Opinion Is Buddy's nine year contract finally coming back to haunt the Swans?

[nobbyiscool]

He could retire tomorrow and the contract has already paid for itself in the fans, sponsors and media exposure he brings the Swans in a crowded market.

 

[00Stinger]

It put the Swans all over the papers and got them to the big dance in 2016.
If having the best player of his generation on their list for 6 years cost them 9 years of salary (and no draft picks) - for everything he's brought the Swans, they just might do the deal again even with the value of hindsight.

100%

He brought a lot of media attention to a club that needs it.

Chuck in 4 AA's, 2 Coleman medals and a grand final and I can't see how anyone could argue it wasn't a good deal by the Swans

 

[Pykie]

He could retire tomorrow and the contract has already paid for itself in the fans, sponsors and media exposure he brings the Swans in a crowded market.

Maybe.

If his contract means they are wooden spooners or near to that for the next 3 years, he might just eradicate those gains.

The Sydney sporting public are the biggest band-wagoners in the country.

 

[Cotchins Hair Piece]

As if buddy give a damn. He’s got what he wants

It’s not about Buddy, it’s about the impact of his contract on the Swans.

 

[Hawkas1988]

100%

He brought a lot of media attention to a club that needs it.

Chuck in 4 AA's, 2 Coleman medals and a grand final and I can't see how anyone could argue it wasn't a good deal by the Swans

2 Grand Finals not the 1.

I agree, Sydney may not have got the flag they were hoping/expecting but it's not as if he hasn't performed in the time he was there. Great for off-field marketing etc & has performed very strongly for them. Big game player. Was about their only decent player in the 2014 GF.

Next couple of years will hurt but still worth it in the long-run.

 

[hawkman]

2 Grand Finals not the 1.

I agree, Sydney may not have got the flag they were hoping/expecting but it's not as if he hasn't performed in the time he was there. Great for off-field marketing etc & has performed very strongly for them. Big game player. Was about their only decent player in the 2014 GF.

Next couple of years will hurt but still worth it in the long-run.

The issue is if they sit down the bottom for 3 years while GWS contend for the flag. Do they lose any progress they have made off field

 

[juss]

It was always the final 2-3 years that were the risk. I'd say by the end of it he won't be contributing much, and not up to the level of his salary for that year.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

The full amount will count towards the Salary cap, that's where it will hurt the most.

If he retires, he breaks the contract and doesn't get paid though right?

Therefore surely it doesn't get included in the salary cap?

But obviously he'd be off his nut to retire when he can just sit in the grandstand for 2 years and collect his cheque still.

 

[bluespooner]

If he retires, he breaks the contract and doesn't get paid though right?

Therefore surely it doesn't get included in the salary cap?

But obviously he'd be off his nut to retire when he can just sit in the grandstand for 2 years and collect his cheque still.

No it counts towards the salary cap, this was made clear by the AFL when the swans submitted Franklin's contract. The amount and length of the contract offered by the swans was how they outbid Hawthorn without having to trade or offer any compensation.

Hawthorn subsequently, ended up with pick 19 for the best player in the competition.

 

[Yojimbo]

One positive, took the heat off Kurt Tippett.

 

[blue harvest]

If he retires, he breaks the contract and doesn't get paid though right?

Therefore surely it doesn't get included in the salary cap?

But obviously he'd be off his nut to retire when he can just sit in the grandstand for 2 years and collect his cheque still.

It still counts towards the cap due to the restricted free agency matching rules.

 

[yeahmate]

Absolutely no chance the AFL will let the Swans become uncompetitive. Too much TV revenue at stake

 

[BF Tiger]

Post-Covid the AFL may implement reduced list sizes and salary cap.

Swans could argue unfair, we signed Buddy thinking cap would be $xx million with a list size of 40+ players.

Then negotiate an out where they are not held to Buddy’s contract being included in the salary cap.

 

[WillHayward]

very good players get paid more than 500k

In 2021?
Will be plenty of very good players on 500 next year.

 

[the harry]

Do we expect the impact on the salary cap to decrease in proportion to the reduced cap next year and going forward?
On one hand everything should decrease in unison. But on the other, the idea was that the cap increases would make his salary less of a burden at the back end and so if the plan was to benefit for an increase in the cap, surely there should be the risk of suffering from the decreased csp.

 

[blue harvest]

Post-Covid the AFL may implement reduced list sizes and salary cap.

Swans could argue unfair, we signed Buddy thinking cap would be $xx million with a list size of 40+ players.

Then negotiate an out where they are not held to Buddy’s contract being included in the salary cap.

I think in this situation it would be fair to do some sort of pro rata adjustment. Say cap goes down 10% then his $1.5M cap contribution could also go down 10% to $1.35M. AFL aren't going to let them get away with putting unders into the cap those first few years without feeling the pain of overs later in the contract.

 

[BF Tiger]

I think in this situation it would be fair to do some sort of pro rata adjustment. Say cap goes down 10% then his $1.5M cap contribution could also go down 10% to $1.35M. AFL aren't going to let them get away with putting unders into the cap those first few years without feeling the pain of overs later in the contract.

I understand the pro-rata argument but I think they they might try to manipulate the reduction in list size. Something along the lines of “if we had known list sizes would only be 35 players we would never have signed him for nine years”.

 

[Minidisc MD]

most overrated power forward of all time.

 

[blue harvest]

I understand the pro-rata argument but I think they they might try to manipulate the reduction in list size. Something along the lines of “if we had known list sizes would only be 35 players we would never have signed him for nine years”.

I'm sure they'll try something, then Eddie will speak up and they'll lose their s**t.
I think the AFL will be on solid ground with the explicit statements they made at the time about the extraordinary risk a contract like that carries.

 

[kriles76]

I get the feeling Buddy wouldn't have the same number of soft tissue injuries if he dropped a few kegs.

He needs to get his frame back to c.2006-2007-2008 shape.

Too much bulk for him to carry as it is, now.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

No it counts towards the salary cap, this was made clear by the AFL when the swans submitted Franklin's contract. The amount and length of the contract offered by the swans was how they outbid Hawthorn without having to trade or offer any compensation.

Hawthorn subsequently, ended up with pick 19 for the best player in the competition.

99% correct, but he was already lost to Hawthorn, he was headed to GWS so far as the AFL was concerned. Hawks weren't able to match the GWS deal, let alone the Sydney one. The AFL wanted a player of Buddy's magnitude to add star quality to the Giants. Poaching Buddy was a good pick up by the Swans, it has paid for itself in many ways, but it alienated their biggest ally, the AFL. The AFL won't be so quick next time to bail the Swans out.

The fact we only got pick 19 for him still leaves a sour taste in my mouth, especially when you consider what Geelong got for Ablett when he went to the Suns.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I get the feeling Buddy wouldn't have the same number of soft tissue injuries if he dropped a few kegs.

He needs to get his frame back to c.2006-2007-2008 shape.

Too much bulk for him to carry as it is, now.

I honestly think it's natural bulk that has built with age. In the years you mentioned, he was still a kid. If you look at the size of his dad, you can see Buddy really adding the kilos post-retirement. Buddy will never get back to the build he had in 2006.

 

[Yojimbo]

most overrated power forward of all time.

Bit harsh as I don't think you could class him as a "Power Forward" he is a weird "Hybrid Forward" better on the ground than in
the air which at his height is incredibly rare. Could he be the last 100 goal kicker in a premiership year, one day we may have
to dig up his bones and extract his 100 goal kicker DNA (Not for a while big fella touch wood).

On the question of contracts, yeah big contracts suck far too many variables at play.

 

[La Dispute]

It's actually coincided pretty well with Swans doing a mini rebuild, and they'll continue regenerated over the next few years, but it will mean their capacity to bring in any necessary FA's is severely restricted.

I'd say overall Sydney have got their money's worth. The contract itself was partly about performance and also partly about bringing in a marketable player who'd keep fans coming through the gates. They've also been unlucky post 2012, contending in two Grand Finals against lower ranked Victorian teams.

 

[Topkent]

That’s the risk of long term big money deals really marketing and $ wise it’s a good deal for the swans.

Footy wise you’d have to look at it as a failure joined a team who had won a premiership and hasn’t helped them win another (bulldogs game and umpires withstanding)

Hindsight being what it is he probably should of joined the giants if he still leaves the hawks.

Richmond were also talked about that they could potentially regret martin’s big money deal but 2 premierships and norm smith’s as well as a brownlow obviously says otherwise

Was also mentioned about Tom lynch but again I guess it’s how much you count winning a premiership counts money wise.

Non Richmond or buddy wise Collingwood in a similar spot with Grundy which remains to be seen if it ends good or badly.

That's ******* stupid logic