Opinion Sydney Swans Academy and Rebuild

[HirdsTheWord]

To digress, I'm sorry, but even Swans supporters have to admit that Andrew Pridham is just a terrible human being.

This is such a horrible, disingenuous, poorly thought-out comment:

"We have outrageously rookied a kid like Sam Wicks who no one else picked. Go figure. As for Geelong if you talk about advantages, my god they have (Patrick) Dangerfield, Jeremy Cameron, (Gary) Rohan, (Isaac) Smith, they are in a town that houses the Geelong Falcons. They have players keen to play there and it’s so cheap to live there. They are spending 300 bucks a week to live in an eight-bedroom house. The bottom line is it has never been a level playing field"

**********************************

'300 bucks a week to live in an eight bedroom house' - are you f*cking kidding me? What, he thinks that Victoria is some cheap, affordable, utopian paradise of cheap properties, lol? Last I checked, the whole if Australia was outlandishly overpriced - not just Sydney.

It disturbs me just how strong and emotional his reaction his - when he doesnt even talk about how we didn't get any of those players until the latter half of their careers, we gave up draft collateral to get them when we did, and even though they played for the Falcons originally, we had no priority access due to that fact.

God I hate that man. Rest of the Swans management is actually pretty good, but Pridham and his investment banker 'give everything to me' attitude, is just disgusting.

Housing Prices determine level of playing field?

Sydney Swan players don't have to live in the eastern suburbs of Sydney............. they can easily live in the burbs and travel into work like everyone else.

I have no issues with the academies, but COLA was and will always be a crock of shit.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Mate every 25yo WAG contemplating kids and lifestyle are into their fellas about getting a contract to Geelong. Good land, good schools, good lifestyle. They’re bonkers if they’re not.

Why the Demons aren’t playing the same card with Cranbourne is beyond me, although the schools aren’t as good. They should have been right into Papley and every other Gippsland kid.

Sydney (Bondi) is certainly attractive at the very top end but Geelong if they don’t stuff it up will continue to attract players in mid to late 20s due to lifestyle and cost of living factors.

The swan players don't have to live in Bondi mate, they aren't the Bondi or Eastern Suburbs swans. Sydney is a big place....

They can easily live in other parts of the city where it is cheaper if cost of living prices are cheaper.

 

[SM]

The swan players don't have to live in Bondi mate, they aren't the Bondi or Eastern Suburbs swans. Sydney is a big place....

They can easily live in other parts of the city where it is cheaper if cost of living prices are cheaper.

His point was Bondi is an attractive point to potential recruits, but that's only for those that can afford it. I think you're actually agreeing with each other.

 

[Shadow89]

Wow you missed his point entirely. Do you really think pick 9 & Dean Gore was a fair trade for Danger?

For a FA that had served 8 years at his club, it was better than what Adelaide would have gotten in compensation?

Do you really think that nothing and compensation of Pick 19 was a fair trade for Lance Franklin? I wouldn't be playing this game if I were you, lol.

 

[SM]

For a FA that had served 8 years at his club, it was better than what Adelaide would have gotten in compensation?

Do you really think that nothing and compensation of Pick 19 was a fair trade for Lance Franklin? I wouldn't be playing this game if I were you, lol.

No but we had to fork out a huge contract that he's still being held to 8 years later. We've lost a lot of players along the way as a result of said contract.

 

[Shadow89]

He's a terrible human being for employing hyperbole about how good Geelong have it? There's a few in here who could be slapped with that label then.

So you just gloss over the whole '8 bedroom house for 300 dollars a week' part? That's the part that's pissed me off.

Don't get me started on all this Falcons BS. We contribute a sh*tload to that club, in terms of development, local support/funding etc. - we get no priority access to those players.

I would LOVE it, if we could only draft Falcons players due to priority access. We'd have won the last 10 flags if so.

 

[SM]

So you just gloss over the whole '8 bedroom house for 300 dollars a week' part? That's the part that's pissed me off.

Don't get me started on all this Falcons BS. We contribute a sh*tload to that club, in terms of development, local support/funding etc. - we get no priority access to those players.

I would LOVE it, if we could only draft Falcons players due to priority access. We'd have won the last 10 flags if so.

I mean that's literally the part I was responding to as that was the hyperbole.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

His point was Bondi is an attractive point to potential recruits, but that's only for those that can afford it. I think you're actually agreeing with each other.

I didn't read it what way but OK I guess.

 

[Shadow89]

No but we had to fork out a huge contract that he's still being held to 8 years later. We've lost a lot of players along the way as a result of said contract.

That has nothing to do with 'fairness', that's just mismanagement on your part. He was going to NSW regardless, you just came over the top with the most ridiculous contract in modern AFL history.

Fact remains, you again paid nothing in draft capital, got arguably one of the greatest players of all time, and the club he left ended up with a pittance due to not being able to match said contract, given its ridiculous length and value (as was your intention to blow even GWS out of the water).

 

[BloodySwan]

For a FA that had served 8 years at his club, it was better than what Adelaide would have gotten in compensation?

Do you really think that nothing and compensation of Pick 19 was a fair trade for Lance Franklin? I wouldn't be playing this game if I were you, lol.

I'm confused, if Adelaide got fair compensation then you're also arguing Hawthorn got fair compensation right?

 

[SM]

That has nothing to do with 'fairness', that's just mismanagement on your part. He was going to NSW regardless, you just came over the top with the most ridiculous contract in modern AFL history.

Fact remains, you again paid nothing in draft capital, got arguably one of the greatest players of all time, and the club he left ended up with a pittance due to not being able to match said contract, given its ridiculous length and value (as was your intention to blow even GWS out of the water).

Mismanagement? We knew going in what it would take to get him to Sydney. Every other club in the comp was welcome to match our offer and shed the same number of players.

Yeah that club instead was able to top up with guys like Tom Mitchell who then won a Brownlow (where did they get him from?) and won a further two flags. Poor them.

 

[Shadow89]

Mismanagement? We knew going in what it would take to get him to Sydney. Every other club in the comp was welcome to match our offer and shed the same number of players.

Yeah that club instead was able to top up with guys like Tom Mitchelle who then won a Brownlow (where did they get him from?) and won a further two flags. Poor them.

That's not what is being argued here. You guys brought up Dangerfield and what we paid to get him - I simply countered that at least we gave them more than they would have got in Compo. You guys paid nothing except salary, which was your own choice as a club.

We chose to not compromise our pay structure to pay Danger way overs, and so had to give up what draft capital we had. You guys went the other route and blew everyone else out of the water (including GWS who he was destined to go to until the last minute), but paid nothing in draft capital - and also left his former club with nothing in draft capital.

It was in response to the old 'you paid x for Danger' argument, when Geelong is still the only club that has paid for FA's TWICE. It's not really a good argument when you guys gave up nothing at all in draft capital, but you're pointing out us not giving enough for Danger in a trade.

 

[Tedeski]

Yeah, how exactly?

They don't own the clubs and the clubs are the stakeholders of the league.

AFL clubs can veto any AFL commission decision with 2/3 majority vote.

If they simply could, we would be the Gold Coast Kangaroo's right now.

You wish!

 

[SM]

That's not what is being argued here. You guys brought up Dangerfield and what we paid to get him - I simply countered that at least we gave them more than they would have got in Compo. You guys paid nothing except salary, which was your own choice as a club.

We chose to not compromise our pay structure to pay Danger way overs, and so had to give up what draft capital we had. You guys went the other route and blew everyone else out of the water (including GWS who he was destined to go to until the last minute), but paid nothing in draft capital - and also left his former club with nothing in draft capital.

It was in response to the old 'you paid x for Danger' argument, when Geelong is still the only club that has paid for FA's TWICE. It's not really a good argument when you guys gave up nothing at all in draft capital, but you're pointing out us not giving enough for Danger in a trade.

Was Danger out of contract? I don't remember the specifics so you might have to refresh my memory.

 

[BloodySwan]

That's not what is being argued here. You guys brought up Dangerfield and what we paid to get him - I simply countered that at least we gave them more than they would have got in Compo. You guys paid nothing except salary, which was your own choice as a club.

We chose to not compromise our pay structure to pay Danger way overs, and so had to give up what draft capital we had. You guys went the other route and blew everyone else out of the water (including GWS who he was destined to go to until the last minute), but paid nothing in draft capital - and also left his former club with nothing in draft capital.

It was in response to the old 'you paid x for Danger' argument, when Geelong is still the only club that has paid for FA's TWICE. It's not really a good argument when you guys gave up nothing at all in draft capital, but you're pointing out us not giving enough for Danger in a trade.

Wait, your argument is how you didn't have to offer the best mid in the comp (at that time) a competitive salary, while the Swans had to offer Buddy a record breaking contract to lure him to the Swans. It's almost as if there were other factors in determining Danger's motives to play for the Cats..... hmmmm what could they have been? What sort of advantages were the cats taking which no other club in the comp had access too

 

[Sphynx]

Was Danger out of contract? I don't remember the specifics so you might have to refresh my memory.

You have to be out of contract to be a FA. Not your best moment.

 

[Shadow89]

Was Danger out of contract? I don't remember the specifics so you might have to refresh my memory.

Yep he was. Had reached the threshold for free agency, but was obviously a restricted free agent, given he was in the top 20% of earners at the club. Served his 8 years that enabled him to qualify, and then exercised his rights as a free agent - which Adelaide said they wanted him to stay and would match, so we then had to trade something (we didn't have a whole lot as a future picks didn't exist that stage), but gave up Pick 9, 28 and Gore in exchange.

 

[SM]

You have to be out of contract to be a FA. Not your best moment.

I've asked you before, drop this petty agenda you have. I was genuinely asking as I didn't remember if it was a straight up trade or a FA move.

As suggested above, I daresay there was a reason Geelong went to the trade table if Danger was out of contract, and it wasn't from the kindness of their heart, it was because Danger nominated them and they wouldn't have to pay overs in salary to ward off every other club in the comp from giving him an offer bigger than the Cats'.

 

[Sphynx]

Wait, your argument is how you didn't have to offer the best mid in the comp (at that time) a competitive salary, while the Swans had to offer Buddy a record breaking contract to lure him to the Swans. It's almost as if there were other factors in determining Danger's motives to play for the Cats..... hmmmm what could they have been? What sort of advantages were the cats taking which no other club in the comp had access too

The fact he grew up in Moggs Creek?

It's almost as if Sydney leveraged off the fact Franklin was dating a girl from Sydney and wanted to move there. An advantage only one other club had access too.

 

[SM]

Yep he was. Had reached the threshold for free agency, but was obviously a restricted free agent, given he was in the top 20% of earners at the club. Served his 8 years that enabled him to qualify, and then exercised his rights as a free agent - which Adelaide said they wanted him to stay and would match, so we then had to trade something (we didn't have a whole lot as a future picks didn't exist that stage), but gave up Pick 9, 28 and Gore in exchange.

So if he was restricted doesn't that mean if he'd gone the FA route then the Crows would have been entitled to match a contract offer? Which means that instead the Cats thought the best route to getting him was putting together a trade package that would serve the place of the compensation package? So Cats win by getting their man and Crows win by getting better draft picks? Hardly a moment of generosity from the Cats.

 

[Sphynx]

I've asked you before, drop this petty agenda you have. I was genuinely asking as I didn't remember if it was a straight up trade or a FA move.

As suggested above, I daresay there was a reason Geelong went to the trade table if Danger was out of contract, and it wasn't from the kindness of their heart, it was because Danger nominated them and they wouldn't have to pay overs in salary to ward off every other club in the comp from giving him an offer bigger than the Cats'.

He literally mentioned the fact Geelong had to pay for FA's Cameron and Dangerfield in the post you quoted.

I know comprehension isn't your strong suit, but don't get triggered when you get called out.

 

[Shadow89]

Wait, your argument is how you didn't have to offer the best mid in the comp (at that time) a competitive salary, while the Swans had to offer Buddy a record breaking contract to lure him to the Swans. It's almost as if there were other factors in determining Danger's motives to play for the Cats..... hmmmm what could they have been? What sort of advantages were the cats taking which no other club in the comp had access too

Lol, shifting the goalposts now. We have a salary structure in place that means we won't pay anyone more than the captain, to promote team harmony. If Dangerfield just wanted money - like Buddy did - then he had his choice of 16 other clubs that I'm sure would have paid him the same as you guys paid Buddy.

My argument, is that you can't bring up what we paid in draft capital for Danger, when you guys paid nothing. You chose to go the salary route and blow every other club out of the water - but in doing so, you gave up no draft capital to land him.

We went the other route, and gave up what draft capital we had, but paid him less.

Neither way is right/wrong, it's just the way the system works. However, it's you that said we should have paid more for Danger, when you only paid salary for Buddy yourselves. Can't have it both ways and say we should have paid more in draft capital, but his salary is the same, while you pay nothing in draft capital and the salary for a player you pick up is more.

 

[SM]

He literally mentioned the fact Geelong had to pay for FA's Cameron and Dangerfield in the post you quoted.

I know comprehension isn't your strong suit, but don't get triggered when you get called out.

He didn't actually mention Cameron, so a bit rich to challenge others' comprehension. If you're referring to the fact that he mentions they paid for FAs twice, I genuinely didn't know who that was referring to, I thought it was an additional point.

No need to be so combative.

 

[SM]

Lol, shifting the goalposts now. We have a salary structure in place that means we won't pay anyone more than the captain, to promote team harmony. If Dangerfield just wanted money - like Buddy did - then he had his choice of 16 other clubs that I'm sure would have paid him the same as you guys paid Buddy.

My argument, is that you can't bring up what we paid in draft capital for Danger, when you guys paid nothing. You chose to go the salary route and blow every other club out of the water - but in doing so, you gave up no draft capital to land him.

We went the other route, and gave up what draft capital we had, but paid him less.

Neither way is right/wrong, it's just the way the system works. However, it's you that said we should have paid more for Danger, when you only paid salary for Buddy yourselves. Can't have it both ways and say we should have paid more in draft capital, but his salary is the same, while you pay nothing in draft capital and the salary for a player you pick up is more.

We can agree there.

I think the 'Danger was cheap' argument is more from the point of view that draft picks will never be a perfect barometer of trade value, and the fact we bundled picks together to get Campbell (which I presume is where this strand of conversation started) that are perceived to be of lower worth than Campbell.

 

[Shadow89]

So if he was restricted doesn't that mean if he'd gone the FA route then the Crows would have been entitled to match a contract offer? Which means that instead the Cats thought the best route to getting him was putting together a trade package that would serve the place of the compensation package? So Cats win by getting their man and Crows win by getting better draft picks? Hardly a moment of generosity from the Cats.

100%. Never said we were being 'generous', just was pointing out the silliness and using the Danger trade as a measuring stick, when you paid nothing in draft capital for Buddy, and the receiving club ended up with very little as well.

I didn't start this, was just showing the hypocrisy in the argument.