Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 22

Thread: Are Swans fans paranoid?

  1. #1
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    9,310

    Are Swans fans paranoid?

    I'll speak for myself. Why do I have the feeling that someone is out to get us?

    We sign Buddy Franklin and they take away our COLA. Everyone said we abused the COLA, but could not supply any evidence.

    We are banned from trading for no explicable reason other than suspicion that we might do something wrong which would have been impossible to do under any circumstances since all such things that we might have done wrong would have been reviewed and required approval by the AFL before the alleged possible wrongdoing would have become a hang-able offense. Whooooooooo .......................

    After 4 million dollars invested in a AFL promoted program (Academy), we finally land a potential star at a decent draft pick the entire academy bidding system gets reviewed with the probably that we will no longer get any real equitable benefit from the program.

    We also have a potential high value Father-Son selection, so let's throw that in with the reduced benefits as well.

    Now I read that Colin Sylvia and Freo have parted ways: Sylvia 'wasn't at the level required': AFL days over for Freo mid - AFL.com.au
    I was surprised to read:
    Sylvia had another year to run on a lucrative three-year deal. It is understood that the club has negotiated a partial payment to Sylvia in 2015 and no payments in 2016. It is understood, as per any other retirement, he will not be listed in 2016 and no payments will go towards the Dockers' salary cap.
    IIRC, the point was made when we signed Buddy that we would have to include his salary in the our salary cap for the entire 9 years regardless of the circumstance that might arise during this time. So even if Buddy is incapable of playing, we could not reach the kind of agreement that Freo have reached with Sylvia.

    Or am I wrong about this? And am I just being paranoid?

  2. #2
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,164
    For what it's worth I agree with you.

  3. #3
    Buddy will retire before 9 years is up, and we will negotiate a settlement like sylvia did. Same, same

  4. #4
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    4,717
    Quote Originally Posted by barry View Post
    Buddy will retire before 9 years is up, and we will negotiate a settlement like sylvia did. Same, same
    No, not the same. We might negotiate a settlement and not have to pay Buddy if he retires early, but Ludwig is right - it was quite explicit in the conditions laid down by the AFL that the scheduled payments for Buddy would still be included, as if they had been paid, under our salary cap.

  5. #5
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    4,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludwig View Post
    I'll speak for myself. Why do I have the feeling that someone is out to get us? And am I just being paranoid?
    I'm paranoid enough to see a new Academy/F-S draft rule come in next year just for the Swans but deferred for the other three Northern clubs because they are in a "developmental phase".

  6. #6
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Castlemaine, Vic.
    Posts
    8,177
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludwig View Post
    I'll speak for myself. Why do I have the feeling that someone is out to get us?

    We sign Buddy Franklin and they take away our COLA. Everyone said we abused the COLA, but could not supply any evidence.

    We are banned from trading for no explicable reason other than suspicion that we might do something wrong which would have been impossible to do under any circumstances since all such things that we might have done wrong would have been reviewed and required approval by the AFL before the alleged possible wrongdoing would have become a hang-able offense. Whooooooooo .......................

    After 4 million dollars invested in a AFL promoted program (Academy), we finally land a potential star at a decent draft pick the entire academy bidding system gets reviewed with the probably that we will no longer get any real equitable benefit from the program.

    We also have a potential high value Father-Son selection, so let's throw that in with the reduced benefits as well.

    Now I read that Colin Sylvia and Freo have parted ways: Sylvia 'wasn't at the level required': AFL days over for Freo mid - AFL.com.au
    I was surprised to read:


    IIRC, the point was made when we signed Buddy that we would have to include his salary in the our salary cap for the entire 9 years regardless of the circumstance that might arise during this time. So even if Buddy is incapable of playing, we could not reach the kind of agreement that Freo have reached with Sylvia.

    Or am I wrong about this? And am I just being paranoid?
    All bar the last of those above examples have one common factor behind them, apart from a gutless AFL administration, and that is one Eddie McGuire, and he'll probably try to ensure we don't get a Sylvia style agreement if Buddy retires early. So someone is out to get us, and he has his own thread on this site! But apart from that, one does get the feeling that we are feared/loathed and, by underhanded dealings driven by a prejudicial powerbase, we are being slowly undermined. This could be paranoia, but with powerbrokers such as McGuire and Newbold, and a lesser extent, Gordon around, pulling Gillons strings, I think we have to at least be on our guard, but preferably firmly on the front foot, regarding what is rightfully ours.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by stevoswan View Post
    This could be paranoia, but with powerbrokers such as McGuire and Newbold, and a lesser extent, Gordon around, pulling Gillons strings

  8. #8
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    4,717

    Are Swans fans paranoid?

    Having given this a bit more thought, I think that there is an important difference between the recruitment of Buddy by the Swans and the recruitment of Sylvia by Freo.
    Buddy was a RESTRICTED free agent which meant Hawthorn had the right to match the deal the Swans offered, and if Buddy didn't accept he would have had to go into the draft and almost certainly not end up with the Swans. Under those circumstances I can see the reasoning behind the conditions the AFL attached. It would have been too easy otherwise for the Swans to offer a deal over 9 years that Hawthorn would not match, but on a nod and a wink with Buddy that he would retire after (say) 6 years and the rest of the money would not be paid and would not count under the salary cap.
    Sylvia on the other hand was an UNRESTRICTED free agent which means he could move to the club of his choice. So Freo (or any other club) could have offered whatever they wanted knowing that if it didn't work out, and Sylvia retired, they would not have to pay out the contract. In that sense all clubs were on an equal footing in competing for Sylvia.
    So I think the difference between the Buddy and the Sylvia situations is reasonable. Doesn't meant that they aren't out to get us though!!

  9. #9
    Good point Ludwig. It does seem like double standards. My understanding was always that retirements were included in the clubs TPP and hence our situation with Buddy was the norm.

  10. #10
    Or Buddy plays out his contract winning multiple Colemans, a Norm Smith or two and perhaps a Brownlow and the Swans channel their inner EJ & "stick it up 'em!" with the deal (or steal) of the decade!

  11. #11
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,929
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    Having given this a bit more thought, I think that there is an important difference between the recruitment of Buddy by the Swans and the recruitment of Sylvia by Freo.
    Buddy was a RESTRICTED free agent which meant Hawthorn had the right to match the deal the Swans offered, and if Buddy didn't accept he would have had to go into the draft and almost certainly not end up with the Swans. Under those circumstances I can see the reasoning behind the conditions the AFL attached. It would have been too easy otherwise for the Swans to offer a deal over 9 years that Hawthorn would not match, but on a nod and a wink with Buddy that he would retire after (say) 6 years and the rest of the money would not be paid and would not count under the salary cap.
    Sylvia on the other hand was an UNRESTRICTED free agent which means he could move to the club of his choice. So Freo (or any other club) could have offered whatever they wanted knowing that if it didn't work out, and Sylvia retired, they would not have to pay out the contract. In that sense all clubs were on an equal footing in competing for Sylvia.
    So I think the difference between the Buddy and the Sylvia situations is reasonable. Doesn't meant that they aren't out to get us though!!
    Yep, you're probably right. I think it'll work out in the end, I can't imagine that they wouldn't have thought of this scenario when they did the Buddy deal.

  12. #12
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Castlemaine, Vic.
    Posts
    8,177
    Quote Originally Posted by 09183305 View Post
    Nice one!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO