Mega Thread Buddy Franklin moves to Sydney

[Jade]

I know asking for them is idiotic, but stating them as facts is idiotic as well. How would Sydney's little contribution to the broadcast rights go if Essendon, Carlton, Collingwood, Adelaide, West Coast and Richmond decided to secede and form their own comp? Their contribution would amount to zero. The deal is the sum of its parts.

Yes I know. I was still shaking my head at the 'gent' that decided because nobody could tell you EXACTLY how much Franklin is paid and EXACTLY what that is in Sydney's budget that no reasoned opinion or thought could be made.

Such a weak argument, typical of BF.

 

[DrEvil]

Hawthorn supporters should read up on concepts such as time value of money, inflation, strategic planning and front running the curve. At 7% inflation over 10 years the cap will double. That excludes any flexibility that comes by merging of TPP with footy department spend or outsize TV rights deal sharing. Just yestetday a new drinks deal was negotiated by AFL and will form part of new equalisation measures. Everything is changing and the Swans are front running those changes. So grateful to Dawks supporters for concern about us in years 6-9 of Buddy's contract but we will be fine. Suggest you get back to celebrating a great premiership season.

And at 70% inflation over 10 years the cap will increase 200 times. Why pull bullshit numbers? Inflation rate has been nowhere near 7% since the 80's.

 

[ScoobySnacks]

I think you missed my point a little. I'm actually agreeing with you.

If anyone thinks the AFL is a sporting competition then they are very ill informed. It is an entertainment business now and its all about revenue streams. They have equalisation measures in place in the hope that success is cyclical and they can get the biggest draw of fans across the spectrum.

The fact is they need Sydney to be a strong club to drag in viewers from NSW and make the TV rights (the jewel in the crown) a premium product they can generate the most revenue from. As skipper kelly pointed out the Swans pull their weight in as much as they do generate income for the whole league through their attraction of TV rights revenue.

We also know that there are still too many clubs in Melbourne for them all to be viable and the AFL would have dearly loved a few to relocate to their desired markets instead of having to build up new clubs from the start. Members of the Melbourne teams rightly love their clubs,they are steeped in history, and resisted the moves and I can completely understand that. It does make the weaker clubs less of a commodity and that is a dangerous position to be in. Hawthorn was at the brink but, to their credit, turned the ship around and became a juggernaut. At least they had one measure of equalisation work in their favour and got a bunch of top draft picks but had the skill to pick very wisely so credit to them.

I can see the inconsistencies with the COLA and I do know it has nothing to do with the cost of living. I think it does have something to do with player retention and a lot to do with keeping Sydney competitive and viable. I hope GWS don't lose it because of Sydney because they will need it if they're going to become a strong and independent force in the AFL. Buddy would have helped with that so I can imagine the AFL are not impressed with the Swans right now.

This isn't he VFL any more and we had decades of inequality there with recruiting zones basically guaranteeing success to certain clubs. The AFL is doing a balancing act of trying to keep the clubs happy with "equalisation" and trying to run an entertainment business and generate maximum revenue and they will find it very hard to keep everyone happy.

Just to finish, I love the club I support, just like you all do. Sydney supporters have the right to back their club in. The Swans work legally within the parameters they've been given and any grief you have with the situation should be aimed at the AFL and not the Swans and their supporters.

tazhawk keeps saying play the ball and not the man. I agree.

The first point is a fallacy. The AFL doesn't need Sydney or Brisbane to ensure the TV rights deals are lucrative. It gets it's millions of viewers, which provide the staple of the TV rights deal, from the traditional Aussie Rules states. These are the states it relies on. Broadcasting into Sydney on 7mate to 200,000 people isn't going to be a hugely influential factor in the grand scheme of TV rights dollars.

And it's now the AFL, and we are going to continue to have decades of inequality in the name of 'growing the game'. The wheel of inequality has turned, it just happens to be in your favour now, and will b

 

[dean33]

The thing is the swannies know if this whole thing blows up in their face the afl will never let them flounder at the bottom like a melbourne or st.kilda... they will just come up with a new name to give their allowance...

 

[skipper kelly]

Solid comment, I actually agree from an AFL perspective; however Sydney (the club) are still exposing themselves to a risk that is likelier than not to make them uncompetitive in 6-7 years.

Even though the AFL can justify the expense to 'coddle' the Swans if that occurs, it's yet another example of flying in the face of an 'equal' competition. Sydney should be left to reap what they sow - unfortunately that won't happen.

For starters we have no idea what will happen over the next 9 years. All the doomsday scenarios ignore the fact that every club has high paid players who could go belly up. Last year it was Tippett and the 800k or thereabouts was going to 'tip' Sydney over the edge. This year it's Franklin and because of a 9 year deal the sky is going to fall in. Every contract is a risk, with some risks greater than others. There are so many variables at play that the risk is very hard to measure. The obvious reward is Sydney winning a premiership with Franklin. Is one premiership in 9 years a success? Yes. Will it happen? Who knows. Will Franklin create greater gate takings and brand recognition? I'll leave that one to the experts. Will Franklin lift the players around him or speed up the development of younger players? It's hard to deny that playing with better players makes you a better player.

I say BS on all the excuses other than the emotional one. GWS was fine for Buddy but not for Sydney. We all know why, and it has nothing to do with the financial future of Sydney. It's the reactionary nature of the AFL and supporters. It's possibly always been like this but it does seem more evident now. I joined this site in September 2003 after the 3rd Brisbane flag in a row. There was no celebrating such a great side, it was all about why they won and the excuses for losing. Step forward 3 years and it was all about how interstate sides had won 6 flags in a row culminating with Barassi calling for an inquiry. FFS. Then we had the FS excuses with Geelong and finally post September 2012 being all about Sydney and COLA. In the middle of this we've had constant reactionary rule changes based on the way successful sides have played. Rushed behinds, fast kick ins etc. Plus the reactionary rule changes to every little incident that has been happening on the field since day dot. We even had the case of pre reactionary crap with Ross Lyon this year.

But the heart of my comment to you was about equalisation and finance. If it is going to be claimed that all the clubs you mentioned will have to support Sydney then it must also include what all clubs bring to the table and how they do it. I believe you agree with this.

Why is it such a crime for a club to take a risk? Are fans that accustomed to the status quo that anything out of the ordinary invokes this hysteria. I understand the emotional argument about Franklin leaving Hawthorn but the arguments about equalisation are a diversion and the arguments about Sydneys financial future are absurd. They are absurd for two reasons. One, does anyone really give a stuff if Sydney go under? As an Essendon supporter with your troubles this year, and the responses from the general public you know the answer to that. The second reason is the system is set up so no clubs go under. That is how the system has been created.

Equalisation is impossible. Originally the COLA was brought in as some form of monetary equalisation. It was never an issue until last year. Retention allowance was brought in as an equalisation method for the go home factor in an expanding market. It wasn't an issue until Brisbane had success. The inequalities of the fixture, travel, football department expenditure etc have been done to death. The ultimate success is measured in premierships. Premierships are won at the MCG. The MCG is the home ground for several clubs. That is not equal.

 

[skipper kelly]

A fact? Define precisely what Sydney brought to the table in the broadcast rights agreement. Since we are dealing in facts you should be able to quote a specific value.

A specific value would be a fact. Your "talking real world" is an opinion.

My opinion is that GWS probably brought more to the deal than Sydney did.

As has been stated, Sydney brought to the table the biggest market in Australia. But whatever, you continue with the hyperbole if that's your choice.

 

[Tedeski]

Brilliant post Skip!

 

[Jade]

Why is it such a crime for a club to take a risk?

Two reasons, central to my argument that it is WRONG for the AFL to allow Sydney to take this risk:

1) They do it with funds not available to most other clubs
2) If the risk fails, the AFL is duty bound to make sure the Swans don't flounder at the bottom of the ladder

 

[The Gong]

The first point is a fallacy. The AFL doesn't need Sydney or Brisbane to ensure the TV rights deals are lucrative. It gets it's millions of viewers, which provide the staple of the TV rights deal, from the traditional Aussie Rules states. These are the states it relies on. Broadcasting into Sydney on 7mate to 200,000 people isn't going to be a hugely influential factor in the grand scheme of TV rights dollars.

And it's now the AFL, and we are going to continue to have decades of inequality in the name of 'growing the game'. The wheel of inequality has turned, it just happens to be in your favour now, and will b

No offence mate, but I think you're missing the point. You can't grow a business by selling to the same people over and over. It's about growing market share, getting fans from other codes to come across and they do that by pushing into traditional rugby league states in QLD and NSW with emphasis on NSW being the largest potential TV audience in Australia. The AFL has no interest in just maintaining what they have. If you know anything about business you can't just aim to stay the same or you eventually start going backwards. It's a competition against every other major sporting code in Australia and there are plenty of them.

 

[QuietB]

The first point is a fallacy. The AFL doesn't need Sydney or Brisbane to ensure the TV rights deals are lucrative. It gets it's millions of viewers, which provide the staple of the TV rights deal, from the traditional Aussie Rules states. These are the states it relies on. Broadcasting into Sydney on 7mate to 200,000 people isn't going to be a hugely influential factor in the grand scheme of TV rights dollars.

And it's now the AFL, and we are going to continue to have decades of inequality in the name of 'growing the game'. The wheel of inequality has turned, it just happens to be in your favour now, and will b

If the AFL scrapped GWS, GC and Sydney tomorrow, and Brisbane for good measure and the TV rights were adjusted accordingly the AFL would probably come out cash positive.

 

[The Gong]

If the AFL scrapped GWS, GC and Sydney tomorrow, and Brisbane for good measure and the TV rights were adjusted accordingly the AFL would probably come out cash positive.

I stand corrected. This IS still the VFL.

If you draw back from trying to move into your competitors' markets then they will start moving into yours.

I think you need to be a little bit less Vic centric and be a little bit more visionary than that. GC and GWS aren't a 5 year project, they're a 30+ year project. Brisbane and Sydney are going nowhere.

 

[skipper kelly]

Two reasons, central to my argument that it is WRONG for the AFL to allow Sydney to take this risk:

1) They do it with funds not available to most other clubs
2) If the risk fails, the AFL is duty bound to make sure the Swans don't flounder at the bottom of the ladder

Do you really want the AFL to veto contracts that are legal and not unreasonable? Doesn't the AFL have enough control as it is? We aren't talking about a contract that goes beyond anything that has ever happened before. Some current players earn that amount of money or close to it and some players play until they are 36 and beyond. Both are extremes but not without precedent. Franklin wanted to move and chose Sydney. Sydney came to the party and did what it took to get him.

1. If you are referring to the COLA then this was part of the AFL equalisation process. The equalisation that everyone wanted.

2. Not having the ultimate success with Franklin does not mean Sydney will flounder at the bottom of the ladder. Your statement is one of those I was talking about. Sydney have had relative success in making the finals for many years. It is always stated that the AFL can't allow Sydney to bottom out so they manufacture it to make Sydney successful. This is the reactionary response to success from a club that had been down for 50 or so years. It goes against the status quo so there must be a reason. The reason cant be hard work, good recruitment, good coaching and a lot of luck. It has to be something else, it has to be manufactured by the AFL.

 

[QuietB]

I stand corrected. This IS still the VFL.

If you draw back from trying to move into your competitors' markets then they will start moving into yours.

I think you need to be a little bit less Vic centric and be a little bit more visionary than that. GC and GWS aren't a 5 year project, they're a 30+ year project. Brisbane and Sydney are going nowhere.

I agree 100% and I support expansion. My point was in reference to the benefit that Sydney and the other expansion clubs add to the broadcast deal. it is overstated. Hopefully long term it is worth it, footy becomes our truly national code and all clubs go head to head without any concessions.

The NFL do not give a s**t who wins it. Same with NBA, MLB, NHL, etc. They are in the position where concessions by the governing body simply would not be tolerated by privately owned clubs. I guess that is one advantage of a privately owned system.

 

[The Gong]

I agree 100% and I support expansion. My point was in reference to the benefit that Sydney and the other expansion clubs add to the broadcast deal. it is overstated. Hopefully long term it is worth it, footy becomes our truly national code and all clubs go head to head without any concessions.

The NFL do not give a s**t who wins it. Same with NBA, MLB, NHL, etc. They are in the position where concessions by the governing body simply would not be tolerated by privately owned clubs. I guess that is one advantage of a privately owned system.

OK I get what you're saying. You could be right or wrong about the benefits being overstated on current viewers. I'd have to see some figures on that to have an opinion. My point was that current viewers in NSW and QLD aren't the main target...it's the future market they are working towards.

 

[Count Dooku]

If we get 7% inflation for the next 10 years I better hurry the hell up and pay my mortgage. How does 2.5% inflation work out for you?

If you believe govt issued inflation statistics no wonder you are going to be a mortgage slave for the rest of your life. At least your football team is successful.

 

[Tedeski]

And at 70% inflation over 10 years the cap will increase 200 times. Why pull bullshit numbers? Inflation rate has been nowhere near 7% since the 80's.

Adrian Anderson said in an interview after we got Buddy that by the time 9 years is up, the cap will be around $20m anyway. The free agency will force this up at

 

[Tedeski]

And at 70% inflation over 10 years the cap will increase 200 times. Why pull bullshit numbers? Inflation rate has been nowhere near 7% since the 80's.

Adrian Anderson said in an interview after we got Buddy that by the time 9 years is up, the cap will be around $20m anyway. The free agency will force this up at a greater rate than if we didn't have it according to others.

Anyway, it's very flattering that so many of you are concerned for our well being now that we have Buddy.

It's much appreciated.......................even though it's laced with envy.

 

[DrEvil]

Adrian Anderson said in an interview after we got Buddy that by the time 9 years is up, the cap will be around $20m anyway. The free agency will force this up at a greater rate than if we didn't have it according to others.

Anyway, it's very flattering that so many of you are concerned for our well being now that we have Buddy.

It's much appreciated.......................even though it's laced with envy.

So do you agree with my point that annual inflation of 7% for the next 10 years is BS? You can argue to heaven and back what the salary cap will be in 10 years time, but please don't pull BS inflation numbers.

 

[cinderella man]

So do you agree with my point that annual inflation of 7% for the next 10 years is BS? You can argue to heaven and back what the salary cap will be in 10 years time, but please don't pull BS inflation numbers.

What are you a ****** economist ?

 

[SydneyPhilly]

The NFL do not give a s**t who wins it. Same with NBA, MLB, NHL, etc. They are in the position where concessions by the governing body simply would not be tolerated by privately owned clubs. I guess that is one advantage of a privately owned system.

The NFL are also in a position where they are quietly asking less financially viable teams like the Jaguars to move to bigger markets like L.A or London. They do give a **** who wins it, because they also have to compete with other sports. in the same market - MLB and NFL have clashed in a number of big markets like New York and Philadelphia. Same with NBA - the Dolphins and the Heat are trying to sell to the same market.

Also the MLB? Really? Ever wondered why the Yankees are always on top? It's because for a small fee you can circumvent the Salary Cap. Guess who sells out their home games every single game?

How about the NBA? Dwight Howard was blocked from going to the Lakers because of 'Basketball Reasons'. Yes, that was the official reason given. Howard had to remain as the main figure in a small basketball market in Orlando to help grow the game's image there for another year.

I agree 100% and I support expansion. My point was in reference to the benefit that Sydney and the other expansion clubs add to the broadcast deal. it is overstated. Hopefully long term it is worth it, footy becomes our truly national code and all clubs go head to head without any concessions.

Lets use the NFL as an example, again. The NFL has for many years had the policy of blacking out games that simply do not sell tickets. That means NOTHING - no advertisement revenue, no games shown live, and thus no tv rights money for that game.

That has never happened in the AFL. Least of all to the Swans/Lions/Suns/Giants, because the AFL would not allow that. They need the interstate markets as much as possible. Whether it be because they went for dollars instead of conditions, or something else I couldn't tell you. I do, however, know that the potential NSW market, which is what the Swans/GWS were set up to achieve, is very important to the AFL.

Do go on, though.

 

[QuietB]

Adrian Anderson said in an interview after we got Buddy that by the time 9 years is up, the cap will be around $20m anyway. The free agency will force this up at a greater rate than if we didn't have it according to others.

Anyway, it's very flattering that so many of you are concerned for our well being now that we have Buddy.

It's much appreciated.......................even though it's laced with envy.

How is free agency going to force the cap up? The cap is the cap. it is set based on the enterprise bargaining agreement with the players union and city hall will only ever allow what the game can afford.

It would appear that the next broadcast rights deal the AFL might retain some content or potentially sell content on a unit by unit basis. If this is what happens then I think the AFL will want to see how it pans out before they agree to large salary cap increases.

Also does not help that TV networks are doing it tough.

 

[QuietB]

The NFL are also in a position where they are quietly asking less financially viable teams like the Jaguars to move to bigger markets like L.A or London. They do give a **** who wins it, because they also have to compete with other sports. in the same market - MLB and NFL have clashed in a number of big markets like New York and Philadelphia. Same with NBA - the Dolphins and the Heat are trying to sell to the same market.

Also the MLB? Really? Ever wondered why the Yankees are always on top? It's because for a small fee you can circumvent the Salary Cap. Guess who sells out their home games every single game?

How about the NBA? Dwight Howard was blocked from going to the Lakers because of 'Basketball Reasons'. Yes, that was the official reason given. Howard had to remain as the main figure in a small basketball market in Orlando to help grow the game's image there for another year.

Do go on, though.

Dwight Howard did go to the Lakers. Didn't work out too well.

So does City Hall finance any of these teams?

 

[SydneyPhilly]

Dwight Howard did go to the Lakers. Didn't work out too well.

So does City Hall finance any of these teams?

1. Yes. After it was found that he was doing more harm to Orlando than good. It took a year before Stern backflipped - that much is well documented.

2. No, because they are privately owned. You said that in your earlier post so I'm currently very confused.

 

[Tedeski]

So do you agree with my point that annual inflation of 7% for the next 10 years is BS? You can argue to heaven and back what the salary cap will be in 10 years time, but please don't pull BS inflation numbers.

Annual inflation rates are not as high as 7% generally but in the food industry (my business) some items can decrease in price over a number of years but others can take off dramatically.
The AFL is not your average business & whereas in the past, the salary cap had constraints on it because it wasn't easy for players to get to the club of their choice. Now though with free agency, salary caps can accelerate rapidly which will only hurt the less viable clubs.

 

[worthy]

Annual inflation rates are not as high as 7% generally but in the food industry (my business) some items can decrease in price over a number of years but others can take off dramatically.
.

Generally driven by those evil entities that are Coles and WW, I too am in the food industry.