Buddy a Swan (Footy talk only, read OP before posting)

[Punts]

sorry guys its in the footy 14 mag , full interview.
I like the part were he says im starting over its and like getting drafted again

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Punts.. do you have a scanner by any chance

 

[Punts]

Punts.. do you have a scanner by any chance

is there no to get it from up there at all

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

is there no to get it from up there at all

Nup we don't get the Sunday Age

 

[lock33]

Nup we don't get the Sunday Age

A+ for your comprehension skills, well done.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Why thankyou

 

[Superstar swan]

Lolz to people saying buddy is fat

 

[Kummerspeck]

I can't fathom why you'd care.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Because if he was fat, it'd mean our new million dollar a year recruit is very unfit.

I'd care about that, just quietly.

 

[Kummerspeck]

Because if he was fat, it'd mean our new million dollar a year recruit is very unfit.

I'd care about that, just quietly.

I was more thinking why people would be concerned what people are saying about his weight.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Fair enough.

 

[Keyter]

Smug little Hawks supporters, full of mouth since Buddy decided he had enough, please read on (all this is not relevant if Buddy cannot play out the majority of Swans games in the next five seasons

"IN A DRAMATIC prediction for the future of football, Adelaide list manager David Noble says he expects contracts to lengthen and the League's salary cap to double within seven years.

Noble said if the value of the AFL's media rights (a new deal to be settled ahead of the 2017 season) continued on its upward trend the game could stand to make close to $2 billion from the next Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) – and players would expect a sizeable slice of the pie.

"The CBA shift in the rights at the moment is going to be interesting, I reckon the cap (currently $9.63 million) is going to double in the next seven years – that's my gut feel," Noble said.

"If the carve-up of the next CBA media rights is heading the way we think it's going to head, the players are going to ask for more and I think the cap's going to continue to shift in an upward trend pretty quickly.

"The value is just going to continue to increase, so they (the AFL) might end up with $1.8 billion out of the next deal."

 

[Superstar swan]

Just out of curiosity , what are the rules on renegotiation of contracts??

 

[MarkP]

Just out of curiosity , what are the rules on renegotiation of contracts??

In what way?

Both parties can rescind a contract at common law if they are in agreeance - it is their contract. One party can NOT do it unilaterally. (This assumes the necessary parts of a contract are there - I don't want to get too technical)

Seeing as the AFL ratify playing contracts and there is a cap you do have some limiting factors with player contracts.

In the case of Franklins contract, if that is what you mean, the AFL have already stated they will "enforce" it by deducting the full effect of the salary cap regardless of whether he plays the 9 years. What they will do in effect is simply amend our cap for the years he doesn't play if that comes to pass - they obviously cannot force him to play but will enforce the full effect of the $10 million or whatever the number is.

But I also have an understanding that as the club can pay 100% of the cap in any given year if they find that this year they have $100k left over because certain bonus payments, for example, were not needed to be paid they could sling Franklin the $100k and that comes off his total contract - sort of on the fly front loading if that makes sense.

If someone wants to renegotiate half way through as long as the two parties have an agreement that is fine in general contract law - the issue will arise in the AFL with cap space of course so if say Reid came to the Swans and said give me 20% more and I will stay for 5 years and not the 2 left then that needs to looked at in the overall cap space available. Also the AFL can knock a contract on the head but they have to be fair overall.

What you will find is that players will sign for terms that take them up to the next renegotiation of TV rights so if the cap space grows quickly then they can get the reward. It is one reason why Franklins deal could end up good value over the time...just a lot of ifs, buts and maybes to go.

Hope that made sense.

 

[robbieando]

Just out of curiosity , what are the rules on renegotiation of contracts??

You can do it but the original figure submitted is the cap number unless the new figure is higher

 

[Superstar swan]

You can do it but the original figure submitted is the cap number unless the new figure is higher

What about if a team renigiated with a player for less money, but used the original cap figure to bring some other players pays up??

 

[Superstar swan]

For isntance if we were paying 1.1 to buddy in 2020, can we renogiatiate ( if he agreed ) to bring his salary down to 700k and then add 400k to someone ole hannebry.

The end cap figure will still be exactly the same, just distributed differently

 

[MarkP]

For isntance if we were paying 1.1 to buddy in 2020, can we renogiatiate ( if he agreed ) to bring his salary down to 700k and then add 400k to someone ole hannebry.

The end cap figure will still be exactly the same, just distributed differently

Weeeelllllll for Buddy no as his contract is the AFL's pet hate so there would be no way known it would be allowed.

I see what you are saying but I can think of no circumstance where Player A would say give Player B some of his salary. And I doubt whether it would be allowed as the obvious inference is Player A is somehow getting compensation somewhere externally - people just don't take voluntary pay cuts for fun so the AFL would be justifiably suspicious of any transaction that contemplated it.

 

[The King!]

Weeeelllllll for Buddy no as his contract is the AFL's pet hate so there would be no way known it would be allowed.

I see what you are saying but I can think of no circumstance where Player A would say give Player B some of his salary. And I doubt whether it would be allowed as the obvious inference is Player A is somehow getting compensation somewhere externally - people just don't take voluntary pay cuts for fun so the AFL would be justifiably suspicious of any transaction that contemplated it.

You would need a secret santa and buddy draws out tom mitchell and gives him 200k cash

 

[robbieando]

For isntance if we were paying 1.1 to buddy in 2020, can we renogiatiate ( if he agreed ) to bring his salary down to 700k and then add 400k to someone ole hannebry.

The end cap figure will still be exactly the same, just distributed differently

No. His original (higher) figure would count against the cap regardless of how much money he accepts (if he accepts $1, we still have to count say in 2016 $1.2 million in our cap) and so would the new (higher) figure of the re-signed player. Thus a higher cap figure regardless of how much we are paying our players

 

[The King!]

Otherwise just throw massive long term contracts and if a players body fails they just agree to a cut, so cant have that

 

[Maddhew]

Next TV rights and the increase in Cap is the important thing. If the cap increases significantly, buddy's contract 2016 onwards will be good value. Interestingly assuming the tv deal will be for another 5 years, buddy's final 2 years will be in a subsequent rights period, where his mil a year could be mid range at best.

Surely this is our strategy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GoTheSwannies]

even if the cap increases significantly, and i don't think it'll double, but even with an increase any money being paid to a player that won't b on the field is a waste of money. an increase will just lesson the impact, it won't absolve it altogether

 

[daymee]

The deal had to match the GWS offer which apparently was $10m over 6 years. Sydney had no chance of matching that, so the $10m over 9 year deal was offered. If the team as a whole can achieve some premierships over the next 5 years then it will probably be worth it (and that depends on how much you value premierships)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Superstar swan]

The deal had to match the GWS offer which apparently was $10m over 6 years. Sydney had no chance of matching that, so the $10m over 9 year deal was offered. If the team as a whole can achieve some premierships over the next 5 years then it will probably be worth it (and that depends on how much you value premierships)

The financial side will be a win regardless of on field success. He will bring n more 10 million for the club. The question is what effect it has on the structure of the cap.

Looking at it unbiasedly it could tear the team apart through the middle part of the deal. However the club took a calculated risk and they have never let us down before . They have taken into consideration on field success, retirements, off field success, salary cap increases etc. yes we paid overs, but name a free agent move that hasn't been paid at overs. That's what free agency is and it's the same for every sport in the world.

I'm a massive fan of the deal, I understand the risks involved but I believe the club has made the right decision