No Oppo Supporters General AFL Discussion #10 - Carlton Posters ONLY!

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
And I'd still have it over Etihad.

Yeah, technically there is nothing wrong with Etihad.

When built, it was new, comfortable, had a roof etc.

But I have never really warmed to it (and neither has our squad!).
 
Waverley Park was awesome.

Except for the rain, the wind, the cold, the mud, the lack of public transport, the parking bottlnecks, the crappy screen, the Hawks, the Saints.....
Don't forget that the ground was so big that if you sat on the boundary you couldn't see what was happening on the other side of the oval due to the hump in the middle of the ground
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Used to love watching everyone having a kick after the 2nd siren. The amount of people that copped it in the head was staggering lol

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 
Don't forget that the ground was so big that if you sat on the boundary you couldn't see what was happening on the other side of the oval due to the curvature of the earth
 
Were you there BlueGum ?
Yep. Made the mistake of taking public transport. Getting on a bus coud be as bad as getting out of the car park.

Whole crowd seemed to laugh and cheer at the same time when Harry went for that run.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Whether the Swans pay a negotiated amount or the full year’s salary, I expect the full year’s salary to be included in the Swans’salary cap.

Think of it this way.

Franklin retires with 3 years to go. Swans pay him say 50% of his 3 years’ full salary as a negotiated amount. The negotiated amount is included in the first year’s salary cap. The second year the Swans pay significantly less than the salary cap, allowing the Swans to pay 105% of the cap in year 3. Swans go and get the best free agent in year 3.

If Swans are required to include the full amount in the salary cap (even if they only pay the negotiated amount) then they cannot get the best free agent, etc. as quickly.

EDIT: Or more simply, if the Swans only have to include say half of Tippet’s salary in the 2018 cap, then it can go and get the best free agent next year / retain all its best players (rather than lose one to keep the rest).

The difference with Franklin being he was recruited on a big deal as a FA so different rules apply to his deal. Tippets deal is no different to any other players and the same rules apply. Im not 100% certain of what they are.

Wasn't Tippet on his 2nd deal at Sydney? I reckon they would of paid most of his deal early.
 
Actually they pay it all no matter what. That’s part of the deal that allows for long term deals.
From the afl to the swans
“An explicit acknowledgement that the long-term specific financial commitment over the nine-year agreement will apply to the Swans' total player payments for each of the nine years, regardless of how many years Franklin is available to play for the club."

I expect it would be the same for Tippett....especially as it would be like compo claim...retiring due to injury.

Not the same for Tippet.

The above statement is correct for Buddy and any deals struck under FA for any club. Tippet was taken in the psd so the same rules apply to his deal as every other player.
 
Couple of other memorable moments at Waverly park was having Jerry Lewis fly in via helicopter and getting to escort him off the ground.
Also my favourite player Braddles playing his 300th there and walking behind him and the team as he was chaired off, will never forget that.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 
Is that right? Papers saying he had one year left. If you're right I agree. I always thought the same too when Buddy signed on for 10 years...as if

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
My bad, contracted to the end of 2018. So just this year’s salary. Slap on the wrist for the Swans really.

Not sure if the Papers agree with each other. See:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/afl...-injuries-or-retirements-20180123-h0mzjw.html

which says:
...
Tippett opted to end his 178-game career because he felt he could not regain full fitness, having had an off-season ankle reconstruction.

While the ruckman-forward had three years left on his contract, Longmire said the Swans had an inkling late last year he might not play again.
...
 
And there you have it, the Swans get salary cap relief for not paying Tippett out in full (I can understand Eddie and other clubs complaining on this one):

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/s...d/news-story/f9d9a94c8540b7746b6fc77b5abd85fe

KURT Tippett’s shock retirement is set to put the Swans back in the free agent market for the first time since they landed Lance Franklin at the end of the 2013 season.

It won’t be another $10 million Buddy deal but the 2019 and 2020 salary cap space freed up by Tippett’s premature departure will open the doors to a quality player.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Even if he accepts a reduced payout, the full amount should be applied to the salary cap.

No point having contracts otherwise.

We should offer Simmo a three year extension so we meet minimum SC requirements, then have him “retire” early so we have a war chest to throw at Shiel.

Bullshit AFL deals are bullshit
 
And there you have it, the Swans get salary cap relief for not paying Tippett out in full (I can understand Eddie and other clubs complaining on this one):

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/s...d/news-story/f9d9a94c8540b7746b6fc77b5abd85fe

KURT Tippett’s shock retirement is set to put the Swans back in the free agent market for the first time since they landed Lance Franklin at the end of the 2013 season.

It won’t be another $10 million Buddy deal but the 2019 and 2020 salary cap space freed up by Tippett’s premature departure will open the doors to a quality player.


...
Juuust in time to help them make a play for Lynch.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We should offer Simmo a three year extension so we meet minimum SC requirements, then have him “retire” early so we have a war chest to throw at Shiel.

But Simmo retiring in three years would be early....
 
Last edited:
Why the anger at the Tippet situation?

The same rules apply for all clubs regarding this issue.

The swans are the losers here, they recruited Tippet on a big deal, thinking he would help deliver a flag.

8 other clubs passed on Tippet in the draft the Swans grabbed him as they obviously couldn’t afford him or thought he wasn’t worth it. Those clubs were right and having Tippet on big dollars ultimately cost the Swans Mummy and Mitchell.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top