Sydney refused to communicate trade ban to recieve 'maximum leverage' - Gillon Mclaughlan

[Bluelegs]

In an article that appeared on Sydney's website today Gillon Mclaughlan revealed that the AFL is reconsidering their trade ban. Within the article an interesting quote arises about the communication (or lack there of) from both the AFL and Sydney towards the AFL public.

http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/news/2014-11-27/trade-ban-may-soften

The League has also acknowledged it made a mistake in the way it communicated the trade restrictions to the Swans, with AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan saying it should have been far more transparent.

"I'll take responsibility. I think it was poorly communicated," McLachlan told AFL.com.au's NAB Draft Countdown show on Thursday.

"And that was a bit in response to the Swans not wanting to communicate it (the ban) because they wanted to use maximum leverage going into that trade period.

"I think in retrospect we should've communicated that properly."

The League met with Swans officials on Thursday morning to discuss a potential softening of the trade ban.

So it seems that Sydney understood the restrictions they would be dealing with prior to the trade period taking place. How long prior is not revealed but it could certainly have been as far back as when the COLA was revised months ago.

Neither side chose to reveal that the ban was happening until halfway through the trade period, which made it seem like the ban had been implemented at that point in time.

From where I'm sitting it feels like the Swans wanted to take the AFL community for a ride and get people on their side making the situation seem more ridiculous and contrived than it actually was. While I personally still feel the trade ban was a poor decision from the AFL the lack of communication from the Swans is pretty slimy.

 

[master bate]

We probably don't need to go through this whole thread again on the merits of the trade ban.

But I did think it was pretty well known Sydney had held on to releasing the news. It was certainly very suspicious that they would be banned from trading in the first week of trade week and it was eluded to being made way before trade time.

Why they AFL didn't take ownership of it is beyond me. They came down with a decision presumably based on some pretty decent arguments from those in charge of running the game.

They should've announced it themselves and they should damn well stick to it now as well.

 

[Tuco]

That is barely intelligible.

"I'll take responsibility. I think it was poorly communicated,"

"And that was a bit in response to the Swans not wanting to communicate it (the ban) because they wanted to use maximum leverage going into that trade period."

"I think in retrospect we should've communicated that properly."

Huh?

So while it was the AFL's fault for not communicating something, t was also the Swans fault for not wanting to communicate it, and in retrospect this was a failure of the AFL to communicate properly?

Fufuxsake. If this is how Gill helps to "clear everything up" we're in for a long, obtuse period of obfuscating bollox from the AFL for the next decade or so.

Gibberish.

 

[I am Jack]

This is why the AFL is a joke. Everything is at the discretion of whoever is in charge.
We shouldn't allow the game to be dictated by one man.
If this wasn't a Sydney issue, Eddie would be all over this.

 

[master bate]

This is why the AFL is a joke. Everything is at the discretion of whoever is in charge.
We shouldn't allow the game to be dictated by one man.
If this wasn't a Sydney issue, Eddie would be all over this.

That's the thing though. The trade ban and the forthcoming appeal are actually from the AFL commission. Who seem a reasonable collection of minds. But they deflect everything on to Gill, who then spins it round in circles and deflects back.

With a lot of bluster but not a lot of change from Demetriou to Gill so far, I'm wondering if maybe it's time for Mike Fitzpatrick and others on the commission to step aside and for some fresh blood at that level.

 

[Bluelegs]

That is barely intelligible.

"I'll take responsibility. I think it was poorly communicated,"

"And that was a bit in response to the Swans not wanting to communicate it (the ban) because they wanted to use maximum leverage going into that trade period."

"I think in retrospect we should've communicated that properly."

Huh?

So while it was the AFL's fault for not communicating something, t was also the Swans fault for not wanting to communicate it, and in retrospect this was a failure of the AFL to communicate properly?

Fufuxsake. If this is how Gill helps to "clear everything up" we're in for a long, obtuse period of obfuscating bollox from the AFL for the next decade or so.

Gibberish.

Not really, Gillon is taking responsibility for not being upfront about it; he probably expected the Swans to do so or they asked the AFL not to reveal it. All he's saying is that when the decision was made the AFL should have made the situation clear immediately. The Swans did not want that but Gillon is taking responsibility for it because he had the power to communicate it to the AFL public as well and chose not to for whatever reason.

Both parties had the power to communicate the circumstances to the public, neither side chose to until halfway through the trade period. The AFL is taking responsibility.

 

[Bluelegs]

This is why the AFL is a joke. Everything is at the discretion of whoever is in charge.
We shouldn't allow the game to be dictated by one man.
If this wasn't a Sydney issue, Eddie would be all over this.

I'm pretty sure Eddie would be pissed off that the Swans were effectively gatekeeping the info in order to manipulate the public to their cause.

I just don't understand why the AFL didn't say anything in the first place. They had nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing so.

 

[mattymac]

Amateurish at best

 

[Suma Magic]

Did sydney ever claim it wasn't decided until during the trade period (even though they knew about it a long time before this)?

If that happened (not sure if it did) then that would be poor form from the swans.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

That is barely intelligible.

"I'll take responsibility. I think it was poorly communicated,"

"And that was a bit in response to the Swans not wanting to communicate it (the ban) because they wanted to use maximum leverage going into that trade period."

"I think in retrospect we should've communicated that properly."

Huh?

So while it was the AFL's fault for not communicating something, t was also the Swans fault for not wanting to communicate it, and in retrospect this was a failure of the AFL to communicate properly?

Fufuxsake. If this is how Gill helps to "clear everything up" we're in for a long, obtuse period of obfuscating bollox from the AFL for the next decade or so.

Gibberish.

Seems to me that Sydney felt their trading and contracts goals may be compromised if everyone knew they couldn't trade players in; so kept it hush until a week in.

 

[telsor]

That is barely intelligible.

"I'll take responsibility. I think it was poorly communicated,"

"And that was a bit in response to the Swans not wanting to communicate it (the ban) because they wanted to use maximum leverage going into that trade period."

"I think in retrospect we should've communicated that properly."

Huh?

So while it was the AFL's fault for not communicating something, t was also the Swans fault for not wanting to communicate it, and in retrospect this was a failure of the AFL to communicate properly?

Fufuxsake. If this is how Gill helps to "clear everything up" we're in for a long, obtuse period of obfuscating bollox from the AFL for the next decade or so.

Gibberish.

It's the AFLs fault they did what Sydney wanted and kept it quiet.

The AFL should have ignored Sydney's preference and announced it earlier.

 

[Schraderbrau]

No surprise seeing the slimy swans behaving in this kind of way.

 

[base615]

At the time our CEO said in an interview that Sydney was told 2 weeks before it was announced but we were still trying to negotiate in an attempt to get it overturned before the trade period started. I don't see how this is anything different to what he said back then.

 

[TheGong]

Absolute gibberish from Gillon. Is he saying that the Swans were banned from trading but he kept it quiet because the Swans did not want it to compromise their trading????

Is it so difficult to come out and state in plain English why the Swans were banned? I think all the Swans fans could accept the ban if we knew the reason. Eg after their retirements, delistings etc they had a base salary cap of $8m with $0.8m COLA. Say they wanted to sign Ryder with a $0.7m offer, their total spending would be $9.5m. Assuming the cap was $9.0m, they would be exceeding the salary cap.

But no, all we get is gibberish, "Swans can't have everyone " etc. When you start hiding the truth all you get is conspiracy theories that the AFL wants to weaken the Swans so that GWS attract more attention, or Eddie and Newbold are manipulating the AFL to their own advantage.

FFS, I hope we know the truth of the matter next week when the commission meets on this.

 

[clogged]

While I personally still feel the trade ban was a poor decision from the AFL the lack of communication from the Swans is pretty slimy.

They're a slimy club, where's the surprise? Because they're out of the 24/7 footy spotlight all the way up in Sydney, no one notices, but they are run just like 80s and 90s Carlton.

 

[telsor]

Is it so difficult to come out and state in plain English why the Swans were banned? I think all the Swans fans could accept the ban if we knew the reason. Eg after their retirements, delistings etc they had a base salary cap of $8m with $0.8m COLA. Say they wanted to sign Ryder with a $0.7m offer, their total spending would be $9.5m. Assuming the cap was $9.0m, they would be exceeding the salary cap.

They did say pretty much that.

Standard Cap is $10M
Sydney is over that cap, but it's allowed because they're phasing out COLA.
If Sydney can recruit players and remain under the standard cap, they're allowed to.

Sydney needs to get under the standard cap ASAP, and once they do that, they can trade, just like everyone else. (except Sydney will still get 'COLA-lite').

 

[Oxirane]

Didn't Gerard Healy allude to some sort of trade ban during On the Couch before the trade period?

 

[Kwality]

That is barely intelligible.

"I'll take responsibility. I think it was poorly communicated,"

"And that was a bit in response to the Swans not wanting to communicate it (the ban) because they wanted to use maximum leverage going into that trade period."

"I think in retrospect we should've communicated that properly."

Huh?

So while it was the AFL's fault for not communicating something, t was also the Swans fault for not wanting to communicate it, and in retrospect this was a failure of the AFL to communicate properly?

Fufuxsake. If this is how Gill helps to "clear everything up" we're in for a long, obtuse period of obfuscating bollox from the AFL for the next decade or so.

Gibberish.

The bloke is a dud.

 

[Kwality]

Seems to me that Sydney felt their trading and contracts goals may be compromised if everyone knew they couldn't trade players in; so kept it hush until a week in.

How could the AFL agree to keep clubs in the dark? You have to be wrong Poisin, dont you, surely you must be ...

 

[Mr_Moogle]

So wait a sec. Sydney knew about the trade ban way ahead of time but only dropped the bomb half way through the trade period to make the AFL look worse? Slimy indeed.

 

[Kwality]

So wait a sec. Sydney knew about the trade ban way ahead of time but only dropped the bomb half way through the trade period to make the AFL look worse? Slimy indeed.

All clubs look to take advantage of each other, e.g Mr & Mrs Dangerfield guests of Geelong at a home game v Adelaide - alls fair in love & war BUT the AFL are running the show. Decisions like this should be disclosed from head office, cut the spin.

 

[blue harvest]

I thought it had already been established in the trade ban thread that the Swans found out about the ban way back in May or whatever it was when COLA's demise was being orchestrated. And then in September in the lead up to trade week they received some sort of official notification confirming they were banned and they just ran with that instead to get some sympathy.

 

[DaVillaBlues]

I thought it had already been established in the trade ban thread that the Swans found out about the ban way back in May or whatever it was when COLA's demise was being orchestrated. And then in September in the lead up to trade week they received some sort of official notification confirming they were banned and they just ran with that instead to get some sympathy.

Well if the AFL announced the Swans trade ban back in May/June etc, i don't think people would be so suspicious of it, there is a rumour that the Swans were very keen on Paddy Ryder and vice versa, just imagine the ahitstorm if Ryder said he wanted to be traded to Sydney ?

This trade ban by the Swans just seems so much like the NBA stepping in to veto the Chris Paul to the LA Lakers trade, 5 or so years ago.

The most worrying thing about the Swans trade ban is that it does seem now the AFL buckled to constant public pressure from scorned Vic Presidents like Eddie IE COLA.

And of course, there is little doubt the AFL are majorly pissed the Swans poached Buddy right under from GWS.

Not a big fan of The Swans but this trade embargo on the Swans absolutely reeks of dirty footy politics, and The Swans have already lost another couple of quality players due to Salary Cap constraints.

 

[RW]

Well if the AFL announced the Swans trade ban back in May/June etc, i don't think people would be so suspicious of it, there is a rumour that the Swans were very keen on Paddy Ryder and vice versa, just imagine the ahitstorm if Ryder said he wanted to be traded to Sydney ?

This trade ban by the Swans just seems so much like the NBA stepping in to veto the Chris Paul to the LA Lakers trade, 5 or so years ago.

The most worrying thing about the Swans trade ban is that it does seem now the AFL buckled to constant public pressure from scorned Vic Presidents like Eddie IE COLA.

And of course, there is little doubt the AFL are majorly pissed the Swans poached Buddy right under from GWS.

Not a big fan of The Swans but this trade embargo on the Swans absolutely reeks of dirty footy politics, and The Swans have already lost another couple of quality players due to Salary Cap constraints.

That's it in a nutshell basically.

Back to the original quote from Gil, he seems to be contradicting himself by appearing to take responsibility on the one hand while trying to make out it is somehow the Swans' fault because the AFL didn't communicate properly?! WTF? They did tell us on the eve of the grand final, what were we supposed to do?

 

[estibador]

There's something really grubby about the AFL agreeing to keep it a secret for Sydney's benefit.

They're supposed to be the independent arbitrators of the league (I know, I could barely keep a straight face while typing that either) but incidents like this just further reinforce suspicions that they actively side with certain clubs against the rest.

I don't blame Sydney for trying to make the most of a bad situation, but there's no way the governing body should be party to such deception.