Mike "C-Bomb" Fitzpatrick

[Procrastinator35]

I am not defending COLA or saying it should have continued. I am not arguing it was fair. But there are fair ways to undo an unfair system and there are unfair ways. COLA should have been phased out without a trade ban.

They were trade banned because without Cola they are way over the cap limit....Simple as that.....They bit the hand that fed them & now their getting all offended because the guaranteed CUPS they assumed would materialize with the arrival of Buddy, have not eventuated....Karma baby, Karma!

 

[MarkT2]

The underlying issues exposed rather than the call are of more concern.
While the AFL keep recruiting dodgy Carlton and Essendon types not much will change - which at Commission level is actually the aim.
Meanwhile, the leak exposes as much about Collis as it does about Fitspatrick.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

They were trade banned because without Cola they are way over the cap limit....Simple as that.....They bit the hand that fed them & now their getting all offended because the guaranteed CUPS they assumed would materialize with the arrival of Buddy, have not eventuated....Karma baby, Karma!

This is funny. Your club's time is coming mate. Faster than you realise. And when it does know that no one will give a heck. "First they came for the Jews...." and all that.

 

[legend166]

Yes.

Your club has criticised other clubs for poaching players, questioning the COLA etc and claimed that they are stuck in an old Voctorian-centric mindset when really those clubs just want what is best for them.

To then effectively steal Buddy under GWS' nose is just rank hypocrisy.

Walk the talk I say.

Regards

S. Pete

You've gone crazy.

 

[bungwahl]

Looks like its becoming Sydney/Goodes/Press vs the AFL & 17 other clubs....Lets cut this cancer loose for the good of the game & the comp.



LOL....2005 & 2012 CUPS SAY HELLO....No AFL intervention, no cups!

So 17 other clubs are in favour of the AFL meddling in player lists and club management?

Or you just hate Sydney and want to make a point?

 

[Stumpy Pete]

You've gone crazy Stinky Pete.

Why? Given the "national interest/fighting the Victorian hordes" rhetoric coming out of your club over the years I would have thought that it would not be unreasonable to expect that club ambition might take a back seat to allowing the new kids on the block to land a big fish to help bolster interest and support.

Alas self interest won out over living up to your stated ideals.

And clearly if you have to resort to insults you can't find it in you to argue the point.

Regards

S. Pete

 

[Tedeski]

We are all looking forward to how your great list management, brilliant techniques and culture go when you are under the same salary cap as the other teams.

Whilst under a trading ban where we can't trade out a player on 600K to bring in another player, such as a ruckman for 400K?
That's a saving of 200K that we can use on future contracts of required players.

Let me know how the other 17 clubs are coping with their 2 year trading bans.

 

[Stumpy Pete]

So 17 other clubs are in favour of the AFL meddling in player lists and club management?

Or you just hate Sydney and want to make a point?

See my earlier post. The VFL did it in the early days of the Swans.

I'm not saying that makes it right but I think you ought to acknowledge that it benefited your club in the past.

Regards

S. Pete

 

[bungwahl]

I wonder if you would have held the same views back in the 1980's when, in assisting the Swans to maintain a competitive side, the league determined a fee for the transfer of Bolton, Williams and Toohey from Geelong to Sydney. Worth noting the fee was less than half what Geelong wanted and even worse less than what Sydney were offering.

Regards

S. Pete

Constantly harping back to what happened in the past just limits the potential for a sport to advance and evolve.

My ideal is the same in any era - a regulatory body should not interfere in player movements or club management.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Why? Given the "national interest/fighting the Victorian hordes" rhetoric coming out of your club over the years I would have thought that it would not be unreasonable to expect that club ambition might take a back seat to allowing the new kids on the block to land a big fish to help bolster interest and support.

Alas self interest won out over living up to your stated ideals.

And clearly if you have to resort to insults you can't find it in you to argue the point.

Regards

S. Pete

Your post here is predicated on falsehoods. I've not read anything about Victorian hordes coming out of the Sydney Swans Football Club.

 

[Tedeski]

They were trade banned because without Cola they are way over the cap limit....Simple as that.....They bit the hand that fed them & now their getting all offended because the guaranteed CUPS they assumed would materialize with the arrival of Buddy, have not eventuated....Karma baby, Karma!

Love your obsession with the mighty Bloods!

 

[bungwahl]

See my earlier post. The AFL did it in the early days of the Swans.

I'm not saying that makes it right but I think you ought to acknowledge that it benefited your club in the past.

Regards

S. Pete

I just responded to your post. I agree that what happened in the 80's wasn't right either. That doesn't mean we should keep repeating it!

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

See my earlier post. The VFL did it in the early days of the Swans.

I'm not saying that makes it right but I think you ought to acknowledge that it benefited your club in the past.

Regards

S. Pete

It didn't. It nearly killed our club. Selling the Sydney Swans to a crook from Carlton was the worst thing the AFL could have done.

 

[bungwahl]

well done Mike, poor poor Sydney being treated like 16 other clubs

Oh, so all clubs now limited to sub $350k trades? Should make for a boring trade period this year!

 

[Stumpy Pete]

Constantly harping back to what happened in the past just limits the potential for a sport to advance and evolve.

My ideal is the same in any era - a regulatory body should not interfere in player movements or club management.

Fair enough - though had the VFL not interfered in the 80's the Swans may well have moved back to South Melb.

Regards

S. Pete

 

[bungwahl]

They were trade banned because without Cola they are way over the cap limit....Simple as that.....They bit the hand that fed them & now their getting all offended because the guaranteed CUPS they assumed would materialize with the arrival of Buddy, have not eventuated....Karma baby, Karma!

That is a ridiculous post that makes absolutely no sense.

The phasing out COLA amount was in place, so there is no "without COLA" scenario. That's like saying that if the salary cap was less Hawthorn would be well over it - just a ridiculous argument.

 

[bungwahl]

Fair enough - though had the VFL not interfered in the 80's the Swans may well have moved back to South Melb.

Regards

S. Pete

Yep, quite possibly. The situation was pretty dire in Sydney and has only really stabilised over the past decade.

 

[Cylon7]

I guess we just needed it to be written and printed, but it comes as absolutely no surprise that the AFL were trying to get Frankin to GWS.

Most Hawks fans heard as much at the time.


Interestingly, Dylan Shiel was involved in numerous talks with Vic clubs earlier this year, his family reportedly wanting him back in the state, then there was rumored to be a meeting with a few AFL suits and what do you know, Shiel re-signs with the Giants not long after.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

Who were the 'suits' and what techniques of persuasion did they employ?

 

[legend166]

Why? Given the "national interest/fighting the Victorian hordes" rhetoric coming out of your club over the years I would have thought that it would not be unreasonable to expect that club ambition might take a back seat to allowing the new kids on the block to land a big fish to help bolster interest and support.

Alas self interest won out over living up to your stated ideals.

And clearly if you have to resort to insults you can't find it in you to argue the point.

Regards

S. Pete

Apologies for the insult - I genuinely thought that was your username (after the character on Toy Story 2). I've edited it out now.

My point is there's a difference between supporting the expansion of the game and deliberately passing on one if the best players in the game (who has expressed a desire to play for your team) for some altruistic ideal of expansion.

To steal a quote: why do we play? To win the game.

 

[Suma Magic]

The trade ban is stupid, really stupid.

Whether you agree with CoLA (Swans fans) or not (everyone else), I think most can agree that a phase out of CoLA with no trading restrictions would have been a better approach.

 

[bungwahl]

The trade ban is stupid, really stupid.

Whether you agree with CoLA (Swans fans) or not (everyone else), I think most can agree that a phase out of CoLA with no trading restrictions would have been a better approach.

Absolutely agree. Trading is one key tool the Swans could have used to lower their total player payments and phase out COLA sooner.

Unfortunately the AFL weren't interested in the Swans removing COLA, they just wanted to punish them and ensure they couldn't improve their squad.

 

[Procrastinator35]

So 17 other clubs are in favour of the AFL meddling in player lists and club management?

Or you just hate Sydney and want to make a point?

NO....I'M simply sick of your club holding our competition hostage through the press....That's all.

 

[Suma Magic]

Absolutely agree. Trading is one key tool the Swans could have used to lower their total player payments and phase out COLA sooner.

Unfortunately the AFL weren't interested in the Swans removing COLA, they just wanted to punish them and ensure they couldn't improve their squad.

The AFL wanted CoLA removed over a certain period of time.

Once that decision was made, they decided to also penalise them.

If they hadn't penalised them, the CoLA phase-out timeline would have remained the same IMO.

 

[Punchy Bassett]

If the AFL were trying to orchestrate a 3rd pary deal for more money/sponsorship, that's pretty much what cost the Crows 2 years of draft picks, and Tippett and Trigg got holidays. You simply can't have the head body of the organisation breaking the rules it has made, and has seriously punished clubs for breaching those very same rules.

Yeah I'd like to know when we are getting those draft picks back seeing the AFL was doing the same thing in the background.

 

[bungwahl]

NO....I'M simply sick of your club holding our competition hostage through the press....That's all.

Colless is no longer with the Swans so Sydney is not holding anyone hostage. He's done every club a big favour by publicly exposing the AFL's corrupt practises around player movements.

Time to grow up a bit.