Are Swans fans paranoid?

[Ludwig]

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!!

This is a very interesting point you raised and the first time I've seen it.

If you are correct, then it should mean that all restricted free agent signings would come under the same provisions. RFAs Dale Thomas and Eddie Betts also signed multi year deals for big bucks with new clubs, albeit not on the order of Buddy's deal, but nothing was ever said that the deals had to be fulfilled to the end and included in the salary cap whether they played or not. Thomas especially, given his ankle injury, may not have been able to play out his contract and many had questioned Carlton's decision to sign him up on such a big contract given the situation. Yet, I cannot recall a mention that Carlton would he stuck holding the bag if Daisy had to retire.

It would also seem that if Hawthorn had in fact matched the deal the Swans offered, they too should be subject to the same provisions, meaning that they would be stuck with Buddy's 9 year contract come hell or high water, even if Buddy retired from the Hawks after 6 years. Yet nothing was said if this would be the case.

I doesn't mean that it's not the case. Perhaps the Buddy provisions hold for all RFA contracts, yet it is odd that this matter only arose in relation to Buddy Franklin and the Swans.

It seems incredible how many regulations and special rulings have applied to restrict or modify the dealings with and access to players for just the Swans. Even those that will ostensibly effect other clubs have the most significant and immediate impact on the Swans and seem specifically designed to restrict a perceived benefit the Swans might receive. Or am I just being paranoid?

I wonder if some crack sports journo will point out that Freo have an exit clause in the Sylvia contract that was not available to the Swans because of such and such. I'll be waiting with bated breath.

[AnnieH]

It just reeks of Eddie @@@@, doesn't it?
I told you the club had a few more "issues" to work out with the AFL.
I'm pretty sure they add to the list every day.

[dejavoodoo44]

Now, now; if we all keep on taking the piss out of Eddie, none of us will ever win big on Millionaire Hot Seat. That is, any identified Swans follower will end up a quivering mess on the studio floor, muttering, "But when you said, 'Is that your final answer?' like that, I just assumed I was wrong...baaassstaaaard"

[barry]

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.

Its not written in the contract anymore than sylvias was. Otherwise it would be in the industrial relations court.

[Meg]

Its not written in the contract anymore than sylvias was. Otherwise it would be in the industrial relations court.

The condition that the payments outlined for each year of the 9 years would be counted as part of the Swans TPP even if Franklin did not play for the full 9 years, and thus is not paid for the full 9 years, is a condition imposed by the AFL as part of its approval of the deal between the Swans and Franklin. It is part of the agreement between the Swans and the AFL, not between the Swans and Franklin and therefore it is not relevant to the Industrial Relations Court.
"Dillon (AFL General Counsel) said the AFL acknowledged that the nature of the nine-year deal was an unprecedented commitment of TPP funds to a single player over such a contract length, and as a result it sought written guarantees from all members of the Sydney board as well as its senior management. These included:

� "An explicit acknowledgement that the long-term specific financial commitment over the nine-year agreement will apply to the Swans' total player payments for each of the nine years, regardless of how many years Franklin is available to play for the club."
AFL clears Buddy Franklin's $10m move
THE AUSTRALIAN OCTOBER 09, 2013 12:00AM
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

[GoSouth33]

Everyone should be more worried about how good the Giants will be. They've got talent right across the field. Patton's out injured and then they unearth Cam McCarthy as a power forward who, with Cameron, kicked nine goals down in Canberra against the Suns. Ultimately, they will lose players because of salary cap pressures. It is scary to think where they will be in a few short years.

[Ludwig]

The condition that the payments outlined for each year of the 9 years would be counted as part of the Swans TPP even if Franklin did not play for the full 9 years, and thus is not paid for the full 9 years, is a condition imposed by the AFL as part of its approval of the deal between the Swans and Franklin. It is part of the agreement between the Swans and the AFL, not between the Swans and Franklin and therefore it is not relevant to the Industrial Relations Court.
"Dillon (AFL General Counsel) said the AFL acknowledged that the nature of the nine-year deal was an unprecedented commitment of TPP funds to a single player over such a contract length, and as a result it sought written guarantees from all members of the Sydney board as well as its senior management. These included:

� "An explicit acknowledgement that the long-term specific financial commitment over the nine-year agreement will apply to the Swans' total player payments for each of the nine years, regardless of how many years Franklin is available to play for the club."
AFL clears Buddy Franklin's $10m move
THE AUSTRALIAN OCTOBER 09, 2013 12:00AM
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Thanks for researching the specifics. This just reinforces the idea that everything the Swans do falls into a special category according to the AFL and needing to have some targeted restrictive provisions. If the Swans had signed Frawey and O'Rourke after consecutive premierships the house would have come down on us. Surely it would have been seen as a rort of the system.

Everyone should be more worried about how good the Giants will be. They've got talent right across the field. Patton's out injured and then they unearth Cam McCarthy as a power forward who, with Cameron, kicked nine goals down in Canberra against the Suns. Ultimately, they will lose players because of salary cap pressures. It is scary to think where they will be in a few short years.

I think it would be great for GWS to be a successful club both on and off the field. It would be beneficial to both clubs to have the kind of state rivalry they have in SA and WA, and it doesn't seem to have hurt those clubs membership numbers at all, as they all are at record levels. It will bring more clout to NSW footy and make the AFL aware of the importance of NSW to the overall success of the code. I think the Giants can make the 8 this year and hope they do.

[Meg]

..... it should mean that all restricted free agent signings would come under the same provisions. RFAs Dale Thomas and Eddie Betts also signed multi year deals for big bucks with new clubs, albeit not on the order of Buddy's deal, but nothing was ever said that the deals had to be fulfilled to the end and included in the salary cap whether they played or not. Thomas especially, given his ankle injury, may not have been able to play out his contract and many had questioned Carlton's decision to sign him up on such a big contract given the situation. Yet, I cannot recall a mention that Carlton would he stuck holding the bag if Daisy had to retire.

I doesn't mean that it's not the case. Perhaps the Buddy provisions hold for all RFA contracts, yet it is odd that this matter only arose in relation to Buddy Franklin and the Swans.

I agree with you that the conditions imposed on the Swans in relation to the Franklin contract should in principle be applied on all clubs that recruit a RFA. However I have never read that to be the case for any other player and think that in fact it was a one-off applied to the Swans re Franklin on the basis of the extra-ordinary length and size of the contract (as the quote from the AFL Counsel that I provided above suggests).

There is an interesting article on AFL website today discussing the relative "success" to the recruiting clubs of each of the free agents (restricted and unrestricted) since free agency was introduced three years ago.

Who fired, who flopped? Free agency hits and misses - AFL.com.au

There have been eight RFAs other than Buddy: Brent Moloney, Brendon Goddard, Eddie Betts, Nick Dal Santo, Troy Chaplin, Danyle Pearce, Dale Thomas and Shaun Higgins. I don't recall there being much of a tussle or controversy over any of these (some in regard to Dale Thomas) and I don't think any of them have a contract longer than 4 years or will be any older than about 32 at the end. So no doubt these factors would be used to emphasise the special nature, and therefore the special conditions imposed, in regard to the Franklin contract.

However I was annoyed last year that the AFL did not impose the "Franklin condition" on the Bulldogs when they recruited Tom Boyd (who was still under contract to GWS) on an extraordinary trade deal involving a swap in which they gave GWS Griffen + pick 6 + paying some of Griffen's contract ($1million?). And then put Boyd, a 19-year-old who had played nine AFL games and kicked eight goals, on a seven-year, $7 million contract. Offering that sort of a deal almost certainly put all the other Vic clubs out of contention for Boyd's services. Surely the Bulldogs should have to wear the consequences in their TPP if Boyd turns out to be a flop and can't last 7 years, just as the Swans would have to do if Buddy can't fulfill his full nine-year contract?

Which is a long way of saying that I agree that the AFL does seem to think up special conditions specifically for the Swans, but not apply them to other clubs in similar circumstances.

[bodgie]

Is it likely that we have been the beneficiary of favourable behind the scene deals in relatively recent times, outside COLA, that has led the Swans to be relatively quiet about these knee jerk sanctions?

[Conor_Dillon]

Is it likely that we have been the beneficiary of favourable behind the scene deals in relatively recent times, outside COLA, that has led the Swans to be relatively quiet about these knee jerk sanctions?

I've been thinking along similar lines, but cannot think of any examples of what it could be.