Rumour Buddy to retire at seasons end?

[kranky al]

Probably the only other player who would be in the same situation as Buddy would be Tom Lynch. Moved clubs as a RFA, on a long-term deal that he might not see through.

The Swans tried to price the Hawks out of the market for Buddy by offering an extreme contract that would not be matched. The AFL recognised this loophole when it happened and realised that if they let that one go, then all clubs would do it and restricted free agency was a pointless exercise.

The AFL made sure it was clear to the Swans (and others) that in offering such a deal, they would be taking on the risk if the contract failed to last the distance. It wasn't childish, it was a common sense accountability measure, and the Swans still chose to sign him once this was outlined.



The only suggestions of it are in this thread though. The AFL won't backflip on it, it would have a significant ripple effect on the competition.

If gws had offered that would they have done the same.

Face facts the afl didnt care about hawks - they were pissed buddy didnt go to gws

Buddy could still hold them to that contract if he wanted - and make bank without playing a game

 

[Wesley2]

If gws had offered that would they have done the same.

Face facts the afl didnt care about hawks - they were pi**ed buddy didnt go to gws

Buddy could still hold them to that contract if he wanted - and make bank without playing a game

If Buddy does retire whatever he negotiates as exit payment isn't relevant to the cap. All of the 9 year deal they tabled to Buddy (and Hawthorn had the opportunity to match as per free agency) will be included in the cap.

What Buddy gets of it is between the Swans and him, but they may as well be generous with him because it can't be used on other players.

 

[Taylor]

The Swans should get out of paying as much actual money as possible. Even $500,000 a year extra to spend on their team, members or club financial strength is better.

But if he will be around then pay the man and have him in his Swans top of Friday night footy every week "Yeah, hoping to get back soon" all season. Excellent marketing

 

[Starburns_]

If gws had offered that would they have done the same.

Face facts the afl didnt care about hawks - they were pi**ed buddy didnt go to gws

Absolutely they would've. The AFL being pissed about him not going to GWS is separate to forcing the Swans to honour the deal. It's highly unlikely GWS had a 9 year deal in the pipeline.

The AFL's 'vengeance' (for lack of a better word), was the removal of COLA and the trade ban, both of which were still reasonable measures despite the Swans crying like Pridham after he'd just bought a fake artwork.

If the AFL didn't realise the mess it would've created on their own, another club would've brought it to their attention, it was a gaping loophole. All it would take to expose the potential absurdity of it is a club raising the hypothetical whether they could offer a player a 20 year deal.

Buddy could still hold them to that contract if he wanted - and make bank without playing a game

As Tayl0r mentioned above, Bud can get probably still get paid if he retires due to injury. If he retired because he couldn't be bothered anymore though, the Swans would still be stuck with the cap hit, because that's the price you pay with restricted free agency.

 

[HairyO]

That's literally what COLA was and, yes, it was taken away.

No. COLA was 10% extra to spend.

The change was for players on average contract got 10% more not counted in the cap.


So someone on $250k could get another $25k and not be included (or have only around ,$225k included). Someone on $600k has it all count.

 

[CheapCharlie]

Probably the only other player who would be in the same situation as Buddy would be Tom Lynch. Moved clubs as a RFA, on a long-term deal that he might not see through.

The Swans tried to price the Hawks out of the market for Buddy by offering an extreme contract that would not be matched. The AFL recognised this loophole when it happened and realised that if they let that one go, then all clubs would do it and restricted free agency was a pointless exercise.

The AFL made sure it was clear to the Swans (and others) that in offering such a deal, they would be taking on the risk if the contract failed to last the distance. It wasn't childish, it was a common sense accountability measure, and the Swans still chose to sign him once this was outlined.



The only suggestions of it are in this thread though. The AFL won't backflip on it, it would have a significant ripple effect on the competition.

Sydney might take it to court if buddy does retire. Its am unfair restraint and penalty
Sydney acted okay and the AFL spat the dummy when it didnt get its way and introduced punitive measures.

 

[base615]

No. COLA was 10% extra to spend.

The change was for players on average contract got 10% more not counted in the cap.


So someone on $250k could get another $25k and not be included (or have only around ,$225k included). Someone on $600k has it all count.

Bollocks. It's literally in the name Cost of Living Allowance. Each player got 10% loading, not 10% extra in our salary cap.

There was a 3 year phase out period which you may be getting confused with, which the AFL arbitrarily decided to ignore half way through and issue us with a trade ban.

 

[HairyO]

Bollocks. It's literally in the name Cost of Living Allowance. Each player got 10% loading, not 10% extra in our salary cap.

There was a 3 year phase out period which you may be getting confused with, which the AFL arbitrarily decided to ignore half way through and issue us with a trade ban.

No. Its the rent allowance where the AFL chips in extra money for the players on average or below money.

 

[Freomaniac]

Are you still of the belief that Sydney get COLA assistance?

The AFL wouldn't let their pet favourite suffer. No doubt there are under the table dealings going on that we are not meant to know about

wink wink nudge nudge

Dont the players on average contracts get an extra 10% ?

Or did thst get taken away as well?

If the Swans put him on long term injury are there funny games they can play with Rookie listing? Or will it all count ?

I assume Gil can wave his magic wand and change anything if he wishes. All the AFL owned clubs will sign off on it.

Oh come on....

If you had to choose the COLA money or work for the dole money. Its a very easy option which one to choose

 

[Wesley2]

Sydney might take it to court if buddy does retire. Its am unfair restraint and penalty
Sydney acted okay and the AFL spat the dummy when it didnt get its way and introduced punitive measures.

How is holding Sydney to a contract they offered, and signed off on, an unfair restraint and penalty?

Thanks to that offer you got several years of the best player in the competition without trading for him.

Why should you be allowed to change the terms of the free agent contract, without any repercussions, mid-way through?

Sydney Swans took a risk and it may or may not bite them. If you don't want a multi million dollar contract tied to a player over 30 years old, don't offer them one in the first place.

Caveat emptor.

 

[CheapCharlie]

How is holding Sydney to a contract they offered, and signed off on, an unfair restraint and penalty?

Thanks to that offer you got several years of the best competition without trading for him.

Why should you be allowed to change the terms of the free agent contract, without any repercussions, mid-way through?

Sydney Swans took a risk and it may or may not bite them. If you don't want a multi million dollar contract tied to a player over 30 years old, don't offer them one in the first place.

Caveat emptor.

If someone retires it changes everything. Same in any business.

Or maybe a player should be forced to play on. Modern slavery and all that

 

[Wesley2]

If someone retires it changes everything. Same in any business.

Or maybe a player should be forced to play on. Modern slavery and all that

It was known to the Swans when they made the offer. It was explained to them, and the board of directors signed off on it.

Dillon said the AFL acknowledged that the nature of the nine-year deal was an unprecedented commitment of TPP funds to a single player over such a contract length, and as a result it sought written guarantees from all members of the Sydney board as well as its senior management.

These included:

• "An explicit acknowledgement that the long-term specific financial commitment over the nine-year agreement will apply to the Swans' total player payments for each of the nine years, regardless of how many years Franklin is available to play for the club."

• "The Swans' board and senior management will be required to meet with the AFL on an annual basis specifically to review how the club is managing its salary cap obligations in regards to the Franklin contract."

• "An assurance the board has been provided with all information it required to properly assess the contract offer, including medical reviews and financial planning around the club's long-term salary-cap position."

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

 

[Starburns_]

Sydney might take it to court if buddy does retire. Its am unfair restraint and penalty
Sydney acted okay and the AFL spat the dummy when it didnt get its way and introduced punitive measures.

LOL, on what grounds? The AFL didn't enact the rule after you signed it, they warned you straight up when you lodged it, and you went ahead and signed him anyway.

Typical Sydney, always thinking the rules don't need to apply to them.

If someone retires it changes everything. Same in any business.

Or maybe a player should be forced to play on. Modern slavery and all that

Buddy isn't being forced to play on though, the Swans are just being compelled (in line with the league's rules) to honour the deal/bid they initially lodged within their TPP cap.

 

[blue harvest]

There seems to be some confusion in this thread around the whole free agency thing where the club has to include the original deal in their cap regardless of what happens. This rule was not introduced when the Buddy deal was done, it already existed as part of the restricted free agency rules, it was nothing to do with punishing the Swans. The AFL wrote to the Swans to confirm that they 100% understood this rule and the risks they were taking and they replied with a yes we completely understand.

 

[blue harvest]

If Buddy does retire whatever he negotiates as exit payment isn't relevant to the cap. All of the 9 year deal they tabled to Buddy (and Hawthorn had the opportunity to match as per free agency) will be included in the cap.

What Buddy gets of it is between the Swans and him, but they may as well be generous with him because it can't be used on other players.

Not only that but my understanding of the rules at the time is if he retires then all of the remaining contract has to be accounted for in the following year's cap. He is due something like $1.4m in 2020, $1.5m in 2021 and $1m in 2022. So if he retired at the end of this year he would be taking up nearly $4m of next year's cap space which would leave the Swans in deep deep do do, basically unable to field a team. They would be forced to keep him on the list for the last 3 years and then the contract could be spread normally over 3 years of cap space - this however would mean he is tying up a list space without playing.

 

[CheapCharlie]

LOL, on what grounds? The AFL didn't enact the rule after you signed it, they warned you straight up when you lodged it, and you went ahead and signed him anyway.

Typical Sydney, always thinking the rules don't need to apply to them.



Buddy isn't being forced to play on though, the Swans are just being compelled (in line with the league's rules) to honour the deal/bid they initially lodged within their TPP cap.

The AFL had a tanty and looked to penalise sydney in any way it could.
Just another example of the amateurs in charge

 

[CheapCharlie]

It was known to the Swans when they made the offer. It was explained to them, and the board of directors signed off on it.

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

Sydney was forced to agree with the AFL under duress

 

[blue harvest]

If someone retires it changes everything. Same in any business.

It doesn't change the restricted free agency rules, they already covered that scenario.

 

[blue harvest]

The AFL had a tanty and looked to penalise sydney in any way it could.
Just another example of the amateurs in charge

This rule already existed before the Buddy deal.

 

[Wesley2]

Sydney was forced to agree with the AFL under duress

Sydney was also forced to offer a nine year, 10 million dollar deal as well, I guess?

 

[Starburns_]

Not only that but my understanding of the rules at the time is if he retires then all of the remaining contract has to be accounted for in the following year's cap. He is due something like $1.4m in 2020, $1.5m in 2021 and $1m in 2022. So if he retired at the end of this year he would be taking up nearly $4m of next year's cap space which would leave the Swans in deep deep do do, basically unable to field a team. They would be forced to keep him on the list for the last 3 years and then the contract could be spread normally over 3 years of cap space - this however would mean he is tying up a list space without playing.

Have heard that mentioned before, seems incredible that they'd be on the hook for that. Still, they've managed to (unintentionally) stretch the Tippett retirement payout over 2 years so it's probably not that big a deal. It's all the same under the cap in the end.

The AFL had a tanty and looked to penalise sydney in any way it could.
Just another example of the amateurs in charge

Strong legal argument you have there.

 

[blue harvest]

Sydney was forced to agree with the AFL under duress

No they weren't. The AFL simply explained the rules to them and wanted written confirmation that they understand the rules. The AFL saw the huge risk in the deal and wanted to make sure the Swans completely understood the risk.

 

[CheapCharlie]

Sydney was also forced to offer a nine year, 10 million dollar deal as well, I guess?

Players don't deserve to maximise their earnings?

 

[CheapCharlie]

No they weren't. The AFL simply explained the rules to them and wanted written confirmation that they understand the rules. The AFL saw the huge risk in the deal and wanted to make sure the Swans completely understood the risk.

The AFL were happy for buddy to go to GWS on any money and any deal length ... when they were blindsided they got the sulks

 

[Wesley2]

Players don't deserve to maximise their earnings?

How will players maximise their earnings if clubs don't honor the offer they made?

PS I know you're a troll, but these arguments deserve replies in case there's anyone out there who actually thinks any team shouldn't be held accountable for restricted free agency offers