Rumour Buddy to retire at seasons end?

[Maddo11]

So, there are two different rules for salary cap for someone doing the same job and retiring?

Yes.

 

[CheapCharlie]

Yes.

Doesn't seem fair, does it?

 

[Wesley2]

You are basing your argument on how the AFL has written their conditions not on whether the same fair and equitable rule applies to each and every individual player



So, there are two different rules for salary cap for someone doing the same job and retiring?

Players retiring on standard contract and a restricted free agent contract have the exact same opportunity to negotiate exit payments in the case of early retirement.

The difference is how they effect the club. Standard contracts only affect one club, as no one else is involved, so any negotiated settlement is included in their cap (see Tippet, Cyril, Boyd).

Any restricted free agent retirement will be wholly included in the cap as the deal involves 2 clubs. Sydney made an offer, and Hawthorn had the right to match that offer. So it stands to reason that Sydney be held to that offer.

HFC were not told they could play Buddy for a shorter period then cancel the deal. That simply was NOT the deal that was tabled.

How isn't that fair?

 

[SSSSSS]

Doesn't seem fair, does it?

If you can't afford to take a 9 year risk on a player then don't take the risk.

Simples.

Hawthorn would have matched and squeezed you for everything Buddy was worth but there is no way we are going to match a nine year deal. That is absolutely in the realms of stupidity.

 

[CheapCharlie]

If you can't afford to take a 9 year risk on a player then don't take the risk.

Simples.

Hawthorn would have matched and squeezed you for everything Buddy was worth but there is no way we are going to match a nine year deal. That is absolutely in the realms of stupidity.

It isn't about longevity of a deal. Its about any retiring player is treated equally regarding salary cap.

 

[Wesley2]

It isn't about longevity of a deal. Its about any retiring player is treated equally regarding salary cap.

Why shouldn't a restricted free agents contract be included in the cap in it's entirety?

 

[Maddo11]

Doesn't seem fair, does it?

If you buy a car with a 10 year loan but you can't drive after 5 years any more the bank doesn't just say "oh don't worry about all that money you owe us that's fine".

Actually, better analogy


You're in a bidding war against someone for an item. You bid more than the other person even though you can't afford it. You can't just go to the Auctioneer "I won, but i'm only going to pay 75% of what i bid". Otherwise the other party should have won the item.

If you draft a player or trade for them, then you've already paid either a draft pick or another player for them. So if they retire, you don't owe them anything. Free agents are an auction.

 

[Starburns_]

Seriously, I'd like to see the league put either a 5- or 7-year limit on contract length, and not allow multi-year contracts to extend past the year a player turns 33. Would still allow clubs to make big long-term offers, but also saves them from themselves a bit with ridiculous sums to be paid to blokes who might not even be playing, through either age or injury.

That would meant that either way, a player like Coniglio (born 1993) could be offered a maximum 7-year deal at the end of this year, as he turns 33 in 2026.

Whilst it seems unnecessarily burdensome to include all the remaining money in a single year if the player retires early, clubs really shouldn't need protection from signing stupidly long deals. If the Buddy deal doesn't go the distance, that should be a cautionary tale for all clubs.

The issue is whether all future salaries for players are treated fairly and the same under the salary cap. The status of the player is irrelevant to that.

It is fair though. Don't confuse your lack of comprehension for a lack of fairness.

You are basing your argument on how the AFL has written their conditions not on whether the same fair and equitable rule applies to each and every individual player



So, there are two different rules for salary cap for someone doing the same job and retiring?

The parties involved are signing different contracts, and are thus agreeing to different rules.

The following are all different contracts with different requirements...

- Standard extension and unrestricted free agency: terms agreed to by player and club.
- Trade of player: terms agreed to by the player, their current club, and their future club, with the AFL able to veto the trade if it may amount to tampering in some way.
- Restricted Free Agency and uncontracted player entering the draft: an agreement between a player, the club recruiting them, and the AFL.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Hope not, really want the big man to get to 1000

 

[SSSSSS]

It isn't about longevity of a deal. Its about any retiring player is treated equally regarding salary cap.

Retirements happen. Factor that into your decision making and don't offer a ridiculous nine year deal.

The risk wasn't taken into consideration. Now face the consequences.

Tough t***ies. It's the price you pay for getting one of the GOATs for free.

 

[Holy Rioli]

It isn't about longevity of a deal. Its about any retiring player is treated equally regarding salary cap.

You are completing missing the point mate. The reason the AFL implemented that rule was to stop clubs offering stupid long term contracts that neither the club or player have any intention of seeing out, just to stop the original club from being able to match. If they didn't players would all sign 15 year deals to get around the 'restricted' part of their free agency status, and then do up a new realistic contract once they were officially on the club list they wanted to be.

 

[Rod Stroker]

So when he was at training this week at Moore Park kicking them from 50 and running at full tilt it was all part of the charade to retire?

If he's doing that then why isn't he playing?

Personally I hope he goes on. Want to see him crack 1000, and there is arguably no better player to watch in full flight.

 

[Bay Giant]

Retirements happen. Factor that into your decision making and don't offer a ridiculous nine year deal.

The risk wasn't taken into consideration. Now face the consequences.

Tough t***ies. It's the price you pay for getting one of the GOATs for free.

You’re either the GOAT or you’re not.

No one can be “one of the GOAT’s”

 

[edconte76]

So your mate was cooked at the party and bud said he was retiring.

That right?

This is how the story goes. There were a few people at this joint, some had definitely powdered their noses on the good stuff, Buddy had stated to this person that he is feeling like his body is definitely fried, doubts moving forward if he's nearly cooked. It actually ain't a rumour, it's fact. I cannot name people as they are close to his group.

At the very most, id say he's got one left. Especially the way Longmire persists in playing him out of the square as a high half forward.

Hopefully next year, Longmire comes to his senses and plays him in the square.

Highly doubtful, considering Longmires plan A involves Buddy as a high half forward

And he has no plan B!,

 

[Art Corvelay]

You are completing missing the point mate. The reason the AFL implemented that rule was to stop clubs offering stupid long term contracts that neither the club or player have any intention of seeing out, just to stop the original club from being able to match. If they didn't players would all sign 15 year deals to get around the 'restricted' part of their free agency status, and then do up a new realistic contract once they were officially on the club list they wanted to be.

One might suggest deliberately missing the point, because it’s very obvious why trades players and restricted free agents are treated differently.

 

[Tedeski]

He asked about going to Sydney instead of GWS after the 2012 grand final.
Also, GWS is still in Sydney. He 100% chose the Swans to chase immediate success.

You're still very bitter.
I'm loving it.
Bud will keep playing & he loves our club.

 

[Tedeski]

This is how the story goes. There were a few people at this joint, some had definitely powdered their noses on the good stuff, Buddy had stated to this person that he is feeling like his body is definitely fried, doubts moving forward if he's nearly cooked. It actually ain't a rumour, it's fact. I cannot name people as they are close to his group.

At the very most, id say he's got one left. Especially the way Longmire persists in playing him out of the square as a high half forward.

Hopefully next year, Longmire comes to his senses and plays him in the square.

Highly doubtful, considering Longmires plan A involves Buddy as a high half forward

And he has no plan B!,

You lost me when I read that you are a Swan supporter so stop posting crap.

 

[Bay Giant]

You're still very bitter.
I'm loving it.
Bud will keep playing & he loves our club.

I have no idea why any Hawks fan would be bitter? They won a couple more flags without the Budwah.

If anyone should be salty it should be Swans fans; they’ve won s**t with him, and cost themselves (And us) a salary cap allowance (which we both need) and have screwed the pooch royally.

 

[Blackhawk42]

You're still very bitter.
I'm loving it.
Bud will keep playing & he loves our club.

We all stopped being bitter the second Hodgey planted a kiss on him during the 2014 grand final training session (ie. Grand final).

 

[Shadow89]

Hard to believe a poster that created an account 2 days ago, doesn't have any legitimate sources and only has 9 posts to his name.

More than a little suss. Bud has an ego the size of Sydney, he won't give up a chance at 300 games/1,000 goals or another million or two.

 

[edconte76]

You lost me when I read that you are a Swan supporter so stop posting crap.

I'd happily drop 1$k bet if your keen? I have no reason to lie. You game mate? Call me and I'll give you the Goss straight to your mouth?

 

[edconte76]

Hard to believe a poster that created an account 2 days ago, doesn't have any legitimate sources and only has 9 posts to his name.

More than a little suss. Bud has an ego the size of Sydney, he won't give up a chance at 300 games/1,000 goals or another million or two.

What's that matter that I created an account 2 days ago? Does that give me more credibility? I'm legit mate, not chasing glory on a website. Happy to give my number out I'll say it straight to your ear on the phone

 

[Shadow89]

What's that matter that I created an account 2 days ago? Does that give me more credibility? I'm legit mate, not chasing glory on a website. Happy to give my number out I'll say it straight to your ear on the phone

Because it seems that you created an account solely to spread this news, lol. Of course we'll see what happens at the end of the year, and I'll come back and apologize if it turns out to be true, but I don't hold much confidence based on the aforementioned.

 

[Slartibartfast]

This is how the story goes. There were a few people at this joint, some had definitely powdered their noses on the good stuff, Buddy had stated to this person that he is feeling like his body is definitely fried, doubts moving forward if he's nearly cooked. It actually ain't a rumour, it's fact. I cannot name people as they are close to his group.

At the very most, id say he's got one left. Especially the way Longmire persists in playing him out of the square as a high half forward.

Hopefully next year, Longmire comes to his senses and plays him in the square.

Highly doubtful, considering Longmires plan A involves Buddy as a high half forward

And he has no plan B!,

 

[edconte76]

Because it seems that you created an account solely to spread this news, lol. Of course we'll see what happens at the end of the year, and I'll come back and apologize if it turns out to be true, but I don't hold much confidence based on the aforementioned.

Mate I'm dead serious. The same source also told me this one as well. Said take it to the bank.

Papley will ask for a trade at seasons end to the blues.