no chance they lift it, the AFL will want to drag this out to court and win under some contrived technicality to prove their "innocence".
just wait for the Injunction TM.
just wait for the Injunction TM.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Mega Thread AFL: No Trades (READ OP)
- Thread starter SM
- Start date
- Tagged users None
There will be a press release 2 minutes before the bounce of the GF announcing the trade ban lift or sometime where the AFL can make it with little impact
Just to point out that Bill Kelty is no longer on the AFL Commission. He was replaced by Jason Ball
Ok. Seems we'll have a compromise:
http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/swans-look-for-trade-ban-relief-20150826-gj8l4s.html
We've asked to be able to trade in a player of equal value to a player we trade out.
http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/swans-look-for-trade-ban-relief-20150826-gj8l4s.html
We've asked to be able to trade in a player of equal value to a player we trade out.
**** that's weak. hopefully caros wrong. you don't compromise when your in the right.
If true it is better than what we had before, but **** the AFL for their bullshit seriously.
for their bullshit seriously.
If thats true then jetta is 100% gone
PVF
Call Me?
**** that. Fight it out.
AFL worried the Swans are too successful.
Sorry Ed, you can never be too successful north of the Barassi Line.
Sorry Ed, you can never be too successful north of the Barassi Line.
I guess if there is no material effect on our list management then it doesn't really matter.
Of course this means we have to lose a quality player to get a quality player. So all we can do is hold our ground if a significant player leaves. We can't step forward. That's still pretty ****ed.
So effectively we tread water for another year. But at least it's better than last year when we lost Malceski for nothing.
**** this league, BTW. **** it hard.
Of course this means we have to lose a quality player to get a quality player. So all we can do is hold our ground if a significant player leaves. We can't step forward. That's still pretty ****ed.
So effectively we tread water for another year. But at least it's better than last year when we lost Malceski for nothing.
**** this league, BTW. **** it hard.
So we can combine all the retiring players wages and that of maybe Jetta (if he wants out) and get players to that value?
That would work for me
That would work for me
Why would we even suggest that as a compromise? Why would we compromise at all? I'm really disappointed in this club if that article is true.
Lakeside Swan
Premiership Player
- Banned
- #1,339
But all we need to do it apply for an injunction. The courts will always err on the side of caution if there is any doubt at all.
I only think it works for players we trade out. Not players who retire/are delisted. The AFL's pernicious trade ban is only effective at crippling us if we cannot re-stock our list as we lose all our senior COLa players to retirement.
The whole point of the ban is that it doesn't let us bring in players to cover our retirees. This is why dad's army played on for us this year.
The AFL has attempted to force us to lose the core of our best players without a chance to save ourselves. It's their WHOLE ****ING PLAN.
Imagine if Goodes, Shaw, Teddy, and Pyke had joined ROK and Malceski leaving in 2014? It would have been a bloodbath.
The AFL watched us get away with it for another year. We got a good kid in Heeney. And it looks like a good kid in Rose. But now we're looking at losing Goodes, Shaw, possibly Pyke and Jetta and needing Teddy to go round again.
For all our bluster it's still mission accomplished by the AFL.
The King!
Chosen One
Just piss the unjust rule off you pricks
Lakeside Swan
Premiership Player
- Banned
- #1,342
Oh, just like last year. Except that we are unlikely to be in the GF this time.
- Jul 5, 2014
- 3,231
- 6,080
- AFL Club
- Sydney
How come gws don't have a trade ban if they're phasing cola out.
because GWS didn't cause a bunch of VFL commentators to throw a hissy fit.
Because they didn't beat the Hawks for a flag and use spare money in the cap to recruit two players. 1 of which was supposed to go to a club to grow it for the AFL
Despite within 2 years we gained around 15k members since we got Buddy...
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Oh for crying out loud, just take it to court.
The King!
Chosen One
The whole system would collapse
Why did the Swans make such a public noise about fighting the ban - going so far as to meet with the commission threatening legal action - just to walk away basically continuing to accept the ban from trading?
If you were going to do a deal, why not ask for a cap of $1.5m for 3 players?
This still prevents us recruiting a marquee player like Dangerfield (which is what the AFL cares about).
But being able to trade in 3 x $500k value players would let us retire Goodsey, Shaw and lose someone like Jetta without our list suffering.
This deal just means all those impending retirements are just body blows to our club. What was the point of it all?
If you were going to do a deal, why not ask for a cap of $1.5m for 3 players?
This still prevents us recruiting a marquee player like Dangerfield (which is what the AFL cares about).
But being able to trade in 3 x $500k value players would let us retire Goodsey, Shaw and lose someone like Jetta without our list suffering.
This deal just means all those impending retirements are just body blows to our club. What was the point of it all?
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
They are at the correct end of the ladder. We're not.
Similar threads
