Ant_
Premium Platinum
Either way it will screw Sydney.
I agree with The Passenger it's a Pyrrhic victory for the swans if this deal goes ahead.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Mega Thread Buddy Franklin moves to Sydney
- Thread starter Kenno27
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Either way it will screw Sydney.
I agree with The Passenger it's a Pyrrhic victory for the swans if this deal goes ahead.
- Mar 11, 2012
- 5,231
- 8,178
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Patriots & UConn
- Mar 11, 2012
- 5,231
- 8,178
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Patriots & UConn
Nah. It'd be spread out. And that seems to suggest we could spread past the original nine years? Makes the risk look even cleverer. We'll be absolutely figuring on paying him into retirement if needs be. This has been planned for a year.
If by 31 he chooses not to play anymore and focus on other things (like his fashion business for example), the Swans will effectively be paying him for five non-playing seasons by keeping him on the list.
If he retires officially, the Swans would have to pay all of the remainder in one season.
Thus, the Swans are officially bankrupt and no longer able to field a side. Kamikaze, for what? For a blood hungry desire for one player?
"Culture" at the Swans? Please... you are no longer a club, you are a club of individuals.
How would you players, who took pay cuts so that the club could retain it's players, feel about this? Not good, I'd assume.
And how the hell are the Swans able to afford stuff like this, and yet still claim they need an allowance?
It all reaks of suss to everyone else in the league. Could backfire on the Swans in so many different ways.
Ant_
Premium Platinum
No guarantee on that.
- Mar 11, 2012
- 5,231
- 8,178
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Patriots & UConn
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,341
didn't realise the rest of the salary would have to be included in one season.
What they would have to do is keep him on the list, but not be able to play him, so it would cost them ~1.5m a season and spot on their list.
Why does it matter ? We have the same cap as everyone else.
Ant_
Premium Platinum
Yep that's the more likely scenario.
spudmaster
Brownlow Medallist
So, did the dog purposely bump that bloke in round23 knowing full well he then wouldn't match up against them in the qualifying final the following week?
Yes but the cap will be larger by then. I doubt we've loaded the last three years for the reason that it might be his retirement fund by then.
Probably best to assume the Swans management aren't cavalier idiots and have thought and planned this through.
And all of this is without bringing up Franklin's actual playing ability. Passed his best and only looking down from here, no improvement, not even a consistency to stick to anymore. A shadow of his early bloomer years. To think he's going to magically give you a premiership, let alone two, is silly. About as silly as saying Tippett gave you a premiership this year.
And what about the current Swans list? And their future?
Once a club of culture, today a club of putting all it's eggs in one basket and banking on the near impossible.
Good luck, if it even happens.
WinmarToLockett
Cancelled
- Oct 14, 2011
- 9,668
- 13,505
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Simple he will go to gws, also a team offering this kind of deal will trade dont kid your self, not like theyre doing this on a whim "hmm that be nice"
- Oct 9, 2003
- 46,897
- 45,907
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Eagles (NFL), Suns (NBA)
Not necessarily as it would mean having to give up draft picks and / or players. Which is not the case in the current scenario.
You nned AFL permission to keep a retired player on your list. The gave it reluctantly to Voss for one year. They wont do it for Buddy for 4 years. IT goes against the spirit of the cap, especially when it involves a restricted free agent.
If you can give a 27 a 9 year deal then why not 15, why not 50 ? where does it end ?
If you can give a 27 a 9 year deal then why not 15, why not 50 ? where does it end ?
Not that different. They have 15 on a roster who need to be paid, of which 3 take 90%, compared to 38 on Sydney's list, of which 2 take 20%.
Yes both are extreme examples, but what price do you put on a flag? If you can hold a team together in doing this, then some would argue it is worth the gamble.
With free-agency changing the game this will become more common imo.
- Banned
- #2,123
TBH he barely moves most games.
Exactly. Each players' cost of living may be $50-100k per year. Anything over this they are banking or other investment. Your returns on your investment is the same in any state.
If we assume the average players' cost of living is $50k per year, and assume Sydney is 10% more expensive (which I strongly dispute, Perth is at least as expensive), then each player may have $5k extra costs per year. Multiply this by 40 players on the list = $200k. That should be the maximum COLA in my opinion.
However we all know its not about the cost of living, because if it was Perth teams would receive it also. And if they were serious about this cost of living bullsh1t then they would have to have a sliding scale that applies to all clubs based on the cost of living in each city, rather than having a "Sydney gets 10%, the rest get nothing policy".
Any the argument that this extra spend is required for player retention (for interstate players) is also flawed as all other non-VIC clubs have a high % of interstate players on their list, yet there is no recipricol allowance.
Let's just hope that the AFL finally sees sense and abolishes the Prop-up-Sydney allowance once and for all.
And for those who argue that the COLA has been apportioned equally amongst all players on the list (rather than hoarded to buy players like Buddy and Tippet) are missing the point. It makes no difference how the extra 10% is divvied up, the point is they have 10% extra to spend and there is no way this is can be considered fair
- Banned
- #2,125
Oh...
Similar threads
