Some Buddy perspective

[Wee Jessies]

So try not to put the blinkers on, what if Freo landed Buddy with the Sydney deal?

Would it be a master stroke?
Would we be the premiership faves not Sydney?
Could we keep the team together, would there be casualties?

Can't help but think we could have afforded the deal, at least for the first five years. I'm 50/50, I couldn't help but applaud Sydney certainly wasn't one of the haters of the deal although might have tweaked the guarantee part.

 

[mike91]

So try not to put the blinkers on, what if Freo landed Buddy with the Sydney deal?

Would it be a master stroke?
Would we be the premiership faves not Sydney?
Could we keep the team together, would there be casualties?

Can't help but think we could have afforded the deal, at least for the first five years. I'm 50/50, I couldn't help but applaud Sydney certainly wasn't one of the haters of the deal although might have tweaked the guarantee part.

I thought we already were?

 

[Admiral Byng]

But on what terms?

A nine year deal similar to Sydney - hell no - we'd be a laughing stock and rightly so. Sydney are lucky they have the extra salary cap to afford it, but I seriously think they'll regret it by the time they are halfway through.

 

[Wee Jessies]

But on what terms?

A nine year deal similar to Sydney - hell no - we'd be a laughing stock and rightly so. Sydney are lucky they have the extra salary cap to afford it, but I seriously think they'll regret it by the time they are halfway through.

Even if it meant a couple of premierships and then a mass exodus? I'm not sold that the deal is as diabolically risky as it is being made out.

 

[TweeBeard]

Even if it meant a couple of premierships and then a mass exodus? I'm not sold that the deal is as diabolically risky as it is being made out.

If Buddy retires sooner than expected then the Swans will still have to pay him the entirety of the contract, which will leave a big hole in their salary cap and an even bigger hole should the AFL come to their senses and abolish COLA. Besides even if Buddy is still playing at 35 he probably won't be producing the same kind of dominating footy that he is renowned for (even though we rarely saw him dominate this year).

 

[mightymouse75]

buddy is not a team player, dont need him.
hawthorne will play better next year without him.

 

[Geoff]

If Buddy retires sooner than expected then the Swans will still have to pay him the entirety of the contract, which will leave a big hole in their salary cap and an even bigger hole should the AFL come to their senses and abolish COLA. Besides even if Buddy is still playing at 35 he probably won't be producing the same kind of dominating footy that he is renowned for (even though we rarely saw him dominate this year).

This will be the reason it wont be abolished.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Even if it meant a couple of premierships and then a mass exodus? I'm not sold that the deal is as diabolically risky as it is being made out.

I think we can string a couple of premierships together without him.

 

[Kram]

IMO Sydney are insane for giving Franklin that contract. As good as a player he is I think the influence that his addition to a football side would have is really overrated.

 

[Steven Tyler]

buddy is not a team player, dont need him.
hawthorne will play better next year without him.

Buddy played a completely different role for us this year, not always being the focal point, and we won our 11th flag!
Of course maybe that was a contributing factor in him choosing to drink extra COLA in Sydney! Who knows!

Anyhow, if Gumbleton is able to stand up all season, you guys will be hard to beat in 2014!
Best of luck except against us next year!

 

[ritz]

Buddy's gonna love all his extra COCA
With all his extra COLA

 

[FreoRicci]

Buddy was never coming back to WA, he enjoys Bondi way too much. We can invest in team players such as Fyfe, Barlow, Spurr and De Boer who bleed purple where buddy will shack up in Sydney not giving effort and only caring about the social scene. Win win for Freo

 

[mike91]

Imagine if he does a knee or breaks his leg next year.

 

[Outshined]

Kings Cross > Northbridge

9 years > 5 years

We had no chance, and if we did, I'd hate to see quality players walking because our cap was essentially a "Buddy fund".

 

[Purple Suit]

Even if it meant a couple of premierships and then a mass exodus? I'm not sold that the deal is as diabolically risky as it is being made out.

No guarantee that it would and nine years or maybe six years of pain is a lot to pay without one. Big mistake if you ask me, quick fixes don't work.

 

[Alfonz]

Remember that our salary cap is about the same as Sydney's without the COLA. Criticise them all you want for giving Buddy an insane contract, but in some ways he is almost a free player for them compared with other sides.

I think people are also forgetting that in 9 years, the salary cap will be hugely increased from what it is now. The % of their salary cap they are paying him will be much lower near the end of his contract.

The interesting part of the Buddy deal is whether it costs them their COLA, in which case they might be in a bit of trouble. But apart from that, I don't think it is as irresponsible as people are making out. Sydney have spent 12 months working this out, you would think they know what they're doing.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Remember that our salary cap is about the same as Sydney's without the COLA. Criticise them all you want for giving Buddy an insane contract, but in some ways he is almost a free player for them compared with other sides.

I think people are also forgetting that in 9 years, the salary cap will be hugely increased from what it is now. The % of their salary cap they are paying him will be much lower near the end of his contract.

The interesting part of the Buddy deal is whether it costs them their COLA, in which case they might be in a bit of trouble. But apart from that, I don't think it is as irresponsible as people are making out. Sydney have spent 12 months working this out, you would think they know what they're doing.

Buddy body is already shot, he has not been able to take a mark above his head for 2-3 years and he has bad knees.

If he can play for 5 more years it will surprise me.

 

[Freo88]

Imagine if he does a knee or breaks his leg next year.

Probably not your best comment - the bloke is just making a living for himself

 

[jusjoshin]

Probably not your best comment - the bloke is just making a living for himself

I think it was meant in terms of potential risk to the club (Sydney), not meaning Buddy any personal harm. If Buddy ends up with a bad leg break, or blown out knee early next year. Then Sydney are stuck paying out the remainder of his (huge) contract for very little return.

 

[manpurple]

I think it was meant in terms of potential risk to the club (Sydney), not meaning Buddy any personal harm. If Buddy ends up with a bad leg break, or blown out knee early next year. Then Sydney are stuck paying out the remainder of his (huge) contract for very little return.

I think people are probably not considering all the relative merrits of the deal from a purely financial point of view.
If we look at the effect of inflation we have some interesting numbers. Assuming a inflation rate of 5% we can say that the team budget in 9 years time will be about $16m and we can assume that the Sydney will use buddies contract to for the COLA to remain. At which point the COLA will be worth $1.43m and given buddies assumed deal he will only be taking 930k home leaving Sydney with 500k above everyone else in the cap. Alternatively if we consider the NPV of his salary in year 9 it will be about 580k on a COLA of 930k. Tell me who we could snare with an extra 350k per year.
This deal is long enough to be considered in the same way that housing is. Inflation is your friend. In fact if Sydney can use the Buddy deal to ensure that the COLA remains then it will be a deal that will give them an extra name player for a decade. Particularly if they can use his popularity to ensure that merchandising and bums on seats fully finance the club.

 

[Fred Ziffel]

I think people are probably not considering all the relative merrits of the deal from a purely financial point of view.
If we look at the effect of inflation we have some interesting numbers. Assuming a inflation rate of 5% we can say that the team budget in 9 years time will be about $16m and we can assume that the Sydney will use buddies contract to for the COLA to remain. At which point the COLA will be worth $1.43m and given buddies assumed deal he will only be taking 930k home leaving Sydney with 500k above everyone else in the cap. Alternatively if we consider the NPV of his salary in year 9 it will be about 580k on a COLA of 930k. Tell me who we could snare with an extra 350k per year.
This deal is long enough to be considered in the same way that housing is. Inflation is your friend. In fact if Sydney can use the Buddy deal to ensure that the COLA remains then it will be a deal that will give them an extra name player for a decade. Particularly if they can use his popularity to ensure that merchandising and bums on seats fully finance the club.

I reckon this is precisely why they did this deal; To make it very difficult for the AFL to remove the cola.
They have advance purchased with the cola and removing it would hurt Sydney.

 

[ep2018]

If Buddy retires sooner than expected then the Swans will still have to pay him the entirety of the contract, which will leave a big hole in their salary cap and an even bigger hole should the AFL come to their senses and abolish COLA. Besides even if Buddy is still playing at 35 he probably won't be producing the same kind of dominating footy that he is renowned for (even though we rarely saw him dominate this year).

There is probably a clause in his contract stating that if he receives a long term injury, he will be let go. Buddy would have agreed to this surely.

 

[mike91]

Probably not your best comment - the bloke is just making a living for himself

Think you read my comment the wrong way dude.

 

[Paracleet]

I reckon this is precisely why they did this deal; To make it very difficult for the AFL to remove the cola.
They have advance purchased with the cola and removing it would hurt Sydney.

I think it's the opposite. They knew the writing was on the wall for it. Since it can't be removed from existing contracts they figured they mayas well cash in and pre-spend it for as long as possible.

 

[Leatherpoizoned]

At this stage of our list development I would say no to Buddy (on the Sydney contract which the OP states). The bulk of our List will reach their peak (and the serious salary category) in the next 3 to 4 years and I don't think we could take that loss of a million dollar then as well as we can now. I think he would have been a perfect fit for us on a 4 yr 5 million dollar contract with the first two years front loaded, while we still have that huge salary gap between our vets and our youth core.