Buddy hypothetical

[Blood Fever]

Just so long as Buddymeritus isn't being paid $900,000 annually out of the salary cap until he's 40 BS

Not sure, but isn't it an honorary position?

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Not sure, but isn't it an honorary position?

That would be a dream, and well in keeping with the Swans innovative approach to list management - reckon the AFL will give it a tick?

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Below is a link to a interview with Buddy's ex-manager that occured last month.

Pickering acknowledged that the $10,000,000 figure was given to the Swans by him.

Further, that it was the Swans that created the 9 year term, not Buddy/Pickering. The Swans amortised the money over that duration to make it possible to fit into the salary cap "we've got you the money. It's a pretty long deal, we can do it over nine years".
Phraseology which doesn't suggest Ireland was certain Buddy would definitely last the 9 years. His durability has been remarkable.

He also notes that the board was not informed of the the Buddy option for reasons of secrecy. He told the Swans long before the deal was done that if it leaked before the deal with the Swans was completed, the deal would have been stopped - although he doesn't specify by whom. I made my suggestion earlier in the thread.
But it does the suggestion that the retaliation was likley, and the Swans really should have been prepared for retaliation, as Pickering says he warned the Swans there would be (and was) "all hell to pay."

How 'Buddy's Swans deal was kept secret: Lance Franklin's former manager speaks - AFL News - Zero Hanger

I personally think the Swans may have expected this retaliation to take the form of losing COLA, certainly it was under extreme threat prior to Buddy, but may not have banked on the much condemned (but effectively meaningless) AFL trade ban.

[i'm-uninformed2]

The other element of that interview was Pickering describing what the AFL did to the Swans with the trade ban in particular as 'diabolical'.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

It was certainly unfair, it certainly looked vindictive, we can feel agrieved about it, it was also certainly in keeping with a long history of behavior by the AFL in the 21st century.

But did the trade ban have any actual effect on the Swans recruiting?

I think it's pretty hard to argue it had any effect. After Tippett and Buddy, we didn't appear to have salary cap space to retain existing players, let alone launch another recruiting coup. Without any salary cap space we couldn't recruit anyway, ban or no.

The ban has been over for years, it certainly can't be the reason why are we are still playing in the shallow end of the trading pool (FWIW I'm happy to see the Swans playing in the shallow end, finding unsuspected value in undervalued players - it's what we appear to be very good at).