Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
the crow wrote:So is Buddy going to go to GWS, if so will he make a difference?
Can't understand why they want him - with Cameron and Patton up front (and presumably picking Boyd in this year's draft) they have more than enough talent up front. What the Giants need is some experience in defense and in the mid-field.
And if they think Buddy's going to pay for himself through marketing activities off the field, he's a nobody in western Sydney.
A bloke who'll kick a regular 4 goals in 10 goal defeats, might have a shot at the Coventry and the Brownlow (if he can stay out of the umpires' notebooks); it's a good publicity play.
They're not going to get into their forward 50 that much, so they need to make sure of it when they do.
looks like he will join the Swans
Luckily they have extra room in the salary cap to compensate him for the higher living costs in Sydney. $1.4m per year will get you by here - but $1.25m means that you will struggle
That makes 2 multiple million key position forwards for the Swans. To accomodate big money players everyone else has to go down a notch - twice in this case. This must really sting in combination with, you know, the cost of living...
Another funny thing about the cost of living. One of the main costs - upwards of 1/3 of the average income, is spent on housing. So at the end of enduring this higher cost of living the player owns an asset that's worth more. Sell up and move back to a cheaper state and it's cold hard profit.
We now know how Sydney can afford Franklin under their Salary Sombrero. They are backending his deal in to years after his playing career. It's legit. They are spending tomorrow's salary cap today. Will win premierships today, but when they come down they'll crash so much harder.
This is the same as what the Brisbane Lions did in their Threepeat years. Back ending salary payments to keep the squad together, knowing full well they'll drop off a cliff later.
Geez the swans are really taking the piss out of the extra salary cap allowance. They're pretty much daring the rest of the comp to take it off them. But I guess the AFL leadership doesn't want them to bottom out to fourth every year, so I'll guess they'll keep it.
I'm not on other forums these days so this may have been brought up elsewhere, but I'll float this idea at least thinking it's original.
It's not uncommon for clubs to pay the salaries of opponents' players. Essentially what happens during a trade negotation to sweeten the deal, besides trading players and draft picks, is trading your cap space and essentially saying take this player and we'll continue to pay part of his salary to ease your total player payments. Now, consider a situation where you have big money to spend on a player. The downside risk is all your eggs are in the one basket. So why not sign two players - spread your risk, and cut your losses (and tpp) with a trade on the player that doesn't pan out. The day your TPP burst through the ceiling doesn't eventuate - you cut your losses on the player and agree to part pay the contract. You still may be up for half a million or whatever on your TPP, but what you gain is having had two bites at the franchise player cherry.
Frankly (no pun intended), it's the only rationale I can make up for signing Tippet on so much money. He's a maybe. Was a maybe drafting (basketball player). A maybe hang on to him - originally a ruckman but no good and overtaken by Sam Jacobs, an original rookie list player at Carlton. Hadn't performed as the KP forward - overtaken by Taylor Walker. Not to mention persistent knee tendonitis which requires ongoing management. Then the stakes are upped and he's a maybe multi million dollar superstar, despite averaging 2 goals a game as the key marking tall forward. Add the next variable to the equation - he's clearly not loyal.
The difference in the place of AFL in Melbourne and Sydney is well displayed by the online dealing with the Buddy story in The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald. The Age's first 3 lead stories are about the deal while the Sydney Morning Herald has it linked amongst its secondary stories in the place The Age links the story of the likely closure of the Hilton on the Park.
There's a whole bunch of predictable bleating by Victorians about the COLA. Which is a red herring in this case, but Victorians are too narrow minded to realise it.
Franklin has actually turned down an offer from the Giants that would have paid him more money (on average) than the Swans offer. There are two key differences:
1. The Swans are in a far better place to challenge for premierships right not, not in five years.
2. Franklin will (theoretically) continue to get paid for longer under the Swans deal than under the Giants offer. If it plays out, then I would have thought he would continue to be paid by the Swans after he retires from playing.
In other words, the COLA has zero to do with this deal. It's just a convenient excuse to whinge about by clubs who didn't think to offer him such a long deal.
In the next few years I don't see it being a problem, with players having already retired (e.g. Jude Bolton) and others about to (e.g. Goodes) and the reducing of expenditure on the Tippett deal (his being front loaded, whereas Franklin's is back loaded).
Plus, the last few years of Franklin's deal (that they have back loaded) will have less of an impact on the salary cap than people realise as he will go on the seniors list.
As far as I can tell, the only real risk for the Swans is if he seriously injures himself.
More evidence that the Swans are the best run football club in the country.
gyfox wrote:The difference in the place of AFL in Melbourne and Sydney is well displayed by the online dealing with the Buddy story in The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald. The Age's first 3 lead stories are about the deal while the Sydney Morning Herald has it linked amongst its secondary stories in the place The Age links the story of the likely closure of the Hilton on the Park.
True. Although the back page coverage on the Daily Telegraph yesterday, in a week of an all-Sydney NRL grand final and day of the Dally M's is quite an achievement.
Boba, How's the cost of living in Perth going, last I checked they were one of, if not the, highest in the country? But the Eagles & Dockers don't have an allowance. You can say whatever you want, the fact is, Sydney has more money to spend on players.
As a Hawthorn supporter, I'm not fussed. Buddy's best footy is behind him, he's going to absolutely rape Sydney in this 9yr deal, (ps. not sure how his culture will fit in at the Swans), and for us - hello $1m freed up in our salary cap! Bring in one or two quality players. Also less attention on a single player. Moved on already
Boba Fett wrote:
More evidence that the Swans are the best run football club in the country.
God it would be easy to be the best run [X] if your industry's regulations restricted your competitors but allowed you to invest 110% of their investment year after year after year. And then you could boast about what a great culture your company has.
cam wrote: Boba, How's the cost of living in Perth going, last I checked they were one of, if not the, highest in the country? But the Eagles & Dockers don't have an allowance. You can say whatever you want, the fact is, Sydney has more money to spend on players.
Nope. Sydney is the most expensive city in Australia.
And the Eagles/Dockers/whoever are always free to try and negotiate something with the AFL if they feel hard done by. Why haven't they?
Even more proof that the Swans administration is the best in the country.
