Sydney Swans banned from trading players in ...

[P-man 13,277]

Absolutely farcical decision. I can't think of one that tops it, and it is an elite field.

[daisycutter 28,684]

Absolutely farcical decision. I can't think of one that tops it, and it is an elite field.

think there has got to be more in this than has been explained

lot of it doesn't make sense

[Bombay Airconditioning 5,980]

Bizarre. All they've done is follow the rules the AFL put in place. Sydney didn't introduce free agency or COLA.

No they didn't introduce COLA, but they did abuse it.

[SaberFang 7,141]

No they didn't introduce COLA, but they did abuse it.

Not saying they didn't abuse these lavish rules, including free agency, but if the AFL were stupid enough to introduce the rules without thinking about loopholes it's their own fault.

It really comes down to the fact that they wanted Buddy to go to GWS. The success of the Wanderers couldn't be a more disastrous outcome for the AFL. And having 3 years of pathetic output from GWS hasn't endeared themselves to the community.

[Juicebox 628]

I don't know if it's already been said, and correct me if I'm wrong (it's demonland of course you will), but are Sydney being punished by the afl for something the afl themselves are responsible for?

[monoccular 16,394]

By all means stop the extra propping up of Sydney by COLA and their special access arrangements through the academy, but this on the run ruling seems just so typical of the reactionaries at AFL HQ.

Fair trading should be part of the game; how can they just suddenly force one club not to trade - unless for example it is part of a penalty for bringing the game into disrepute by injecting players with unknown substances!

By the way, does anyone have a link to, or a quick summary of exactly what the rules are regarding the Swans' academy.

[Breggsy 123]

This appears to have come completely out of nowhere. Surely there is more too this. Maybe the swans were on the verge signing another jet

[SaberFang 7,141]

I don't know if it's already been said, and correct me if I'm wrong (it's demonland of course you will), but are Sydney being punished by the afl for something the afl themselves are responsible for?

Certainly wouldn't be a first.

And yes, in a nutshell. Yes.

AFL introduced COLA. AFL introduced the Academy rules. AFL introduced free agency. Then they complain when smarter teams take advantage of these outrageous concessions.

[Moonshadow 16,409]

And let's not forget the flow of young guns about to emerge through the Swans academy. They get enough head starts.

[titan_uranus 22,751]

I don't like the COLA and I don't like how Sydney and Hawthorn (and the other top-of-the-ladder clubs) are able to continually take players from weaker clubs.

However, this is an inordinately ridiculous decision. Sydney may have made the most of the situation, but it did so completely within the rules the AFL set. They now get punished because the AFL has realised the COLA was a bad thing and had to get rid of it to save face. It's also an horrendous punishment that is totally out of proportion.

McLachlan's not off to a good start at all.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,617]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/aap/article-2644560/Swans-CEO-hits-COLA-critics.html

"There's a clause in every contract that (salary cap watchdog) Ken Wood wrote, which dictates that every contract has got 9.8 per cent allowance for every player.

"It's in their contract as required. There's no pool to be able to recruit players."

It wouldn't take an accountant with an IQ of 200 to figure out a way to calculate this so it effectively equates to an additional 9.8% in the cap. They still know what they have to work with so they just underbid some players knowing they'll have a 9.8% COLA chucked in leaving them with a million bucks elsewhere to use as they please on a Buddy or Tippett.

[SaberFang 7,141]

I don't like the COLA and I don't like how Sydney and Hawthorn (and the other top-of-the-ladder clubs) are able to continually take players from weaker clubs.

However, this is an inordinately ridiculous decision. Sydney may have made the most of the situation, but it did so completely within the rules the AFL set. They now get punished because the AFL has realised the COLA was a bad thing and had to get rid of it to save face. It's also an horrendous punishment that is totally out of proportion.

McLachlan's not off to a good start at all.

Thanks for pick 3 though.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,617]

This appears to have come completely out of nowhere. Surely there is more too this. Maybe the swans were on the verge signing another jet

Apparently they had to be warned away from going after Ryder.

[Biffen 12,430]

Tough [censored] bagwhan,

[Biffen 12,430]

And let's not forget the flow of young guns about to emerge through the Swans academy. They get enough head starts.

Unlike Bitters who has to beg.

for evan a start.

[baysidedave 246]

AFL bans Sydney Swans from trading players in 2014

Good start!

Now on to the academy....

just pandering to McGuire

[Binmans PA 26,490]

Scary, isn't it? I'm not actually worried about Sydney and their COLA, academy privileges etc. What does worry me is the fact that the AFL seem too easily and readily pushed about by public opinion. This spells danger to me and not the Patrick variety.

[Binmans PA 26,490]

Certainly wouldn't be a first.

And yes, in a nutshell. Yes.

AFL introduced COLA. AFL introduced the Academy rules. AFL introduced free agency. Then they complain when smarter teams take advantage of these outrageous concessions.

And the priority pick...

[rjay 24,046]

Scary, isn't it? I'm not actually worried about Sydney and their COLA, academy privileges etc. What does worry me is the fact that the AFL seem too easily and readily pushed about by public opinion. This spells danger to me and not the Patrick variety.

I've said this a number of times; Dill runs the AFL by poll, his chairmans business dealings are as transparent as muddy water and Evans makes Anderson look good.

[Binmans PA 26,490]

I've said this a number of times; Dill runs the AFL by poll, his chairmans business dealings are as transparent as muddy water and Evans makes Anderson look good.

Yeah. I agree. As a few of us have already stated, we couldn't give a toss about Sydney, but the capricious nature of this new AFL mob is bound to eventually impact our club and a decision like this will go against us.

[Deestroy All 14,262]

This appears to have come completely out of nowhere. Surely there is more too this. Maybe the swans were on the verge signing another jet

Yeah, that's exactly it, most likely Ryder.

I'll go on record and say I think Gil is going to do a good job. But this is a joke of a decision.

I lol'd at Nasher's time machine comment, excellent!

[Lucifers Hero 37,323]

I don't know if it's already been said, and correct me if I'm wrong (it's demonland of course you will), but are Sydney being punished by the afl for something the afl themselves are responsible for?

Do you mean like the AFL punishing us for 'not-tanking', ie list management, that everyone else did within the rules the AFL were responsible for!!

Edited October 9, 2014 by Lucifer's Hero

[Adzman 2,085]

Maybe the AFL can ban the Hawks from being everyone's freaking nominated club! Just look at that list, made up of key players from other clubs that moved for finals footy!!

[jackaub 1,402]

I hope the Dees go hard for Mitchell.

Offer pick 3 for Mitchell and pick 18.

They will reduce their salary cap by ~300 - 400K a year as he is replaced with a gun draftee to be put on minimum [AFL] wage.

They'll be licking their lips having Heeney and a Petracca/ Brayshaw/ McCartin (10 year prospects).

We'll have Mitchell and could pick up the likes of Cockatoo (if North don't grab him first).

Why do we want Cockatoo? Remind me how good we are at making project players into long term role players for the MFC

[Ungarie boy 233]

Wow, just wow.

I feel numb, even a little scared of the incompetence that seems to be emanating at the top levels, in administrating the AFL.

To punish a team that has done nothing wrong (sound familiar) is unfathomable in any sense of good corporate governance (oh the irony). What also seems to be missed is that although Sydney has benefited from an outdated and perhaps ill-conceived policy, so have other clubs i.e. GWS in gaining Mumford to accommodate Franklin (perhaps Ed is upset that they didn’t benefit by getting White).

Worse is the fact that the AFL is also punishing other AFL teams who wish to trade with Sydney in an attempt to get one of their players who may be seeking more opportunity or are squeezed out by salary cap pressures; as now they are only restricted to offering draft picks. E.g. Melbourne, Gold Coast, Fremantle could have easily offered player(s) and/or picks for Tom Mitchell, particularly to accommodate a situation where Sydney needs options such as ruck/key position backs and these clubs could accommodate them while improving their own list (in the midfield); and not significantly weakening their draft position.