Long term contracts

[bloodspirit]

It talks about the situation where he is "no longer available to play". At face value, I have to agree with you Vonsteinman - and thanks for the excellent link by the way. However it's still not crystal clear i don't think and I still wonder if that covers the situation of his retirement. Im sure it's spelled out more clearly in the actual documents, I would hope so, at least. Anyway, hopefully he'll play out his contract and we'll never find out.

Amazing to think he's being paid about $1.8m/year for this and the next two seasons!! The TPP couldn't be leaping up more than expected at a better time. We're either brilliant at reading the tea leaves, lucky, or both. Bravo again Colless & co who brokered this (and so much other smart business)!

[Vonsteinman]

Bloodspirit... this article implies that it was a condition of the contract's approval

Nocookies | The Australian

[bloodspirit]

1. I don't ever remember the AFL saying we have to count Buddy's salary in our cap if he retires. Certainly they sought, and obtained, all kind of assurances and there were strict conditions perhaps including preventing us pensioning him off. However, I am not sure that these include his retirement. Like I say, I'm not sure. I may be wrong but I think it may just be something that has been repeated in these forums so often that people have started believing it. Conversely, if Buddy is injured and can't play, in that scenario I'm pretty sure we will simply have to keep paying him and keep it being counted in the salary cap. It's the situation where he walks away of his own volition that I'm more doubtful about.

2. I would be surprised if Heeney is currently being paid $1m/year.

[crackedactor]

The Jon Ralph report says that Isaac Heeney was offered a million a year to go to North. It doesn't state that the Swans are currently paying him a million a year.

[crackedactor]

I cannot believe Heeney is on that sort of money. I would like to know where Jon Ralph got his sources from?

[Ludwig]

Jon Ralph said today that his sources say the Isaac Heeney is now on $1,000,000 a year. Sounds incredible, but who knows. If true, you can bet that Mills will want the same. I don't know how we can squeeze everyone into the cap. Maybe Hanners and Parker are down on form because they are upset that Heeney received a bigger contract than they have. And I suppose they would be right.

Considering that Dangerfield is reportedly on 800k, these million dollar long term contracts sound outrageous. Fyfe and Dusty Martin will be asking for at least 1.5 mil.

[Ludwig]

I think Buddy will play on beyond his current contract and go on to be the all time game record holder.

[Steve]

You have more confidence in the AFL to do the right thing than I do Steve.

I agree. No way in the world would they relent. Even if Buddy broke his leg their position would be the same.

The AFL flip-flop on virtually every issue, so eventually that will have to go our way with something.

But more specifically, Fitzpatrick has gone, and it was simply an emotional reaction from him at the time that led to the seeking of those guarantees, as well as the trading ban.

McLachlan can't function without making compromise deals to smooth over issues the AFL create for themselves, so he'll find a way to justify it.

Buddy's looking pretty good to last the majority of the contract anyway, but even if he finishes a year or two early, and the AFL want to hold us to the full contract, we could really stick it up them and re-negotiate the last couple of million into a new 40-year deal for $50K p.a. and just keep putting him on the LT injury list. I don't think they have a mandatory retirement age in the rules (yet).

[S.S. Bleeder]

Not strictly related to the Swans but a question never the less to be answered.

If Josh Kelly (GWS) goes to the Kangaroos on a nine year deal (reportedly being offered) will the same restrictions be placed on the Kangaroos as was placed on us when we recruited Buddy?

If I remember correctly even if Buddy retires his wages will be counted in our salary cap until the end of his contract.

From memory that rule only applied to the Swans because he was a free agent and the argument was that the long contract made it difficult for Scumthorn to match. Its funny that they had never ever enforced this before in the history of the game. In the Kelly scenario it will have to be a trade so I doubt that the VFL won't apply the same rule to them (just like the Boyd trade).

- - - Updated - - -

You have more confidence in the AFL to do the right thing than I do Steve.

I agree. No way in the world would they relent. Even if Buddy broke his leg their position would be the same.

[Boddo]

Not strictly related to the Swans but a question never the less to be answered.

If Josh Kelly (GWS) goes to the Kangaroos on a nine year deal (reportedly being offered) will the same restrictions be placed on the Kangaroos as was placed on us when we recruited Buddy?

If I remember correctly even if Buddy retires his wages will be counted in our salary cap until the end of his contract.

I don't have a problem with Franklins wages counted in the cap even if he retires. He was a RFA. As an example if it wasn't what would stop say GWS offering Martin a 20 year contract which no club would match then revising it down to say 5 years after he signed. It would destroy free agency in a heartbeat. Now if we'd traded for Franklin it's total different story, the same as Kelly.

[YvonneH]

I would fully expect that if he finishes in a couple of years, and therefore completed 6-7 years of the deal, they'd relent and we'd actually be allowed to treat him like any other player retiring before their contract ends - given it would be obvious there was no funny business in doing that original deal.

You have more confidence in the AFL to do the right thing than I do Steve.

[Steve]

If I remember correctly even if Buddy retires his wages will be counted in our salary cap until the end of his contract.

I actually think that part of it was OK for the AFL to apply some sort of restriction - but like everything else they just went way over the top.

It would have been a bad look, and against the spirit of the salary cap etc, if he retired after 5 years walking off into the sunset (ie. without any serious injury) with a further negotiated payout and it was obvious we just offered that contract to manipulate the rules.

I would fully expect that if he finishes in a couple of years, and therefore completed 6-7 years of the deal, they'd relent and we'd actually be allowed to treat him like any other player retiring before their contract ends - given it would be obvious there was no funny business in doing that original deal.

[ScottH]

Not strictly related to the Swans but a question never the less to be answered.

If Josh Kelly (GWS) goes to the Kangaroos on a nine year deal (reportedly being offered) will the same restrictions be placed on the Kangaroos as was placed on us when we recruited Buddy?

If I remember correctly even if Buddy retires his wages will be counted in our salary cap until the end of his contract.

No.
Ridiculous rules and restrictions for no valid reason only apply to the Swans.

[YvonneH]

Not strictly related to the Swans but a question never the less to be answered.

If Josh Kelly (GWS) goes to the Kangaroos on a nine year deal (reportedly being offered) will the same restrictions be placed on the Kangaroos as was placed on us when we recruited Buddy?

If I remember correctly even if Buddy retires his wages will be counted in our salary cap until the end of his contract.