Trade ban.

[PeterGoulden17]

Am i the only one thinking this?
Hawthorn, going for a 4th straight flag, year after year lure big name players to the club. It's been going on for years. Now apparently they are eyeing off Tom Mitchell and Dion Prestia from the Suns and are quite capable of getting both.
Now we lure Tippett and Franklin in consequtive years and we cope a trade ban and the cola gets scraped.

In my opinion this is beyond a joke, we get punished for not breaking any rules. But where's the restrictions on Hawthorn for 'breaking the rules'.

[Meg]

In what way are Hawthorn "breaking the rules"?

[annew]

In what way are Hawthorn "breaking the rules"?

In what way did swans break the rules?

[Meg]

In what way did swans break the rules?

I didn't say they did (and neither did the AFL actually - they just declined to give a rational explanation for the ban - not surprising as there was no rational explanation).

I was querying the statement above that Hawthorn are breaking the rules.

[Ludwig]

Some may say it's coincidental, while others may not. But why is there a photo of a Hawthorn Player (Cyril) on the cover of the official AFL Rule Book for 2016? And why is the cover adorned in the Hawthorn colours? If this is what the outside looks like, you can only imagine what must be on the inside. Hawthorn don't break the rules, they write the rules.

http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/Media/Videos/Thumbnails/2015/Mar/828742_thumb_326x184.jpg

[Plugger46]

I hate Hawthorn as much as anyone but I can't see what they're doing wrong. They've had players leave and they've picked a few players up. Just using the same twisted crap opposition supporters come up with when attacking us.

You're also listening to the same peanut who said Mason Wood was Sydney bound. Damo never gets them right. He is a dud in every sense of the word. He said Tippo was destroying our culture after one game in R&W. Never accountable.

[Meg]

Ludwig, I know you are trolling but ....... perhaps it's not unreasonable to put the photo of a player from the current premiership team on the front of an AFL booklet?
Ps. I thought you might be more interested in the latest reports of Tom Derickx' non-footy exploits?

No Cookies | Daily Telegraph (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/sydney-confidential/swans-player-tom-derickx-working-overtime-to-crack-sydneys-social-elite/news-story/fd14159c7267e4a57f1acef359c4cfbc)

[Ludwig]

Ludwig, I know you are trolling but ....... perhaps it's not unreasonable to put the photo of a player from the current premiership team on the front of an AFL booklet?
You are right that it's not unreasonable to have a photo of a player from the 2015 premiership team on the cover of an AFL booklet, but what I object to is having a player from the 2016 premiership team on the front cover. It gives the impression that the rules of the game will be interpreted by the umpires in a manner which will lead to a predetermined outcome.

Now, since the brought up the matter of Tom Derickx, who is professional model as we all know, it would make a lot of sense if Tom were on the cover or the AFL rule book. This would give the impression that there are a lot of folks associated with the game who don't have the foggiest idea what the rules of the game are, and for the most part the rules are made up on the run, which would be quite to the truth.

I have written to the AFL reminding them that this will be the first in many years that some punishment has not been meted out on the Swans, so they better get their act together because the season is coming to end soon. I suggested that they ban the Swans from trading or delisting Tom Derickx. I also suggested that having missed out on the rule book cover, Tom should appear with the Easter Bunny on AFL material promoting the Good Friday fixture next year.

[Maltopia]

I hate Hawthorn as much as anyone but I can't see what they're doing wrong. They've had players leave and they've picked a few players up. Just using the same twisted crap opposition supporters come up with when attacking us.



Hawthorn have done nothing wrong. It is the unequal treatment by the AFL that riles us.

I can accept equalisation measures for the overall good of the league, but not when they are applied to a non-Victorian club doing well, but not to a Victorian club that is doing just as well or even better (look at who we lost in Mummy, Malceski, White, Everitt, Membrey vs who they lost, yet we get an inexplicable ban).

[Danzar]

Ludwig, I know you are trolling but ....... perhaps it's not unreasonable to put the photo of a player from the current premiership team on the front of an AFL booklet?
Ps. I thought you might be more interested in the latest reports of Tom Derickx' non-footy exploits?

No Cookies | Daily Telegraph (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/sydney-confidential/swans-player-tom-derickx-working-overtime-to-crack-sydneys-social-elite/news-story/fd14159c7267e4a57f1acef359c4cfbc)

Inclined to agree with you on this....previous editions feature the Premiers on the cover. BUT, it is interesting that past covers show a moment from the previous year's Grand Final and features both teams.

On topic, I still seethe at that ban. Unprecedented. My chief concern at the time was the damage it would do to our club in years to come, given the potential impact on maintaining depth. I wonder whether this is partly behind Horse's deliberate strategy to develop as many rookies as we can as fast as we can.

[Industrial Fan]

In principle it may not be a bad idea if the top4 can't trade in players at a certain contract value or participate in free agency etc.

Free agency has killed the draft especially with the destination club doesn't pay anything in draft terms.

We paid nothing for buddy!

[Melbournehammer]

I get a bit peeved at the constant conspiracy theories swans fans have.

The trade ban was made to even the competition. we had an unfair advantage. perhaps it was a necessary unfair advantage as demonstrated by the basket case that brisbane has become. But it was an advantage that only the swans had. The shannon grant anthony rocca situation clearly showed that retention of very good talent was a problem for the northern clubs, but weve had a sequence of good talented players come to us since those days.

since the trade ban was implemented We lost maybe one or two players in consequence but weve picked up two top five players (two players where there was a constant cry of they are so overrated by swans fans before the respective drafts) for bugger all from the academy.

I dont give a rats about the hawks and their trading. They have done exceptionally well and good luck to them. They traded arguably better than us because the key defenders they traded for were the exact players necessary to complement their talented forward line - a forward line of smalls from rookie drafts and late ish picks. they have gone through a coach suffering serious illness, a key forward with serious health issues, the death of a son of their assistant coach and the turnover of their assistant coaches. its time many of you pulled your heads in about the hawks. i hate their fans and their entitlement culture but i also think longmire has it right - its our job to control what we can control and focus on that. be pleased every day that we stole kennedy from them - a player who in my opinion we owe virtually all of our success to over the past 6 seasons. some of you should look at the players that hawthorn has lost over the past five years and stop moaning.

[Maltopia]

I get a bit peeved at the constant conspiracy theories swans fans have.



I don't think it is a conscious conspiracy. The only thing I hold against the Hawks is their thuggery (Mitchell and Hodge trying to hurt players) and Hodge being caught drink driving and having no real consequence for it. Otherwise, they are a very admirable and exceptionally skilled outfit.

The issue many of us have is the trade ban was over the top and also intended or not, painted us out as cheaters. They could have disallowed COLA allowance for incoming players, or even adjusted our salary cap to take into effect we had COLA for existing players and some other clubs didn't. E.g., if it was felt we were "paying" our existing list an extra $500K in COLA, then factor part of that $500K into a loading figure onto any incoming player's salary. E.g., a new player coming in on $400K is counted as $440K for salary cap purposes to "repay" some of that 500K.

Instead we got a penalty (a ban) which should be applied to cheats. A trade ban was totally unnecessary as the salary cap already exists as an equalisation measure.

Based on your logic, GWS after a couple of more years of success from them being able to maximise the benefits from their AFL granted startup concessions should have a trade ban too as an equalisation measure and that will be ok too?

The ban was over the top, unprecedented, and should only have been applied to a team that was cheating the system, not operating within the AFL's own rules.

[Danzar]

I get a bit peeved at the constant conspiracy theories swans fans have.
Trade ban - conspiracy theory because it was clearly an arbitrary call influenced by other Club's gripes about our trade deals and COLA.
Hawks - not a conspiracy, they're just better looked after than most. They won their Premierships on talent, never questioned that.

[longmile]

They won their Premierships on talent, never questioned that.

I agree. The threepeat has been amazing. But this year the umpiring theyve received has got them over the line in at least 3 games. It has been incredibly frustrating and questionable, they don't need any more help.

[AnnieH]

I get a bit peeved at the constant conspiracy theories swans fans have.

The trade ban was made to even the competition. we had an unfair advantage. perhaps it was a necessary unfair advantage as demonstrated by the basket case that brisbane has become. But it was an advantage that only the swans had. The shannon grant anthony rocca situation clearly showed that retention of very good talent was a problem for the northern clubs, but weve had a sequence of good talented players come to us since those days.

since the trade ban was implemented We lost maybe one or two players in consequence but weve picked up two top five players (two players where there was a constant cry of they are so overrated by swans fans before the respective drafts) for bugger all from the academy.

I dont give a rats about the hawks and their trading. They have done exceptionally well and good luck to them. They traded arguably better than us because the key defenders they traded for were the exact players necessary to complement their talented forward line - a forward line of smalls from rookie drafts and late ish picks. they have gone through a coach suffering serious illness, a key forward with serious health issues, the death of a son of their assistant coach and the turnover of their assistant coaches. its time many of you pulled your heads in about the hawks. i hate their fans and their entitlement culture but i also think longmire has it right - its our job to control what we can control and focus on that. be pleased every day that we stole kennedy from them - a player who in my opinion we owe virtually all of our success to over the past 6 seasons. some of you should look at the players that hawthorn has lost over the past five years and stop moaning.

Sorry, but what a load of ....
The trade ban wasn't made to "even the competition". The contracts with Buddy and Tipoff were APPROVED by the AFL, just like EVERY OTHER contract out there.
We copped a trade ban because Eddie is a big fat girly cry baby. Nothing more. Nothing less. It certainly didn't help Collingwood like that fat turd thought it would.
I can't be bothered with the rest of your rant. Seems you have an unhealthy attraction to Hawthorn.
Are you a swans supporter?

[bloodsbigot]

Swans get a couple of good players after 1 measily premiership; we get a trade ban.
Hawks get a couple of good players after 3 umpire assisted premierships (https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/afl/a/27952052/follow-hawks-lead-afl-clubs-urged/), they get a round of applause.

Something is rotten.

[bloodsbigot]

Hawks - not a conspiracy, they're just better looked after than most. They won their Premierships on talent, never questioned that.

Bull@@@@.

They won two or three preliminary finals because of the umpires.

1579

The love for Hawthorn and excuses for them by our own supporters is sickening sometimes. Do you guys even support our club? FFS.

[azzzr]

i thought bigfooty was bad but this thread is up there, i mean i don't like hawk supporters as much as the rest of you and don't get me wrong the trade ban was just a bad decision but " umpire assisted triple premierships " and aiding them to a fourth is a conspiracy theory to far for me :hmmm

[Danzar]

Bull@@@@.

They won two or three preliminary finals because of the umpires.

1579

The love for Hawthorn and excuses for them by our own supporters is sickening sometimes. Do you guys even support our club? FFS.

At any given time in any given season you can be right. My point is the Hawks of 2012 - 2015 were an excellent team and legitimately won their Grand Finals. I'm not saying they were the best team each and every one of those years.

This year, I think that they've gotten to where they are through 55-30-15 of skill-umpiring-luck. That's @@@@@@, particularly so because of their attitude to the game, their opponents and the fans.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jono2707]

I'd put the tin hat away but it looks like I'll be getting it back out again....

[Danzar]

Before anyone argues conspiracy theories either way, it's probably a good idea to define what we mean by that.

I don't see a 'conspiracy' in a Hawks vs Swans context. We should have won our last game, we lost because the umps made mistakes. Before that, we won and lost each time fair and square.

In a Hawks only context, I don't believe there is a conspiracy between umps or the AFL to gift them Premierships. I just don't see it. That doesn't mean they haven't benefited from bias.

In a Swans context, I believe the AFL was directly influenced by some big Victorian clubs into concocting a 'penalty' that would prevent a potential Hawks-style dynasty. That's a conspiracy in my books.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bloods05]

I get a bit peeved at the constant conspiracy theories swans fans have.

The trade ban was made to even the competition. we had an unfair advantage. perhaps it was a necessary unfair advantage as demonstrated by the basket case that brisbane has become. But it was an advantage that only the swans had. The shannon grant anthony rocca situation clearly showed that retention of very good talent was a problem for the northern clubs, but weve had a sequence of good talented players come to us since those days.

since the trade ban was implemented We lost maybe one or two players in consequence but weve picked up two top five players (two players where there was a constant cry of they are so overrated by swans fans before the respective drafts) for bugger all from the academy.

I dont give a rats about the hawks and their trading. They have done exceptionally well and good luck to them. They traded arguably better than us because the key defenders they traded for were the exact players necessary to complement their talented forward line - a forward line of smalls from rookie drafts and late ish picks. they have gone through a coach suffering serious illness, a key forward with serious health issues, the death of a son of their assistant coach and the turnover of their assistant coaches. its time many of you pulled your heads in about the hawks. i hate their fans and their entitlement culture but i also think longmire has it right - its our job to control what we can control and focus on that. be pleased every day that we stole kennedy from them - a player who in my opinion we owe virtually all of our success to over the past 6 seasons. some of you should look at the players that hawthorn has lost over the past five years and stop moaning..

You give the game away when you allege that we had an "unfair advantage". No. We had an advantage, given to us by the AFL as an equalisation measure. If a club is given an advantage, it is entitled to use it. If, at some point, the AFL decides we no longer need that advantage, it is perfectly entitled to remove it.

What it is not entitled to do is to penalise us for using the advantage it gave us. I am certain that is why no coherent explanation of the trade ban was ever provided: because there wasn't one. In the absence of a clear justification, we are well within our rights to speculate about what the real reasons were.

It is absurd to suggest, as you do, that the Swans were doing something wrong. They were working within the rules stipulated by the AFL, and when they used those rules to achieve an outcome that thwarted the AFL's plans for GWS, they threw a tantrum.

That is not a conspiracy theory. It is a reasonable conclusion to draw from the known facts.

[Velour&Ruffles]

I get a bit peeved at the constant conspiracy theories swans fans have.

since the trade ban was implemented We lost maybe one or two players in consequence but weve picked up two top five players (two players where there was a constant cry of they are so overrated by swans fans before the respective drafts) for bugger all from the academy.

I dont give a rats about the hawks and their trading. They have done exceptionally well and good luck to them. They traded arguably better than us

Jesus Christ, with friends like you who needs enemies?

At the risk of stating the effin' obvious (although not to you apparently), it's a lot easier for the Hawks to trade better than the Swans when we are banned from or limited in trading and they are not. Banned/limited for not breaking any rules, but because we "can't have everything". How many premierships in a row constitute "everything" do you reckon? For us it was one. How many premierships do you think it will be for the Hawks before the same rule is applied? They're at three and so far not a peep from Gillon the Eunuch. That's not a conspiracy theory, it's fact. Until that decision is explained, or similar principles are applied to others, it is fair enough for Swans fans to conclude we've been stiffed by vested Victorian interests. But of course it's a bit hard for the AFL to give a cogent explanation or behave consistently when it was really just spiteful vengeance for us recruiting Buddy when they wanted their unloved, unwanted spawn to get him. Funny that the AFL had no problem over recent years with the Hawks recruiting big ticket players like Lake and Frawley from (then) lowly clubs. No "can't have everything" there.

And before you piffle on about COLA, even at its height it was less than the cost of living premium that applies in Sydney. A "level playing field" of everyone having the same cap means we actually have 15-20% less spending power than other clubs. Again, that's an economic fact. Would that be fair? Also, other clubs didn't need to match the COLA component in free agent bidding so it gave us no advantage in getting Buddy. We were just the only ones prepared to be adventurous, offer the 9 years and jettison a raft of mid-range players in one hit to get it done. Anyone else could have done the same. The Toorak Trillionaire just smelled a lobbying opportunity and pounced. He may be vile, but he isn't stupid (except on matters of race and gender politics).

As for the Academy, you seem to think $5 million is "bugger all". I don't. That's what the Swans invested in the Academy based on a certain set of rules being in place. Hawthorn and Collingwood were very happy for us to do it, until the Academy produced two good players after 5 years and $5 million (Heeney and Mills). Apparently we should invest that money but only so long as it is into a black hole that never produces a return. Based on nothing but squealing from the Toorak Trillionaire when it looked as if there finally would be a return, the AFL just changed the rules and therefore - retrospectively - the value of our investment, made in good faith years earlier. In the real world, that's called "sovereign risk" and it puts off investment in countries that do it. The AFL thinks it is a serious business, yet it behaves like a tinpot third world dictatorship. If they thought the Academy was going to be too productive then by all means change the rules from that point on, but changing them with retrospective effect, after serious money has been committed, is just laughable. You just can't do that in real industries ..... and make no mistake, footy is an industry. Thousands of livelihoods depend on it. That's extra money that could have been spent on talent spotters, development coaches, training facilities, all sorts of things. We didn't get the deal we were promised and it was based on nothing but partisan whining and Gillon the Eunuch's inability to say no to the Toorak Trillionaire.

I reckon the Swans should just exit the Academy. The discount is going to be cut again this year. What is the point of devoting major resources to something for years on end if you only get a minor advantage for doing so? Let the AFL reap what it is furiously sowing because it is too spineless to deny Hawthorn and Collingwood anything they lobby for. The wisdom of that approach can be seen in the current state of the Brisbane Lions.

So the facts are we've been the only club hit with a variety of retrospective, arbitrary and unexplained changes all of which have hurt us, all of which have happened in the name of equalisation at a time when ANOTHER CLUB, not us, has been merrily winning a string of premierships and looks like to win another. Sorry, what is our "unfair advantage" exactly?

Maybe you should listen to less MMM.

[barry]

Gills no 1 priority is now a mid season draft. What a dill.

[Bloods05]

Jesus Christ, with friends like you who needs enemies?

At the risk of stating the effin' obvious (although not to you apparently), it's a lot easier for the Hawks to trade better than the Swans when we are banned from or limited in trading and they are not. Banned/limited for not breaking any rules, but because we "can't have everything". How many premierships in a row constitute "everything" do you reckon? For us it was one. How many premierships do you think it will be for the Hawks before the same rule is applied? They're at three and so far not a peep from Gillon the Eunuch. That's not a conspiracy theory, it's fact. Until that decision is explained, or similar principles are applied to others, it is fair enough for Swans fans to conclude we've been stiffed by vested Victorian interests. But of course it's a bit hard for the AFL to give a cogent explanation or behave consistently when it was really just spiteful vengeance for us recruiting Buddy when they wanted their unloved, unwanted spawn to get him. Funny that the AFL had no problem over recent years with the Hawks recruiting big ticket players like Lake and Frawley from (then) lowly clubs. No "can't have everything" there.

And before you piffle on about COLA, even at its height it was less than the cost of living premium that applies in Sydney. A "level playing field" of everyone having the same cap means we actually have 15-20% less spending power than other clubs. Again, that's an economic fact. Would that be fair? Also, other clubs didn't need to match the COLA component in free agent bidding so it gave us no advantage in getting Buddy. We were just the only ones prepared to be adventurous, offer the 9 years and jettison a raft of mid-range players in one hit to get it done. Anyone else could have done the same. The Toorak Trillionaire just smelled a lobbying opportunity and pounced. He may be vile, but he isn't stupid (except on matters of race and gender politics).

As for the Academy, you seem to think $5 million is "bugger all". I don't. That's what the Swans invested in the Academy based on a certain set of rules being in place. Hawthorn and Collingwood were very happy for us to do it, until the Academy produced two good players after 5 years and $5 million (Heeney and Mills). Apparently we should invest that money but only so long as it is into a black hole that never produces a return. Based on nothing but squealing from the Toorak Trillionaire when it looked as if there finally would be a return, the AFL just changed the rules and therefore - retrospectively - the value of our investment, made in good faith years earlier. In the real world, that's called "sovereign risk" and it puts off investment in countries that do it. The AFL thinks it is a serious business, yet it behaves like a tinpot third world dictatorship. If they thought the Academy was going to be too productive then by all means change the rules from that point on, but changing them with retrospective effect, after serious money has been committed, is just laughable. You just can't do that in real industries ..... and make no mistake, footy is an industry. Thousands of livelihoods depend on it. That's extra money that could have been spent on talent spotters, development coaches, training facilities, all sorts of things. We didn't get the deal we were promised and it was based on nothing but partisan whining and Gillon the Eunuch's inability to say no to the Toorak Trillionaire.

I reckon the Swans should just exit the Academy. The discount is going to be cut again this year. What is the point of devoting major resources to something for years on end if you only get a minor advantage for doing so? Let the AFL reap what it is furiously sowing because it is too spineless to deny Hawthorn and Collingwood anything they lobby for. The wisdom of that approach can be seen in the current state of the Brisbane Lions.

So the facts are we've been the only club hit with a variety of retrospective, arbitrary and unexplained changes all of which have hurt us, all of which have happened in the name of equalisation at a time when ANOTHER CLUB, not us, has been merrily winning a string of premierships and looks like to win another. Sorry, what is our "unfair advantage" exactly?

Maybe you should listen to less MMM.
A fine rant. Well said sir (madam?).

[Meg]

V&R said "other clubs didn't need to match the COLA component in free agent bidding". I believe that is actually not correct - they did (according to what was said at the time of the Buddy recruitment). Which in my view was both wrong and unfortunate because it undermined the case for COLA as something that should only be paid in Sydney as an equalisation measure.

[CureTheSane]

On topic, I still seethe at that ban. Unprecedented. My chief concern at the time was the damage it would do to our club in years to come, given the potential impact on maintaining depth. I wonder whether this is partly behind Horse's deliberate strategy to develop as many rookies as we can as fast as we can.

I still hate that they did that to us, with no real valid reason, and got away with it.

Imposing an equally unfair ban on Hawthorn won't make me feel any better.

The positives are that 'maybe' it forced us to work harder with rookies, but likely not. Maybe there were more opportunities for them and they rose to the occasion.

This was all done to death last year. Not sure why we need to rehash it all again. It's history now, and the Swans seem to not have been too damaged by it.

[KTigers]

I was always slightly bemused during the whole COLA ruckus that it was rarely mentioned that COLA stood for Cost Of Living Allowance. My understanding is that it was brought in to even up the playing field for Sydney by helping them get players that might be dissuaded from moving here partly because of the high cost of living here compared to other cities. I could never see the problem with it. It really does cost more to live in Sydney than elsewhere in Australia. A footy player with the average expected career span of five or six years on the average AFL salary can't afford to buy a decent house here. They just don't make enough money. The dismantling of COLA was a result of a bandwagon started by Melbourne clubs griping. The trade ban was outrageous, and completely unprecedented. But really these things just serve to remind many of us long-term footy fans in Sydney just how Melbourne centric the whole comp is.
The media bias I expect, but the AFL hierarchy is meant to be impartial and they are meant to run the Australian Football League, not the Victorian Football League. The start up draft concessions given to get GWS rolling have produced one of the most exciting teams to watch in decades, but can the Giants get much more seven thousand of their own fans and a thousand bored Swans members to watch them every week? There are 2.5M people living in western Sydney and because the incompetent AFL hierarchy and organisation can't see past the end of Punt Road the opportunity to reach these people will likely be lost. All this conspiracy banter is just that, banter. I'm sure some of the umpires are quasi football groupies and end up favouring some players over others. That is just a common aspect of human nature. But I don't think they are all secretly texting each other before the Hawthorn games to make sure Hodgey and Cyril get plenty of free kicks. If we (the Swans) had actually turned up mentally for the 2014 GF we probably would have won, and the four-peat/conspiracy theory never would have got started in the first place.
The haphazard development of junior footy in Sydney, the lack of traction in the community GWS are getting, the Sydney bashing from certain Melbourne footy blowhards, not to mention the appalling treatment of Sydney's Adam Goodes and his lack of support from the AFL hierarchy are just some of things that partly occur because the code is so Melbourne focused.

[bloodsbigot]

My point is the Hawks of 2012 - 2015 were an excellent team and legitimately won their Grand Finals. I'm not saying they were the best team each and every one of those years.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No they bloody well didn't. If you call that Preliminary Final of theirs 'legitimate' in 2014 you're just as bad as a Hawks supporter. They shouldn't have even been in the Grand Final with us in the first place. It should have been us and Port.

- - - Updated - - -


I'd put the tin hat away but it looks like I'll be getting it back out again....

Closet Hawks supporter I suppose.

They trot out that line every bloody time to kill a legitimate argument.

- - - Updated - - -


I was always slightly bemused during the whole COLA ruckus that it was rarely mentioned that COLA stood for Cost Of Living Allowance. My understanding is that it was brought in to even up the playing field for Sydney by helping them get players that might be dissuaded from moving here partly because of the high cost of living here compared to other cities.

We weren't over the cap to begin with. Wanna talk conspiracies? Look at Hawks supporters and all their dribble about us being over the cap in 2012. How in the holy hell did we manage to get Tippett and Buddy if we were over the cap?

[Industrial Fan]

He didn't say we were over the cap.

In my discussions with footy fans in Melbourne they seem to think that players play for hawthorn for less money to win flags, they play for us for $.

That's the way the message is spun which is hard to combat whether it's true or not. As per above I blame free agency that a player can say I want to go to XYZ club to win a premiership - with an equal competition that should be more than one destination.

[KTigers]

BB, calm down mate. I think we're all mostly on the same page here. It's just the use of the word conspiracy that is causing a few divisions. A bunch of Hawthorn supporting boofheads sooking about Buddy leaving, when really the bloke mostly just wanted to live in Sydney with his girlfriend, wouldn't normally qualify as constituting a conspiracy. How on earth would they know if a team is over the cap. Most of them don't know what day it is. I don't know the circumstances of Hawthorn's prelim win over Port in 2014, so I can't really comment on that. My general point is that the ongoing Melbourne centric-ness (not really a word I know) of the AFL means that teams and the code in general in the non traditional footy states of NSW & QLD continue to suffer. The Swans are big boys and they will pull through, but GWS and all of QLD I'm not so sure about.

[barry]

The AFL will look at the record membership of the swans and say the trade ban was a success.

[mcs]

No they bloody well didn't. If you call that Preliminary Final of theirs 'legitimate' in 2014 you're just as bad as a Hawks supporter. They shouldn't have even been in the Grand Final with us in the first place. It should have been us and Port.

- - - Updated - - -



Closet Hawks supporter I suppose.

They trot out that line every bloody time to kill a legitimate argument.

- - - Updated - - -



We weren't over the cap to begin with. Wanna talk conspiracies? Look at Hawks supporters and all their dribble about us being over the cap in 2012. How in the holy hell did we manage to get Tippett and Buddy if we were over the cap?

The revisionist history around 2012 from fans of certain teams is astounding. The way they talk its like we were a team full of superstars, not a champion team that punched way above its weight to win the flag. Over the cap hahaha keep dreaming you donkeys.

There is one thing almost all wees and poos fans will take to their grave - a massive chip on their shoulder about the 'stolen' 2012 cup. It wont matter how many they win a row, 2012 will still gnaw at them :)

[dimelb]

Bloods05 and Velour&Ruffles, ably assisted by KTigers, you have penned some of the best vituperation I've ever read on this site, and every comment rings true. It deserves a wider readership.

[longmile]

The grand final will probably end up with Cyril kicking a goal from the goal square after the siren to win by a point after a free kick that wasn't even there

[aardvark]

The AFL will look at the record membership of the swans and say the trade ban was a success.

Well if you want to look at it that way they'd be right.:wink:

[bloodsbigot]

There is one thing almost all wees and poos fans will take to their grave - a massive chip on their shoulder about the 'stolen' 2012 cup. It wont matter how many they win a row, 2012 will still gnaw at them :)

I'm not satisfied with 2012 and how much it'll eat away at them. Or even 'stealing' Buddy away.

I want the swans to leave a permanent dent in their souls.

God I hate that football club and their bandwagon pack of moron supporters. It's goes way beyond 2005-08 West Coast hatred. It's incredibly personal.

[bloodsbigot]

My general point is that the ongoing Melbourne centric-ness (not really a word I know) of the AFL means that teams and the code in general in the non traditional footy states of NSW & QLD continue to suffer. The Swans are big boys and they will pull through, but GWS and all of QLD I'm not so sure about.

This annoys me too and I get annoyed by old South supporters getting so defensive about our NSW supporters complaining that the league is too Victorian. All this Victorian-pride stuff is just crap. I'm from Victoria too and never actually lived in Sydney, but this goes beyond any stupid state-rivalry stuff, it's our club we're talking about here for Gods sake. I'd piss on the big V jumper if it meant giving us more premierships. State of Origin is dead and the world is getting smaller. I'm amazed that anyone even gives a damn about an imaginary border separating two land masses.

We're all Australian. Screw tradition. It's not VFL anymore. It's the AUSTRALIAN Football League and we are playing AUSTRALIAN football. High-time the AFL started treating it that way and if they want to be seen as a legitimate national competition rather than some expanded suburban comp.

/rant

[BRISWAN]

Yes we were banned/limited with our trading��.

But, why do you think that the Swans basically accepted it without too much fuss ?????
A fine rant. Well said sir (madam?).

[barry]

The only reason i can think of is they saw heeney and mills coming.

In reality we only missed out on patful and he hasn't set the world on fire at GWS.

[Meg]

Yes we were banned/limited with our trading��.

But, why do you think that the Swans basically accepted it without too much fuss ?????

Because we didn't have salary cap space to be in the market to any significant extent anyway year 1, and year 2 we were also very limited but got the ban relaxed enough to be able to achieve the Jetta /Sinclair trade. That's the irony - the AFL panicked and slapped on the trade ban on the basis of ridiculous rumours about us being in the market for highly paid players such as Frawley & Ryder when the reality was this was never on as we could not afford them. Patfull is the one player we may have wanted but missed due to the ban, and our defence line is doing just fine without him.

I too remain angry about the discrimination and attack on the Swans integrity implied by the trade ban. But I don't think it had much effect in terms of our eventual list of players.

[56-14]

Because we didn't have salary cap space to be in the market to any significant extent anyway year 1, and year 2 we were also very limited but got the ban relaxed enough to be able to achieve the Jetta /Sinclair trade. That's the irony - the AFL panicked and slapped on the trade ban on the basis of ridiculous rumours about us being in the market for highly paid players such as Frawley & Ryder when the reality was this was never on as we could not afford them. Patfull is the one player we may have wanted but missed due to the ban, and our defence line is doing just fine without him.

I too remain angry about the discrimination and attack on the Swans integrity implied by the trade ban. But I don't think it had much effect in terms of our eventual list of players.

Thanks Meg. Great post. Clarifies the situation for me.
(Hope we can all move on.)

[dimelb]

This annoys me too and I get annoyed by old South supporters getting so defensive about our NSW supporters complaining that the league is too Victorian. All this Victorian-pride stuff is just crap. �

bloodsbigot, do you really hear very much of this nonsense? I grew up in NSW, have lived in Melbourne since 1990 and have had plenty of opportunity to hear it but never have. The locals I see all seem to love the club and see it as the old show in a new venue, and several, like yourself, are critical of the AFL's shenanigans.

[Go Swannies]

I'm not satisfied with 2012 and how much it'll eat away at them. Or even 'stealing' Buddy away.

I want the swans to leave a permanent dent in their souls.

God I hate that football club and their bandwagon pack of moron supporters. It's goes way beyond 2005-08 West Coast hatred. It's incredibly personal.

After the moronic drunken Hawks fans we had behind us during the 2014 GF (we left early) I feel the same. I hit the mute when any of them or their coach is on TV. And I only confessed at the game yesterday that I'm even happier when the Hawks lose than when the Swans win. That makes this an awesome weekend.

I've said I'll never attend another Hawks home game - including a Grand Final - but that resolve may be tested sooner than I'd like. I just hope they lose one more game this season then lose their sudden death final.

Sudden death . . . now there's a pleasing idea. Would Donald Trump be up to nuking the HFC as a gesture of strength?

[dejavoodoo44]

After the moronic drunken Hawks fans we had behind us during the 2014 GF (we left early) I feel the same. I hit the mute when any of them or their coach is on TV. And I only confessed at the game yesterday that I'm even happier when the Hawks lose than when the Swans win. That makes this an awesome weekend.

I've said I'll never attend another Hawks home game - including a Grand Final - but that resolve may be tested sooner than I'd like. I just hope they lose one more game this season then lose their sudden death final.

Sudden death . . . now there's a pleasing idea. Would Donald Trump be up to nuking the HFC as a gesture of strength?

Personally, I suspect that if Trump were to choose a team, it would be the mustard on turd.
'They're winners, I'm a winner. All the rest of youse are losers'.

[bloodsbigot]

After the moronic drunken Hawks fans we had behind us during the 2014 GF (we left early) I feel the same. I hit the mute when any of them or their coach is on TV. And I only confessed at the game yesterday that I'm even happier when the Hawks lose than when the Swans win. That makes this an awesome weekend.

I've said I'll never attend another Hawks home game - including a Grand Final - but that resolve may be tested sooner than I'd like. I just hope they lose one more game this season then lose their sudden death final.

Sudden death . . . now there's a pleasing idea. Would Donald Trump be up to nuking the HFC as a gesture of strength?

I can say without jest that if any football club went folded tomorrow, I'd feel a bit bad for them. Even for clubs like Collingwood, Essendon and Carlton. Because love em or hate em they've got rich history and I feel they have a lot of dormant fans.

Hawthorn on the other hand, I'd seriously be celebrating. Legitimately. You wouldn't be able to wipe the smile off my face. Wouldn't have pity. It would be joy.

The hollow shell club is what I like to call them.

- - - Updated - - -


bloodsbigot, do you really hear very much of this nonsense? I grew up in NSW, have lived in Melbourne since 1990 and have had plenty of opportunity to hear it but never have. The locals I see all seem to love the club and see it as the old show in a new venue, and several, like yourself, are critical of the AFL's shenanigans.

I occasionally hear and read about it. Particularly when it comes to things like playing a Grand Final in Melbourne. They get defensive about it in the name of 'tradition.' Not 'all' mind you, but it does annoy me if someone says it. It's not as prevalent as I made it out to be, but it happens.

[AnnieH]

Yes we were banned/limited with our trading��.

But, why do you think that the Swans basically accepted it without too much fuss ?????

Are you saying that we are guilty of something?
The club didn't accept it "without too much fuss".
They fought to have it overturned... although, personally, I would have grabbed one of the free QCs on offer and fought it in the courts.
Are you a swans fan, or not?

[bungwahl]

Yes we were banned/limited with our trading��.

But, why do you think that the Swans basically accepted it without too much fuss ?????

Because we were attempting to fight a dictatorship?

If the AFL was not aiming to deliberately hinder Sydney and seriously just wanted Sydney's TPP to decrease faster than the planned phase out period, then why did they remove the ability to trade? Surely trading is the primary list management tool that the Swans could have used to reduce their TPP?

[CureTheSane]

I've said since the start that there was something not right in the way that the Swans were so passive.
I was well with Annie and legal action.
Seemed like a no brainer and an easy win.
A possibility is that we did something wrong at some point, and it wasn't in the AFL's best interests for it to get out, but they threatened that if we proceeded legally.
Complete speculation of course, but we are forced to make these assumptions when the club quietly does very little to stand up for themselves.

Possibly more likely is that the Swans were concerned about the lasting effects of embarrassing the AFL and making them look petty and silly, and the spite which may follow.

[Ludwig]

I've said since the start that there was something not right in the way that the Swans were so passive.
I equate the Swans' position to that of going through airport security. The AFL demand submissiveness under the threat of unknown and inexplicable punishment. If you protest too much, you might get locked up in a room never to be seen again. It may seem as if there is right of appeal, but in reality, there isn't.

[bungwahl]

I've said since the start that there was something not right in the way that the Swans were so passive.
I was well with Annie and legal action.
Seemed like a no brainer and an easy win.
A possibility is that we did something wrong at some point, and it wasn't in the AFL's best interests for it to get out, but they threatened that if we proceeded legally.
Complete speculation of course, but we are forced to make these assumptions when the club quietly does very little to stand up for themselves.

Possibly more likely is that the Swans were concerned about the lasting effects of embarrassing the AFL and making them look petty and silly, and the spite which may follow.

In terms of the application of COLA it was literally impossible for us to do anything wrong as it was a standard loading applied to each contract, which were then signed off by the AFL.

The AFL were simply afraid of the backlash they'd incur if Sydney won another flag whilst COLA was still in play and off the back of recruiting Tippett and Franklin.

It's funny how Hawthorn are seen as having totally dominated the current era, yet their closest rival has been hampered by unjust restrictions for the majority of that time.

[AnnieH]

Yes we were banned/limited with our trading��.

But, why do you think that the Swans basically accepted it without too much fuss ?????

Why do YOU think that the swans basically accepted it without too much fuss?

[BRISWAN]

Why do YOU think that the swans basically accepted it without too much fuss?
As per Megs post which seems to give me the most comfort
Ill move on from that and now look forward
Go Bloods !!

[BRISWAN]

Are you saying that we are guilty of something?
The club didn't accept it "without too much fuss".
They fought to have it overturned... although, personally, I would have grabbed one of the free QCs on offer and fought it in the courts.
Are you a swans fan, or not?
Annie�..you read too much into things

By the way, Ive been aSwans fan for over 60 years !!!!!!!!

[CureTheSane]

In terms of the application of COLA it was literally impossible for us to do anything wrong as it was a standard loading applied to each contract, which were then signed off by the AFL.



Wasn't thinking in terms of COLA.
Possibly some other area. Players with drugs maybe? :D

[bungwahl]

Wasn't thinking in terms of COLA.
Possibly some other area. Players with drugs maybe? :D

That's one of the longer bows I've ever seen drawn. If the AFL wanted to cover up a drug story the last thing they'd do is randomly ban a club from trading and bring attention to that club.

[CureTheSane]

Settle down and look at the smilie face. :)

[Doctor]

The Swans did admit that they didn't fight it hard enough early on.

[56-14]

BRISWAN - I too got a better understanding from Meg's post.
I think AnnieH should read it. (And also not condemn posts with "Are you a swans fan, or not?")
Like the fact that you've been a Swans fan for over 60 years - it beats me, I became one in 1956.

[Meg]

The Swans did admit that they didn't fight it hard enough early on.

Yes they did say something like that last year. It seemed to me, partly from what was said at the time, that they formed that view for two reasons:

1. because they realised from feedback how much anger the ban had caused amongst Swans' members and supporters and that the optics of not fighting the ban had caused a lot of angst;

2. when they knew Jetta was leaving and they wanted to get a fair trade - which they were able to achieve by getting the ban modified.

[BRISWAN]

BRISWAN - I too got a better understanding from Meg's post.
I think AnnieH should read it. (And also not condemn posts with "Are you a swans fan, or not?")
Like the fact that you've been a Swans fan for over 60 years - it beats me, I became one in 1956.
Thanks�..we are all in this together !!!!!
Go Bloods

[AnnieH]

Yes they did say something like that last year. It seemed to me, partly from what was said at the time, that they formed that view for two reasons:

1. because they realised from feedback how much anger the ban had caused amongst Swans' members and supporters and that the optics of not fighting the ban had caused a lot of angst;

2. when they knew Jetta was leaving and they wanted to get a fair trade - which they were able to achieve by getting the ban modified.

"Modified".
The ban (for doing nothing wrong) should have been fully reversed. It was wrong, and it will always be wrong... just like the wet coke's tainted cup. Forever tarnished.
There are idiots out there who STILL think we did something wrong. We used COLA to pay for Buddy, etc., etc., when it was proven that we didn't.
It still pisses me off to this day that we didn't take it to court.
We had QC members offer their services for free... it was a lay-down misere, and management passed and said no, we'll do this gently, gently in case someone gets offended.
All they did was offend our intelligence.

[crackedactor]

"Modified".
The ban (for doing nothing wrong) should have been fully reversed. It was wrong, and it will always be wrong... just like the wet coke's tainted cup. Forever tarnished.
There are idiots out there who STILL think we did something wrong. We used COLA to pay for Buddy, etc., etc., when it was proven that we didn't.
It still pisses me off to this day that we didn't take it to court.
We had QC members offer their services for free... it was a lay-down misere, and management passed and said no, we'll do this gently, gently in case someone gets offended.
All they did was offend our intelligence.

It was a disgrace on how and why it happened- But going to court is never an option. The AFL have a long memory and they would have found some way to pay us back.

[CureTheSane]

"Modified".
All they did was offend our intelligence.

The way the Swans handled it all, offended many supporters.

[Untamed Snark]

It was a disgrace on how and why it happened- But going to court is never an option. The AFL have a long memory and they would have found some way to pay us back.

I think this basically sums it up.
The afl have shown they can be vindictive

[Maltopia]

It was a disgrace on how and why it happened- But going to court is never an option. The VFL have a long memory and they would have found some way to pay us back.

Corrected for you :)