Mega Thread AFL: No Trades (READ OP)

[ScrewInStuds]

The truth is that with Kennedy, Parker, Mitchell, Hannebury, Mills, Jones, Heeney, Perris, lloyd and (fingers crossed) Dunkley all on the right side of 26 we don't need Dangerfield. I'd be very disapointed if we sold the farm to get him.

 

[S120]

I think it is based on what they were earning at their old club.

Swans would now be allowed to compete for the services of any players whose contract offer was at or below the current average wage for a listed-player in the competition who has served more than two years in the competition.

Contract offer implies that it is a restriction on how much the Swans can offer to a player, making it based on what we offer rather than what that player was receiving at his previous club. So it effectively prices us out of the market for established stars who would command much more than the league average.

Which makes sense from the point of view of the AFL and what they're trying to do. If it was based on what the player previously got, it means we could theoretically go after a superstar whose rookie contract was coming to an end and was about to have a big pay rise. It's still unjustified but the AFL wouldn't allow that in the current climate.

 

[The Fact]

Hey guys just wondering if there was a trade that was meant to go through that made the afl bring in this rule? I heard a rumor about Ryder but I can't confirm anything wat have u guys heard

 

[robbieando]

Bullshit half decision, made up to save face and keep it looking like we are still in the wrong despite the AFL for the first time comfirming we broke no rules.

Victory for morons

 

[Cadsky]

Ryder, Beams and Dangerfield are the three names I have heard we were into to bring this on.

 

[RUNVS]

Hey guys just wondering if there was a trade that was meant to go through that made the afl bring in this rule? I heard a rumor about Ryder but I can't confirm anything wat have u guys heard

Heard the rumour about Ryder as well but nothing even remotely confirmed. Also heard a rumour about us wanting Joel Patfull but nothing confirmed there either.

 

[RW]

Heard the rumour about Ryder as well but nothing even remotely confirmed. Also heard a rumour about us wanting Joel Patfull but nothing confirmed there either.

We were into both according to bedford

 

[Superstar swan]

Heard the rumour about Ryder as well but nothing even remotely confirmed. Also heard a rumour about us wanting Joel Patfull but nothing confirmed there either.

Patful would not have broke the bank. If i was to guess i would say the afl cought wind of us sniffing around ryder

 

[ScrewInStuds]

Patful would not have broke the bank. If i was to guess i would say the afl cought wind of us sniffing around ryder

Ryder would have been the perfect bridge between Pyke and Nankervis for us...

 

[swansfan51]

I find the concept of us having enough salary cap space to sign Ryder or Dangerfield, without COLA, astonishing.

Here their salary cap is described as stretched to the limit in 2014, and the reason they went with a senior list of only 38. (http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-11-22/swans-38player-strategy) Didn't we elect for a senior list of 38 in 2015 for the same reason?

If we had signed someone of that calibre, I imagine we would have to lose some players on serious cash.

Here's an article before the trade ban, and before the removal of COLA, talking about serious salary cap pressures. http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-03-13/we-can-beat-cap-squeeze-longmire

 

[swans2014]

Yer back ending the deal would only benefit unrestricted FA.

however are the conditions only for this year. For example could we offer a player a 5 year deal where it is year 1 340k, year 2 ,3,4,5 at 600k plus. The club could argue they are factoring in immenent retirements such as richards ,goodes and shaw

This is from the AFL's Media Release:

"As such, it had now been decided that for the 2015 exchange and trade period which would lead into the final season of the COLA phase-out period in 2016, Sydney would be allowed to lodge a contract offer to any potential trade-option player or free agent whereby the average yearly salary is below the current average league-wide salary for players not on set payments."

So no back ended deals, the average over the whole contract still has to be below the +/- 340k mark.

 

[bedford]

Absolute crap, they can go and get F'd

 

[robbieando]

I find the concept of us having enough salary cap space to sign Ryder or Dangerfield, without COLA, astonishing.

Here their salary cap is described as stretched to the limit in 2014, and the reason they went with a senior list of only 38. (http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-11-22/swans-38player-strategy) Didn't we elect for a senior list of 38 in 2015 for the same reason?

If we had signed someone of that calibre, I imagine we would have to lose some players on serious cash.

Here's an article before the trade ban, and before the removal of COLA, talking about serious salary cap pressures. http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-03-13/we-can-beat-cap-squeeze-longmire

More a case of leaving room for the use of nominated rookies to be evaluated at any time rather than waiting for a player to go on the LTI to promote a rookie. More and more clubs are doing it.

Agree that we would be close to our caps for a Dangerfield and a Ryder but we still have the likes of Goodes and Shaw on the list and weren't able to replace Malceski as we had in previous years when we got Tippett and Franklin, when retirements, trades and delistings covered the cap room for both players. Plus we have yet to get into the rise in the Cap year on year since the last CBA was agreed and that could of meant a high profile signing could of been possible.

The issue would of been regarding the resigning of players out of contract at the end of 2015 and 2016 with COLA being phased out and that's where we would of lost a player or two thanks to a Ryder like signing.

 

[Number37]

I find the concept of us having enough salary cap space to sign Ryder or Dangerfield, without COLA, astonishing.

Here their salary cap is described as stretched to the limit in 2014, and the reason they went with a senior list of only 38. (http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-11-22/swans-38player-strategy) Didn't we elect for a senior list of 38 in 2015 for the same reason?

If we had signed someone of that calibre, I imagine we would have to lose some players on serious cash.

Here's an article before the trade ban, and before the removal of COLA, talking about serious salary cap pressures. http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-03-13/we-can-beat-cap-squeeze-longmire

Didn't the whole ban come about because we had our eyes on someone?

Doesn't it also make sense that the AFL believes that we could make another big signing? They would know the exact state of our salary cap.

Either way it doesn't matter. The ban is joke, the new rules are worse than a joke.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Just saying this is the AFL saving face while it would of been nice to see egg on the new CEO face i don't think it would of been good for us in the longterm.

Nothing about it makes any sense but we salvaged a victory here and forced the AFL to admit we have "broken no COLA rule"

It probably wouldn't make much difference as we wouldn't have the money for a AAA player but nevertheless we are being penalized for doing nothing wrong??

We made our mark and now going forward we can do what we have been doing for the past 10years prior to Franklin and Tippett getting a rough gem from other clubs and turning them into a diamond this outcome allows us to do that.

Anyways its done both parties seem happy with the conclusion (only conclusion that was going to happen) and we move on to the next battle academy picks.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

"Sydney are as comfortable as they can be and I think it sits into their strategy, so I'm not sure this will create any practical issues next year," Marsh told SEN.

"The way contracts are structured you might have some players who are on significantly more than $340,000, but the vast majority would sit under that.

"So there are still a number of players who would be in play here for Sydney.

"If I had to make a guess it might be 25 per cent [are off limits]."

"Sydney haven't played outside the rules and that's been acknowledged by the AFL and everyone," Marsh said.

"The principle, we're still not thrilled with it … but the position we're in now is better than where we were a few months ago.

 

[S120]

Paul Marsh being the head of the AFLPA makes me inclined to believe his rough estimate. And I feel like if he believed it was still unfair on behalf of the players he represents, he'd still be agitating heavily for the AFL to alter the ruling, so all in all it seems like a decent outcome short of the AFL doing a complete reversal and admitting that they were overly heavy-handed in their initial decision. And we all know that that isn't happening.

 

[Sanchez365]

Seems pretty ludicrous for a ban like this to be put in place. I mean why would that governing body, one that can see the financial ins and outs of each club, stop anyone from using the space available to them in their cap.

Even if the swans were going after Ryder, if he was willing to play for them on less coin then at Port that's his perogitive. At some point the salary cap squeeze will catch up with the swans, if they want to bring it on themselves faster by getting in a Ryder then so be it.

Unless the AFL just thought the swans were being reckless and then would cripple themselves going forward.

 

[MarkP]

And of course Eddie is angry we are not forced to sell all of our team and be made to use this boards members as our playing roster for this year.

Personally I would back us against those flog Pies as long as Horse didn't tell me to bomb it forward at every opportunity.

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/af...ent-average-wage/story-fndv8ujy-1227192389065

 

[Superstar swan]

And of course Eddie is angry we are not forced to sell all of our team and be made to use this boards members as our playing roster for this year.

Personally I would back us against those flog Pies as long as Horse didn't tell me to bomb it forward at every opportunity.

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/af...ent-average-wage/story-fndv8ujy-1227192389065

Simply reading the words eddie mcguire makes me furious

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

And of course Eddie is angry we are not forced to sell all of our team and be made to use this boards members as our playing roster for this year.

Personally I would back us against those flog Pies as long as Horse didn't tell me to bomb it forward at every opportunity.

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/af...ent-average-wage/story-fndv8ujy-1227192389065

Surely Pendlebury can't beat our combined midfield can he?

 

[RUNVS]

What a fat campaigner Eddie is. What the academy has to do with this is anyones guess but Eddie just could not help himself by sinking the other shoe in whenever he gets the opportunity.

 

[MarkP]

What a fat campaigner Eddie is. What the academy has to do with this is anyones guess but Eddie just could not help himself by sinking the other shoe in whenever he gets the opportunity.

It is called battlespace preparation.

He will mention it at every opportunity to cast the seeds and then go full throttle when the time is right.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

It is called battlespace preparation.

He will mention it at every opportunity to cast the seeds and then go full throttle when the time is right.

COLA is old news i can picture it already Heeney debut Ed will mention how Heeney should of ended up at the poor Western Bulldogs or St Kilda and they are not going to survive thanks to the Swans Academy.

 

[ScrewInStuds]

He will mention it at every opportunity to cast the seeds and then go full throttle when it becomes clear that Collingwood are going to finish bottom 5.

Edited for accuracy.