Swans prevented from trading in players

[SemperFidelis]

Emma Quayle reporting that the Swans cannot trade in players unless they forgo their COLA allowance immediately.

Good grief, has Gillon actually been listening?

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/a ... 13sba.html

[ozrulestrace]

The first follow up question on SEN does this mean the Swans can't trade players out? e.g. Membery to us?

[SinCitySainter]

The first follow up question on SEN does this mean the Swans can't trade players out? e.g. Membery to us?

I can't see how trading players out would be an issue as it lowers the amount you spend not increases.

[ozrulestrace]

Neither do I but that was the question they asked.

Maybe it's a case of what's already contracts and payments will remain status quo, but from now on in, the rest subsidies means the money from Cola will actually towards what it is supposed to do, help players cope with the Sydney residential market.

So for example Membery would be paid at level if he stayed but on leaving any new comer would then sign the rent subsidy payment. If that makes sense.

[SemperFidelis]

Neither do I but that was the question they asked.

Maybe it's a case of what's already contracts and payments will remain status quo, but from now on in, the rest subsidies means the money from Cola will actually towards what it is supposed to do, help players cope with the Sydney residential market.

So for example Membery would be paid at level if he stayed but on leaving any new comer would then sign the rent subsidy payment. If that makes sense.

Emma's article suggests that if a player like Membery requests a trade, he can only be replaced with draft picks:

"It means the club will only be able to replace a player who seeks a trade out of the club with a draft pick or picks".

[saintbrat]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-10-09/s ... es-allowed

The AFL's decision would also stop the Swans from luring restricted or unrestricted free agents before the end of 2017.

It means they can only bring in draft picks for players wanting to be traded.

The Swans can also bring in delisted free agents and upgrade existing rookies.

Following discussions last month, the League wrote to the Swans and told them should they choose to pursue free agents, or trade a player in, COLA payments would cease immediately.

Currently, COLA will be phased out and replaced in 2017 by a rent subsidy scheme.

Patrick Keane‏@AFL_PKeane·
AFL also advised GWS that due to its TPP position, list structure,contractual commitments, it retains COLA for 2015/16 with no restrictions.


Patrick Keane‏@AFL_PKeane·
AFL also said that COLA amount would immediately go to zero in 2015 if club contracted a new player for List via trade in 2015 or 2016.

[ace]

It would be safe to bet that Sydney is already over the normal salary cap and can only sustain the present list with the Cost Of Living Adjustement COLA.

If the AFL wants to get rid of the COLA then Sydney must not be allowed to trade inwards players that add to their total player payments.
Sydney must be required, over time, to reduce their total player payments until it falls to a normal salary cap.

[The OtherThommo]

Neither do I but that was the question they asked.

Maybe it's a case of what's already contracts and payments will remain status quo, but from now on in, the rest subsidies means the money from Cola will actually towards what it is supposed to do, help players cope with the Sydney residential market.

So for example Membery would be paid at level if he stayed but on leaving any new comer would then sign the rent subsidy payment. If that makes sense.

Emma's article suggests that if a player like Membery requests a trade, he can only be replaced with draft picks:

"It means the club will only be able to replace a player who seeks a trade out of the club with a draft pick or picks".

If at all.....?

Always beware the grandfathered clause.

[Dave McNamara]

If the Tippet debacle fresh on top of a premiership wasn't the final straw for this rort, then by being too cute by half re the Buddy Ego thing made sure that it was. Poor move Swines.

Now the Swines are throwing a tanty coz they realise that for all the advantages COLA gave them, they managed only two flags.

Now, once there's more of a level playing field, lets see how good their mythical 'Swine spirit' really is.

Suffer you parasitic bastards!

[St Lenny]

If the Tippet debacle fresh on top of a premiership wasn't the final straw for this rort, then by being too cute by half re the Buddy Ego thing made sure that it was. Poor move Swines.

Now the Swines are throwing a tanty coz they realise that for all the advantages COLA gave them, they managed only two flags.

Now, once there's more of a level playing field, lets see how good their mythical 'Swine spirit' really is.

Suffer you parasitic bastards!

OMG Dave McNamara, never a truer word spoken, I could not agree more.

[samuraisaint]

Yeah, but don't count your eggs too soon, they may win another Flag next year yet.

[samuraisaint]

Neither do I but that was the question they asked.

Maybe it's a case of what's already contracts and payments will remain status quo, but from now on in, the rest subsidies means the money from Cola will actually towards what it is supposed to do, help players cope with the Sydney residential market.

So for example Membery would be paid at level if he stayed but on leaving any new comer would then sign the rent subsidy payment. If that makes sense.

Emma's article suggests that if a player like Membery requests a trade, he can only be replaced with draft picks:

"It means the club will only be able to replace a player who seeks a trade out of the club with a draft pick or picks".

That's what we were going to do anyway - pick 39 or thereabouts wasn't it?

[gringo]

The SWans have just received 3 academy players below value including Heeney who is worth at least pick 3. They get a whole lot more next year and also have about 4 very highly rated FS picks in the next 2 years. They got Mitchell cheap too. I don't think they will be too badly off even with this hit.

[SideshowMilne]

Any chance a Dane Beams offer bought this to a head?

[Saint wagga]

Policy on the run is policy underdone - nice 'Hollowman' reference, but it applies to more than just politics. I hate the Swans, but this new 'rule' reeks of kneejerk reactions. They've planned to scrap COLA in 2 years already, so why the 'bylaw', this is just to appease Eddie and co...Stinks, even from a Swans hater!!

[Enrico_Misso]

It does smack of the Adrian Anderson post-it notes interchange policy-on-the-run system!

[stinger]

If the Tippet debacle fresh on top of a premiership wasn't the final straw for this rort, then by being too cute by half re the Buddy Ego thing made sure that it was. Poor move Swines.

Now the Swines are throwing a tanty coz they realise that for all the advantages COLA gave them, they managed only two flags.

Now, once there's more of a level playing field, lets see how good their mythical 'Swine spirit' really is.

Suffer you parasitic bastards!

we are on the same page for once mate....

[Rosco]

It might stop the membrey trade, they might try hard to keep him in case Goodes goes down (or retires in 2015), given this will be a two year restriction.

[stinger]

It might stop the membrey trade, they might try hard to keep him in case Goodes goes down (or retires in 2015), given this will be a two year restriction.

nope...they have academy kids coming out their arse.....

[Rosco]

key forwards?

[samuraisaint]

It might stop the membrey trade, they might try hard to keep him in case Goodes goes down (or retires in 2015), given this will be a two year restriction.

If so it probably won't hurt our top end tier playing cohort too much anyway. Good depth player IMO.

[Dave McNamara]

nope...they have academy kids coming out their arse.....

Unfortunately that fact, with a couple of other little tweaks, and this two year trading ban will actually be at a time that won't hurt them much, if at all... though they'll play the martyr card for all it's worth.

I doubt there'll be any Swine's fire sale to get that COLA crap down any quicker than they had previously planned to.

[dragit]

Any chance a Dane Beams offer bought this to a head?

I reckon Frawley must have been close & then Patful would have chosen Sydney first up… the AFL stepped in and essentially made Patful go to GWS like they wanted buddy to do last year.

[St DAC]

Maybe it's me, but I can't see how it is reasonable to penalise a club for actually following the rules, no matter what you think of COLA (and I'm against it myself). Smacks of policy on the run, once again.

[Rosco]

Maybe it's me, but I can't see how it is reasonable to penalise a club for actually following the rules, no matter what you think of COLA (and I'm against it myself). Smacks of policy on the run, once again.

agreed, really poor from the league