Mega Thread Buddy Franklin moves to Sydney

[Sanecow]

It is the fact that the rest of the clubs will have to step in and save Sydney.

I really do not get why Sydney fans can't seem to understand this.

Yeah, I see your anger over the Melbourne bailout all over the boards.

 

[MilhouseVsEvil]

Don't let the bitterness die Tazhawk. I will feed off this s**t till christmas.

 

[Tedeski]

It's irresponsible. If the AFL consider themselves guardians of the game they should never have allowed it.

But it won't be the Swans that pay for it, it'll be the Pies, Bombers, Hawks, Blues, Tigers, Eagles, Crows.

What a load of sh.t.
Worry about how you internationally made our competition a laughing stock.
There is no reason to suggest that our recruitment of Buddy will be a bigger burden on the AFL then what any of the other 17 teams might be.
In fact we have a great track record of getting the most out of ourselves over the last 15 years & this includes bringing in marketable players.
We have continued to be successful on field whilst not dropping any lower than 10th or so. We haven't relied on finishing bottom to get the best draft picks. We realised that getting a high draft pick would often only get us a talented young player that would only want to go home after a couple of years after we put valuable time & effort into them.
Gaspar(Richmond), Rocca(Collingwood), Grant (North), Doolen(Essendon), We have a renowned player welfare system in place now that requires more funds then most other clubs.

We are in a pro rugby state & we only need to look at the Lions to see how things can change within a few years in such an environment , even after playing in four successive GFs & winning 3 in a row.

We don't get enough credit from many people. Never have. But the ones that matter know very well how well the Swans have managed to stay above water (just).
When we do well it's because of AFL help. When we were going bad we were an embarrassment to the comp.
We were proactive in getting the most exciting & most marketable player in the land & now we are threatening the comp yet our recent history suggests that we have been one of the best decision making teams in the comp considering our environment.
But you guys just go ahead & continue to keep your heads in the sand about the fact that a successfully run Swans that has success on the field keeps the NSW TV audience keen & this alone bumps up the TV rights deals.
We all know which Victorian clubs are kept artificially alive by this money don't we.

But for the good of your arguments, let's just all agree that we have been irresponsible in our duty to recruit Buddy & put him on a 9 year contract. More irresponsible than say Melbourne (failed tanking) or Essendon (supplements program), or Carlton signing Thomas for 700k when he hasn't played for almost two years, or Adelaide (Tippett fiasco), or Collingwood ( players self reporting for drug use & racism by Eddie)) or Brisbane (recruiting Fevola), or Richmond ( bringing in Cousins, a known drug addict, to influence youngsters on the list when he hadn't recovered), or Carlton (salary cap fiasco), or Geelong (Stokes caught with drugs), or Bulldogs ( Libba caught with drugs)etc etc etc......

We aren't innocent of all this stuff either but we are one of the 18 AFL clubs.
Get off our back!

 

[Crankyhawk]

So reading all this - it would be ok if Buddy went to GWS. No problems, GWS would have recruited a used up hack, who cannot talk and/or mark over head and is a walking time bomb (courtesy of Hawks posters). COLA would be kept for both Sydney teams and on we go. That would have been fine apparently.

However, the fat little ...... on a regular wage at the AFL/GWS decided that Buddy was only worth X. They where out bid imo because they have little understanding of the market place, and that the Swans, who have a history of being shafted (i.e. by Carlton, Rich, Essen, Collin'd and Hawks......sorry, I mean the VFL with many years of piss poor recruiting zones) decided to offer more.

Well who was in the race for Buddy - two horses with the same COLA! It would have been fine if one got him and not another?

Yeah lets talk equalisation - everything - draw - gate split - cola - the works. Just don't let the jumper get in the way (and study up on a bit of history) Lets get it all equal just like its always been. ????

GWS may have thought they could low ball the offer slightly and be made up with the under the table $ from ambassadorial. But they can't put that in writing as part of the offer.

 

[Count Dooku]

Hawthorn supporters should read up on concepts such as time value of money, inflation, strategic planning and front running the curve. At 7% inflation over 10 years the cap will double. That excludes any flexibility that comes by merging of TPP with footy department spend or outsize TV rights deal sharing. Just yestetday a new drinks deal was negotiated by AFL and will form part of new equalisation measures. Everything is changing and the Swans are front running those changes. So grateful to Dawks supporters for concern about us in years 6-9 of Buddy's contract but we will be fine. Suggest you get back to celebrating a great premiership season.

 

[WatWouldCyrilDo]

Hawthorn supporters should read up on concepts such as time value of money, inflation, strategic planning and front running the curve. At 7% inflation over 10 years the cap will double. That excludes any flexibility that comes by merging of TPP with footy department spend or outsize TV rights deal sharing. Just yestetday a new drinks deal was negotiated by AFL and will form part of new equalisation measures. Everything is changing and the Swans are front running those changes. So grateful to Dawks supporters for concern about us in years 6-9 of Buddy's contract but we will be fine. Suggest you get back to celebrating a great premiership season.

No matter how you try and spin it, you'll still be paying $1.5m a year in years 2018-2020 (one would expect that to be around 10% of your cap) to a 34 year old buddy Franklin who in all likelihood will be a shadow of his former self. Goodesy is around that age now - would you pay ~$1m a year for him now (accounting for inflation)?

 

[Jade]

Hawthorn supporters should read up on concepts such as time value of money, inflation, strategic planning and front running the curve. At 7% inflation over 10 years the cap will double. That excludes any flexibility that comes by merging of TPP with footy department spend or outsize TV rights deal sharing. Just yestetday a new drinks deal was negotiated by AFL and will form part of new equalisation measures. Everything is changing and the Swans are front running those changes. So grateful to Dawks supporters for concern about us in years 6-9 of Buddy's contract but we will be fine. Suggest you get back to celebrating a great premiership season.

I'd suggest YOU go and read what information is publicly available relating to the cap. At the moment the cap will be ~$10.3m in 2017, and even based on your highly doubtful figure of 7% (along with a whole bunch of crap trying to imply that you had the slightest clue what you are talking about), the cap would unly get to ~$14.4m by 2022. Not exactly the ~$20m you're trying to pass off as fact now is it?

No matter how you try and spin it, you'll still be paying $1.5m a year in years 2018-2020 (one would expect that to be around 10% of your cap) to a 34 year old buddy Franklin who in all likelihood will be a shadow of his former self. Goodesy is around that age now - would you pay ~$1m a year for him now (accounting for inflation)?

Read the above mate. My only advice to yourself is to always assume that people stating facts are wrong and check them yourself.

 

[tazhawk]

No just an obsessive flog

Let me guess you are another of the new found life long Swans fan.

Why resort to personal attacks?

Is it because I do not have the same opinion as you?

I will chalk you down to another of the life long Swans fans .... who have no idea what the actual reason for the COL is.

Hint, it has nothing to do with the actual cost of living.

Do try to play the ball and not the man you young scallywag.

 

[Tedeski]

No matter how you try and spin it, you'll still be paying $1.5m a year in years 2018-2020 (one would expect that to be around 10% of your cap) to a 34 year old buddy Franklin who in all likelihood will be a shadow of his former self. Goodesy is around that age now - would you pay ~$1m a year for him now (accounting for inflation)?

I'd suggest YOU go and read what information is publicly available relating to the cap. At the moment the cap will be ~$10.3m in 2017, and even based on your highly doubtful figure of 7% (along with a whole bunch of crap trying to imply that you had the slightest clue what you are talking about), the cap would unly get to ~$14.4m by 2022. Not exactly the ~$20m you're trying to pass off as fact now is it?



Read the above mate. My only advice to yourself is to always assume that people stating facts are wrong and check them yourself.

Let me guess you are another of the new found life long Swans fan.

Why resort to personal attacks?

Is it because I do not have the same opinion as you?

I will chalk you down to another of the life long Swans fans .... who have no idea what the actual reason for the COL is.

Hint, it has nothing to do with the actual cost of living.

The Swan's football administration & football department ar eknown in AFL circles to be one of the best, if not the best.

So it is very comforting that right here in our midst on Bigfooty, we have three posters that know better & are ready & waiting to be employed by an AFL club looking to match the Swans in this area.

WatWouldCyrilDo, Jade & tazhawk! The three of you should put your resumes forward to the Melbourne Football Club. Roosy could do with your help.

You all seem quite intelligent when it comes to future money matters!

You worry too much.

 

[Jade]

The Swan's football administration & football department ar eknown in AFL circles to be one of the best, if not the best.

So it is very comforting that right here in our midst on Bigfooty, we have three posters that know better & are ready & waiting to be employed by an AFL club looking to match the Swans in this area.

WatWouldCyrilDo, Jade & tazhawk! The three of you should put your resumes forward to the Melbourne Football Club. Roosy could do with your help.

You all seem quite intelligent when it comes to future money matters!

You worry too much.

WTF for? Less money and constant job security pressure?

 

[Tedeski]

WTF for? Less money and constant job security pressure?

Ahhh!
So you don't like pressure mate. Welcome to the real world of risk taking in business where your neck is always on the line.

AFL clubs always need to stay a step ahead & MUST take the odd risk. Moreso a club like the Sydney Swans that are in a non AFL environment, yet continually fight to keep their heads above water off the field, despite their on field successes. Short of having no team in NSW, the competition needs the Swans or GWS to be pro active in NSW making such moves as recruiting star attractions in order to build m'ship & TV audiences.
Added to that, we have a battle within a battle now that there is another team heavily funded by the AFL (fair enough too), so we have to think way ahead so as to be relevant in this market for the next 5 years at least.

But hey! To keep the peace, let's just say you guys know best!

 

[Jade]

Ahhh!
So you don't like pressure mate. Welcome to the real world of risk taking in business where your neck is always on the line.

AFL clubs always need to stay a step ahead & MUST take the odd risk. Moreso a club like the Sydney Swans that are in a non AFL environment, yet continually fight to keep their heads above water off the field, despite their on field successes. Short of having no team in NSW, the competition needs the Swans or GWS to be pro active in NSW making such moves as recruiting star attractions in order to build m'ship & TV audiences.
Added to that, we have a battle within a battle now that there is another team heavily funded by the AFL (fair enough too), so we have to think way ahead so as to be relevant in this market for the next 5 years at least.

But hey! To keep the peace, let's just say you guys know best!

Oh FMD....

You have NFI what I do in the 'real' world.

Why don't you go ask some of the guys that DO know what I do, and then come back and see if you can't guess how much this:

Ahhh!
So you don't like pressure mate. Welcome to the real world of risk taking in business where your neck is always on the line.

Looks like internet hero speak to me. Go ahead, there are several blokes - maybe The Prosecutor, or you can go pick one yourself. Not hard to find.

I don't have the 'protection' of the AFL which effectly guarantees my survivial no matter the idiocy of the decision.

If I made the industry equivalent of the ass-hat decision to recruit Franklin at the expense they have - I'd be gone. Simple.

 

[QuietB]

Hawthorn supporters should read up on concepts such as time value of money, inflation, strategic planning and front running the curve. At 7% inflation over 10 years the cap will double. That excludes any flexibility that comes by merging of TPP with footy department spend or outsize TV rights deal sharing. Just yestetday a new drinks deal was negotiated by AFL and will form part of new equalisation measures. Everything is changing and the Swans are front running those changes. So grateful to Dawks supporters for concern about us in years 6-9 of Buddy's contract but we will be fine. Suggest you get back to celebrating a great premiership season.

If we get 7% inflation for the next 10 years I better hurry the hell up and pay my mortgage. How does 2.5% inflation work out for you?

 

[skipper kelly]

I don't have the 'protection' of the AFL which effectly guarantees my survivial no matter the idiocy of the decision.

If I made the industry equivalent of the ass-hat decision to recruit Franklin at the expense they have - I'd be gone. Simple.

Talking real world, what Sydney brought to the table for the AFL in regards to the broadcast rights far outweighs any financial burden that may or may not happen.

 

[QuietB]

Talking real world, what Sydney brought to the table for the AFL in regards to the broadcast rights far outweighs any financial burden that may or may not happen.

You guys have a greater sense of entitlement than Essendon

 

[skipper kelly]

You guys have a greater sense of entitlement than Essendon

Yeah that's it. Page after page of crap about how Sydney will be a drain on the AFL, then a fact is produced and its called entitlement. Good work.

 

[Jade]

Talking real world, what Sydney brought to the table for the AFL in regards to the broadcast rights far outweighs any financial burden that may or may not happen.

Solid comment, I actually agree from an AFL perspective; however Sydney (the club) are still exposing themselves to a risk that is likelier than not to make them uncompetitive in 6-7 years.

Even though the AFL can justify the expense to 'coddle' the Swans if that occurs, it's yet another example of flying in the face of an 'equal' competition. Sydney should be left to reap what they sow - unfortunately that won't happen.

 

[The Gong]

Solid comment, I actually agree from an AFL perspective; however Sydney (the club) are still exposing themselves to a risk that is likelier than not to make them uncompetitive in 6-7 years.

Even though the AFL can justify the expense to 'coddle' the Swans if that occurs, it's yet another example of flying in the face of an 'equal' competition. Sydney should be left to reap what they sow - unfortunately that won't happen.

Yeah and a lot of Melbourne based clubs won't either and will also be financially propped up by the AFL.

Equalisation is a furphy and we all know it.

 

[Jade]

Yeah and a lot of Melbourne based clubs won't either and will also be financially propped up by the AFL.

Equalisation is a furphy and we all know it.

Those Melbourne clubs you speak of can't blow an obscene amount of money on the player you have - hence the initial complaint that the COLA needs to be removed and the AFL should never have allowed this horrendously poor decision to have been made.

 

[QuietB]

Yeah that's it. Page after page of crap about how Sydney will be a drain on the AFL, then a fact is produced and its called entitlement. Good work.

A fact? Define precisely what Sydney brought to the table in the broadcast rights agreement. Since we are dealing in facts you should be able to quote a specific value.

A specific value would be a fact. Your "talking real world" is an opinion.

My opinion is that GWS probably brought more to the deal than Sydney did.

 

[The Gong]

Those Melbourne clubs you speak of can't blow an obscene amount of money on the player you have - hence the initial complaint that the COLA needs to be removed and the AFL should never have allowed this horrendously poor decision to have been made.

I think you missed my point a little. I'm actually agreeing with you.

If anyone thinks the AFL is a sporting competition then they are very ill informed. It is an entertainment business now and its all about revenue streams. They have equalisation measures in place in the hope that success is cyclical and they can get the biggest draw of fans across the spectrum.

The fact is they need Sydney to be a strong club to drag in viewers from NSW and make the TV rights (the jewel in the crown) a premium product they can generate the most revenue from. As skipper kelly pointed out the Swans pull their weight in as much as they do generate income for the whole league through their attraction of TV rights revenue.

We also know that there are still too many clubs in Melbourne for them all to be viable and the AFL would have dearly loved a few to relocate to their desired markets instead of having to build up new clubs from the start. Members of the Melbourne teams rightly love their clubs,they are steeped in history, and resisted the moves and I can completely understand that. It does make the weaker clubs less of a commodity and that is a dangerous position to be in. Hawthorn was at the brink but, to their credit, turned the ship around and became a juggernaut. At least they had one measure of equalisation work in their favour and got a bunch of top draft picks but had the skill to pick very wisely so credit to them.

I can see the inconsistencies with the COLA and I do know it has nothing to do with the cost of living. I think it does have something to do with player retention and a lot to do with keeping Sydney competitive and viable. I hope GWS don't lose it because of Sydney because they will need it if they're going to become a strong and independent force in the AFL. Buddy would have helped with that so I can imagine the AFL are not impressed with the Swans right now.

This isn't he VFL any more and we had decades of inequality there with recruiting zones basically guaranteeing success to certain clubs. The AFL is doing a balancing act of trying to keep the clubs happy with "equalisation" and trying to run an entertainment business and generate maximum revenue and they will find it very hard to keep everyone happy.

Just to finish, I love the club I support, just like you all do. Sydney supporters have the right to back their club in. The Swans work legally within the parameters they've been given and any grief you have with the situation should be aimed at the AFL and not the Swans and their supporters.

tazhawk keeps saying play the ball and not the man. I agree.

 

[Jade]

A fact? Define precisely what Sydney brought to the table in the broadcast rights agreement. Since we are dealing in facts you should be able to quote a specific value.

A specific value would be a fact. Your "talking real world" is an opinion.

My opinion is that GWS probably brought more to the deal than Sydney did.

Both Sydney and GWS are vital to the broadcast agreement, primarily for the following two reasons:

1) They provide a reason for a Sydney market (the largest in the country) to have interest in watching the game.
2) The two sides in Sydney (ie. the addition of GWS) allows for nine games.

And please, asking for FACTS like that is idiotic. I just got through dealing with one ass clown that tried to claim I knew nothing because I didn't have FACTS from inside Sydney's boardroom. You don't want to be 'that' guy.

 

[QuietB]

small essay

Great post

 

[QuietB]

Both Sydney and GWS are vital to the broadcast agreement, primarily for the following two reasons:

1) They provide a reason for a Sydney market (the largest in the country) to have interest in watching the game.
2) The two sides in Sydney (ie. the addition of GWS) allows for nine games.

And please, asking for FACTS like that is idiotic. I just got through dealing with one ass clown that tried to claim I knew nothing because I didn't have FACTS from inside Sydney's boardroom. You don't want to be 'that' guy.

I know asking for them is idiotic, but stating them as facts is idiotic as well. How would Sydney's little contribution to the broadcast rights go if Essendon, Carlton, Collingwood, Adelaide, West Coast and Richmond decided to secede and form their own comp? Their contribution would amount to zero. The deal is the sum of its parts.

 

[Jade]

Quality, but long post

I wish more Sydney fans were like you, your read on the situation is (IMO) accurate and sound.

I am one that is increasingly frustrated with the unequal treatment of clubs whilst hiding behind the complete farce that is 'equal' competition.

We all know the COLA is not there for the COL - it may have been to begin with, but the reality is it's there today to 'prop up' the Swans and Giants.

'Most' of my anger is directed at the AFL. I now believe they have gone way too far and believe future thinking is more important than the integrity of the competition today. However, I do reserve some anger for Sydney themselves, who I believe were aware of the fact that the COLA would be removed sooner rather than later and exploited it to land Franklin. It may have been within the letter of the law, but not the spirit of it IMO (it's the vibe ).

I don't really have any malice toward Franklin, aside from not thinking he's a top bloke - however that opinion pre-dates this recruitment.