decades?

This punishment smacked of a parent castigating their favorite son. "You've been a bad little boy Johnny but we won't tell your brothers and sisters about it".
Meanwhile Adelaide gets violated in the most ruthless manner possible for the Kurt Tippett saga, and who ends up profiting from that? You guessed it.

Anyone who observes the machinations of this sport understands some clubs receive preferential treatment over others, and Sydney is at the top of that list.

 

[QuietB]

Seems to me that Sydney felt their trading and contracts goals may be compromised if everyone knew they couldn't trade players in; so kept it hush until a week in.

And the AFL were not expecting Sydney to use it against them in a public slinging match.

It is actually very amateurish from Sydney. It appears that they made their bed, then refused to sleep in it, and want someone else (AFL) to take responsibility for the whole thing.

 

[QuietB]

I can't imagine anyone that's thought the situation out properly would blame the Swans. You guys were being a bit dodgy, but for the sake of what's best for the club. No one can blame you for that.

People should be outraged at the AFL. All us fans want is clarity so we can make a calculated decision on whether we invest our time and money into watching it. s**t like this really annoys me. Just tell us the truth you ******* slimy campaignerholes.

Why do people need to be outraged at the AFL? The AFL have said you can have Buddy, we will approve the contract even though it is 10 years and completely insane, but these are the conditions - CoLA is going, no major trades until it is gone, etc. If Sydney did not like those conditions that time to deal with it was when the deal was negotiated, not months and months after you have already signed off on it.

Lets not forget the AFL said CoLA is gone, cold turkey and the Swans were able to negotiate a soft ending. The trade ban is one of the conditions of getting that soft ending.

If the Swans were not happy with the conditions, the time to deal with them was at the time of the deal, not trade week.

 

[skipper kelly]

Anyone who observes the machinations of this sport understands some clubs receive preferential treatment over others, and Sydney is at the top of that list.

There's no greater preferential treatment than having the GF at a clubs home ground.

 

[skipper kelly]

Why do people need to be outraged at the AFL? The AFL have said you can have Buddy, we will approve the contract even though it is 10 years and completely insane, but these are the conditions - CoLA is going, no major trades until it is gone, etc. If Sydney did not like those conditions that time to deal with it was when the deal was negotiated, not months and months after you have already signed off on it.

Lets not forget the AFL said CoLA is gone, cold turkey and the Swans were able to negotiate a soft ending. The trade ban is one of the conditions of getting that soft ending.

If the Swans were not happy with the conditions, the time to deal with them was at the time of the deal, not trade week.

wrong again

 

[Kummerspeck]

. If Sydney did not like those conditions that time to deal with it was when the deal was negotiated, not months and months after you have already signed off on it.

I haven't read anything that said the Swans signed off on the trade ban, nor that it was part of signing Buddy.

And the AFL were not expecting Sydney to use it against them in a public slinging match.

Sydney weren't event the ones to announce it.

 

[skipper kelly]

Seems to me that Sydney felt their trading and contracts goals may be compromised if everyone knew they couldn't trade players in; so kept it hush until a week in.

How could their trading be compromised when they couldn't trade?

 

[skipper kelly]

One club has been in Sydney since the early 80s, just won a flag, and has appeared in several grand finals. If you as That alone should be cause to can their COLA. It did it for Brisbane who were 6 years younger. The Swans should have lost it in 2004 when the Lions did. New teams I can kind of understand, but after 30 years perhaps its time to stand on their own feet.

Brisbane never had a cost of living allowance.

 

[telsor]

There's no greater preferential treatment than having the GF at a clubs home ground.

Build a ground that takes 100,000 people and you might get the game up there when the contract is over.

 

[telsor]

Brisbane never had a cost of living allowance.

Same thing, different name.

 

[skipper kelly]

Build a ground that takes 100,000 people and you might get the game up there when the contract is over.

It's preferential treatment whichever way you look at it.

 

[skipper kelly]

Same thing, different name.

wrong again

 

[Kummerspeck]

Build a ground that takes 100,000 people and you might get the game up there when the contract is over.

That doesn't mean it isn't an advantage in the meantime. If Melbourne's cost of living rises maybe you can get a COLA.*

*I can tell I'm going to have to explain that this is an example to show how poor that response was so it may as well be here.

 

[telsor]

I haven't read anything that said the Swans signed off on the trade ban, nor that it was part of signing Buddy.

So what do you think Gilligan meant by "the Swans not wanting to communicate it (the ban)"?

I agree it wasn't (directly) part of getting Buddy (although that probably did push things along).

 

[telsor]

It's preferential treatment whichever way you look at it.

and you get a much bigger home ground advantage during the season than any Vic club can hope for....

 

[skipper kelly]

So what do you think Gilligan meant by "the Swans not wanting to communicate it (the ban)"?

I agree it wasn't (directly) part of getting Buddy (although that probably did push things along).

deflection as per his job description

 

[Kummerspeck]

So what do you think Gilligan meant by "the Swans not wanting to communicate it (the ban)"?

The AFL imposing a ban isn't the same as the Swans signing off on it.

I agree it wasn't (directly) part of getting Buddy (although that probably did push things along).

Okay, so it wasn't signed off on by the Swans and it wasn't a condition of signing Buddy. What's your line here?

 

[telsor]

That doesn't mean it isn't an advantage in the meantime. If Melbourne's cost of living rises maybe you can get a COLA.*

*I can tell I'm going to have to explain that this is an example to show how poor that response was so it may as well be here.

If COLA genuinely corresponded to cost of living, all clubs would receive it to different degrees.

 

[Leg End]

Doesn't take long for the Whorethorn blowflies to come buzzing - spouting ignorance as always.

 

[telsor]

wrong again

Whatever they call it, it's really a 'lets help development areas succeed' allowance.

 

[skipper kelly]

and you get a much bigger home ground advantage during the season than any Vic club can hope for....

you are being silly now. To win a premiership it has to be done at the MCG which is the home ground of several clubs. That is preferential treatment.