The difference is that our beliefs are justified. What other club receives a trade ban for doing nothing wrong? What other club has their cap reduced by 10% over a three year period (several years would have been fair)? What other club is the clear bottom of the frees for/against differential over the last 15 years by about 40%?It is the same on every club forum on bigfooty. The AFL is simultaneously out to get every single club, every single club is hard done by, and every single club is hated by the rest of the league
According to their club forum anyway
The trade ban was unjustifiable and there is no supporting that.The difference is that our beliefs are justified. What other club receives a trade ban for doing nothing wrong? What other club has their cap reduced by 10% over a three year period (several years would have been fair)? What other club is the clear bottom of the frees for/against differential over the last 15 years by about 40%?
The trade ban was unjustifiable and there is no supporting that.
COLA has been removed from GWS as well as us. And Brisbane also used to have a similar additional allowance too.
The fact that we had COLA in the first place is surely evidence that the AFL was not simply out to get us, though, yeah?
Most of it is just gallows humour, something I'm sure you're familiar with living in Berlin. And I think we're entitled to a little after the farce of 2016. But I agree it's incompetence rather than a grand conspiracy and it isn't all one way traffic. The proof will be in the draw. I hope we get treated like any other bottom four team when they compile next year's draw but reckon the AFL see us as a strategic broadcasting pawn and the club's request for time slots and who we play will be ignored. Hope I'm wrong.Quite the persecution complex on this forum.
I furiously agree with all of your post, but particularly this. There is no AFL/VFL umpiring consiracy. Dozens, probably hundreds, of umpires have come and gone and yet amazingly not one of them has come out and spoken publicly about the AFL instructing them to favour Victorian sides? They're part timers, they don't get paid enough to keep massive conspiracies as a secret, and many of them are long since retired but still haven't spoken out.You are generally better served assuming incompetence over malice when it comes to human errors. That is particularly the case when it comes to umpiring.
I'm certainly not going to argue that the AFL acted in a reasonable way in any of this. But this list is really all just one event.Don't miss any of the news involving the Swans as we bring you everything from the newspapers around the country on Thursday 6th August, 2015.m.sydneyswans.com.au
The list goes on and on.
You'd have to ask the AFL re your last paragraph. To strengthen another club they own and control in the same market?I'm certainly not going to argue that the AFL acted in a reasonable way in any of this. But this list is really all just one event.
Clearly the AFL wanted Franklin to go to GWS. Understandable, they had just expanded the league and wanted that new club to have as good a chance of success as soon as possible. Franklin going to GWS would have been a major boost both on and off the field for the new club. They were willing to pull strings and bend, if not break, rules in order to get it to happen.
We messed up that plan, we offered an unprecedented offer to Franklin and he accepted it.
At this point the AFL overreacted. COLA was removed in a way that wasn't fair, the completely unjustified trade ban was put in place, stipulations were placed on the contract (setting in stone the amount being paid in every year with no flexibility to alter that at a later date).
As I said, you won't here me speak positively about the AFL when it comes to this matter (or many others), but I don't see how any of this leads you to dispute my narrative (incompetent, reactive decision making) and favour yours (intentional conspiracy). I have a low opinion of the organisation. So low that I simply don't see them as capable of acting in such a conspiratorial way as some on here!
This is just one example of where the AFL has seriously conflicted interests. On the one hand it is supposed to be the body that ensures a fair and equitable competition. On the other hand it has financial incentives to manipulate situations in ways that are often not fair or equitable. We have suffered, but we aren't the only ones. We have also benefited. The club wouldn't be where it is at today if we hadn't had extended support and concessions from the AFL.
Which brings me to the question of motive. If the AFL is really out to get the Swans I am really puzzled as to what the motivation could be. After putting so much effort into expanding the league, how is it in the AFL's interest to then consciously and calculating conspire against the largest club in the largest market in the country?
Media rights, money. You are right, a strong swans team make more $ for the afl.The AFL have made decisions in the short term with a narrow focus quite often in my opinion
Incompetence rather than a conspiracy against us or any club
if anything they would want us to succeed , much better for their brand as a national comp
If we fell in a heap it’s a bad look for them as we were flying then they introduce a second team into the market
No probes for Hawks recruiting Mitchell, O'Meara, Scully or Richmond getting Lynch though. That's what stinks, doesn't seem like a level playing field given Fitzpatrick's dummy spit re Buddy not going to GWS to help rake in the dollars for the new AFL owned team.I think the trade ban was along a way to appease everyone we had a recent flag and a good list so would be ok
But it affects us more now than it did then
Well this is exactly where the problem lies. I agree there isn't anything intentional about decisions they make as you say, but even Blind Freddy can see that these guys get overwhelmed by the general emotion of the event & where sentiment lies & the perception of how one club plays their footy compared to another. It's amateurish actually.They're part timers
Stepped down with two years to go.Don Pyke gone.
SF51's argument is that where the two alternatives are incompetence and conspiracy, incompetence is more likely. What you are saying would be more consistent with the incompetence explanation (professional umpires shouldn't allow themselves to be influenced by emotion).If anyone doesn't, then perhaps they too are being "a little bit belligerent".
I have no doubt that the 3 umpires on the day, with Jeffries being the worst, all got caught up in the emotion of the day.
It happens. It also happened in Macca's & Jack's last game where I thought the Saints copped some crap decisions, but hey, it wasn't their special day was it?
Do you think professional umpires would have made important free kick decisions & perhaps given us more than 4 frees to 3/4 time?SF51's argument is that where the two alternatives are incompetence and conspiracy, incompetence is more likely. What you are saying would be more consistent with the incompetence explanation (professional umpires shouldn't allow themselves to be influenced by emotion).