Communist AFL Bans Swans from trading players until 2017

[dirkdiggler]

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.

It has nothing to do with COLA, it's just why I have little sympathy for them in their current plight. Offering someone a deal that is a massive risk that could potentially screw your club for years is not reasonable. Offering a player "overs" to make sure the deal gets done is reasonable.

[Capper]

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

yeah but thats a risk to the Swans and they are happy to take that risk. Please define the spirit of which the rules were intended?? Buddy wanted to come to the Swans and the Swans offered him a contract that he accepted.

His contract will generate a lot of income for the Swans in memberships, ticket sales, sponsorship and merch

[dirkdiggler]

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

yeah but thats a risk to the Swans and they are happy to take that risk. Please define the spirit of which the rules were intended?? Buddy wanted to come to the Swans and the Swans offered him a contract that he accepted.

His contract will generate a lot of income for the Swans in memberships, ticket sales, sponsorship and merch

FA was what the players wanted, but their are rules in place to protect and compensate the clubs. It's simple. The Swans offered him a 10 year deal knowing that he probably will never manage to complete it and knowing that other clubs would never offer such a ridiculous contract. It's not what the rules were intended to achieve...thus it's against the spirit of them...in my opinion. Like I said..it's a personal view....they haven't broken any rules

[SydneyRox]

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

Paying the price for that contract is one thing (and while I think we will be paying Buddy post retirement I still think it was the best choice), but we are being penalised now over and above?

[Mailman the 2nd]

Offering the 9 year deal to Franklin doesn't have anything to do with this anyway.

What's "In the spirit of the rules" supposed to account for anyway. Plenty of what guys like Ballantyne and Selwood do things "against the spirit of the rules" but they aren't directly penalised for it.

Why would taking a high risk, high reward situation be against the spirit of the rules anyway? Some 13 odd players got moved on to make way to bring in 2 players, completely legally.

Free agency isn't there to "protect" any clubs, it just gives them a chance to match an offer. Franklin still has to want to accept the offer and Hawthorn still has every opportunity to take the offer

[Capper]

Sydney diserve what they get

yes we deserve Buddy and Kurt but not the no trading.

How is White and Armstrong going at the Pies??

[ossie85]

Sydney diserve what they get

yes we deserve Buddy and Kurt but not the no trading.

How is White and Armstrong going at the Pies??

Now now guys. No cheap shots!

Sydney are just playing by the rules. Its the rule I disagree with, but can't bedgrudge any team for using them.

[Capper]

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

yeah but thats a risk to the Swans and they are happy to take that risk. Please define the spirit of which the rules were intended?? Buddy wanted to come to the Swans and the Swans offered him a contract that he accepted.

His contract will generate a lot of income for the Swans in memberships, ticket sales, sponsorship and merch

FA was what the players wanted, but their are rules in place to protect and compensate the clubs. It's simple. The Swans offered him a 10 year deal knowing that he probably will never manage to complete it and knowing that other clubs would never offer such a ridiculous contract. It's not what the rules were intended to achieve...thus it's against the spirit of them...in my opinion. Like I said..it's a personal view....they haven't broken any rules

So its against the spirit only in your eyes ::)

Who is to say that he wont play out his contrat? Didnt know you had a time machine and went in to the future to find out.

Paying overs is how these trades get done.

Do we dare go through the forwards that Freo have traded in over the last couple of years? Gumbleton, Sylvia, Anthony, etc

[dirkdiggler]

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

yeah but thats a risk to the Swans and they are happy to take that risk. Please define the spirit of which the rules were intended?? Buddy wanted to come to the Swans and the Swans offered him a contract that he accepted.

His contract will generate a lot of income for the Swans in memberships, ticket sales, sponsorship and merch

FA was what the players wanted, but their are rules in place to protect and compensate the clubs. It's simple. The Swans offered him a 10 year deal knowing that he probably will never manage to complete it and knowing that other clubs would never offer such a ridiculous contract. It's not what the rules were intended to achieve...thus it's against the spirit of them...in my opinion. Like I said..it's a personal view....they haven't broken any rules

So its against the spirit only in your eyes ::)

Who is to say that he wont play out his contrat? Didnt know you had a time machine and went in to the future to find out.

Paying overs is how these trades get done.

Do we dare go through the forwards that Freo have traded in over the last couple of years? Gumbleton, Sylvia, Anthony, etc

like I've said all along...it's my personal opinion. If you want to tell yourself that the Swans offered him that length of deal because they think he'll be playing at 36 then fine...you are more than welcome to believe it. I don't.

[Mailman the 2nd]

No team offers contracts for the sole purpose of having them play through the entirety of it.

If Franklin has more success than failure over the whole 9 years, then its a good move.

[dirkdiggler]

Offering the 9 year deal to Franklin doesn't have anything to do with this anyway.

What's "In the spirit of the rules" supposed to account for anyway. Plenty of what guys like Ballantyne and Selwood do things "against the spirit of the rules" but they aren't directly penalised for it.

Why would taking a high risk, high reward situation be against the spirit of the rules anyway? Some 13 odd players got moved on to make way to bring in 2 players, completely legally.

Free agency isn't there to "protect" any clubs, it just gives them a chance to match an offer. Franklin still has to want to accept the offer and Hawthorn still has every opportunity to take the offer

There is no question of legality. FA was driven by the players, the RULES are there to assist the players but parts of those rules are also to protect the clubs...Hawthorn had the opportunity to match the offer...hence they have a degree of protection. Simple.
The rule of having opportunity to match a rival offer is clearly in place for that purpose. Sydney looked at that rule and offered a contract length that, in my opinion, they knew was unrealistic. It's not illegal, not cheating, but I think took the p%%% of out the sport. Just my opinion.

[Mailman the 2nd]

Offering the 9 year deal to Franklin doesn't have anything to do with this anyway.

What's "In the spirit of the rules" supposed to account for anyway. Plenty of what guys like Ballantyne and Selwood do things "against the spirit of the rules" but they aren't directly penalised for it.

Why would taking a high risk, high reward situation be against the spirit of the rules anyway? Some 13 odd players got moved on to make way to bring in 2 players, completely legally.

Free agency isn't there to "protect" any clubs, it just gives them a chance to match an offer. Franklin still has to want to accept the offer and Hawthorn still has every opportunity to take the offer

There is no question of legality. FA was driven by the players, the RULES are there to assist the players but parts of those rules are also to protect the clubs...Hawthorn had the opportunity to match the offer...hence they have a degree of protection. Simple.
The rule of having opportunity to match a rival offer is clearly in place for that purpose. Sydney looked at that rule and offered a contract length that, in my opinion, they knew was unrealistic. It's not illegal, not cheating, but I think took the p%%% of out the sport. Just my opinion.

Yes, that's a fine opinion to have.

What it means though, is that the AFL poorly designed it. Any team could've done it. If Sydney didn't do it then eventually some other club would've.

[dirkdiggler]

No team offers contracts for the sole purpose of having them play through the entirety of it.

If Franklin has more success than failure over the whole 9 years, then its a good move.

lol...I agree that clubs offer "overs" of a year or 2 to get the deal done. The Buddy deal is at the very least 3 years overs....at 1m a year.
There is a difference to be fair....still, who knows, he might play till he is 36.  ::)

[dirkdiggler]

Offering the 9 year deal to Franklin doesn't have anything to do with this anyway.

What's "In the spirit of the rules" supposed to account for anyway. Plenty of what guys like Ballantyne and Selwood do things "against the spirit of the rules" but they aren't directly penalised for it.

Why would taking a high risk, high reward situation be against the spirit of the rules anyway? Some 13 odd players got moved on to make way to bring in 2 players, completely legally.

Free agency isn't there to "protect" any clubs, it just gives them a chance to match an offer. Franklin still has to want to accept the offer and Hawthorn still has every opportunity to take the offer

There is no question of legality. FA was driven by the players, the RULES are there to assist the players but parts of those rules are also to protect the clubs...Hawthorn had the opportunity to match the offer...hence they have a degree of protection. Simple.
The rule of having opportunity to match a rival offer is clearly in place for that purpose. Sydney looked at that rule and offered a contract length that, in my opinion, they knew was unrealistic. It's not illegal, not cheating, but I think took the p%%% of out the sport. Just my opinion.

Yes, that's a fine opinion to have.

What it means though, is that the AFL poorly designed it. Any team could've done it. If Sydney didn't do it then eventually some other club would've.

100% agree

[Capper]

Offering the 9 year deal to Franklin doesn't have anything to do with this anyway.

What's "In the spirit of the rules" supposed to account for anyway. Plenty of what guys like Ballantyne and Selwood do things "against the spirit of the rules" but they aren't directly penalised for it.

Why would taking a high risk, high reward situation be against the spirit of the rules anyway? Some 13 odd players got moved on to make way to bring in 2 players, completely legally.

Free agency isn't there to "protect" any clubs, it just gives them a chance to match an offer. Franklin still has to want to accept the offer and Hawthorn still has every opportunity to take the offer

There is no question of legality. FA was driven by the players, the RULES are there to assist the players but parts of those rules are also to protect the clubs...Hawthorn had the opportunity to match the offer...hence they have a degree of protection. Simple.
The rule of having opportunity to match a rival offer is clearly in place for that purpose. Sydney looked at that rule and offered a contract length that, in my opinion, they knew was unrealistic. It's not illegal, not cheating, but I think took the p%%% of out the sport. Just my opinion.

Yes, that's a fine opinion to have.

What it means though, is that the AFL poorly designed it. Any team could've done it. If Sydney didn't do it then eventually some other club would've.

100% agree

Very surprised that GWS didnt throw more money