Andrew Ireland - "Carlton haven't won too many flags without cheating the cap"

[BM123]

We didn't bring in Buddy for SFA. We traded 4 senior players to free up cap room, and signed him as a free agent along with 2 guys that would be getting comparative peanuts, and an elevated rookie.

Huh? You guys actually wanted to keep Mumford, Lamb and Everitt which suggests that you had money to spare.

 

[MightyHawks]

2012 P'ship still is fantastic to watch.



Your blokes are dropping like flies & your club still has to pay them out for all the games they are missing.
Rioli can't go to the midfield because his hamstrings will pop so you have an overpaid forward that can't go full pace & can only play limitedgame time.
How long is he signed up for?

All players on every team's lists can face the same as Buddy.
Ireland said when we got Buddy that he was well worth the risk.
I'll take his word over anyone's on here.

After the Kouta tragedy when he suffered a serious injury after signing a 5 year contract, and the Voss debacle where Brisbane were paying him 15% of their salary cap in a year he didn't play a game, teams have been more conservative on length of contracts and player payments

Cyril is signed to the end of 2017 which seems a reasonable timeframe for a star player at his age - they'll probably look to extend it during the 2015 season

Hawthorn couldn't possibly sign Buddy to 9 years because if he had a career ending injury the AFL would say "you made your bed so lie in it". Will be interesting to see whether the AFL enforce the rules if Buddy was to suffer a career ending injury or "shock retirement" before the 9 years has expired

 

[Tedeski]

After the Kouta tragedy when he suffered a serious injury after signing a 5 year contract, and the Voss debacle where Brisbane were paying him 15% of their salary cap in a year he didn't play a game, teams have been more conservative on length of contracts and player payments

Cyril is signed to the end of 2017 which seems a reasonable timeframe for a star player at his age - they'll probably look to extend it during the 2015 season

Hawthorn couldn't possibly sign Buddy to 9 years because if he had a career ending injury the AFL would say "you made your bed so lie in it". Will be interesting to see whether the AFL enforce the rules if Buddy was to suffer a career ending injury or "shock retirement" before the 9 years has expired

The risk we have taken with Buddy is no worse then Melbourne, Richmond, Carlton, North, St Kilda etc, etc, repeatedly sacking coaches over the years, well short of their contracts ending, only to sign new coaches on bigger contracts. They then cry poor because they are financially struggling & get given a lump sum AFL assisted handout. Bulldogs just received $3M last year as Ireland said yesterday.
It's all a bit rich as a loyal Swan supporter to have to read unbalanced posts with comments such as what I have highlighted above. Are we not allowed any help should we make our first off field mistake in 20 years. That attitude stinks. Vic clubs are allowed to make poor decisions knowing full well that if they fail, because they are an old club from the VFL days, then it is their god given right to be given a handout to help cover the funds lost by those incompetent decisions.

Anyway, Cyril is a gun & as a club the Hawks will take the good with the bad & we all know that he only needs 2 minutes in a game to turn it on it's head.
He is a winner so I was just trying to make a point that all clubs make educated decisions on players. We win some & we lose some. The upside in having Buddy for even 5 years far outweighs any down side that may come our way should he break down early.

If he doesn't play in those last few years (I don't expect him to in his last 3 years by the way) then we have to wear the cost but it at least will be a smaller percentage of our total salary cap bearing in mind that the cap will probably be some $15 to $16M by then. But as a club, if we are struggling financially, then just like every other team in our comp, we are more than entitled to some AFL assistance.
Anyone saying & thinking otherwise is just being arrogant!

 

[J_Moore]

S
There's no question the COLA is a rort and so is the NSW cash given to Goodes & Jack

There you go again.

I have a question about the NSW cash given to Goodes & Jack. How much is it, exactly, and what do they need to do to receive it?

 

[MightyHawks]

The risk we have taken with Buddy is no worse then Melbourne, Richmond, Carlton, North, St Kilda etc, etc, repeatedly sacking coaches over the years, well before short of their contracts ending, only to sign new coaches on bigger contracts. They then cry poor because they are financially struggling & get given a lump sum AFL assisted handout. Bulldgos just received $3M last year as Ireland said yesterday.
It's all a bit rich as a loyal Swan supporter to have to read unbalanced posts with comments such as what I have highlighted above. Are we not allowed any help should we make our first off field mistake in 20 years. That attitude stinks. Vic clubs are allowed to make poor decisions knowing full well that if they fail, because they are an old club from the VFL days, then it is their god given right to be given a handout to help cover the funds lost by those incompetent decisions.

Anyway, Cyril is a gun & as a club the Hawks will take the good with the bad & we all know that he only needs 2 minutes in a game to turn it on it's head.
He is a winner so I was just trying to make a point that all clubs make educated decisions on players. We win some & we lose some. The upside in having Buddy for even 5 years far outweighs any down side that may come our way should he break down early.

If he doesn't play in those last few years (I don't expect him to in his last 3 years by the way) then we have to wear the cost but it at least will be a smaller percentage of our total salary cap bearing in mind that the cap will probably be some $15 to $16M by then. But as a club, if we are struggling financially, then just like every other team in our comp, we are more than entitled to some AFL assistance.
Anyone saying & thinking otherwise is just being arrogant!

No you should not be allowed even the slightest bit of assistance if Buddy doesn't see out his contract or retires as early as this season

Why?

You made a 9 year offer for a 27 year old player ensuring that Hawthorn would not match it

The contract is absolutely ridiculous - no one expects Buddy to still be playing as a 36 year old

The AFL even warned you before approving it that it could cause problems for the Swans in years to come

If any exception is made then I'd expect Hawthorn to sue the Swans and the AFL

To suggest that you will need further salary cap relief if the Buddy contract goes wrong is absolutely laughable and insulting to the rest of the competition

Otherwise we may as well all offer 20 year deals to other clubs stars...

 

[MightyHawks]

There you go again.

I have a question about the NSW cash given to Goodes & Jack. How much is it, exactly, and what do they need to do to receive it?

Of course its a rort

Feel free to dispute it by answering your own question:How much is it, exactly, and what do they need to do to receive it?

Yes the COLA is a rort. Here's a simple test for you.
Is the cost of living in Melbourne, Geelong, Adelaide, Perth & Brisbane all the same, while Sydney's cost of living is higher?

 

[J_Moore]

Of course its a rort

Feel free to dispute it by answering your own question:How much is it, exactly, and what do they need to do to receive it?

"Of course".

1) I don't know, and haven't seen any evidence to suggest it's 500k a year as has been claimed by yourself and others (it may be, I've just never seen it).

2) They need to do promotional activities across NSW. School visits, media, all that sort of s**t. It's extra work, and they get paid for it.

Whether it's unjustifiable will depend on how much money it is and what they do for it.

 

[Tuco]

Of course its a rort

Feel free to dispute it by answering your own question:How much is it, exactly, and what do they need to do to receive it?

Yes the COLA is a rort. Here's a simple test for you.
Is the cost of living in Melbourne, Geelong, Adelaide, Perth & Brisbane all the same, while Sydney's cost of living is higher?

Cost of living is 12-17% higher in Sydney. It's just a fact. Pulling rental figures, or the odd grocery bill out and saying things seem equivalent is just lazy thinking across these boards.

The issue is so complex, calling it rental assistance or COLa or whatever just made it easier to compartmentalise the allowance. But only dolts fail to accept the COL is very different between Sydney and other cities in Australia.

 

[MightyHawks]

"Of course".

1) I don't know, and haven't seen any evidence to suggest it's 500k a year as has been claimed by yourself and others (it may be, I've just never seen it).

2) They need to do promotional activities across NSW. School visits, media, all that sort of s**t. It's extra work, and they get paid for it.

Whether it's unjustifiable will depend on how much money it is and what they do for it.

"An ambassadorial/marketing role could be worth about $500,000 a season." Andrew Dimwit

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-ambassador-20130720-2qbat.html#ixzz33MabXSG2

 

[MightyHawks]

Cost of living is 12-17% higher in Sydney. It's just a fact. Pulling rental figures, or the odd grocery bill out and saying things seem equivalent is just lazy thinking across these boards.

The issue is so complex, calling it rental assistance or COLa or whatever just made it easier to compartmentalise the allowance. But only dolts fail to accept the COL is very different between Sydney and other cities in Australia.

I'd suggest Cost of living is higher in Sydney than Melbourne for those earning less than $100k - not for those earning $1 million...

I've also bolded your statement - are you suggesting the 5 statements below are all true?

Cost of living is 12-17% higher in Sydney than in Brisbane

Cost of living is 12-17% higher in Sydney than in Perth

Cost of living is 12-17% higher in Sydney than in Geelong

Cost of living is 12-17% higher in Sydney than in Melbourne

Cost of living is 12-17% higher in Sydney than in Adelaide

 

[J_Moore]

"An ambassadorial/marketing role could be worth about $500,000 a season." Andrew Dimwit

That is a quote from the article, not a quote from Andrew Demetriou.

Why so obviously distort something?

Anyway, the figure of 500k is not used in reference to any specific player, so no evidence that Goodes or Jack are receiving 500k - could very well have been what Hunt or Folau was collecting, if it's even a realistic figure.

Plus we have the statement (this time, actually directly from AD) "we have ambassadors on our payroll, have had for a number of years … they are in Victoria, they are in South Australia, they are in WA." So other players at other clubs in other states are collecting AFL money outside the cap for promotional work, but it's only a "rort" if it happens at the Swans?

 

[Tuco]

I'd suggest Cost of living is higher in Sydney than Melbourne for those earning less than $100k - not for those earning $1 million...

I've also bolded your statement - are you suggesting the 5 statements below are all true?

Cost of living is 12-17% higher in Sydney than in Brisbane

Cost of living is 12-17% higher in Sydney than in Perth

Cost of living is 12-17% higher in Sydney than in Geelong

Cost of living is 12-17% higher in Sydney than in Melbourne

Cost of living is 12-17% higher in Sydney than in Adelaide

According to Numbeo $7000 spent on the full range of indicators in Syd only costs the following:

ADEL $5559.10
MELB $6116.39
BRIS $6176.90
PERTH $6908.53

So yes 12% to 17% pretty much covers it.

The only real anomaly is Perth who deserved it as well...but being a traditional AR state had additional resources for players.

Numbeo btw is the world's largest col database. Nothing else comes close. Those figures are hard and updated weekly.

 

[Tedeski]

No you should not be allowed even the slightest bit of assistance if Buddy doesn't see out his contract or retires as early as this season

Why?

You made a 9 year offer for a 27 year old player ensuring that Hawthorn would not match it

The contract is absolutely ridiculous - no one expects Buddy to still be playing as a 36 year old

The AFL even warned you before approving it that it could cause problems for the Swans in years to come

If any exception is made then I'd expect Hawthorn to sue the Swans and the AFL

To suggest that you will need further salary cap relief if the Buddy contract goes wrong is absolutely laughable and insulting to the rest of the competition

Otherwise we may as well all offer 20 year deals to other clubs stars...

Well there we go again with such arrogance.
So already this year, according to management at the Swans, Buddy has put an extra $1.5M in our corporate chest.
He hasn't even started yet.
So I say that we are responsibly trying to stay alive & active in a non AFL market by recruiting the most marketable AFL player of the last 10 years. At we aren't twiddling our thumbs. Biggest crowd at the SCG for a few years the other night.
We are doing our bit.

But keep your blinkers on. I understand what you are about!

 

[Tedeski]

I must also add that should the climate in AFL change for the worse with less attendances as it has already this year, then we are most certainly entitled to the same help afforded a club that sacks a coach after year 1 of a three year contract etc. Actually a more blatant foolish move by any club who then asks for assitance.

 

[legend166]

Don't think for a moment I'm pleased about COLA. I am pointing out, however, that the length of the contract was a significant factor. Nine years is pushing all the chips into the middle of the table.

That's what I don't get about the Buddy whinging.

People pay way too much attention to single year payments when it's the entire value of the contract that's actually what the player cares about. We offered Buddy $10 million. From what I understand, the highest Hawthorn went was around $5-6 million. Even if you take 10% off our offer, Hawthorn were still way off the mark.

At the end of the day the cost of living allowance would have had basically no impact on whether we got Buddy or not. It was purely down to the contract length.

 

[MightyHawks]

That is a quote from the article, not a quote from Andrew Demetriou.

Why so obviously distort something?

Anyway, the figure of 500k is not used in reference to any specific player, so no evidence that Goodes or Jack are receiving 500k - could very well have been what Hunt or Folau was collecting, if it's even a realistic figure.

Plus we have the statement (this time, actually directly from AD) "we have ambassadors on our payroll, have had for a number of years … they are in Victoria, they are in South Australia, they are in WA." So other players at other clubs in other states are collecting AFL money outside the cap for promotional work, but it's only a "rort" if it happens at the Swans?

My mistake on the direct quote

The figure used is in reference to what they might hypothetically pay Buddy to be an ambassador in Sydney.

I'd suggest that Jack & Goodes are on $250k-$500k each for their AFL/NSW Ambassador role

If you'd like to put forward a different amount then see if you can find some evidence that might show it, more than just your "vibe" or "feeling"

The Swans have two AFL ambassadors, any other clubs outside of NSW have two of them? Of course not it's a rort

 

[J_Moore]

I'd suggest that Jack & Goodes are on $250k-$500k each for their AFL/NSW Ambassador role

If you'd like to put forward a different amount then see if you can find some evidence that might show it, more than just your "vibe" or "feeling"

I'm curious as to why I must find evidence to show something, whereas you seem to be able to run with your vibey feelings as it suits you.

I suspect that the 500k figure was probably more likely Folau/Hunt related, and the upper limit of what has ever been paid.

And I'd suggest that Jack & Goodes are on petrol money and free sausage sandwiches from any local football matches they happen to attend.

 

[MightyHawks]

Well there we go again with such arrogance.
So already this year, according to management at the Swans, Buddy has put an extra $1.5M in our corporate chest.
He hasn't even started yet.
So I say that we are responsibly trying to stay alive & active in a non AFL market by recruiting the most marketable AFL player of the last 10 years. At we aren't twiddling our thumbs. Biggest crowd at the SCG for a few years the other night.
We are doing our bit.

But keep your blinkers on. I understand what you are about!

The arrogance is all yours

You've signed a ridiculous 9 year deal with a player who has had some knee issues and well documented off field issues, knowing full well that it's a massive risk, and that he is most likely not going to be playing AFL standard football when he's 35 years old

The AFL reminded you before they approved the contract that there were massive risks and it could impact on your list management / salary cap

I've pointed out that the AFL must enforce it's own salary cap rules on the Lance Franklin contract over the next 9 years - and you think that they shouldn't?

Do go on

 

[MightyHawks]

I'm curious as to why I must find evidence to show something, whereas you seem to be able to run with your vibey feelings as it suits you.

I suspect that the 500k figure was probably more likely Folau/Hunt related, and the upper limit of what has ever been paid.

And I'd suggest that Jack & Goodes are on petrol money and free sausage sandwiches from any local football matches they happen to attend.

I've thrown more evidence to support my view than you have

Maybe Jack & Goodes are on petrol money... I've heard the AFL thinks petrol is really expensive in Sydney so they are probably issued with $250,000 BP credit cards

 

[MightyHawks]

That's what I don't get about the Buddy whinging.

People pay way too much attention to single year payments when it's the entire value of the contract that's actually what the player cares about. We offered Buddy $10 million. From what I understand, the highest Hawthorn went was around $5-6 million. Even if you take 10% off our offer, Hawthorn were still way off the mark.

Yes you offered Buddy $10mil (which is $9mil + COLA)

However I agree with you that it's the entire value of the contract that's actually what the player cares about.

If the entire value of the contract of every Swans player (including COLA) had to be under the same salary cap limit that everyone else works with then there would be no spare $ to afford Buddy

At the end of the day the cost of living allowance would have had basically no impact on whether we got Buddy or not. It was purely down to the contract length.

Which is why it's essential that the Swans are made to wear the consequences of the 9 year deal if it goes sour

 

[Tedeski]

The arrogance is all yours

You've signed a ridiculous 9 year deal with a player who has had some knee issues and well documented off field issues, knowing full well that it's a massive risk, and that he is most likely not going to be playing AFL standard football when he's 35 years old

The AFL reminded you before they approved the contract that there were massive risks and it could impact on your list management / salary cap

I've pointed out that the AFL must enforce it's own salary cap rules on the Lance Franklin contract over the next 9 years - and you think that they shouldn't?

Do go on

You've pointed out!

OK then. That changes everything. I didn't realise it was you that pointed all that out.
It must be true.

Judging by the crowd attendance at your game today, in nine years it will be my club saving the AFL & not the other way around.
Only arrogance I see or hear repeatedly comes from Hawk supporters.

We have Buddy.

We have Buddy right now. Thats all we can concern ourselves with.
Your team offered him a 5 year contract to stay on more per year than we are paying him which would have taken a larger percentage of your total cap than we are using on him.

You need to question your own management for making such an offer.

 

[MightyHawks]

You've pointed out!

OK then. That changes everything. I didn't realise it was you that pointed all that out.
It must be true.

Feel free to point out what you think isn't true:
You've signed a ridiculous 9 year deal with a player who has had some knee issues and well documented off field issues, knowing full well that it's a massive risk, and that he is most likely not going to be playing AFL standard football when he's 35 years old
The AFL reminded you before they approved the contract that there were massive risks and it could impact on your list management / salary cap
I've pointed out that the AFL must enforce it's own salary cap rules on the Lance Franklin contract over the next 9 years - and you think that they shouldn't?

Judging by the crowd attendance at your game today, in nine years it will be my club saving the AFL & not the other way around.
Only arrogance I see or hear repeatedly comes from Hawk supporters.

Hmmm... can't imagine why our fans didn't flock to see GWS in the wet at 4:40 on a Sunday?
Interestingly our 17,904 was higher than the crowd for your last match against GWS: 17,102

We have Buddy.

Yes you do

We have Buddy right now. Thats all we can concern ourselves with.
Your team offered him a 5 year contract to stay on more per year than we are paying him which would have taken a larger percentage of your total cap than we are using on him.

Ah, but if Buddy were to say suffer a career ending injury this year - like in a car crash, you'd either have to keep paying him for 9 years while keeping him on the list (and being one player short compared to other clubs), or you'd have to pay his entire remaining contract out in the year you delist him - which could cause issues
This is why the 9 year contract is a ludicruous risk
Yes your clubs management are aware of the AFL rules there and of course the AFL should enforce these rules regarding the Buddy contract
What's the point of having restricted free agents if clubs can make offers they are not obliged to follow through on

You need to question your own management for making such an offer.

Hawthorn's offer was more than we would have liked to make and it was withdrawn mid season.
No further offer was made by Hawthorn

 

[Inspector Malceski]

Interestingly our 17,904 was higher than the crowd for your last match against GWS: 17,102

You may recall the "away" game for the Swans had heavy rain & lighting.
It was not near our home ground.

Hence your crowd was pathetic, we will get 20k at least at the SCG

 

[sherb]

Hmmm... can't imagine why our fans didn't flock to see GWS in the wet at 4:40 on a Sunday?
Interestingly our 17,904 was higher than the crowd for your last match against GWS: 17,102

I'd have thought they would have flocked to see Hawthorn.

 

[sherb]

You may recall the "away" game for the Swans had heavy rain & lighting.
It was not near our home ground.

Hence your crowd was pathetic, we will get 20k at least at the SCG

Plus the Hawks have a larger membership base than the Swans.