Swans told to end COLA - OR be banned from trading in players for 2 years
- Thread starter Zerg
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Your club has upset young Shoenmakers in trying to shunt him off elsewhere when he has clearly stated he would like to continue to work hard & try & make the senior team.
The culture is starting to break down with the inclusion of a known club f..k er like Frawley!
Sound familiar CP?
I'm shattered by this, I was hoping the AFL would come out and "clarify" and it would be different, but this is terrible.
We have been planning for the Malcevski move all year and now the AFL has ****ed us.
Regardless of what you think of the now removed CoLA surely you can see that the swans have been punished for following the rules.
Again, I would be fine with this if they told us about it at the beginning of the season now 4 days into trade week.
We have been planning for the Malcevski move all year and now the AFL has ****ed us.
Regardless of what you think of the now removed CoLA surely you can see that the swans have been punished for following the rules.
Again, I would be fine with this if they told us about it at the beginning of the season now 4 days into trade week.
Off The Couch
TheBrownDog
- Oct 4, 2007
- 51,002
- 68,476
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Your club has upset young Shoenmakers in trying to shunt him off elsewhere when he has clearly stated he would like to continue to work hard & try & make the senior team.
The culture is starting to break down with the inclusion of a known club f..k er like Frawley!
Sound familiar CP?
I'm actually really disappointed in the schoey talk - really feel for the kid, as he was honest about wanting to stay with the club and try and work his way back into the team but let's be honest Mumford and malceski were about wanting more money whereas shoey would be on peanuts. You are going to have to come up with a better analogy than that.
Besides it's fremantle showing the interest - the last time that happened we sent mcpharlin and croad and got hodge and Mitchell
- Banned
- #2,556
Sweetheart, I think you should toddle off to your own board and start asking questions as to why the mass walk out at Collingwood? You might also ask why your President spends so much time worrying about the perceived injustices of the vagaries of COLA, trades, the academy, and the draft (but not of course the fixturing or the father/son rule) when his own club, the one he is supposed to be leading, is so obviously in crisis.
Daggersworth
Senior List
I don't understand why fans of other clubs are happy about this at all. This prevents players coming in AND players leaving Sydney.
I'll use a Hawthorn example.
Say Dan Hannebery wants to be traded out and wants to go to Hawthorn. Sydney say, sure no worries, but in return we want Luke Breust and your first round pick (or whatever trade Hawthorn fans deem acceptable, it's not relevant to the debate). Everyone walks away happy. Hawthorn get a great young player that can replace Mitchell, Sydney get Breust on less money than Hannebery would be on (thus reducing TPP and making it easier to comply with the 2017 cap) in a trade that reflects relatively fair value.
What this AFL ruling has done is turned this potential trade into this...
Hawthorn offer their first round and second round picks for Hannebery. Sydney tell them to go jump as they are only keen on mature players during a premiership window.
This restrains the ability for ALL clubs to benefit from Sydney's need to reduce their TPP. Sydney aren't going to be bent over and just accept draft picks on the trade table just because Gil said so.
Perhaps Tom Mitchell or Sam Reid would have been available for trade if not for this ruling (there was certainly talk surrounding Mitchell prior to the grand final). Now they aren't.
I'll use a Hawthorn example.
Say Dan Hannebery wants to be traded out and wants to go to Hawthorn. Sydney say, sure no worries, but in return we want Luke Breust and your first round pick (or whatever trade Hawthorn fans deem acceptable, it's not relevant to the debate). Everyone walks away happy. Hawthorn get a great young player that can replace Mitchell, Sydney get Breust on less money than Hannebery would be on (thus reducing TPP and making it easier to comply with the 2017 cap) in a trade that reflects relatively fair value.
What this AFL ruling has done is turned this potential trade into this...
Hawthorn offer their first round and second round picks for Hannebery. Sydney tell them to go jump as they are only keen on mature players during a premiership window.
This restrains the ability for ALL clubs to benefit from Sydney's need to reduce their TPP. Sydney aren't going to be bent over and just accept draft picks on the trade table just because Gil said so.
Perhaps Tom Mitchell or Sam Reid would have been available for trade if not for this ruling (there was certainly talk surrounding Mitchell prior to the grand final). Now they aren't.
How bout use another team as I hope we never deal with you again.....
You can keep Hannebery btw.
Mass walk out? Huh?
Crisis, huh?
Our president cares about, and supports the whole competition. Of course he puts Collingwood first, but he has done a shit load of good for the AFL. Over the years. Of course as newbys you wouldn't know.
- Banned
- #2,560
Yes. I think when I turned 43 having followed South since I was born I finally shed the indignity of being a "newbie". Your President cares about himself first, his club second, and the competition a long distant third (and only insofar as it means he can still line his own pockets).
What good has he actually done for the AFL? This should be good.
Ashman23
Club Legend
Just on Eddie, I'd like to comment on why I think he's the one out in front.
Most of the clubs receive some form of handout or assistance from the AFL, so when they AFL wants a vote on doing something or changing something the presidents feel the obligation to say 'yes'. As for Eddie, he knows he has a media presence as well as being the president of a large, well supported, vocal fan base. Therefore, he's too big for the AFL and can be the 'mouth piece' for the smaller clubs as he knows he or Collingwood won't cop a smack.
Most of the clubs receive some form of handout or assistance from the AFL, so when they AFL wants a vote on doing something or changing something the presidents feel the obligation to say 'yes'. As for Eddie, he knows he has a media presence as well as being the president of a large, well supported, vocal fan base. Therefore, he's too big for the AFL and can be the 'mouth piece' for the smaller clubs as he knows he or Collingwood won't cop a smack.
Ashman23
Club Legend
I actually said 'most' of the clubs, strangely I knew I'd get this sort of response but that's OK.
Some clubs are more pets than others, does that help the conversation?
Some clubs are more pets than others, does that help the conversation?
Crankyhawk
Hall of Famer
How
how is that possible?
Incorrect. Last time it happened you landed Boumann and Kelly, while we got Lachie Neale out of the deal.I'm actually really disappointed in the schoey talk - really feel for the kid, as he was honest about wanting to stay with the club and try and work his way back into the team but let's be honest Mumford and malceski were about wanting more money whereas shoey would be on peanuts. You are going to have to come up with a better analogy than that.
Besides it's fremantle showing the interest - the last time that happened we sent mcpharlin and croad and got hodge and Mitchell
We won one!
- Apr 22, 2013
- 4,707
- 5,843
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Actually I thought Tippett did ok gf day. Certainly wasn't amongst our worst.
Foxx1
Senior List
- Aug 22, 2013
- 296
- 485
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
So you know what Frawley is earning at the Hawks do you? Let us in mate seeing your privy to information no one else is or is this just more baseless speculation? Saw some numbers being bandied around big footy and took those as facts? Ouch!
I agree with this 100 percent!
- Sep 5, 2007
- 16,277
- 13,189
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Nashville predators
What can they do??
Gunstall555
Club Legend
- May 24, 2014
- 2,910
- 5,914
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
When was Franklin signed?
- Apr 25, 2010
- 4,749
- 11,144
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Arsenal
Before the end of 2013.
Well they could've tried to get under the salary cap to trade but I can't see that happening now.
The other option would be to take it to court but I can't see that happening before the trade periods finished.
I see your point mate effectively nothing they can do in this trade period anyways.
Off The Couch
TheBrownDog
- Oct 4, 2007
- 51,002
- 68,476
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Similar threads
