Mike "C-Bomb" Fitzpatrick

[QuietB]

Agree with a few of your points.

Reading the posts in your links, I can't agree with some of your points. "Let's be clear that Sydney are not being punished" - obviously Sydney is being punished, that's pretty clear.

Good post though, some interesting thoughts.

Sydney are not being punished at all. Sydney have two options;

1. Work under the current system with CoLA but you cannot trade anyone else in except under $300k or whatever it is, or
2. Work under the same cap with no CoLA that everyone else has to work within and you can trade as much as you like.

Sydney have clearly decided they are not ready to give up CoLA yet, so they have gone with option 1 and a whole lot of sooking.

 

[MF]

However, the Swans shouldn't get a free pass either.

Get a free pass from what exactly?

Are you suggesting the AFL should hand down penalties (above and beyond the trading ban) for us using their own rules to sign up Franklin?

 

[Procrastinator35]

Yep. And you've just undermined AFL plans in Tassie by signing a new 5 year deal for Launceston. The AFL are ropeable.

When they come for you like they have for us, at the same time as half your list retires, don't come looking for sympathy or support.

Actually Vlad tried his darnedest to scupper our last deal back in 2011, with the plans to shoe-horn another financially struggling Victorian club in our stead....Kennett was front & center in opposing the AFL & we won the battle due to our excellent relationship with the Tassie govt....VLAD had his 'revenge' in 2012 by handing over our finals 'rights' to the 3rd placed Sydney Swans....And THAT is how AFL 'corruption' works!

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Sydney are not being punished at all. Sydney have two options;

1. Work under the current system with CoLA but you cannot trade anyone else in except under $300k or whatever it is, or
2. Work under the same cap with no CoLA that everyone else has to work within and you can trade as much as you like.

Sydney have clearly decided they are not ready to give up CoLA yet, so they have gone with option 1 and a whole lot of sooking.

QuietB, you know well that we as a club can't unilaterally rewrite contracts.

You also know that trading out players assists us in reducing the number of contracts subject to COLA on the list. You also know that any players traded in would not have COLA attached to their contracts.

Knowing all of this, the trade ban is nonsense, and clearly a vindictive act for undermining City Hall.

 

[Pessimistic]

Buddy and pickers used GWS as a cover while they. Engineered the buddy deal, just as tippet used brisbane as a cover.

The commonality is... Destination sydney.

Most would assume sydney were up to heir eyes in it

They may claim it to be 'legal' but whet has been 'legal' fro sydney for a goood number of years is different from southern clubs. Vic. Wa. Sa.

The swearing is the story but what the discussion alludes to is the most damning, that sydney were very happy with the corruption while they were benefitting

 

[Linda_Lovelace]

Actually Vlad tried his darnedest to scupper our last deal back in 2011, with the plans to shoe-horn another financially struggling Victorian club in our stead....Kennett was front & center in opposing the AFL & we won the battle due to our excellent relationship with the Tassie govt....VLAD had his 'revenge' in 2012 by handing over our finals 'rights' to the 3rd placed Sydney Swans....And THAT is how AFL 'corruption' works!

Remember when the relatively new president of the Saints, Buttress, complained about the Eithad deal. That combined with Thomas mouthing off re umps saw them get a horror draw.

 

[bungwahl]

Sydney are not being punished at all. Sydney have two options;

1. Work under the current system with CoLA but you cannot trade anyone else in except under $300k or whatever it is, or
2. Work under the same cap with no CoLA that everyone else has to work within and you can trade as much as you like.

Sydney have clearly decided they are not ready to give up CoLA yet, so they have gone with option 1 and a whole lot of sooking.

Let's not go back to this silly debate. For your options:

1. That's a punishment. Unless all other teams cannot trade over $350k, it's a punishment.
2. COLA was already being phased out and the Swans have a legal obligation to fulfil existing contracts (new contracts don't have COLA).

If the AFL seriously wanted the Swans to get under the standard cap in 2016, why remove one of the key tools we could have used to do that?

It serves absolutely no purpose other than a punishment.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Actually Vlad tried his darnedest to scupper our last deal back in 2011, with the plans to shoe-horn another financially struggling Victorian club in our stead....Kennett was front & center in opposing the AFL & we won the battle due to our excellent relationship with the Tassie govt....VLAD had his 'revenge' in 2012 by handing over our finals 'rights' to the 3rd placed Sydney Swans....And THAT is how AFL 'corruption' works!

If you think that 1. the 2012 AFL Finals fixture was about revenge and 2. they won't come for you this time, well, good luck with that. I'll be sitting here with my popcorn.

 

[Sheezel2Wardlaw]

**** Sydney love a whinge.

Got too used to the gravy train

Culture.

 

[QuietB]

QuietB, you know well that we as a club can't unilaterally rewrite contracts.

You also know that trading out players assists us in reducing the number of contracts subject to COLA on the list. You also know that any players traded in would not have COLA attached to their contracts.

Knowing all of this, the trade ban is nonsense, and clearly a vindictive act for undermining City Hall.

Let's not go back to this silly debate. For your options:

1. That's a punishment. Unless all other teams cannot trade over $350k, it's a punishment.
2. COLA was already being phased out and the Swans have a legal obligation to fulfil existing contracts (new contracts don't have COLA).

If the AFL seriously wanted the Swans to get under the standard cap in 2016, why remove one of the key tools we could have used to do that?

It serves absolutely no purpose other than a punishment.

So trade some talent out and make some space.

You know, like Geelong could not match the offer for Mumford when they were in their prime, or like the Hawks could not match the offer for Kennedy.

The Swans are about to find out that things are not as easy as they always seemed.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

So trade some talent out and make some space.

You know, like Geelong could not match the offer for Mumford when they were in their prime, or like the Hawks could not match the offer for Kennedy.

The Swans are about to find out that things are not as easy as they always seemed.

That's what we did to secure Tippett and Buddy.

But you can't just trade talent out. You also need to trade talent in. Unless the objective is to strip our list wholesale......

Which I guess it is.

Any change in rules such as this needs a transitional period. It's just common sense.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

So trade some talent out and make some space.

You know, like Geelong could not match the offer for Mumford when they were in their prime, or like the Hawks could not match the offer for Kennedy.

The Swans are about to find out that things are not as easy as they always seemed.

Hang on.......what was the offer for Kennedy that Hawthorn couldn't match? Senior games?

 

[MF]

Actually Vlad tried his darnedest to scupper our last deal back in 2011, with the plans to shoe-horn another financially struggling Victorian club in our stead....Kennett was front & center in opposing the AFL & we won the battle due to our excellent relationship with the Tassie govt....VLAD had his 'revenge' in 2012 by handing over our finals 'rights' to the 3rd placed Sydney Swans....And THAT is how AFL 'corruption' works!

It was a horrible injustice against human rights, and hopefully something we'll never have to witness again in this lifetime, but the important thing is that you've moved on with dignity.

 

[blue harvest]

Lol, nobody likes a tattletale.

 

[Procrastinator35]

It was a horrible injustice against human rights, and hopefully something we'll never have to witness again in this lifetime, but the important thing is that you've moved on with dignity.

Unlike Goodes.

 

[QuietB]

That's what we did to secure Tippett and Buddy.

But you can't just trade talent out. You also need to trade talent in. Unless the objective is to strip our list wholesale......

Which I guess it is.

Any change in rules such as this needs a transitional period. It's just common sense.

Sydney will be the ones responsible for striping their list whole sale if it happens.

They are paying 4 tall forwards over $3m a year, over 30% of the cap which has caused them to neglect other parts of their list.

It is bad business and no one else will be to blame.

Sure the AFL have vindictively wielded a big stick on the Swans and done it at an inconvenient time for the Swans, but that is what happens when you bite the hand that feeds you.

I would be prepared to say that even when the trade ban ends the Swans will not bring anyone of note in unless Tippett leaves. They simply will not have the cap space.

The Swans are learning some tough lessons the hard way.

 

[bungwahl]

So trade some talent out and make some space.

You know, like Geelong could not match the offer for Mumford when they were in their prime, or like the Hawks could not match the offer for Kennedy.

The Swans are about to find out that things are not as easy as they always seemed.

You're aware of all the players we've lost over the past few years, right?

The trade ban cuts both ways - we can't simply trade players out as other clubs would need to have available space to take them. A Sydney player on $400k + 9.8% = $439,200. They're unlikely to want to take a $39k pay cut to be pushed out of a premiership hopeful.

Plus, the player has to actually want to go. They have a contract, so there is no pressure on them to take a pay cut and go to a lower level club.

The easiest way for the Swans to get below the standard cap was by trading expensive players for cheaper players. For example, trade out a good $650k player and bring in a good $500k replacement = - $150k net.

 

[MarkT2]

The Swans fans are bitching about the AFL Chairman using his personal issue with the Swans as the basis to unjustifiably ban us from trading. When in fact, the AFL was the one breaking the rules.

Like when they got Lockett and Roos to Sydney?

 

[MF]

Hang on.......what was the offer for Kennedy that Hawthorn couldn't match? Senior games?

Despite being absolutely desperate to offer Josh a bigger contract the Hawks simply couldn't match the huge money being offered by Sydney. Fortunately however the Hawks did manage to find enough coin to sign up players like Ladson, Gilham and Taylor.

 

[bungwahl]

Sydney will be the ones responsible for striping their list whole sale if it happens.

They are paying 4 tall forwards over $3m a year, over 30% of the cap which has caused them to neglect other parts of their list.

It is bad business and no one else will be to blame.

Sure the AFL have vindictively wielded a big stick on the Swans and done it at an inconvenient time for the Swans, but that is what happens when you bite the hand that feeds you.

I would be prepared to say that even when the trade ban ends the Swans will not bring anyone of note in unless Tippett leaves. They simply will not have the cap space.

The Swans are learning some tough lessons the hard way.

You have the Swans salary payment schedule?

The Swans are learning that a corrupt regulatory body can make your list management practises irrelevant.

 

[Gongswan]

If we fight hard enough, they would not dare try pull anything again. As long as we keep our noses clean they cany touch us

they already did, and our options are extremely limited

 

[QuietB]

Hang on.......what was the offer for Kennedy that Hawthorn couldn't match? Senior games?

I don't know what the exact deal was, it was 3 years at 300k a year or something like that for a 13 game player. The sort of risk only teams with a bit of extra cash can take

 

[bungwahl]

Like when they got Lockett and Roos to Sydney?

It'd be great if everyone could read through the rest of this thread. I've responded to this multiple times already, would be great to not have to keep doing it.

In case you missed it - I am against a regulatory body meddling in list management at any time, for any reason, including in the past. I'm also in favour of looking at how to improve for the future rather than constantly looking at the past.

 

[bungwahl]

I don't know what the exact deal was, it was 3 years at 300k a year or something like that for a 13 game player. The sort of risk only teams with a bit of extra cash can take

Kid had pedigree though... hardly a risk!

 

[Procrastinator35]

How sweet it is watching the Swans & their posters dig their own graves....POPCORN.