So where's Hawthorn's trade ban?

[bloodsbigot]

Will they get a trade ban now, AFL?

[RogueSwan]

Will they get a trade ban now, AFL?

Of course not, they are a Victorian team. I do hope they take an extra hard look at their payroll.

[CureTheSane]

Can't see how you can complain about the Swans trade ban, and how unfair and wrong it is, and then call for a trade ban for the Hawks.
Of course there should be equity for all teams, but COLA will be a reason constantly (wrongly) given for what happened to the Swans.

[ScottH]

It is strange though that when a team has continued success like this, then salary cap issues usually force the club to relinquish a few players.
Hasn't seemed to happen to the Hawks. Yet.

[AnnieH]

I know it won't happen, but I'd love to see the VFL do an audit on their books.
They audit the lesser teams for no apparent reason.

[cartman48]

It is strange though that when a team has continued success like this, then salary cap issues usually force the club to relinquish a few players.
Hasn't seemed to happen to the Hawks. Yet.

Lance Franklin ring any bells? Xavier Ellis, Matt Suckling, Clinton Young, Ben McGlynn, Shane Savage, Josh Kennedy, Kyle Cheney among others in the last 7-8 years, The Hawks won't receive a trade ban as they never had an advantage to issue the ban against, the ban on the Swans was actually an option, they could have lost there COLA in one hit or they could face a ban and keep a reducing COLA over a few years (you would think the same rules would have been applied to GWS to be fair). The Swans didn't have a choice as they had already spent some of the money in that COLA additional 10% so they were forced to sit out last year and be limited this year. I don't agree with the ban against the Swans but calling for that ban to be forced upon a team purely due to there success is farcical. Also - the highest paid Hawk would be on less that the top 3 paid Swans per season.

[AnnieH]

Lance Franklin ring any bells? Xavier Ellis, Matt Suckling, Clinton Young, Ben McGlynn, Shane Savage, Josh Kennedy, Kyle Cheney among others in the last 7-8 years, The Hawks won't receive a trade ban as they never had an advantage to issue the ban against, the ban on the Swans was actually an option, they could have lost there COLA in one hit or they could face a ban and keep a reducing COLA over a few years (you would think the same rules would have been applied to GWS to be fair). The Swans didn't have a choice as they had already spent some of the money in that COLA additional 10% so they were forced to sit out last year and be limited this year. I don't agree with the ban against the Swans but calling for that ban to be forced upon a team purely due to there success is farcical. Also - the highest paid Hawk would be on less that the top 3 paid Swans per season.

Ummmmmmmmmm.
For the five-hundredth time.... the Swans had not "already spent some of the money in that COLA".
The COLA is a payment that is made directly from the AFL.
The swans DO NOT make this payment.

In other news.....

[cartman48]

Ummmmmmmmmm.
For the five-hundredth time.... the Swans had not "already spent some of the money in that COLA".
The COLA is a payment that is made directly from the AFL.
The swans DO NOT make this payment.

In other news.....

Yes but it is written into players contracts (there is a clause that doesn't guarantee it going forward) but if your employer came to you and said sorry we have to dock you 10% per year every year you would be pretty unhappy I would imagine?

[Meg]

Annie, that's actually not correct. The AFL provide the money to the Swans but the Swans pay the players. During all the hoo-ha about COLA a couple of years ago Ireland said, to remove all the suspicion about COLA being all directed to one or two players, it would be better if the AFL paid it directly (and not through the Swans) but the AFL never responded publicly to that suggestion.

However I agree Cartman's comment that the Swans had "already spent some of the money in that COLA" is a bit misleading. What is the case (and perhaps what he meant) is that the Swans had contracts in place which meant they were legally bound to pay $800,000 in total in COLA payments in 2015 and $600,000 in 2016. So to suddenly tell the Swans after months of discussion that those payments would have to be met by the Swans within the salary cap if the Swans engaged in the trade period was a breach of the AFL's original commitment to phase out COLA over two years. (And at the time of the original announcement even McGuire conceded a phase-out period was justified.) Clearly it was impossible for the Swans to be able to absorb the COLA payments overnight so the use of the term 'trade ban' is totally appropriate.

But interestingly the AFL is now paying the accommodation subsidy directly to players. Better arrangement for all parties in my view.

[ScottH]

Lance Franklin ring any bells? Xavier Ellis, Matt Suckling, Clinton Young, Ben McGlynn, Shane Savage, Josh Kennedy, Kyle Cheney among others in the last 7-8 years, The Hawks won't receive a trade ban as they never had an advantage to issue the ban against, the ban on the Swans was actually an option, they could have lost there COLA in one hit or they could face a ban and keep a reducing COLA over a few years (you would think the same rules would have been applied to GWS to be fair). The Swans didn't have a choice as they had already spent some of the money in that COLA additional 10% so they were forced to sit out last year and be limited this year. I don't agree with the ban against the Swans but calling for that ban to be forced upon a team purely due to there success is farcical. Also - the highest paid Hawk would be on less that the top 3 paid Swans per season.

Franklin wanted out. The hawks didn't off load him.
And most of the rest were little knowns when they were traded out.

[cartman48]

Annie, that's actually not correct. The AFL provide the money to the Swans but the Swans pay the players. During all the hoo-ha about COLA a couple of years ago Ireland said, to remove all the suspicion about COLA being all directed to one or two players, it would be better if the AFL paid it directly (and not through the Swans) but the AFL never responded publicly to that suggestion.

However I agree Cartman's comment that the Swans had "already spent some of the money in that COLA" is a bit misleading. What is the case (and perhaps what he meant) is that the Swans had contracts in place which meant they were legally bound to pay $800,000 in total in COLA payments in 2015 and $600,000 in 2016. So to suddenly tell the Swans after months of discussion that those payments would have to be met by the Swans within the salary cap if the Swans engaged in the trade period was a breach of the AFL's original commitment to phase out COLA over two years. (And at the time of the original announcement even McGuire conceded a phase-out period was justified.) Clearly it was impossible for the Swans to be able to absorb the COLA payments overnight so the use of the term 'trade ban' is totally appropriate.


You stated it much better than I did but yes that is what I meant.

[cartman48]

Franklin wanted out. The hawks didn't off load him.
And most of the rest were little knowns when they were traded out.

Yes Lance wanted out but Hawthorn had saved 1.1 million a season for him which was then spent elsewhere.
McGlynn & Kennedy were wanted but the Hawks were bursting with Mids and at the seems in terms of salary cap and effectively let them walk for very little. Lake & Hale were retired this year as cap space is tight, same for Suckling going, his offer from the WB's was a lot higher than Hawthorn's offer.