Fact is there are 800+ posts on this thread so far and nobody is any wiser as to what went down for the AFL to make this decision. But carry on.
Swans told to end COLA - OR be banned from trading in players for 2 years
- Thread starter Zerg
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Fact is there are 800+ posts on this thread so far and nobody is any wiser as to what went down for the AFL to make this decision. But carry on.
bungwahl
Premiership Player
AFLPA has released a statement along those lines tonight.
bungwahl
Premiership Player
It'd be nice to know if there was actually an event or underlying story. I'd expected the Swans to be fairly quiet this trade window anyway.. ?
Bollocks. You do know that the AFL has to endorse each and every player contract, right. I mean, you must know that.
WideOpenRoad
Debutant
I'd imagine with the cap space that was freed up by Malceski leaving, LRT and O'Keefe retiring, etc, Sydney might have had enough in the coffers to have a crack at a Frawley or a Mitch Clark. At a guess, the AFL knew this and put the hard word on Swans before the trade period to avoid the massive melt that would ensue (I'd probably meltdown too if they picked up Ryder or someone, TBH)
Ireland must have got jack of it and leaked it out to Fairfax.
Ireland must have got jack of it and leaked it out to Fairfax.
- Sep 22, 2003
- 1,507
- 3,093
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- HAWTHORN
Oh my... the AFL just confirmed what we already knew - it's the Frank Spencer of world sport.
The delicious irony of the whole thing however, is that they are now alienating the supporters of the paper club they were trying to prop up (alienating the supporters of every other club in the process)!
..Ahahahaha, but it couldn't have happened to a better bunch of blokes .
The delicious irony of the whole thing however, is that they are now alienating the supporters of the paper club they were trying to prop up (alienating the supporters of every other club in the process)!
..Ahahahaha, but it couldn't have happened to a better bunch of blokes .
sherb
Hall of Famer
I've amended my post to make my point clearer.
Wrong
Agreed - noone has a clue. And noone has a clue about how the 9.8% is paid either. Swans officials have come out and said it's applied to each and every player (believe it or not, I don't care), but noone is really sure if it's written into their contract as such, or paid by the AFL, or given to the Swans to pay. The whole thing is just messy. Personally, I thought it was all being dealt with over the next 2 years, and any new contracts simply wouldn't have it (and it was reported that Pykes new contract did exactly this). But now, I have no clue. The AFL have just changed the rules, and effectively given Sydney a reduced cap if they want to trade.
That's great.
Chris Pelchen
Debutant
You seem stuck on your belief that the swans will be forced into a "failure to pay" situation thus flowing into a breach of contract.
This will not happen if the swans shed a player or 2. Coincidently just like every other club does when struggling with cap space.
base615
Premiership Player
- Jun 8, 2013
- 3,848
- 5,506
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Hotspur, Chicago Bears
Wrong that it restricts St Kilda or wrong that He thought Gill had more sense?
"some evidence". "suggesting". "perhaps". Give me a break, can you get any more vague? Stop pissing around and show us this evidence.
Boxhead_31
The Greatest Team Of All
- Oct 12, 2007
- 36,824
- 51,303
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- South BHFL
Well that chap you just signed as a FA had been rumored as being looked at as being added by Sydney for backline depth until Mike Fitzpatrick stepped in an said no way.
As a result we have this.
sherb
Hall of Famer
I knew you would be thrilled.
base615
Premiership Player
- Jun 8, 2013
- 3,848
- 5,506
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Hotspur, Chicago Bears
CoLA is in the thread title, as amended by a mod
- Apr 4, 2013
- 13,670
- 16,890
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
They're not threatened with sanctions. They either phase it out voluntarily, or they are prohibited from trading players in while over the total player payments.
Why is this so hard to understand?
- Jun 23, 2008
- 33,485
- 27,226
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Norwood, Everton, Detroit Red Wings
Because the league should be the one to "phase it out", as they're the one administering the extra funds. The Swans are simply using what the league is giving them.
Chris Pelchen
Debutant
I am posting on an internet forum- just like you.
My opinions might be either valid or hogwash - just like yours
Ireland burnt the AFL (more so than Hawthorn) with the Franklin trade. I think people forget that Franklin was being touted as the player to launch GWS in western Sydney. People can talk of legalities and all sorts of thing but in the end Ireland broke a level of trust and good faith in terms of what the AFL is trying to do in expanding its market where it has invested massively. In fact, what Ireland did was make it clear that Sydney was threatened and would do everything in its power to defend its territory. This is not a good way to do business and shows either a naivety or total disregard for where Sydney fits in the scheme of things in the AFL world.
that is 'some evidence' - the words and actions of the swans and afl. what evidence have sydney fans given? simply that the swans have said they use it correctly. words. both are weak, but i would say it's more slanted to suggested the Swans abused COLA.
okay, suffer me - post it, one more time.
- Apr 4, 2013
- 13,670
- 16,890
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Which would mean the Swans would be forced to cut players they had the original understanding they were entitled to keep.
This is the most equitable solution. Swans have a choice.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
