Opinion The all new 2013 trading & drafting thread

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Portology

Cheap, fast, safe: pick two, or juggle three.
Joined
Sep 27, 2007
Posts
7,991
Likes
7,261
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Manchester United, Barcelona
The problem is that then Franklin doesn't have to accept the trade, so Hawthorn would be stuck with the 10 years and also having to offload some players to find the salary cap space.
Sydney cleverly generating another 'legitimate' loophole IMO.

Sydney just have him play for X years, back end load the deal as needed, include the "major injury insurance" (Buddy gets paid out if he "breaks down" to quote Swans boss) then (this being the unwritten gentlemen's agreement part) Buddy 'retires' at a mutually acceptable time then signs on as an AC and highly visible club marketing person on coin that doesn't come out of the Cap. Cap dollars go back in the bucket, Buddy gets the coin he wants (as opposed to the headline number), Buddy gets to be where he wants to be, gets an after-footy career, and the Hawks can't possibly match the headline offer.

Sydney offer lot more than Buddy's bottom line, never end up paying it, which makes it impossible for Hawthorn to match the deal.

Of course Buddy could destroy things by walking away or whistleblowing, or a future administration could have a run in with him, or just an ethical or philosophical difference with the arrangement but what are those risks against (say) a flag and a GF appearance in the next 5 years. Look at the TV ratings for the three grand finals Sydney played in in the last decade. Very interesting if you're a potential sponsor.

Agree though - the AFL has the right to reject the deal if they think it might 'break' the Swans, based on what they have 'promised to pay', even if that is a bogus number. Limiting a contract offer to another club's RFA to 5 years closes the loophole somewhat but not entirely. Similar in structure to the pre-FA deals with Cornes+Brogan to GWS - offered AC roles after they retire 'again'. Though that situation exploited a different 'loophole' (if they retired the first time around with the intent of returning to AFL outside the draft).
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

blackdiamond

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Dec 7, 2000
Posts
8,341
Likes
554
Location
Melbourne, Victoria
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
New Orleans Saints, Detroit Tigers
There is nothing stopping Buddy reducing his salary later on down the track as well, you see it all the time where players take a pay cut to keep players at their club.
 

Phhht

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Posts
5,210
Likes
4,535
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I keep feeling that if McCarthy is still there at 13

we will read his name so fast we will have to repeat it so people understand
I'm not so sure. McCarthy is a project tall . Sure he has talent with heaps of potential but in terms of a KPF, he has a lot of developing to do. Next years crop of talls sounds extremely promising and perhaps a little more 'developed'. I dont see that much difference (in terms of development time) between McCarthy and one of the potential talls from next year. However 12months is a long time in AFL footy.

I wont be overly disappointed if we draft McCarthy this year though.
 

malcolm

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Posts
8,767
Likes
9,010
Location
holden hill
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
liverpool
PORT ADELAIDE expects to retain unrestricted free agent Tom Logan and will not pursue a discarded veteran such as Alan Didak.

Power coach Ken Hinkley confirmed there was a contract on the table for Logan, a standout performer in the club's elimination final win over Collingwood, and expected he would take it.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-10-02/power-wants-stayers-hinkley
 
Top Bottom