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

[The Swans Blog]

Edit: Since a lot of users seem to have issues grasping the context and content of the following post, please let me tell you what this isn't about; a post about COLA. This is a post about the AFL and the way that it handles itself, especially when it comes to making decisions in a clearly corrupt manner.

Over the season, the media coverage surrounding the AFL's decision to ban the Swans from any kind of drafting has intensified, with more questions being asked of the decision, who made it and why. The AFL lifted some of the sanctions, whilst imposing impractical and extremely limiting sanctions, practically preventing the club from recruiting anyone of any stature within the league, whilst Victorian clubs have had the benefit of salary cap changes, draft changes, academy changes, suggested zone changes and free agency changes.

It's no secret that the Swans loathe the decision. We discussed it on the team forum last year and I said that it was an illegal ban, that if challenged in any court in Australia it would be ridiculed and overturned with prejudice without hesitation or delay.

More and more information and evidence is coming to fore that the AFL has certainly made a corrupt decision in banning the Swans from trading. Whilst this is coming primarily from the Swans side, there's no doubt that the fact that it's coming out warrants a lawful investigation.

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/sydney-sw...-of-lying-over-trade-ban-20150814-gizkm8.html

Sydney chairman Andrew Pridham has accused the AFL of lying over the circumstances which led to the imposition of the controversial trade ban on the club, and urged the league to immediately lift the "senseless sanction".

In an explosive pre-game address prior to Friday night's match against Collingwood, Pridham labelled the trade restrictions placed on the Swans as "unconstitutional", a "serious restraint of trade" and having "serious consequences" for the integrity of the competition.

A lot of people have to go through the generic Trade Practices Act and all sort of other law and rights education as part of their companies induction.

Richard Colless let loose a bit over a week ago, which ruffled feathers and set the media into overdrive for an albeit short time.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...mission-chairman/story-fnp04d70-1227470080663

Colless told the Herald Sun a furious AFL Commission chairman Mike Fitzpatrick rang him — and delivered an expletive-laden tirade — after ‘Buddy’ Franklin joined Sydney at the end of 2013.

The AFL and the football world had expected Franklin to sign with Greater Western Sydney.

When an angry Fitzpatrick made his displeasure known on the phone, Colless said he told the chairman the AFL had “broken at least three of its rules”.

Late today the AFL issued a statement. It did not deny the conversation between Fitzpatrick and Colless had taken place, but said any suggestion the league had tried to interfere with Franklin’s deal were incorrect.

The AFL is a fair bit derp where dealing with serious and sensitive matters is concerned. It's public knowledge that the AFL were engineering a move to get Frankling to the GWS, which was quite clearly in contravention of their own draft tampering rules. There was pressure on Franklin, Hawks and GWS to get the deal done. I find it beyond idiotic that the AFL would confirm that the discussion had taken place while attempting to hose down the aspect of illegal trade.

Colless said the episode was symptomatic of Fitzpatrick’s performance as head of the AFL.

“I think he is singularly inappropriate to be running the AFL — and the debate that is raging now about the AFL’s leadership with the Adam Goodes thing is a classic example,” he said.

“Mike is a huge handbrake on much of what the AFL wants to be doing or should be doing.”

It's clear as day that there's a lot of issues at AFL head quarters at the moment, regardless of any Swans-related issues. The abhorred handling of the ASADA case, rampant racism, alcoholism, drug taking, lax responses to basically any AFL-social related issues, piss-poor tribunal performances and clear bias to Victorian clubs with regards to scheduling and fixturing, much to the detriment of struggling clubs.

Where do you lay the blame? You've got Victorian clubs running roughshod over the AFL, basically getting whatever they want regardless of the cost, especially where equalisation is concerned.

Angry Hawthorn threaten to ditch AFL revenue share scheme
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...afl-revenue-share-scheme-20150622-ghug6f.html

Andrew Pridham responded to Colless's interview:
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-office-sydney-swans-say-20150805-gisikh.html

Sydney chairman Andrew Pridham has labelled claims that his club was at war with the AFL as "nonsense" with the Swans moving to distance themselves from former chairman Richard Colless' attack upon Mike Fitzpatrick.

...

"The Swans are not at war with the AFL," said Pridham. "That's nonsense. We've moved on from that and the connection with the cost of living issue. This story has been around for a long time and the reality is that Richard has been gone for some time.

The AFL is fast turning into a joke of a competition, yelling 'yee-hah' as they set sail into the sunset, belligerently destroying all in their conquest of fatter wallets, certainly at the expense of the game itself. Reminds me of this scene from Crimson Tide:

 

[manboob]

"unconstitutional"

 

[Randomizor]

You know what? If you had just used COLA as it was intended and didn't use it simply to poach other team's players, you wouldn't have been banned.

You're not going to find much sympathy here. You technically didn't break any rules, fine.
You damn well broke the spirit of them though.

However, I agree with the core of your post, which is about the way the AFL have be handling things lately. I think this is a source of frustration for many fans.

The AFL seem to value the dollar above all else. They seem confused by the lower crowds over the past few years, but haven't stopped to consider that maybe making every decision based on it's financial value is a great way to disillusion supporters.

It's also a bit tiring that they feel they need to have input into any issue that is raised. They shouldn't be telling fans not to boo players. They shouldn't be telling players not to make drug related slurs towards Essendon players. It doesn't help. It just makes fans feel like they are stage-managing (which they are not doing as well at hiding as they think).

 

[The_Reaper]

Push this to its logical conclusion and the draft is unconstitutional.

Sydney had AFL mandated advantages over other clubs for years due to being the favourite son.

But unfortunately for the Swans, a new love child appeared and they got in the way.

Sure the trade ban is pretty dodgy but hey Sydney benefited for years from special treatment so suck s**t

 

[MickDiguna86]

He can talk and protest all he wants to but nothing will occur.

Here is an idea Andrew. If you have a set of balls & a backbone, take the 'restraint of trade' to court. See if it stacks up in a court of law. You would probably win the case, but in the meantime you would have a judge rule that the draft and salary cap is also a restraint of trade.

But he won't because he knows that will seal the fate of Sydney who live on AFL handouts and can't survive as a football club without a COLA or an academy that undermines the draft or AFL money. You never bite the hand that feeds you.

Pridham will make a song and dance but nothing tangible will be achieved. Just as Andrew protests about restraint of trade, clubs such as West Coast, Hawthorn & Collingwood have as much basis to argue taxing their football departments and profits is a bigger restraint of trade.

 

[the dog's kennel]

It's hard to feel too sorry for the Swans after all the chest beating they exhibited when they got Franklin at least partly thanks to the COLA advantage.

I remember a huge number of Swans strutting fearlessly around BF that month, acting all kinds of cocky.

Seems they don't have quite the same air of invincibility now they are on the other side of the hill.

Having said all that, two wrongs don't make a right. And that trade ban is flat out corrupt. If you have a problem with COLA, you take it away. Immediately if you like. But you don't hand out an extra punishment on your way out for no reason whatsoever other than score-settling.

 

[D-N-R]

Not sure about unconstitutional or illegal, as the AFL can make their own rules. It's very unfair though. The Swans haven't done anything that was against the rules. When they contracted Buddy, the AFL looked over the contract and approved it. They could have knocked it on the head, but didn't.

Was it against the 'spirit' of what COLA was for? Well, like many things the AFL does, they never seem to look deeply enough into the rules or things they implement. It's up to them to cover all the bases. Even with the new 'trading future picks' rule, they've had to make some adjustments to close a loophole days after they announced them. I wonder what other surprises will come out of this new rule they haven't thought about and what could happen to a club if they exploited them?

Could the Swans call the other clubs together to go up against the AFL over this? You might think the other clubs don't care, but this kind of action could be brought against any of the other clubs at any time. Seems like some clubs may benefit from trading with the Swans as well.

 

[MickDiguna86]

He's also upset because he is going to have Goodes, Shaw & Richards retire this offseason and Jetta has told the club he won't be there in 2016. Sydney are about to slide and there is nothing his club can do in a trading sense.

 

[Xtreme]

Biggest case of sour grapes. Needs a nice tall glass of harden up juice. Sydney did the wrong thing and got punished

 

[nineteen eighty]

Not sure about unconstitutional or illegal, as the AFL can make their own rules. It's very unfair though. The Swans haven't done anything that was against the rules. When they contracted Buddy, the AFL looked over the contract and approved it. They could have knocked it on the head, but didn't.

Was it against the 'spirit' of what COLA was for? Well, like many things the AFL does, they never seem to look deeply enough into the rules or things they implement. It's up to them to cover all the bases. Even with the new 'trading future picks' rule, they've had to make some adjustments to close a loophole days after they announced them. I wonder what other surprises will come out of this new rule they haven't thought about and what could happen to a club if they exploited them?

Could the Swans call the other clubs together to go up against the AFL over this? You might think the other clubs don't care, but this kind of action could be brought against any of the other clubs at any time. Seems like some clubs may benefit from trading with the Swans as well.

Good post.

The AFL signed off on the Buddy trade.

The trade ban is not because of the Swans using COLA to get him. The trade ban is simply the AFL executive and board members cracking the shits at the Swans picking him up and not GWS.

When are people going to understand that this is not a COLA issue.

 

[telsor]

Fair enough...Trade ban gone.

Oh, and BTW, so is COLA.

Be prepared for penalties that will make the trade ban look like a picnic if you're not under the cap next year.

 

[nineteen eighty]

He's also upset because he is going to have Goodes, Shaw & Richards retire this offseason and Jetta has told the club he won't be there in 2016. Sydney are about to slide and there is nothing his club can do in a trading sense.

The youngsters who have into the club and are about to come into the club from the academy will ensure that if they do slide, it won't be for lond. Gun mids who will make the Swans a formidable team.

You are spot on though in that they will be losing a lot of experience and their hands are tied. They can't do a thing about replacing a key defender etc...

Ludicrous situation.

 

[nineteen eighty]

Biggest case of sour grapes. Needs a nice tall glass of harden up juice. Sydney did the wrong thing and got punished

I must have missed it in the media. Can you please point me in the direction of where the Swans were found to have done the wrong thing?

You know, they may well have directed COLA elsewhere. The AFL however, found everything ok on that front. And they they gave the Buddy deal the thumbs up. So why the trade ban?

Just another fck up from the AFL. But instead, this thread becomes a pissing contest aligned with club loyalties rather than a sensible discussion.

 

[The Swans Blog]

The youngsters who have into the club and are about to come into the club from the academy will ensure that if they do slide, it won't be for lond. Gun mids who will make the Swans a formidable team.

You are spot on though in that they will be losing a lot of experience and their hands are tied. They can't do a thing about replacing a key defender etc...

Ludicrous situation.

We've spent considerably time arguing and hypothesizing over what players we can trade for. Essentially we're settling on geriatric farts close to the end of their careers, unproven young talent, or players about to be delisted, because we can't trade in much, especially with the restriction.

I sincerely hope the Swans take the AFL to court; they should have done it last year after the trade period.

 

[asanque]

I hope the Swans take the AFL to court too.

James Hird learnt the hard way about what a costly and futile effort that is.

It might take away some of the woe is us attitude the Swans have for finally playing on the same field as everyone else.

The swans clearly abused a loophole by poaching Buddy on a ridiculous long term deal.

Let us be clear. There is no trade ban.

If the swans operate under the same rules as everyone (i.e. same salary cap), you can trade like anyone else.

The AFL clearly believe the Swans will continue to exploit COLA if the minor trade restriction did not exist. They should have stepped in to stop the Buddy trade or stopped COLA far earlier.

20 years of a massive competitive advantage and welfare vs a minor restriction for a year or two. Talk about self-entitlement.

Woe is Sydney.

Edit: notwithstanding the above, the AFL does deserve plenty of criticism for a lot else as mentioned in your post but this is the least of their issues.

 

[Xtreme]

I must have missed it in the media. Can you please point me in the direction of where the Swans were found to have done the wrong thing?

You know, they may well have directed COLA elsewhere. The AFL however, found everything ok on that front. And they they gave the Buddy deal the thumbs up. So why the trade ban?

Just another fck up from the AFL. But instead, this thread becomes a pissing contest aligned with club loyalties rather than a sensible discussion.

Booooooooooooooooooooooooo ????

The AFL make the rules, deal with it

 

[nineteen eighty]

Booooooooooooooooooooooooo ????

The AFL make the rules, deal with it

How old are you?

 

[Xtreme]

How old are you?

Does that matter ?

The AFL make the rules, you can either tow the line or go elsewhere

 

[Rabbitpig]

Good post.

The AFL signed off on the Buddy trade.

The trade ban is not because of the Swans using COLA to get him. The trade ban is simply the AFL executive and board members cracking the shits at the Swans picking him up and not GWS.

When are people going to understand that this is not a COLA issue.

I thought the trade ban was related to COLA?.
Didn't the AFL heed Sydney's request to be able to keep COLA payments for a couple of years, gradually reducing it so the players themselves didn't lose out. The AFL agreed, as far as I know, so long as Sydney made every effort to reduce their cap by a million dollars to be in line with every other club.
Signing up players on huge deals whilst still retaining COLA payments seems a bit rich to me and I'd assume why the trade bans are in place.
I'm not sure, but aren't Sydney allowed to trade the same way as everyone else once their total player payments are the same as everyone else?

 

[telsor]

Good post.

The AFL signed off on the Buddy trade.

The trade ban is not because of the Swans using COLA to get him. The trade ban is simply the AFL executive and board members cracking the shits at the Swans picking him up and not GWS.

When are people going to understand that this is not a COLA issue.

So short version is that if you piss off the AFL, they get nasty...

So yeah, lets crack the shits over their trade ban and try and make them look bad...How could that possibly go wrong

 

[The 747]

Listen to the sound of a spoilt child crying....

 

[ziad]

Listen to the sound of a spoilt child crying....

I want my cola, I want my cola
wa wa wa
This is the hand out dependancy disease.
The AFL must become a level comp to survive long term.

 

[Grandaddy J]

If murder was legal, yet stil unethical, you couldn't throw the assailant in jail just because you didn't agree with it. While the COLA allowed the Swans to get away with murder for years, it was a system put in place by the AFL. Cut the bullshit "no sympathy here", "spoilt children" routine. Any team would've done what the Swans did had they also had that extra money to spend. It doesn't justify the AFL punishing the Swans for outsmarting a f****** dumb system.

 

[telsor]

If murder was legal, yet stil unethical, you couldn't throw the assailant in jail just because you didn't agree with it. While the COLA allowed the Swans to get away with murder for years, it was a system put in place by the AFL. Cut the bullshit "no sympathy here", "spoilt children" routine. Any team would've done what the Swans did had they also had that extra money to spend. It doesn't justify the AFL punishing the Swans for outsmarting a f****** dumb system.

All true enough, but the Swans are throwing their toys out of the cot now that it's being taken away* which is why they're spoilt children deserving of no sympathy.



*- It's not actually being taken away, just reduced.

 

[pinot]

Draft and salary cap is unconstitutional as it is a restraint of trade.

We need drafts and salary caps on property market