Communist AFL Bans Swans from trading players until 2017

[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

Very surprised that GWS didnt throw more money

I think we all assumed that's where Buddy would go..but with the Swans..he always had the chance of flags immediatley...think GWS would have to offered a LOT once the Swans were interested.

[Ziplock]

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.

Point is, Sydney will be paying the price for that contract if Buddy retires prematurely. Sure they've thrown a contract assuming he'll be playing a really long time (although, not impossibly long #fletcher #boomer), but if he can't make out the full years, they're the ones that get screwed. Was Brisbane taking the piss out of the rules by signing Fevola, when there was a reasonable chance he was going to flower up and get fired + they'd have to pay him out?

I mean, sure, fev was a 50/50 while this is more of a 95/5, but point stands :P Sydney get screwed if Buddy retires early anyway.

Should you be penalised for breaking the spirit of the game? I mean, instigating rules to stop the breaking of the spirit of the game is fine, but would it have been ok to suspend linday thomas for staging before staging was illegal? Is it still ok to hand out a suspension to selwood for ducking, because it's against the spirit of the game? Should all taggers be given suspension for being against the spirit of the game?

[Rusty00]

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.

Point is, Sydney will be paying the price for that contract if Buddy retires prematurely. Sure they've thrown a contract assuming he'll be playing a really long time (although, not impossibly long #fletcher #boomer), but if he can't make out the full years, they're the ones that get screwed. Was Brisbane taking the piss out of the rules by signing Fevola, when there was a reasonable chance he was going to flower up and get fired + they'd have to pay him out?

I mean, sure, fev was a 50/50 while this is more of a 95/5, but point stands :P Sydney get screwed if Buddy retires early anyway.

Should you be penalised for breaking the spirit of the game? I mean, instigating rules to stop the breaking of the spirit of the game is fine, but would it have been ok to suspend linday thomas for staging before staging was illegal? Is it still ok to hand out a suspension to selwood for ducking, because it's against the spirit of the game? Should all taggers be given suspension for being against the spirit of the game?

He's not saying they should be penalised for it, he is saying that this is the reason he doesn't have any compassion for them being penalised over the COLA.

In other words he doesn't like Sydney because of this, the same as people don't like Thomas, Selwood and taggers because of the reasons you mentioned above ;)

[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.

Point is, Sydney will be paying the price for that contract if Buddy retires prematurely. Sure they've thrown a contract assuming he'll be playing a really long time (although, not impossibly long #fletcher #boomer), but if he can't make out the full years, they're the ones that get screwed. Was Brisbane taking the piss out of the rules by signing Fevola, when there was a reasonable chance he was going to flower up and get fired + they'd have to pay him out?

I mean, sure, fev was a 50/50 while this is more of a 95/5, but point stands :P Sydney get screwed if Buddy retires early anyway.

Should you be penalised for breaking the spirit of the game? I mean, instigating rules to stop the breaking of the spirit of the game is fine, but would it have been ok to suspend linday thomas for staging before staging was illegal? Is it still ok to hand out a suspension to selwood for ducking, because it's against the spirit of the game? Should all taggers be given suspension for being against the spirit of the game?

I agree. But then you can also including tanking in there as well. Even though tanking never occurs

[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.

Point is, Sydney will be paying the price for that contract if Buddy retires prematurely. Sure they've thrown a contract assuming he'll be playing a really long time (although, not impossibly long #fletcher #boomer), but if he can't make out the full years, they're the ones that get screwed. Was Brisbane taking the piss out of the rules by signing Fevola, when there was a reasonable chance he was going to flower up and get fired + they'd have to pay him out?

I mean, sure, fev was a 50/50 while this is more of a 95/5, but point stands :P Sydney get screwed if Buddy retires early anyway.

Should you be penalised for breaking the spirit of the game? I mean, instigating rules to stop the breaking of the spirit of the game is fine, but would it have been ok to suspend linday thomas for staging before staging was illegal? Is it still ok to hand out a suspension to selwood for ducking, because it's against the spirit of the game? Should all taggers be given suspension for being against the spirit of the game?

He's not saying they should be penalised for it, he is saying that this is the reason he doesn't have any compassion for them being penalised over the COLA.

In other words he doesn't like Sydney because of this, the same as people don't like Thomas, Selwood and taggers because of the reasons you mentioned above ;)

precisely

[Ziplock]

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.

Point is, Sydney will be paying the price for that contract if Buddy retires prematurely. Sure they've thrown a contract assuming he'll be playing a really long time (although, not impossibly long #fletcher #boomer), but if he can't make out the full years, they're the ones that get screwed. Was Brisbane taking the piss out of the rules by signing Fevola, when there was a reasonable chance he was going to flower up and get fired + they'd have to pay him out?

I mean, sure, fev was a 50/50 while this is more of a 95/5, but point stands :P Sydney get screwed if Buddy retires early anyway.

Should you be penalised for breaking the spirit of the game? I mean, instigating rules to stop the breaking of the spirit of the game is fine, but would it have been ok to suspend linday thomas for staging before staging was illegal? Is it still ok to hand out a suspension to selwood for ducking, because it's against the spirit of the game? Should all taggers be given suspension for being against the spirit of the game?

He's not saying they should be penalised for it, he is saying that this is the reason he doesn't have any compassion for them being penalised over the COLA.

In other words he doesn't like Sydney because of this, the same as people don't like Thomas, Selwood and taggers because of the reasons you mentioned above ;)

precisely

that makes sense then :P

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.

Point is, Sydney will be paying the price for that contract if Buddy retires prematurely. Sure they've thrown a contract assuming he'll be playing a really long time (although, not impossibly long #fletcher #boomer), but if he can't make out the full years, they're the ones that get screwed. Was Brisbane taking the piss out of the rules by signing Fevola, when there was a reasonable chance he was going to flower up and get fired + they'd have to pay him out?

I mean, sure, fev was a 50/50 while this is more of a 95/5, but point stands :P Sydney get screwed if Buddy retires early anyway.

Should you be penalised for breaking the spirit of the game? I mean, instigating rules to stop the breaking of the spirit of the game is fine, but would it have been ok to suspend linday thomas for staging before staging was illegal? Is it still ok to hand out a suspension to selwood for ducking, because it's against the spirit of the game? Should all taggers be given suspension for being against the spirit of the game?

I agree. But then you can also including tanking in there as well. Even though tanking never occurs

tanking is against the rules though :P

[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.

Point is, Sydney will be paying the price for that contract if Buddy retires prematurely. Sure they've thrown a contract assuming he'll be playing a really long time (although, not impossibly long #fletcher #boomer), but if he can't make out the full years, they're the ones that get screwed. Was Brisbane taking the piss out of the rules by signing Fevola, when there was a reasonable chance he was going to flower up and get fired + they'd have to pay him out?

I mean, sure, fev was a 50/50 while this is more of a 95/5, but point stands :P Sydney get screwed if Buddy retires early anyway.

Should you be penalised for breaking the spirit of the game? I mean, instigating rules to stop the breaking of the spirit of the game is fine, but would it have been ok to suspend linday thomas for staging before staging was illegal? Is it still ok to hand out a suspension to selwood for ducking, because it's against the spirit of the game? Should all taggers be given suspension for being against the spirit of the game?

He's not saying they should be penalised for it, he is saying that this is the reason he doesn't have any compassion for them being penalised over the COLA.

In other words he doesn't like Sydney because of this, the same as people don't like Thomas, Selwood and taggers because of the reasons you mentioned above ;)

precisely

that makes sense then :P

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.

Point is, Sydney will be paying the price for that contract if Buddy retires prematurely. Sure they've thrown a contract assuming he'll be playing a really long time (although, not impossibly long #fletcher #boomer), but if he can't make out the full years, they're the ones that get screwed. Was Brisbane taking the piss out of the rules by signing Fevola, when there was a reasonable chance he was going to flower up and get fired + they'd have to pay him out?

I mean, sure, fev was a 50/50 while this is more of a 95/5, but point stands :P Sydney get screwed if Buddy retires early anyway.

Should you be penalised for breaking the spirit of the game? I mean, instigating rules to stop the breaking of the spirit of the game is fine, but would it have been ok to suspend linday thomas for staging before staging was illegal? Is it still ok to hand out a suspension to selwood for ducking, because it's against the spirit of the game? Should all taggers be given suspension for being against the spirit of the game?

I agree. But then you can also including tanking in there as well. Even though tanking never occurs

tanking is against the rules though :P

is it? Did teams lose the players they got fom tanking??

[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.

Point is, Sydney will be paying the price for that contract if Buddy retires prematurely. Sure they've thrown a contract assuming he'll be playing a really long time (although, not impossibly long #fletcher #boomer), but if he can't make out the full years, they're the ones that get screwed. Was Brisbane taking the piss out of the rules by signing Fevola, when there was a reasonable chance he was going to flower up and get fired + they'd have to pay him out?

I mean, sure, fev was a 50/50 while this is more of a 95/5, but point stands :P Sydney get screwed if Buddy retires early anyway.

Should you be penalised for breaking the spirit of the game? I mean, instigating rules to stop the breaking of the spirit of the game is fine, but would it have been ok to suspend linday thomas for staging before staging was illegal? Is it still ok to hand out a suspension to selwood for ducking, because it's against the spirit of the game? Should all taggers be given suspension for being against the spirit of the game?

You can't be punished for doing things against the spirit of the game...that's the point. Selwood ducks because he knows he can get a free kick and isn't breaking any rules...but we all hate it. Players will always milk a free kick...we don't like it, it goes against what we think the game should be about.
Same for Sydney for mine.....knew what they were doing was perfectly legal, but took a relatively new system/rule and blatantly expolited it. I should also add...that they did all this against a backdrop of the Tippett saga and how COLA was being viewed in some parts as unfair...they promptly then did the Buddy deal..it smacked of sticking 2 fingers up to the game for mine.
Still.....today's situation about trades is still wholly unfair..

[Capper]

Im not going to go through who Sydney got rid of to get Buddy and Tippett in to the club. COLA helped Tippett and Buddy get to Sydney but they could have got to Sydney without COLA as well.

We have the same cap as everyone else, the COLA payment is seperate, an add on.

COLA was never going to stay around though, the same thing happened to the Lions after the 3-peat

[Ziplock]

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.

Point is, Sydney will be paying the price for that contract if Buddy retires prematurely. Sure they've thrown a contract assuming he'll be playing a really long time (although, not impossibly long #fletcher #boomer), but if he can't make out the full years, they're the ones that get screwed. Was Brisbane taking the piss out of the rules by signing Fevola, when there was a reasonable chance he was going to flower up and get fired + they'd have to pay him out?

I mean, sure, fev was a 50/50 while this is more of a 95/5, but point stands :P Sydney get screwed if Buddy retires early anyway.

Should you be penalised for breaking the spirit of the game? I mean, instigating rules to stop the breaking of the spirit of the game is fine, but would it have been ok to suspend linday thomas for staging before staging was illegal? Is it still ok to hand out a suspension to selwood for ducking, because it's against the spirit of the game? Should all taggers be given suspension for being against the spirit of the game?

He's not saying they should be penalised for it, he is saying that this is the reason he doesn't have any compassion for them being penalised over the COLA.

In other words he doesn't like Sydney because of this, the same as people don't like Thomas, Selwood and taggers because of the reasons you mentioned above ;)

precisely

that makes sense then :P

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.

Point is, Sydney will be paying the price for that contract if Buddy retires prematurely. Sure they've thrown a contract assuming he'll be playing a really long time (although, not impossibly long #fletcher #boomer), but if he can't make out the full years, they're the ones that get screwed. Was Brisbane taking the piss out of the rules by signing Fevola, when there was a reasonable chance he was going to flower up and get fired + they'd have to pay him out?

I mean, sure, fev was a 50/50 while this is more of a 95/5, but point stands :P Sydney get screwed if Buddy retires early anyway.

Should you be penalised for breaking the spirit of the game? I mean, instigating rules to stop the breaking of the spirit of the game is fine, but would it have been ok to suspend linday thomas for staging before staging was illegal? Is it still ok to hand out a suspension to selwood for ducking, because it's against the spirit of the game? Should all taggers be given suspension for being against the spirit of the game?

I agree. But then you can also including tanking in there as well. Even though tanking never occurs

tanking is against the rules though :P

is it? Did teams lose the players they got fom tanking??

well, no teams were actually proven to have tanked, it's still against the rules though and there are ramifications to tanking :P

[dirkdiggler]

Im not going to go through who Sydney got rid of to get Buddy and Tippett in to the club. COLA helped Tippett and Buddy get to Sydney but they could have got to Sydney without COLA as well.

We have the same cap as everyone else, the COLA payment is seperate, an add on.

COLA was never going to stay around though, the same thing happened to the Lions after the 3-peat

if you didn't need COLA to get Buddy and Tippett....then why is the AFL imposing restrictions on you? Suggests that without COLA you are in fact over the salary cap.

[SydneyRox]

Im not going to go through who Sydney got rid of to get Buddy and Tippett in to the club. COLA helped Tippett and Buddy get to Sydney but they could have got to Sydney without COLA as well.

We have the same cap as everyone else, the COLA payment is seperate, an add on.

COLA was never going to stay around though, the same thing happened to the Lions after the 3-peat

if you didn't need COLA to get Buddy and Tippett....then why is the AFL imposing restrictions on you? Suggests that without COLA you are in fact over the salary cap.

If we are over the salary cap they would say so, and there would be a far greater penalty you would think?

COLA did not get us Buddy or Tippett, all the players that left in those two years, plus contract structuring was what allowed those signings to happen.

[dirkdiggler]

Im not going to go through who Sydney got rid of to get Buddy and Tippett in to the club. COLA helped Tippett and Buddy get to Sydney but they could have got to Sydney without COLA as well.

We have the same cap as everyone else, the COLA payment is seperate, an add on.

COLA was never going to stay around though, the same thing happened to the Lions after the 3-peat

if you didn't need COLA to get Buddy and Tippett....then why is the AFL imposing restrictions on you? Suggests that without COLA you are in fact over the salary cap.

If we are over the salary cap they would say so, and there would be a far greater penalty you would think?

COLA did not get us Buddy or Tippett, all the players that left in those two years, plus contract structuring was what allowed those signings to happen.

If there was no concern about your salary cap AFTER COLA is removed..then why the restictions now? I would suggest that this indicates that the Swans are loaded up with contracts that they can't commit too without COLA, therefore they aren't allowed to add anymore before COLA is removed. Swans are committed to Tippett and Buddy salaries through FA (I think that is correct)....Who knows...but obviously suggests some concerns..othewise why would the AFL be involved

[Ziplock]

Im not going to go through who Sydney got rid of to get Buddy and Tippett in to the club. COLA helped Tippett and Buddy get to Sydney but they could have got to Sydney without COLA as well.

We have the same cap as everyone else, the COLA payment is seperate, an add on.

COLA was never going to stay around though, the same thing happened to the Lions after the 3-peat

if you didn't need COLA to get Buddy and Tippett....then why is the AFL imposing restrictions on you? Suggests that without COLA you are in fact over the salary cap.

If we are over the salary cap they would say so, and there would be a far greater penalty you would think?

COLA did not get us Buddy or Tippett, all the players that left in those two years, plus contract structuring was what allowed those signings to happen.

the AFL imposed restrictions because people like eddie screamed and threw a tantrum.

With the length of the contract offered, buddy would have always gone to sydney, regardless of COLA.

I think tippett would have as well, but honestly don't know the other offers etc. he had.

Im not going to go through who Sydney got rid of to get Buddy and Tippett in to the club. COLA helped Tippett and Buddy get to Sydney but they could have got to Sydney without COLA as well.

We have the same cap as everyone else, the COLA payment is seperate, an add on.

COLA was never going to stay around though, the same thing happened to the Lions after the 3-peat

if you didn't need COLA to get Buddy and Tippett....then why is the AFL imposing restrictions on you? Suggests that without COLA you are in fact over the salary cap.

If we are over the salary cap they would say so, and there would be a far greater penalty you would think?

COLA did not get us Buddy or Tippett, all the players that left in those two years, plus contract structuring was what allowed those signings to happen.

If there was no concern about your salary cap AFTER COLA is removed..then why the restictions now? I would suggest that this indicates that the Swans are loaded up with contracts that they can't commit too without COLA, therefore they aren't allowed to add anymore before COLA is removed. Swans are committed to Tippett and Buddy salaries through FA (I think that is correct)....Who knows...but obviously suggests some concerns..othewise why would the AFL be involved

COLA isn't in the contracts... you sign a contract for example 500k a year, and COLA adds an extra 10% on top of that. It's 10% added to each contract, not 1 million to distribute however you want.

[GoLions]

Im not going to go through who Sydney got rid of to get Buddy and Tippett in to the club. COLA helped Tippett and Buddy get to Sydney but they could have got to Sydney without COLA as well.

We have the same cap as everyone else, the COLA payment is seperate, an add on.

COLA was never going to stay around though, the same thing happened to the Lions after the 3-peat

if you didn't need COLA to get Buddy and Tippett....then why is the AFL imposing restrictions on you? Suggests that without COLA you are in fact over the salary cap.

If we are over the salary cap they would say so, and there would be a far greater penalty you would think?

COLA did not get us Buddy or Tippett, all the players that left in those two years, plus contract structuring was what allowed those signings to happen.

If there was no concern about your salary cap AFTER COLA is removed..then why the restictions now? I would suggest that this indicates that the Swans are loaded up with contracts that they can't commit too without COLA, therefore they aren't allowed to add anymore before COLA is removed. Swans are committed to Tippett and Buddy salaries through FA (I think that is correct)....Who knows...but obviously suggests some concerns..othewise why would the AFL be involved

I would've thought that is a definite possibility, yeah.

AFL has handled this so badly, it's beyond a joke.