Sydney Banned From Trading In

[soupman]

Haven't seen this elsewhere, which is understandable seeing as we have dominated headlines.

Sydney has been told it cannot trade any players into the club this year or next unless the club is prepared to bring about an immediate end to the cost of living allowance.
The Swans are extremely unhappy with the AFL directive, which also prevents the club from recruiting any restricted or unrestricted free agents until the end of the 2016 season.
It means the club will only be able to replace a player who retires or seeks a trade out of the club with a draft pick or picks.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-new...#ixzz3G48Hzigr

Anyone else think this is ridiculous and unfair? That Sydney are penalised really harshly for still paying COLA even though they are well within their rights to until it has been phased out?

I'm also not sure how GWS escape

Greater Western Sydney has not been similarly restricted, with the league advising the club that "due to its Total Player Payment position, list structure and contractual commitments, it would be permitted to retain the COLA levels at $800,000 for the 2015 year and $600,000 for the 2016 year," with no trade or free agency bans.

I understand they have a slightly larger list, but beyond that I would imagine Sydney's "Total Player Payment position, list structure and contractual commitments" would be equally affected.

I hate Sydney and the COLA, but can someone explain to me how this isn't bullshit and completely unfair?

[GVGjr]

Re: Sydney Banned From Trading In

Simply speaking it's very wrong and unfair.

[Twodogs]

Re: Sydney Banned From Trading In

But doesn't it make up for all the other unfair advantages Sydney have enjoyed thus far?

[GVGjr]

Re: Sydney Banned From Trading In

But doesn't it make up for all the other unfair advantages Sydney have enjoyed thus far?

That's why the AFL have done it. Does this challenge the notion of two wrongs not making anything right?

[Bornadog]

Re: Sydney Banned From Trading In

That's why the AFL have done it. Does this challenge the notion of two wrongs not making anything right?

The AFL has created the situation originally without thinking it through and now in trying to correct it, they have done the same ie knee jerk reaction.

[soupman]

Re: Sydney Banned From Trading In

But doesn't it make up for all the other unfair advantages Sydney have enjoyed thus far?

In a ridiculous, contrived and completely unfair fashion.

COLA is bullshit, and its being phased out. Rightly so.

However Sydney should not be penalised for using the agreed timeframe to phase it out.

The AFL basically coming out at the very start of trade week and telling them "oh yeah, you guys can't recruit anyone until you stop using that extra money we allowed and encouraged you to use" with barely a hint that this was going to occur. It's pathetically amateur from a sporting body that fancies itself as the biggest and best in the country.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Sydney Banned From Trading In

I'd be surprised if there isn't some sort of legal challenge to do this ban. Bringing it in over 12+ months - fine. Announcing it during trade period - you've got to be joking.

[Greystache]

Re: Sydney Banned From Trading In

This makes me suspect that even despite their COLA allowance Sydney is paying well over the salary cap and the AFL knows it. The AFL has brought in this condition to manage the public image and reduce the likelihood a group of clubs will demand and independent audit of their player payments.

Recent acquisitions Franklin & Tippett are on $2mil between them, and it's come out that recent trade targets Mitchell & Reid are on $1mil between them. That's $3mil between 4 players, 1 of which is playing reserves, and another is the 4th string forward, but somehow we're expected to believe the rest of their list including Jack, Kennedy, Goodes, Richards, McVeigh, Shaw, Hannebery, and Jetta all fit into the leftover.

It's nonsense, they're paying their players absolute top dollar across the list and would be millions over the cap. The AFL wouldn't bring in an adhoc ruling against one team if they weren't blatantly break the rules.

[Ghost Dog]

Re: Sydney Banned From Trading In

The AFL dropped the ball on the supplements scandal. They know this and are trying desperately to avoid any more PR car wrecks.

[Twodogs]

Re: Sydney Banned From Trading In

In a ridiculous, contrived and completely unfair fashion.

COLA is bullshit, and its being phased out. Rightly so.

However Sydney should not be penalised for using the agreed timeframe to phase it out.

The AFL basically coming out at the very start of trade week and telling them "oh yeah, you guys can't recruit anyone until you stop using that extra money we allowed and encouraged you to use" with barely a hint that this was going to occur. It's pathetically amateur from a sporting body that fancies itself as the biggest and best in the country.

I agree. I'm just cheering the AFL on from the cheap seats out of spite for Sydney.

If they had done it to us, I'd be all for a HC challenge and getting an injunction to stop the other club's trading until it was sorted.

[Twodogs]

Re: Sydney Banned From Trading In

That's why the AFL have done it. Does this challenge the notion of two wrongs not making anything right?

The AFL could also say they are correcting an in balance that has occurred due to the COLA being incorrectly used. Which is what I think this is.