If the Swans followed the standard script for AFL clubs on the eve of finals, they would be pushing for a two-match ban for the players who have caused such embarrassment to the club, the game and themselves.
Expediency and the necessity of retaining their gun players would win out if they followed the old template.
Quietly, a modern version of “boys will be boys” would be whispered. The club would fight and lawyer up to ensure that their foolish four or five would play, at worst, in the second week of the finals (not counting the wildcard games).
But this is not the vibe that is wafting out of Swans headquarters or the AFL. At no stage have excuses or justifications been peddled in an attempt to minimise the damage.
At no stage have they, or the AFL, disparaged or blamed the women who were in the hotel room when the alleged incident occurred that has led to a police investigation for a possible sexual assault.
The Swans are incensed by the gigantic own goal that the players have scored in the social realm – the ramifications of which go well beyond the finals and the impact on that campaign.
We should take them at their word.
Their statement to media, issued before the Tuesday-night board meeting that would shape their proposed sanctions, did not read well for those hoping for a convenient two-game ban.
One could be misreading it, but the language used suggested that the players would be missing for more than two games. This column does not promote gambling, but if the betting agencies placed the line at two matches, I’d be taking overs.
The Swans said they believe the players “are in serious breach of expected club behaviour and standards”, foreshadowing “firm action”. They made plain that sanctions would be entirely separate from the police investigation, which is ongoing, with no arrests or charges laid.
Two matches, including a dead rubber in round 24, would hardly cut it as “firm action”.
The statement added: “The club also acknowledges that these serious allegations impact others and their wellbeing must be paramount.
“The Sydney Swans condemn all forms of abuse and disrespectful behaviour towards women. Any conduct that causes offence or harm to others is unacceptable and falls well short of our expectations. All women deserve to be respected and feel safe.”
The statement’s concern for Sydney’s AFLW players and program was telling.
“We also want to acknowledge that the care and welfare of our AFLW athletes and staff is of the utmost importance to us as a club,” the club continued. “They have been and will continue to be offered the support they require and we acknowledge the impact these allegations have on our female athletes, staff members and the wider community.”
The words deployed by the Swans don’t sound at all like a club that is focusing only on finals.
The impression is that they are thinking beyond the immediate horizon of September, that they understand the deeper ramifications to their club’s reputation, to its cultural foundations, and that respect for women isn’t simply a convenient platitude for government funding and sponsors.
Further, their statement accorded with that of AFL chief executive Andrew Dillon, who has been dealing with both Sydney CEO Matthew Pavlich and the club’s experienced chairman Andrew Pridham since the police investigation detonated on Monday.
Tom Harley, the AFL senior executive who handles integrity and immediate past CEO of the Swans, is doubtless another important figure in the dialogue between his former club and the league.
In scandals past, the AFL has hovered over clubs, prodding and pushing them to swallow suspensions.
This time, the Swans and the AFL seem as aligned as a club and league can be in a stressful scenario for both parties.
Keep up to date with the best AFL coverage in the country. Sign up for the Real Footy newsletter.
Jake Niall is a Walkley award-winning sports journalist and chief AFL writer for The Age.Connect via X or email.