Remove this Banner Ad

Operation Get Tippett (Officially, finally, over)

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

TheBrownDog said:
The Lions Academy still requires concessions from the AFL. As a leg-up mechanism I don't think it is any more or less contentious than a retention allowance. Just a different approach to the same problem.
Click to expand...

True, but anyone from the Academy is really able to play for any club in any state... for sure we'd like to hope there's a benefit to the Lions but its far less assured than a direct advantage. The Academy really is designed to promote and create a pathway to the AFL for Qld players not just Lions ones. The limited places the Lions can offer to its graduates will almost certainly mean other clubs too will feel its benefits if the talent is there to be had... which is never a certainty either.
 
There seems to be a focus on what "people" will say. This is again exactly the same line of argument that cost us a necessary concession in order to ensure equalisation of the competition. People bitch, complain and look with envy on something someone else has, and that is the driver for taking it away. Don't worry that there are structural, financial and geographic reasons why it is so much more difficult to compete when you aren't based in a football state.

"Sorry Sydney, you are too successful - you should have just kept going by finishing 6th each year. Really Sydney, it is your own fault for winning. We actually don't want you to win a flag. Bugger me - we certainly don't want you to win 2 in a row. And don't even think of doing what the Lions did in 2001-2003 because we will bust you down to "also rans" so quickly that your head will spin."

Envy was what cost us our opportunity to compete on an equal footing and, with the noises being made, the same will happen to Sydney.

Sydney's list with Tippett in looks to be like a top 4 list. Therefore, I would not be surprised if they were in contention for another flag. But it is no better than Hawthorn, Collingwood or West Coast IMO. If the salary cap concessions were such a massive advantage, Sydney's list should look totally dominant. As it is, it looks as though the concession allows them to compete with the best clubs, as opposed to dominating the comp.

Let's re-phrase the debate: why is it that clubs like Collingwood and Hawthorn can compete with Sydney despite their massive cap advantage? Is it possible that they enjoy some inherent advantage? I mean, Collingwood have made just as many grand finals as Brisbane in this century and 1 more than Sydney. Is it possible that it is the concession that equalises things to allow clubs like Sydney and Brisbane to compete on an equal footing?

And the argument around Sydney's list quality is totally relevant. The question is apparently "how did Sydney fit Tippett into their cap?". The answer is because they have a side with veterans, journeymen, youngsters and with arguably no superstars. That is obviously fluid and the more success they have, the greater the inflationary pressure on their list in future years as those youngsters become stars and the journeymen demand salaries more commensurate to their performance. But you don't look back in 2014 and say "Sydney won 2 premierships - they should have been paying those guys more in 2012/13". You pay what a player is worth at the time of contracting - if you get more from that player than what you are paying him, then you should be applauded for your list management.

Put it this way, I suspect Ted Richards isn't being paid All-Australian money but that's the level he performed at. The inflationary effect of that won't hit until he comes off contract - it doesn't change what he is paid in his current contract. It seems to be that there is an exercise in revisionism going on here which is driven by the fact that Sydney won a flag.

Collingwood can sign Cloke and people say "how can they afford that?". Sydney can sign Tippett and people say "it is because of the salary cap concessions." It seems to me that, at most, all the concessions do is put Sydney on the same footing as Collingwood.
 
POBT said:
And the argument around Sydney's list quality is totally relevant. The question is apparently "how did Sydney fit Tippett into their cap?". The answer is because they have a side with veterans, journeymen, youngsters and with arguably no superstars. That is obviously fluid and the more success they have, the greater the inflationary pressure on their list in future years as those youngsters become stars and the journeymen demand salaries more commensurate to their performance. But you don't look back in 2014 and say "Sydney won 2 premierships - they should have been paying those guys more in 2012/13". You pay what a player is worth at the time of contracting - if you get more from that player than what you are paying him, then you should be applauded for your list management.
Click to expand...
If remarkably specific newspaper reports are to be believed, for the last 3 years of a 4 year contract the Swans were prepared to pay Tippett close to $1m/year.

Does that mean they think in 2016 they'll still have a side of veterans, journeymen and youngsters, with no superstars?

Or do you think they've factored in any probable increase in salaries as their list changes, and decided they could still afford Tippett's contract?

Or do you think they've over-extended themselves?

Which option do you think is most likely?
 
whatboutbob said:
Does that mean they think in 2016 they'll still have a side of veterans, journeymen and youngsters, with no superstars?

Or do you think they've factored in any probable increase in salaries as their list changes, and decided they could still afford Tippett's contract?

Or do you think they've over-extended themselves?

Which option do you think is most likely?
Click to expand...

They can probably budget on losing the salaries of Goodes, Bolton, Shaw and O'Keefe in the next 1-2 years. Let's assume the total spend on those 3 players is around $1.2M (fairly realistic/conservative IMO). Replace those 4 names with 4 draftees and you've got probably $900K extra. There's a degree of flexibility there in that alone, let alone all the other movements in salary. Someone like McVeigh might go from being the 3rd highest player in the club to being outside the top 10. His loss in salary then goes to a Jack or Hannebery who then move up.

But it also would not surprise me in the slightest if Sydney "shed" one or two of their decent players in the next 2-3 years as the salary demands of their youngsters increase.

But, to be frank, I think Sydney's goals are more immediate than 2016. My gut feel is that they think their top-agers are capable of 1 last crack at a flag in 2013.

So, in response to your question, I don't think there is one answer. I think it is probably a combination of natural attrition, flexibility already in their current cap, an acceptance that hard decisions may need to be made down the track and a dose of short-termism.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

POBT said:
There seems to be a focus on what "people" will say. This is again exactly the same line of argument that cost us a necessary concession in order to ensure equalisation of the competition. People bitch, complain and look with envy on something someone else has, and that is the driver for taking it away. Don't worry that there are structural, financial and geographic reasons why it is so much more difficult to compete when you aren't based in a football state.

And the argument around Sydney's list quality is totally relevant. The question is apparently "how did Sydney fit Tippett into their cap?". The answer is because they have a side with veterans, journeymen, youngsters and with arguably no superstars. That is obviously fluid and the more success they have, the greater the inflationary pressure on their list in future years as those youngsters become stars and the journeymen demand salaries more commensurate to their performance. But you don't look back in 2014 and say "Sydney won 2 premierships - they should have been paying those guys more in 2012/13". You pay what a player is worth at the time of contracting - if you get more from that player than what you are paying him, then you should be applauded for your list management.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with you more about the perceived advantages that one side will claim another has... real or not the idea that someone has something no one else has will always create an argument that's often more fiction than fact.

I highlighted the 2 passages because this is exactly what creates that issue. Who says Sydney has no superstars? You? Me? The "experts"? People? The same people that say St Kilda was full of them and yet never won a flag? The same people who argue that West Coast should have been bottom 8 this year after last year?

There will always be a divergence of opinion. Sydney would believe their team is chock full of talent... and the more everyone else says its not just helps their bunker down mentality the same as it does with us.

Sydney's real pain will come in a few years for sure... the parallels to our run in 01/02/03 will be profound... but that's not an allowance issue, that's a premiership window issue. The veterans allowance and players retiring will help but the Swans will lose stars... that's the nature of the beast.


Sydney's list with Tippett in looks to be like a top 4 list. Therefore, I would not be surprised if they were in contention for another flag. But it is no better than Hawthorn, Collingwood or West Coast IMO. If the salary cap concessions were such a massive advantage, Sydney's list should look totally dominant. As it is, it looks as though the concession allows them to compete with the best clubs, as opposed to dominating the comp.

Let's re-phrase the debate: why is it that clubs like Collingwood and Hawthorn can compete with Sydney despite their massive cap advantage? Is it possible that they enjoy some inherent advantage? I mean, Collingwood have made just as many grand finals as Brisbane in this century and 1 more than Sydney. Is it possible that it is the concession that equalises things to allow clubs like Sydney and Brisbane to compete on an equal footing?
Click to expand...

Sydney's list on a dollar for dollar basis is the equal of Collingwood or Hawthorn if they have the money to throw at Tippett. You can argue his wage is the approx the allowance itself so currently the list is paid what these others clubs have as a total cap - and despite being a no name team performed above and beyond their competition - consistently. So Sydney either pay their no names on a very similar scale to what they might earn elsewhere or they pay them what THEY actually believe they are worth... clearly more than everyone else.

If it takes the allowance to make Sydney equal then the reverse argument can be made too though. What about the success or otherwise of the Bulldogs? North Melbourne? Melbourne? Hell even Fitzroy? Do those clubs need equalization? All in recent memory have been or continue to be under huge financial pain, have "average" lists and yet there's no apparent geographical or structural reason that they should suffer... or is there?

Why are their claims of poor scheduling, too many teams etc etc not grounds for support or allowances? And while there is the club financial support from the AFL I understand, surely allowing them to buy better players to have more on field success would be a more sustainable way to prop up a club - or at least that's what they would argue.

Maybe its an over simplistic view, but anytime you create an equalizer you inevitably make something else unequal.

Sydney doesn't need the cap. This premiership proved it. And it also proved they are in fact a team of stars. Current and future ones too much to every others clubs chagrin. Still the fact that they can afford Tippett shows that if not all, at least a sizable part of that retention is paying his wage.

But can you blame them? Wouldn't we use it the same way? Every club would. And they'd thumb their nose at everyone else for as long as they were allowed too.

Our (as in Lions supporters) grief with this allowance comes from one of perceived disadvantage. Of losing ours, of being in the wilderness for the last few years and of current financial pain. All valid and justifiable reasons for sure... but I'm pretty certain every club in the comp could go cap in hand and make a fairly strong case for some sort of assistance too if they put their mind to it.

If the AFL believe that the product is good enough and strong enough to stand the test outside of "footy" states then all they need to do is top up each clubs "administrative" side to an equal level. Not the cap. Equalize the spend on facilities, support and coaching - leave the players out of it. Make every club as an attractive proposition as the next so that players want to go there - remove the real disincentive.

Until that though the allowance is akin to what started this thread... a payment over and above the cap. Just like Tippetts. If the AFL can find Tippett and Adelaide guilty of cap fraud then its own allowance amounts to the same.
 
notliondown said:
Sydney's real pain will come in a few years for sure... the parallels to our run in 01/02/03 will be profound... but that's not an allowance issue, that's a premiership window issue.
Click to expand...

In respect of the above small component of your post, the Swans did not suffer any real pain following their successful years between 05-06 when they made two grand finals and have successfully rejuvinated their list following that period prior to 2012. However, it will be interesting to watch whether they will bottom out to the extent we did following our 01-04 era once kep players of their 05-06 era such as Goodes, Bolton and one or two others retire. I'd hazard a guess that probably not and the recruitment of Tippett is testament that they will do their darndest to prevent a similar fallout to the one experienced by the Lions post 04.
 
BUMP......



So the end of a Sydney two year front ended contract is nigh...Since then, Franklin has arrived and owns the Swans forward line and locked into their Buddy fund long term ...then.COLA being wiped ..'things' have started to happen that could result in the tightening up on Sydney belt line? Not sure they can justify the cost of having Tippett sitting on the sidelines and he may be looking at a reduced $ contract..More importantly, for this thread, is there a spark in the old electrical surgical knife for a Tippett move?.....

The Herald Sun can reveal Tippett will sign only a two-year deal. He lodged a short agreement for fear he might be picked by a rival club.

He will sign a deal between $800,000 and $1 million in the first year, but significantly less in the second season
Click to expand...

Kurt Tippett - "$6 only man?"
.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

TheBrownDog said:
Sydney thought they were getting Bradshaw cheap too.
Click to expand...
IIRC Bradshaw only missed a few games in his career at the Lions. Might have needed a knee cleanup at the time which didn't worry the Swans when he signed up obviously or they would have passed. Tippett has missed pretty much a season but he has tendinitis which is not really a major concern just needs time to heal. I doubt he would pull 800k-1m a year on current output. Wouldn't hurt to offer him a contract I would have thought.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

TheBrownDog said:
I hear there is a clause in his contract...
Click to expand...
2%20claw.jpg
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Operation Get Tippett (Officially, finally, over)

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top