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

[blue harvest]

Oh bugger off. It was entirely above board, the numbers to prove it have been tabled for you lot a hundred times, and still you keep trotting this turd out.

I know it's above board according to the rules, I just don't think these sorts of contracts should be allowed. Tweaking 50 or 100 grand between years I can understand but 700k one year and 1.5m another is pushing it too far and kind of defeats the purpose of having a cap.

 

[The Nostradamus]

I’d be surprised if he didn’t retire early
And from memory the contract was done that even if he did he would still get the money

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I know it's above board according to the rules, I just don't think these sorts of contracts should be allowed. Tweaking 50 or 100 grand between years I can understand but 700k one year and 1.5m another is pushing it too far and kind of defeats the purpose of having a cap.

Fine, I'm happy to have people discuss the fairness or otherwise of it, but I just feel that branding it a "rort" is a pretty strong term, not to be used lightly.

 

[Partridge]

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.

That they didn’t win. The also got there in 2012 without him. And won.

He’s not the best player of his generation either

 

[Partridge]

not his fault the bulldogs got fluffed by the umps in the 2016 GF. You do the deal every time.

Off topic, but this is repeated like a mantra.

The Dogs were too good. Umpires had nothing to do with it.

 

[Partridge]

If he doesn't get injured early in the 2016 GF they probably win it

Nup. He was beaten by a better opponent. Tough luck.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Off topic, but this is repeated like a mantra.

The Dogs were too good. Umpires had nothing to do with it.

sure

 

[OhhhhhCyril]

Off topic, but this is repeated like a mantra.

The Dogs were too good. Umpires had nothing to do with it.

Strongly disagree with that. Dogs were given an absolute arm chair ride that day. I don’t even like Sydney, yet saw that kind of day light robbery they copped.

 

[MrWoollie]

Salary Cap rorting.

Morally, Yes, legally, No.
The AFL were naive and stupid. They provided extra money (COLA) and did state what it was for (to cover the cost of moving to and extra expense of living in Sydney, especially for those at the bottom of the pay scale) but didn't put rules in place to ensure this. In fact they made it worse for themselves by just applying a fixed % to the salary cap for ease of calculation, trusting the Swans to do the right thing.
So the Swans took advantage and treated it as extra salary cap. And used it to sign big name players.
Stoopid AFL, smart but immoral Swans.

The AFL should have put in place a system where the purpose of the allowance was hard specified and the amount was specified as x% of the salary cap, but separate from the salary cap and not to used as part of. Problem over, no Tippett or Franklin.

And as for the 2016 GF...
I wanted the Dogs to win. But to say the umpires had no input is laughable. The Subiaco reserves would have won that game with that level of umpire 'favorable interpretation'.

 

[blue harvest]

Morally, Yes, legally, No.
The AFL were naive and stupid. They provided extra money (COLA) and did state what it was for (to cover the cost of moving to and extra expense of living in Sydney, especially for those at the bottom of the pay scale) but didn't put rules in place to ensure this. In fact they made it worse for themselves by just applying a fixed % to the salary cap for ease of calculation, trusting the Swans to do the right thing.
So the Swans took advantage and treated it as extra salary cap. And used it to sign big name players.
Stoopid AFL, smart but immoral Swans.

The AFL should have put in place a system where the purpose of the allowance was hard specified and the amount was specified as x% of the salary cap, but separate from the salary cap and not to used as part of. Problem over, no Tippett or Franklin.

When I said salary cap rorting I meant heavily backending a contract like they did and for an unrealistically long period, they had a million+ player the first couple of years but only taking 700k from the cap - I wasn't referring to COLA at all.

Also that's not how COLA worked. The AFL paid 9.8% on top of each contract, it went to each player, not into a big pot for them to use however they wanted.

 

[MrWoollie]

When I said salary cap rorting I meant heavily backending a contract like they did and for an unrealistically long period, they had a million+ player the first couple of years but only taking 700k from the cap - I wasn't referring to COLA at all.

Also that's not how COLA worked. The AFL paid 9.8% on top of each contract, it went to each player, not into a big pot for them to use however they wanted.

Backending and front loading goes on at every club. It's not rorting by any stretch.
It's just a queston of 'is it sensible'. I would argue that over such a long contract it probably isn't.

And how the COLA worked changed at the end during it's phase out period.

 

[The Nostradamus]

2nd last on the ladder but it’s next year that this back ended contract will finally haunt swans and mess up the rebuild

buddy taking up 1.5mil next year and his final year after 1.4mil

This year he’s only 900k, so they need 600k more in cap room next year to fit his contract in

 

[The King!]

2nd last on the ladder but it’s next year that this back ended contract will finally haunt swans and mess up the rebuild

buddy taking up 1.5mil next year and his final year after 1.4mil

This year he’s only 900k, so they need 600k more in cap room next year to fit his contract in

final year it drops , well to a million..
this year is 1.4 million though

 

[RUNVS]

2nd last on the ladder but it’s next year that this back ended contract will finally haunt swans and mess up the rebuild

buddy taking up 1.5mil next year and his final year after 1.4mil

This year he’s only 900k, so they need 600k more in cap room next year to fit his contract in

It isn't really a problem. I mean we are 17th on the ladder so Buddy's contract isn't the difference between us being 17th and 1st. Teams at the bottom of the ladder often struggle to even reach the salary cap floor, that won't be a problem for the Swans, and we won't really be harmed by it.

 

[The King!]

im more worried about reids 600k or whatever bullshit he has

 

[Swan4Life]

We currently have 8 talls missing (Buddy, Reid, Naismith, Sinclair, Aliir, McCartin, Melican and Brand) - our problems are far from being just Buddy's contract.

 

[Tbonefreo]

One of the great Western Australian footballers.

 

[David Bondo]

Sydney did nothing wrong acquiring Franklin. They have a salary cap and spent was in the cap and nothing more. If we want to talk about morality let's talk about Judd's deal with Carlton. The AFL were just bitter that the Swans thwarted their plans of turning GWS into a premiership side.

But the deal has turned into a disaster and is a real albatross around the Swans neck. Must be bad for morale to have an underdone, injury prone player carrying a gut to chew up so much of the salary cap.

Can't blame Franklin not his fault the Swans were stupid and offered him a 9 year contract taking him to age 36.

 

[David Bondo]

sure


View attachment 884065

I think it was one free kick to Sydney from halfway through the 1st quarter to early in the 4th quarter. The fix was in that day.

 

[kranky al]

Orrrrrrr

another way of looking at it is such:

we sit there whinging about how we have to play players from up and coming teams the same amount as players from top 8 teams.

Now sydney are rebuilding and that extra cash that would normally be spread amongst players who arent ready - they will get paid the average and buddy is soaking up the grease.

 

[The Nostradamus]

im more worried about reids 600k or whatever bullshit he has

Yeah 600k next year on Reid and 1.5 mil on buddy

2.1mil tied up on 2 perennially injured players

 

[the harry]

The thing with Sydney, which we haven't seen for a while because they've been so good, it's the rate at which financial stability relies on on field success.

No crowds this year probably saves them, but they really look like they're in for a very long year from here on and I can't see heaps changing next season either.

 

[Virgin Dog]

His contract would only be an issue if they were hoping to compete for a flag in the next year or two, knowing they'd need to trade in players to plug gaps in the short term.

Since they're committing to a rebuild, his contract is largely meaningless. By the time it's done, they should be coming out the other end with a new look team, and be looking to use the freed up space to top up and start pushing for finals appearances.

 

[Altum Volantes]

Sydney will weasel out of it somehow - whether it be by some kind of league amnesty or having a desperate Vic club take him for the last year.

Buddy and Clarko Retirement tour 2022?

 

[Ok Boomer]

It has been worth it on and off field. He showed up for work in 2014, it wasn’t his fault half his team didn’t.

I don’t think the question should be what could they have had without Buddy?, but rather where would they have been without Buddy? They would have been a poorer side, particularly with their lack of other key forwards of consistent quality. The Tippett contract should be the one under scrutiny in hindsight.