Communist AFL Bans Swans from trading players until 2017

Started by SydneyRox, October 09, 2014, 05:39:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5 ... 8
User actions

Nige

#30
October 10, 2014, 09:49:39 AM

dirkdiggler

#31
October 10, 2014, 11:06:04 AM
on face value it seems harsh on the Swans....However my sympathy for the club is limited given that I believe that took the spirit of free agency and shoved it up all other clubs arses with the Buddy deal...for me you simply cannot justify what the length of the contract they gave him..it just goes against the spirit of what FA was meant to be IMHO.
However, if the AFL were geniunly concerned about the transition from COLA they simply had to sit down with the Swans and work through the numbers.....I can't see why such broadbrush measures are needed......just let the Swans work it out themselves. Just don't get it

SydneyRox

#32
October 10, 2014, 11:34:49 AM
Quote from: dirkdiggler on October 10, 2014, 11:06:04 AM
on face value it seems harsh on the Swans....However my sympathy for the club is limited given that I believe that took the spirit of free agency and shoved it up all other clubs arses with the Buddy deal...for me you simply cannot justify what the length of the contract they gave him..it just goes against the spirit of what FA was meant to be IMHO.
However, if the AFL were geniunly concerned about the transition from COLA they simply had to sit down with the Swans and work through the numbers.....I can't see why such broadbrush measures are needed......just let the Swans work it out themselves. Just don't get it

The AFL cant punish the Swans because they used the rules given to them by the AFL to do what they have done.

If the Swans have cheated the cap, or broken any rules then by all means, smack em.

But there is no justification for punishing a team for doing nothing wrong, just because people dont like how they have used the rules to their maximum advantage.

Capper

#33
October 10, 2014, 11:59:00 AM
Quote from: dirkdiggler on October 10, 2014, 11:06:04 AM
on face value it seems harsh on the Swans....However my sympathy for the club is limited given that I believe that took the spirit of free agency and shoved it up all other clubs arses with the Buddy deal...for me you simply cannot justify what the length of the contract they gave him..it just goes against the spirit of what FA was meant to be IMHO.
However, if the AFL were geniunly concerned about the transition from COLA they simply had to sit down with the Swans and work through the numbers.....I can't see why such broadbrush measures are needed......just let the Swans work it out themselves. Just don't get it
What spirit is FA meant to be then?

Surely all FA does is let any club have a play at players, thus its the players decision not just the club, if that player wants to leave a club and join another

SydneyRox

#34
October 10, 2014, 12:07:33 PM
There is no "spirit of FA" in the rules.

FA is exactly the opposite of "do the right thing" (which is what I think you mean by spirit)

FA is "do the best thing for me" as a player mainly and as a club as well.

Capper

#35
October 10, 2014, 12:13:56 PM
from Vossy (i agree)

Quote
Michael Voss        @voss03
@AFLNewsWire debate COLA if you like but to penalize the @sydneyswans from trading is a joke!

Michael Voss         @voss03
@sydneyswans operated within the rules given to them by the very group that is penalizing them. What are they guilty of breaching?

Michael Voss         @voss03
@sydneyswans drugs, salary cap cheating, draft tampering, tanking? NO, recruiting by rules given to them by @AFL. Incredible decision

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-10-10/swans-penalty-a-joke-voss

dirkdiggler

#36
October 10, 2014, 12:43:43 PM
Quote from: tabs on October 10, 2014, 11:59:00 AM
Quote from: dirkdiggler on October 10, 2014, 11:06:04 AM
on face value it seems harsh on the Swans....However my sympathy for the club is limited given that I believe that took the spirit of free agency and shoved it up all other clubs arses with the Buddy deal...for me you simply cannot justify what the length of the contract they gave him..it just goes against the spirit of what FA was meant to be IMHO.
However, if the AFL were geniunly concerned about the transition from COLA they simply had to sit down with the Swans and work through the numbers.....I can't see why such broadbrush measures are needed......just let the Swans work it out themselves. Just don't get it
What spirit is FA meant to be then?

Surely all FA does is let any club have a play at players, thus its the players decision not just the club, if that player wants to leave a club and join another

restricted free agency rules, as we all know, state the club holding the contract has the opportunity to match a deal offered by another club..based on both salary and length of contract. By offering a 10 year deal, the Swans knew that no other club would offer such a ridiculous length of contract. If you geniunely believe that the Swans think Buddy has 10 more years in the tank then I think you are kidding yourself. So in my opinion, that is outside of the sprit of what the rules were intended to achieve. Rules are rules and they haven't done anything "wrong" but I firmly believe the Swans took the pi## out of the sport by offering Buddy that deal...I hope they are saddled with at least 4 years of salary cap pain for doing it.
However, it doesn't justify what is happening at the moment...

Capper

#37
October 10, 2014, 01:08:10 PM
But we still played inside the rules and havent broken any rules. Any club could have offered Buddy that deal and he wanted to come to Sydney, so the Swans made him a deal.

ossie85

#38
October 10, 2014, 01:27:45 PM

I hate COLA.

.... but this is just silly to ban the Swans from trading.

Jroo

#39
October 10, 2014, 01:32:32 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on October 10, 2014, 01:27:45 PM

I hate COLA.

.... but this is just silly to ban the Swans from trading.

Capper

#40
October 10, 2014, 01:35:54 PM
and why make this decision in trade week. Why werent the Swans told weeks ago so they could prepare for it.

They may have tried to keep some of the players rather than let them go

Ziplock

#41
October 10, 2014, 01:38:15 PM
Quote from: dirkdiggler on October 10, 2014, 12:43:43 PM
Quote from: tabs on October 10, 2014, 11:59:00 AM
Quote from: dirkdiggler on October 10, 2014, 11:06:04 AM
on face value it seems harsh on the Swans....However my sympathy for the club is limited given that I believe that took the spirit of free agency and shoved it up all other clubs arses with the Buddy deal...for me you simply cannot justify what the length of the contract they gave him..it just goes against the spirit of what FA was meant to be IMHO.
However, if the AFL were geniunly concerned about the transition from COLA they simply had to sit down with the Swans and work through the numbers.....I can't see why such broadbrush measures are needed......just let the Swans work it out themselves. Just don't get it
What spirit is FA meant to be then?

Surely all FA does is let any club have a play at players, thus its the players decision not just the club, if that player wants to leave a club and join another

restricted free agency rules, as we all know, state the club holding the contract has the opportunity to match a deal offered by another club..based on both salary and length of contract. By offering a 10 year deal, the Swans knew that no other club would offer such a ridiculous length of contract. If you geniunely believe that the Swans think Buddy has 10 more years in the tank then I think you are kidding yourself. So in my opinion, that is outside of the sprit of what the rules were intended to achieve. Rules are rules and they haven't done anything "wrong" but I firmly believe the Swans took the pi## out of the sport by offering Buddy that deal...I hope they are saddled with at least 4 years of salary cap pain for doing it.
However, it doesn't justify what is happening at the moment...

They offered him that deal knowing it was a massive risk, and that they could potentially be screwed for multiple years if he can't play on. That's completely within reasonable bounds of offering a player a contract- anyone could have matched it, they just didn't have the guts. And, more importantly, that example has nothing to do with COLA.

It can be paralleled to what clubs to all the time- like north getting Waite because they offered a 2 year contract rather than a 1 year.

kilbluff1985

#42
October 10, 2014, 01:49:18 PM
Quote from: tabs on October 10, 2014, 01:35:54 PM
and why make this decision in trade week. Why werent the Swans told weeks ago so they could prepare for it.

They may have tried to keep some of the players rather than let them go

Griff probably asked to be traded to the Swans first lol

Capper

#43
October 10, 2014, 01:52:34 PM
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on October 10, 2014, 01:49:18 PM
Quote from: tabs on October 10, 2014, 01:35:54 PM
and why make this decision in trade week. Why werent the Swans told weeks ago so they could prepare for it.

They may have tried to keep some of the players rather than let them go

Griff probably asked to be traded to the Swans first lol
yeah i heard that, as he wanted to get oput of the spotlight in Melbourne, he will be hidden up here

dirkdiggler

#44
October 10, 2014, 01:54:42 PM
Quote from: tabs on October 10, 2014, 01:08:10 PM
But we still played inside the rules and havent broken any rules. Any club could have offered Buddy that deal and he wanted to come to Sydney, so the Swans made him a deal.

any club could have....but only one club actually did. I know what you did was within the rules, but it was against the sprit of what the rules were intended to be about. The rules were there in part to protect the club who held the player contract...Swans used those rules to do the opposite...because we both know the chances of him ever fulfilling the length of the 10 year deal are remote..the Swans knew exactly what they were doing....so let's hope they pay the price down the track with 1m a year coming out of their salary cap for a player who is long since retired. It's just what the Swans deserve
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 ... 8
User actions