Mega Thread AFL: No Trades (READ OP)

[grimlock]

 

[SilentHunter_]

Can't believe the club accepted it. What a farce the comp. is.

 

[RW]

 

[bungwahl]

Its gone completely at the end of next year right? or are they going to cap it 540k

Yep, gone after this year.

So disappointing that the club has agreed to it without a fight. Obviously we don't have any big targets this year.

 

[RW]

So disappointing that the club has agreed to it without a fight. Obviously we don't have any big targets this year.

Maybe we do next year

 

[bungwahl]

Love it Hanners! Good boy haha

 

[McRobie]

I hate AFL , this is the sort of stuff why people are losing interest in this game. I hope Gill Mac chokes on a fat rod.

 

[McRobie]

I've just been blocked by Jon Ralph.

 

[Tuco]

The AFL have agreed that the Swans would be permitted to replace one player who leaves the club as either a free agent or as part of a trade, with a contract offer of up to $450,000 per year.

- So we can only trade in 1 player up to $450k and only if we lose a player to FA or via trade? So if no one left the list, we couldn't bring in any player via trade at all?

- We can therefore only lose a player and sort of replace him.

- Also we can only trade in 1 player. So if we lose a number of players (ie: Shaw, Goodes and Jetta) we can only trade in 1 to replace all three, meaning we are forced to make a net loss of experienced talent.

If the club chooses to replace a departing player with this option, the Sydney Swans’ transitional COLA amount of $600,000 for the 2016 season will be lowered by 9.8 per cent of the traded-out player’s contract, if that player was contracted for 2016.

- This just means any new player will reduce the COLa allowance for the whole team by 9.8%. I guess this is just a fanciy way of saying the new player won't be paid COLa?

Dear Mr Pridham,

Please take the AFL to court. Don't let them get away with this.

Dear AFLPA,

Please join the Swans in their fight against this trade Ban for the benefit of all your members.

 

[bungwahl]

The AFL have agreed that the Swans would be permitted to replace one player who leaves the club as either a free agent or as part of a trade, with a contract offer of up to $450,000 per year.

- So we can only trade in 1 player up to $450k and only if we lose a player to FA or via trade? So if no one left the list, we couldn't bring in any player via trade at all?

- We can therefore only lose a player and sort of replace him.

- Also we can only trade in 1 player. So if we lose a number of players (ie: Shaw, Goodes and Jetta) we can trade in 1 to replace all three, meaning we are forced to make a net loss of experienced talent.

F.uck wads

If the club chooses to replace a departing player with this option, the Sydney Swans’ transitional COLA amount of $600,000 for the 2016 season will be lowered by 9.8 per cent of the traded-out player’s contract, if that player was contracted for 2016.

- Alternatively, if a player retires who is contracted for 2016

I believe it's only one player up the $450k, the rest have to be below $349k or whatever.

 

[kickthething]

what a joke

 

[RW]

I've just been blocked by Jon Ralph.

WTF he's blocked the Swans board twitter account too when all we did was re-tweet Hanners' tweet? Talk about soft.

EDIT: On second thoughts, he may have already blocked us after reading what our board thinks of his writing.

 

[McRobie]

WTF he's blocked the Swans board twitter account too when all we did was re-tweet Hanners' tweet? Talk about soft.

He is so anti Swans its not funny. Im furious right now, have lost interest in the season...

 

[kickthething]

anyone consider this sort of crap vindictiveness from the AFL is what has contributed to Buds illness

 

[RW]

anyone consider this sort of crap vindictiveness from the AFL is what has contributed to Buds illness

In a word, no. That would be drawing a VERY long bow.

 

[swansfan51]

The club has accepted the decision, I've moved on. Let's focus on winning tomorrow's game, welcoming Parker and/or Jack for the PF, and drafting competently in the offseason

 

[MarkP]

Cant beat town hall

Only need an injunction for 12 months then they can run around in a circle jerk

 

[Lakeside Swan]

Just heard this on radio. Gives me the shites! I can only assume that the Swans aren't looking at anyone in that ballpark if they are going to settle for this.

 

[Ticky009]

WTF he's blocked the Swans board twitter account too when all we did was re-tweet Hanners' tweet? Talk about soft.
EDIT: On second thoughts, he may have already blocked us after reading what our board thinks of his writing.

No higher honour than being blocked by that flog.

 

[MarkP]

Wwell we are not after Bennell then you would assume.

 

[RW]

Just heard this on radio. Gives me the shites! I can only assume that the Swans aren't looking at anyone in that ballpark if they are going to settle for this.

Probably. My first thought is next year's trade period could be another 2009...

 

[bungwahl]

I like Ralphy...

Sorry.

 

[Tuco]

I believe it's only one player up the $450k, the rest have to be below $349k or whatever.

Yep. But 1 player up to $450 and unlimited players up to $349 equates to probably 1 player or even none. $450k is below market rate anyway. So we're not exactly going to be doing much this trade period.

Have to go to court. Why 1 player? Why not 1 player for every traded/FA/retiring player? It's a sick joke intended to make it look like there is legally no restraint of trade.

I'm so ****ing done with this League. And my disgust for our Board if they don't seek to injunct this bullshit will be unfathomable.

 

[SilentHunter_]

To the left are swans fans and to the right the AFL.

 

[swansfan51]

Probably. My first thought is next year's trade period could be another 2009...

Or a repeat of the 1987 trade period? $10,000 for Wayne Carey