Sydney trade restrictions and Paddy Ryder

[kelvin_sheedy]

So its been revealed that Sydney was banned from trading because the AFL did not want to be embarrassed with them trading for another high profile player.

We have been dudded here as we didn't get best compensation for Paddy. What action do we have to try and put pressure on the commission.

Little should be making a statement today to the media saying we'll take it up with the AFL and ask them why we have been shafted and how we can be compensated properly.

 

[Smokin]

at the time, my mail was Mitchell was coming our way too.

 

[Whispering_Jack]

The Sydney trade restrictions thing is a ****ing joke. How can they possibly justify it? Just so they 'don't get embarrassed again'. I hate the Swans as much as the next guy and they've had a 'leg up' due to COLA for years, but **** me that's just bullshit making it up as you go stuff by the AFL. I guess we shouldn't be surprised.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

So its been revealed that Sydney was banned from trading because the AFL did not want to be embarrassed with them trading for another high profile player.

We have been dudded here as we didn't get best compensation for Paddy. What action do we have to try and put pressure on the commission.

Little should be making a statement today to the media saying we'll take it up with the AFL and ask them why we have been shafted and how we can be compensated properly.

And where do you think that will get us?

 

[DapperDon]

And where do you think that will get us?

Obviously they'll give us the number 1 pick in this years draft.

 

[daffo]

The two P.Ryder deals were

Mitchell+2nd round pick for Ryder. Essendon and Swans agreed - Ryder also agreed
GWS pick 4 = Ryder. Essendon and GWS agreed - Ryder didn't

 

[kedivaz]

The two P.Ryder deals were

Mitchell+2nd round pick for Ryder. Essendon and Swans agreed - Ryder also agreed
GWS pick 4 = Ryder. Essendon and GWS agreed - Ryder didn't

I heard a lot about the GWS Pick 4 trade, but didn't hear anything about the Sydney one? Where did you hear about that?

 

[Snake Charmer]

Wait does this possibly mean we would or traded a second rounder for Cooney?

 

[Rack Watts]

**** off.
The AFL can get ****ed.
I am over this shit.

 

[baz_machine]

The two P.Ryder deals were

Mitchell+2nd round pick for Ryder. Essendon and Swans agreed - Ryder also agreed
GWS pick 4 = Ryder. Essendon and GWS agreed - Ryder didn't

AFL a bigger winner in blocking the first one. Get to shaft both Essendon and Swans!

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

AFL a bigger winner in blocking the first one. Get to shaft both Essendon and Swans!

And possibly help get Mitchell to Carlton.

Corrupt campaigners.

 

[baz_machine]

And possibly help get Mitchell to Carlton.

Corrupt campaigners.

Mike Fitzpatrick likes this

 

[Amazing Bombers]

The two P.Ryder deals were

Mitchell+2nd round pick for Ryder. Essendon and Swans agreed - Ryder also agreed
GWS pick 4 = Ryder. Essendon and GWS agreed - Ryder didn't

Ugh bloody AFL

 

[Pweter]

The AFL makes the rules, a club comes up with a legit trade based on these rules, the AFL says "no, you can't follow the rules". What a bunch of flogs.

Why would they block this one? It was a completely fair trade in that we lost a quality player but were going to be compensated with a young quality player and a draft pick.

In effect the AFL comes in and performs their own version of draft tampering.

 

[Kakkle]

The two P.Ryder deals were

Mitchell+2nd round pick for Ryder. Essendon and Swans agreed - Ryder also agreed
GWS pick 4 = Ryder. Essendon and GWS agreed - Ryder didn't

Not true at all.

 

[vast]

Did Mitchell agree to come to easendon?

 

[Kakkle]

Did Mitchell agree to come to easendon?

No.

 

[BrunoV]

Have heard that Sydney would have taken Kavanagh but that the same restriction blocked that move. It's funny, re-reading some of the reports at the time they say that a deal could not be done but not that "no one was interested".


I have no sympathy for the AFL's position as COLA was only ever a rort and Sydney took advantage of it as any club would have done in its position. It has been a debate for over 10 years, and for over 10 years the AFL could have changed the application of COLA so that it was an amount administered by the AFL on behalf of Sydney expressed as a % indexed to the cost of living and capped at a salary of $300,000 (or whatever was determined to be the most appropriate number). If COLA was ever genuinely supposed about the cost of living it would never have been a lump sum in addition to the normal cap.

The reality is that Sydney was the AFL's love child until the franchises started up and the AFL is now treating Sydney with the same contempt that it treats all of the other clubs with.

I still want to know where the AFL commission gets the moral authority to behave in the way that it does. Did the clubs ever agree that the commission could make decisions adverse to other clubs to protect the egos of commission members? It's a perverse application of the rules setting up the Commission.

As far as I am concerned the AFL is a public institution and everything it does should be required to be out in the open (except for genuine commercial negotiations such as TV rights deals which are done with bodies external to the AFL) to protect against the petty back room dealing and corruption.

 

[Pweter]

Did Mitchell agree to come to easendon?

No.

Then the issue is simply the AFL stepping in to stop clubs making a trade following the rules that are in place.

Still would've loved Mitchell though.

 

[baz_machine]

The commission was setup because the clubs themselves where spending themselves into oblivion. In the late 80's was it not the case that essentially every club was almost broke?

Maybe it's time for a independent government appointment commission? I hear Sepp Blatter has some free time

 

[Whispering_Jack]

Have heard that Sydney would have taken Kavanagh but that the same restriction blocked that move. It's funny, re-reading some of the reports at the time they say that a deal could not be done but not that "no one was interested".


I have no empathy for the AFL's position. COLA was only ever a rort and Sydney took advantage of it as any club would have done in its position. It has been a debate for over 10 years, and for over 10 years the AFL could have changed the application of COLA so that it was an amount administered by the AFL on behalf of Sydney expressed as a % indexed to the cost of living and capped at a salary of $300,000 (or whatever was determined to be the most appropriate number). If COLA was every genuinely supposed about the cost of living it would never have been a lump sum in addition to the normal cap.

The reality is that Sydney was the AFL's love child until the franchises started up and the AFL is now treating Sydney with the same contempt that it treats all of the other clubs with.

I still want to know where the AFL commission gets the moral authority to behave in the way that it does. Did the clubs ever agree that the commission could make decisions adverse to other clubs to protect the egos of commission members? It's a perverse application of the rules setting up the Commission.

As far as I am concerned the AFL is a public institution and everything it does should be required to be out in the open (except for genuine commercial negotiations such as TV rights deals which are done with bodies external to the AFL) to protect against the petty back room dealing and corruption.

It isn't ever going to happen and it may well be completely impractical (I haven't given it serious thought), but I've thought in the past that the commission should be run like a publicly listed company runs boards. I.e, every member of every AFL club has a vote at AGMs on issues like electing commissioners (board members), approving remuneration, major issues that will affect clubs etc. The commission isn't accountable to anyone as it stands, whereas a board of a publicly listed company is accountable to the shareholders.

 

[baz_machine]

It isn't ever going to happen and it may well be completely impractical (I haven't given it serious thought), but I've thought in the past that the commission should be run like a publicly listed company runs boards. I.e, every member of every AFL club has a vote at AGMs on issues like electing commissioners (board members), approving remuneration, major issues that will affect clubs etc. The commission isn't accountable to anyone as it stands, whereas a board of a publicly listed company is accountable to the shareholders.

It is run like that, its just that either the AFL directly controls the club (GWS, GC) or indirectly (Melbourne, Bulldogs, North, Brisbane, St Kilda, Port, Carlton) via the equalization payments.

The only truly independent clubs are West Coast, Adelaide, Collingwood, Essendon and to an extent Geelong, Hawthorn, Richmond as they don't "need" AFL handouts to turn a profit / stay afloat.

 

[Whispering_Jack]

It is run like that, its just that either the AFL directly controls the club (GWS, GC) or indirectly (Melbourne, Bulldogs, North, Brisbane, St Kilda, Port, Carlton) via the equalization payments.

The only truly independent clubs are West Coast, Adelaide, Collingwood, Essendon and to an extent Geelong, Hawthorn, Richmond as they don't "need" AFL handouts to turn a profit / stay afloat.

I actually meant club members being the 'shareholders', not the clubs. Like I said, it's probably extremely impracticable because it is a not for profit entity and there are so many competing interests, but something needs to change.

 

[BrunoV]

It isn't ever going to happen and it may well be completely impractical (I haven't given it serious thought), but I've thought in the past that the commission should be run like a publicly listed company runs boards. I.e, every member of every AFL club has a vote at AGMs on issues like electing commissioners (board members), approving remuneration, major issues that will affect clubs etc. The commission isn't accountable to anyone as it stands, whereas a board of a publicly listed company is accountable to the shareholders.

I like the idea that it would be accountable to the 18 clubs. While I expect that the AFL will continue to lean on the minnows at least everything that happens would be on the public record.

 

[Beerfish]

It is run like that, its just that either the AFL directly controls the club (GWS, GC) or indirectly (Melbourne, Bulldogs, North, Brisbane, St Kilda, Port, Carlton) via the equalization payments.

The only truly independent clubs are West Coast, Adelaide, Collingwood, Essendon and to an extent Geelong, Hawthorn, Richmond as they don't "need" AFL handouts to turn a profit / stay afloat.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but I thought there are no 'independent' clubs because the AFL owns all the licences.