soupman
14-10-2014, 09:15 AM
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-news/afl-trade-2014-afl-bans-sydney-swans-from-trading-players-in-20141009-113sba.html#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?
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-news/afl-trade-2014-afl-bans-sydney-swans-from-trading-players-in-20141009-113sba.html#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?