How much of Buddys 10 mill have the Swans already recouped?

[Swansujelly]

The physical money was never the problem. It's the salary cap burden that's the issue....

no real burden. The contract is mid loaded, and the last few will be a much smaller % of the cap due to increases in the cap. We just saw a healthy increase and with TV rights deals coming up, expect further healthy cap raises, especially with Buddy in Sydney, the largest TV market. FYI, we won in 2012 with Bradshaw contract onour books.

 

[Tuco]

Of course there are off field benefits but the swans are too smart to sign Franklin unless it makes sense on field first. Otherwise they are going back to the Capper days. They are leveraging the off field stuff whilst they are good on field it's a case of making some serious hay whilst the sun shines.

So defensive on the COLA. I never said you were only good due to COLA. Or you only got Franklin due to COLA. Or you would be bad without COLA. But the reality is it will be gone and you'll be paying Franklin over 1 mil per year without an extra 10% of the salary cap. If history is anything to go by in a few years time you will be recruiting a key defender, ruckman or key forward or multiple of those positions. It's actually a smart footy model to buy talls when they are ready to deliver and give them an opportunity. I'm not saying you wont find really good ones, it just might be a little harder.

The way you turned around the 2005/6 team to the 2012 team with smart recruiting, trading and developing was league leading and now you've added some cream to that team to keep it in the premiership window. I'm just interested to see what you will do next. I doubt you'll turn in to a St Kilda but the Franklin deal definitely impacts the next plan and I think reasonable supporters would admit that.

If you've watched our recruiting you'll see nothing has changed. The way we moved from 2006 to 2012, and from 2012 to current appears no different to me. There was a fundamental shift in how footy works at the end of 2012 with Free Agency. Buddy and Tippett fall into that category. But the internal development of players hasn't changed one iota.

FA is an overlay upon existing structures and systems. All you apparently are seeing are the two big trades. But we're an iceberg. All you're seeing is the tip.

I didn't raise COLa by the way. You did. I like most Swans fans simply dismiss it now. It's you raising it theorising that somehow without it our club will implode. I have news for you $20k will be not be the difference in us being able to trade for players. It's removal was only ever a punch in the nose to a bunch of school leavers, and battlers on lower-end contracts.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

Everybody knows that when the time comes the AFL will find some excuse to let the Swans payments to a non-playing Buddy be outside the salary cap anyway, so they can't really lose.

 

[Kummerspeck]

Everybody knows that when the time comes the AFL will find some excuse to let the Swans payments to a non-playing Buddy be outside the salary cap anyway, so they can't really lose.

Yeah, because there's form with the AFL allowing the Swans to early retirements on big contracts outside the cap.

 

[Tedeski]

I'd be livid with my club if they offered 15m for 10 years for anyone. As for these deals becoming more common, non-expansion sides might offer 10M over 10 years in a few years when the salary cap rises. But yeah I'd be surprised if anyone offers a deal similar to Buddy's in the next couple of years at least.

It will happen.
In 10 years time. $1M per year will be a bargain for the right player.
We all need to get used to marquee match winning players taking the bulk of the salary cap in clubs. It is the future, but only for the player that can turn a match on it's head.
Cameron at GWS is one.

 

[Tedeski]

Everybody knows that when the time comes the AFL will find some excuse to let the Swans payments to a non-playing Buddy be outside the salary cap anyway, so they can't really lose.

You don't know that.
I bet in 5 years time the AFL would have pumped more money into your club than ours. Your move to Adelaide Oval only came about with the help of the AFL.

So don't get too smug!

 

[Reginald Perrin]

I would be more inclined to think that the extra ticket revenue was an indication of the Port Adelaide bandwagon factor than Buddy's popularity.

 

[Pessimistic]

Stay tuned because we are just the pioneers in making such a deal & you will soon find that in order to get a future star from an opposition club to their own club, the odd Vic club will offer similar deals along the same lines.

What will it take to get Dangerfield to the Cats? $13M for 10 years?
Cameron to the Hawks? $15M for 10 years?
Hanners to North? $10M for 8 years?

Their current clubs won't match those offers & the player would be mad not to jump at those deals.
But then they must deliver & that is a huge weight to carry for ten years at a new club.
All the more reason why Buddy is such a star because he has thus far (long way to go yet) shown great strength to get through the criticism.

Brisbane offered a ten year deal to dunstall and gave one to another dude forget his name. They prolly got bailed out financiall from that one too

The dude was al lynch

 

[Astro Bomber]

5%. Kick the winning goal in the grand final and it would still be 70%

 

[rocket18]

You don't know that.
I bet in 5 years time the AFL would have pumped more money into your club than ours. Your move to Adelaide Oval only came about with the help of the AFL.

So don't get too smug!

The AFL haven't put one cent into the Adelaide Oval, so if you mean "help" I suppose they have scheduled games there instead of at AAMI. Gosh, we should be thankful the AFL "helped" convince the SA government to pay for the stadium.

But your premise is right regarding the AFL propping up Port, they have pumped millions into them over the last few years and it will continue for a few more.

 

[blood_lust]

Then how do you explain the 2007 ashes test getting several crowds in the mid 40s, including 46,000 on day one?

The members area at the SCG has an enormous area out the back, with bars and food, the warm up nets, tennis courts and grass areas for the kids - and as such their is no limit to member numbers entering the ground (regardless of seated numbers).

It's also deceptive because many who come leave before the end of the day and others come after work/later in the day.

 

[Dirty Bird]

because in the 1999 off season the old hill turned into stands and corporate boxes reducing capacity of the stadium. ignorance of footy outside victoria on these forums is astounding.

What are you talking about? I sat on that hill for the Sydney-Kangaroos game in 2004. As well as sitting in the Doug Walters stand for a night ANZAC round game vs Melbourne about that time as well.

All this a good 5 years after it was apparently changed to stands.

And don't you dare say the Doug Walters stand backs up your point as it's the new stand you're referring to, as I was just under it for the 1998 semi-final just avoiding the rain, it was an old stand that's been around for years.

The hill was demolished and replaced with the new stand sometime in between the last 2 times I've been tot he SCG (2006 and 2012) and Wikipedia tells me it was 07-08. Not 99 like you claim.

 

[cinderella man]

You mean the AFL have recouped?

Gee you are still hurting ????????? Move on or you will finish in a straight jacket.

 

[master bate]

If you've watched our recruiting you'll see nothing has changed. The way we moved from 2006 to 2012, and from 2012 to current appears no different to me. There was a fundamental shift in how footy works at the end of 2012 with Free Agency. Buddy and Tippett fall into that category. But the internal development of players hasn't changed one iota.

FA is an overlay upon existing structures and systems. All you apparently are seeing are the two big trades. But we're an iceberg. All you're seeing is the tip.

I didn't raise COLa by the way. You did. I like most Swans fans simply dismiss it now. It's you raising it theorising that somehow without it our club will implode. I have news for you $20k will be not be the difference in us being able to trade for players. It's removal was only ever a punch in the nose to a bunch of school leavers, and battlers on lower-end contracts.

Well Tippett actually fans in to the low ball trading before he conveniently became a free agent and walked in to the preseason draft category and a 1st round pick and Jesse White offer just changed to free.

I raised COLA as a small part of the difficulties Sydney will face when trying to rebuild in the second half of the Franklin contract. You harped up about it. And 20k? Isn't it nearly 10%, which means on any decent recruit who you'd try to get for 500k it will be a 50k difference.

 

[Pessimistic]

A couple of posters in here seem to refer to "us" while referring to sydney and the AFL interchangeably

 

[Tedeski]

Brisbane offered a ten year deal to dunstall and gave one to another dude forget his name. They prolly got bailed out financiall from that one too

It was Alistair Lynch.
They gave him an increase at the latter end of the contract because what looked like plenty 10 years earlier, ended up being cheap compared to other players.

There is a definite risk in it but it's not really ideal for an in & under player that gets crunched week in week out.

 

[skipper kelly]

People should read about and inform themselves of ASA's. This will be buddy's contract in years to come.

 

[yakka man]

The acquisition of Franklin was the final straw that broke the Camel's back in terms of the loss of the COLA. That loss of money could hurt big time. And franklin's salary will always be in the salary cap for a long time. It's very early days, it's high risk still but also potentially high reward.

 

[Costanza_]

The issue was never a financial one - the guy is worth well over a million a year in terms of what he brings to a club both on and off field.

The issue is the huge chunk of our salary cap that has been tied up, particuarly from 2018+ when he either won't be playing or will way past his best.

If we win a premiership with him playing a big part, we've broke even. They're damn hard to win.

If we win 2+ with him playing a big part, I'm more than satisfied with the deal.

 

[Micksy]

because in the 1999 off season the old hill turned into stands and corporate boxes reducing capacity of the stadium. ignorance of footy outside victoria on these forums is astounding.

So the attendance this week wasn't all that impressive.

 

[Micksy]

The issue is the huge chunk of our salary cap that has been tied up, particuarly from 2018+ when he either won't be playing or will way past his best.

The growth in the salary cap over the next 10 years will make the impact of a Franklin injury less severe.

 

[Tedeski]

So the attendance this week wasn't all that impressive.

It was very impressive because it is a sample of what is to come. We are better remunerated for attendances now than we were pre ANZ Stadium games.

 

[Costanza_]

The growth in the salary cap over the next 10 years will make the impact of a Franklin injury less severe.

Yeah true. I'm sure that was factored in.

Still, atm it's roughly 10% of the cap, even if the cap reaches 15m and it's 7.5% of the cap, it's alot to pay for a 36 year old player.

As I said, if it wins us premierships then I'll happily take the hit in later years.

 

[Leg End]

But I think they are all aware they had a 3-5 year window to win premierships and they will work the rest out later.

This is where good management comes in.
Having a window outside 5 years is ridiculous - unless you're Richmond and stretch your failing youth policy to 12 years.
In 5 years time, the Buddy thing will be yesterday's news - and Swans will have groomed the next wave of great players.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

What are you talking about? I sat on that hill for the Sydney-Kangaroos game in 2004. As well as sitting in the Doug Walters stand for a night ANZAC round game vs Melbourne about that time as well.

All this a good 5 years after it was apparently changed to stands.

And don't you dare say the Doug Walters stand backs up your point as it's the new stand you're referring to, as I was just under it for the 1998 semi-final just avoiding the rain, it was an old stand that's been around for years.

The hill was demolished and replaced with the new stand sometime in between the last 2 times I've been tot he SCG (2006 and 2012) and Wikipedia tells me it was 07-08. Not 99 like you claim.

The victor trump stand was put in in 07-08. Which increased capacity.

Doug Walters stand started construction in 97 and extended over a 3 year period ending in 99, from 99-07 the grounds capacity was 36,000.
It was done this way to minimise the interruption to the cricket like always.

When the VT stand was put in capacity increased to 46,000 but SCG members seating also increased to 10,000. So no net benefit was seen in numbers as are large portion of trust members hate the swans.

Even now with the increase seats to 48k non trust seating is only 38K (NOT 43k which was incorrectly reported by Alan Jones)

The reason you can get higher then capacity is because the SCG is part of the Moore Park precent which means it has a standing capacity exemption. You swipe to enter the area not the ground itself.

This way SCG members are not locked out of other facilities when the ground itself reaches capacity.

This year could see the new years test surpass 50K.