- Banned
- #151
wat - so there was no trade ban
No there was no hastily issued trade ban on day 3 of the trade period.
*Edit:
Sydney refused to communicate trade ban to recieve 'maximum leverage' - Gillon Mclaughlan
- Thread starter Bluelegs
- Start date
- Tagged users None
No there was no hastily issued trade ban on day 3 of the trade period.
*Edit:
- Sep 12, 2013
- 5,219
- 5,356
- AFL Club
- Sydney
The Swans challenged the ban and it's being reviewed at the commission on 15 December. Not really rolling over and accepting it as you claimed.
- Banned
- #153
Extraordinary that one with so many explanations and justifications for the trade ban is so ignorant as to the timing and subsequent progress of the debate.
- Sep 12, 2013
- 5,219
- 5,356
- AFL Club
- Sydney
The trade period was ten days long. Depending on who you ask, the Swans were advised on either grand final eve, or a few months before. Either way, Pridham claims they were still in discussions in the AFL when the AFL formally announced it on 9 October. There is no one in that set of circumstances the Swans could have gone to for arbitration, and even if they had months of notice, the odds of getting it heard in court in time would be small.
In any case, the Swans didn't just roll over and accept it as you claimed. Continuing your good form.
- Sep 12, 2013
- 5,219
- 5,356
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Leaving aside the difference in circumstances between the cases, a club not doing enough within a certain time frame to your liking /= rolling over and accepting it.The Swans got the Dunkley case to court between the tribunal hearing and the grand final
We will have to agree to disagree then.
My question stands though. If the Swans were so outraged by how unfair it was then they had avenues. They chose not to use them. Why?
- Sep 12, 2013
- 5,219
- 5,356
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Not really, it doesn't. You asked why they didn't go to arbitration with outlining with who or how it would occur, or said they should have taken it to court and said that was possible because almost twenty years ago Dunkley was awarded more time to prepare for a tribunal case.
Again the Swans not satisfying a set of criteria that you yourself don't seem to have that good a grip on doesn't mean they rolled over and accepted what happened.
- Banned
- #160
The Swans say they had no plans to trade in any players. I believe they had only plans to trade in Ryder. I base that belief on a strong rumour that went suddenly quiet that Ryder was off to Sydney. An injunction would not have assisted in getting Ryder given it was in the balance in any event. Moreover, the Swans probably felt that a more diplomatic approach with a new administration was a wise course. Additionally, to flag the trade ban to other clubs would have served to bare the club's backside in the event of, for example, a Reid or a Mitchell wanting to return to Melbourne.
I fully expect that if the trade ban isn't quashed at the Commission hearing on 15 December that it will go to court.
- Moderator
- #161
Id be very surprised to see any AFL club take on the AFL in restraint of trade in court.
- Feb 21, 2006
- 20,731
- 19,578
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Turtles, NYJets, Celtics, Tottenham
Piss off back to polo Gill and take your moron brother with you.
telsor
Hall of Famer
Still waiting...
Mind you, I'd love to see the case...
AFL: "We told them they could trade once they're operating under only slightly better rules than all other established clubs".
Judge: "They only need to meet rules that are still easier that everyone else plays under to avoid this?"
AFL: "Yes your honour".
Judge: "Case dismissed, although I think that maybe the other clubs might have a better case".
Saw On The Couch earlier this week with Gil being interviewed & he pointedly suggested Gerard Healy was not correctly informed when he suggested the Swans had been dudded on the trade ban.
Andrew Ireland has come out & supported Healy & gave the following:
Q: There has been significant commentary about the trade ban imposed on the Club. The AFL have recently made comments about this issue, what is the Club’s take?
A: For the sake of our members and fans, I would like to make our position relating to the trade ban absolutely clear.
In the first half of 2014, myself, and then General Manager – Football Dean Moore had numerous meetings – roughly 10 – with the AFL to discuss the possible continuation of COLA, its replacement housing allowance and ultimately the timeframe of the transition out of COLA. At no time was a trade ban discussed.
On July 15, Andrew Dillon summarised all of our discussions and what had been agreed as acceptable to our Club in a letter to me.
On July 28 an AFL Commission meeting added the trade ban clause which had never been discussed at any time previously in the many meetings held between the AFL and Sydney Swans.
I was informed by Gillon McLachlan at the August CEO’s meeting, which resulted in two subsequent meetings between our Chairman Andrew Pridham, Gillon and I, prior to the 2014 trade period seeking relief from this decision.
To assert that the Swans had prior knowledge, or had discussed the trade ban prior to the Commission decision, is incorrect.
Given the AFL has made clear that there was no wrongdoing on our part, it is our understanding that the AFL Commission was concerned with the possibility – one which had no foundation – of our Club recruiting a high profile free agent and due to this, the trade ban was established.
While we consider the matter closed, we remain disappointed by the decision to ban the Club from the 2014 trade period, and to continue to restrict the Club in 2015.
http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/news/2015-04-01/state-of-play-andrew-ireland
Gil is a master of spin - has he been caught out?
Was the executive over ruled by the Commission?
Over to Commission chairman Fitz to clean this one up !!
Andrew Ireland has come out & supported Healy & gave the following:
Q: There has been significant commentary about the trade ban imposed on the Club. The AFL have recently made comments about this issue, what is the Club’s take?
A: For the sake of our members and fans, I would like to make our position relating to the trade ban absolutely clear.
In the first half of 2014, myself, and then General Manager – Football Dean Moore had numerous meetings – roughly 10 – with the AFL to discuss the possible continuation of COLA, its replacement housing allowance and ultimately the timeframe of the transition out of COLA. At no time was a trade ban discussed.
On July 15, Andrew Dillon summarised all of our discussions and what had been agreed as acceptable to our Club in a letter to me.
On July 28 an AFL Commission meeting added the trade ban clause which had never been discussed at any time previously in the many meetings held between the AFL and Sydney Swans.
I was informed by Gillon McLachlan at the August CEO’s meeting, which resulted in two subsequent meetings between our Chairman Andrew Pridham, Gillon and I, prior to the 2014 trade period seeking relief from this decision.
To assert that the Swans had prior knowledge, or had discussed the trade ban prior to the Commission decision, is incorrect.
Given the AFL has made clear that there was no wrongdoing on our part, it is our understanding that the AFL Commission was concerned with the possibility – one which had no foundation – of our Club recruiting a high profile free agent and due to this, the trade ban was established.
While we consider the matter closed, we remain disappointed by the decision to ban the Club from the 2014 trade period, and to continue to restrict the Club in 2015.
http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/news/2015-04-01/state-of-play-andrew-ireland
Gil is a master of spin - has he been caught out?
Was the executive over ruled by the Commission?
Over to Commission chairman Fitz to clean this one up !!
Similar threads
- Poll
