Buddy on his day has probably the biggest X factor of any current player

Problem is Buddy doesnt have that many days to warrant such a pay packet

Its the Swans problem now

It just might be the Swans biggest blunder ......time will tell

AFL could block Buddy move

"One major roadblock to getting Lance Franklin to the Sydney Swans may be the AFL.

While the two-time Hawks premiership free agent is keen to take up the offer – believed to be a staggering nine years and $10 million dollars – the league is considering vetoing it.

The AFL is concerned the length of the deal may cripple the Swans if Franklin retires or is delisted early, with the club forced to pay out the remainder of the contract in one lump sum."

I see it as we don't want/need Buddy and if other clubs get crippled fighting over him so be it.

I don't care who lands him, I only care about how it effects us. GWS will have a lot more money and time to chase other players.

The amazing thing about the 'AFL could block Buddy's move' article is that the AFL is concerned that Sydney may have made a hole for themselves, not that their policies are making a hole for everyone else.

Hawthorn must be laughing their collective arses off.

They spend all year working out how to play without Buddy and as a result often play better without him. They free up a million dollars of salary cap space. A MASSIVE offer in the free agency formula results in a tier 1 compo pick.

Well played Hawks, well played.

The only element of all this that strikes a real sense of worry is this notion of 9 years. This just seems thwart with danger. Then again the down( up ) -side is that should this come even a little undone they will have an Albatross the size of an Elephant around their neck.

You would think there'd be some rule whereby contracts cant be formulated beyond the reasonable expectation of the players ability to perform.

To clever by half Swans. And the admission that negotiations had been going on for a year in clear violation of AFL rules just furthers the hypocrisy surrounding their animosity towards us being given a PP.

One rule for one...eh !!

Apologies if this has already been covered, but I'm not going to wade through seven pages of this to find out. What happens if Sydney wants to delist Franklin after 6 years and pay out the remaining 3 years, $3.5M of his contract? I assume that amount doesn't count against their salary cap for the next three seasons.

Apologies if this has already been covered, but I'm not going to wade through seven pages of this to find out. What happens if Sydney wants to delist Franklin after 6 years and pay out the remaining 3 years, $3.5M of his contract? I assume that amount doesn't count against their salary cap for the next three seasons.

no...it will count as one lump sum in the following years cap

Clever accounting or gross mismanagement?

Clever accounting or gross mismanagement?

Well, pretty much. Apparently the deal is middle to back weighted to provide cap room earlier. Could go very pear shaped.....shame

Apologies if this has already been covered, but I'm not going to wade through seven pages of this to find out. What happens if Sydney wants to delist Franklin after 6 years and pay out the remaining 3 years, $3.5M of his contract? I assume that amount doesn't count against their salary cap for the next three seasons.

Michael Voss had a heavily backended final contract. He decided to retire with 1 year remaining, the AFL agreed the the Lions could keep him on their list, and that he didn't have to be involved in the club.

If Buddy was unable to play for a few years, I'm sure they'd just move him on to the rookie list.

IMO the swans on paying the last 4- 5 years out of future higher salary caps.

Smart idea or a mill stone around their necks ?

Time will tell but I hope it breaks them at the end of this decade.

Might be a lot harder for them when their COLA is canned !!

Of course we have to self-improve, but to suggest we can bury our heads in the sands and until we are winning games say nothing on this topic is just silly. If the non-equalisation continues, we will be playing in the B division (if at all) no matter how much self-improvement we manage.

There is a structural problem in the AFL which FA can only exacerbate. The B division develops players who are then snapped up by wealthy clubs ensuring the original club stays in B division. A B division club can only get an A grade player by offering him an enormous salary. But guess what, the B division teams won't have an enormous amount of money because they are B division. A recipe for a downward spiral, but OK we are in no position to argue.

I agree that Free Agency does exacerbate the problem, especially given the fact that the MFC can't even pay to the full extent of our salary cap - and then we are expected to compete with a stronger side paying a million a year over the cap, that in itself is ridiculous.

As for the PP's, we should not receive any - yes I'd of loved one - but the reason why the MFC has been so poor is because of our culture.

The MFC has created a losing environment and therefore players have adapted to that and performed accordingly, so why should we be rewarded for this?

Now the MFC looks to create a winning environment and therefore players should start improving from here on in.

The only thing is, is that the top clubs are getting stronger and the gap is increasing... But I still maintain that until we improve our culture, we should not receive any leg ups, but if we improve our culture and are then still losing - then I'd be disappointed if we didn't receive assistance.

I think we lucky we have Roos, he is the one that started creating these ideal environments in order to collectively get the best out of the players.

What I find funny is that the swans are going against the grain of everything that Roos built at the swans. After building a club that has everyone playing for each other because they've been developed from the ground up, they now turned it into a club for club for mercenaries who play for the dollars.

I hope the side effect from this is that it makes it harder to accommodate some of their mids in the future.

What I find funny is that the swans are going against the grain of everything that Roos built at the swans. After building a club that has everyone playing for each other because they've been developed from the ground up, they now turned it into a club for club for mercenaries who play for the dollars.

I hope the side effect from this is that it makes it harder to accommodate some of their mids in the future.

It will, why would these mids want to play for hundreds of thousands less than they could get elsewhere.

By paying big money players, Sydney will put their collective culture in jeopardy.

In the past decade, the Swans have been built on the foundations of working together to get the most out of themselves.

Bringing in Tippett and Frankling and paying them a stack, is not in the best interests of the other players on their list.

Football is not just a game where players are happy to have the likes of Buddy around, it's a business and players livelihoods are at stake.

Sydney and the other northern clubs remain a very exotic novelty, that if taken out of their deluxe life support unit (AFL special favours) would die (think the old fart in Prometheus). All the chicken littles need to take a bex and have a lie down. Sydney needs a show pony, thats how its business model works and in Franklin, meh... I'd rather lose him than Frawley. What would keep me up is if Collingwood decides they like Hogan. This recruitment goes against the synergy created at sydney where the sum of the players was greater than their parts i think the other players will feel much less love for the club and be poached more easily. Richmond and the Hawks have handled the FA very well, i only hope we have the same grace under pressure when it comes.

Loved the line about the cola being used to ensure swans players can use 'premium petrol in their Audi's' by Luton.

This has to be the final straw. Keep the academy's for building the foundations in NSW. Once they're on the list, same rule apply across the board with afl paying 100% of the cap for all clubs.

You simply can't have the situation where there is an almost $2 million gap between the richest and poorest.

I agree that Free Agency does exacerbate the problem, especially given the fact that the MFC can't even pay to the full extent of our salary cap - and then we are expected to compete with a stronger side paying a million a year over the cap, that in itself is ridiculous.

As for the PP's, we should not receive any - yes I'd of loved one - but the reason why the MFC has been so poor is because of our culture.

The MFC has created a losing environment and therefore players have adapted to that and performed accordingly, so why should we be rewarded for this?

Now the MFC looks to create a winning environment and therefore players should start improving from here on in.

The only thing is, is that the top clubs are getting stronger and the gap is increasing... But I still maintain that until we improve our culture, we should not receive any leg ups, but if we improve our culture and are then still losing - then I'd be disappointed if we didn't receive assistance.

I think we lucky we have Roos, he is the one that started creating these ideal environments in order to collectively get the best out of the players.

It's my understanding that a priority pick is determined upon the on-field performance of the team in question over the past couple of seasons.

If this is the case, as indeed it should be, then culture would seem to be a moot point.

Our club has a committee comprising several new members, including a new president. We have a newish CEO, a new coach and new coaching assistants. Should we be judged on the (under) performance of past committees/staff or should our new establishment be given the same consideration (priority pick) that numerous clubs who were in no worse a position than we are in, received with relatively free gay abandon?

Seeing Sydney being able to exploit questionable loop holes to recruit gun big forwards clearly indicates that the AFL's vision on level playing fields and equal opportunity for all clubs is a figment of some person's fanciful imagination.

Would you rather be given a handout that allows you to get Tippett and Franklin, or a pick that gets you a young kid who has shown potential but is yet to be developed and who, going on past situations, might end up not making the grade?

Kidding, dreaming, thinking out loud. Not sure who did it but I thought I read the AFL commission was presented with reasons why we shouldn't receive a priority pick. Then they should also be presented with a case against Sydney. As supporters of the game we can cop the Suns and Giants getting allowances in its many forms but timeframes must apply. Two flags in recent years to the Swans says it all.

Exactly

Several years as a top 4 team apparently, according to the AFL which has an Integrity Commission and has recently spent a squillion on a junket to the US looking at equalization, deserves help that a cellar dweller of 7 years doesn't!

Logic??

It is part of the master plan - the AFL wants to have half a dozen or so "marque clubs" and he rest can perpetually make up the numbers to ensure plenty of games per round for the TV stations.

Stuff you, Vlad!!

And Sydney - you do this at your peril. Under Roos, Richard Head was not welcomed. May he poison your once sound culture!!!!

Clever accounting or gross mismanagement?

Possibly clever accounting as $1.4 million in today’s money is not the same in 10 years’ time, the salary cap will be higher in 5 years let alone 10 years so his hit to the cap will be lower as time goes on (depending on how the payments are structured, is it back ended?). The concern is it is ALL guaranteed.. if he goes down in year 6 they still have to pay him out, not sure if all of that hit goes to the salary cap in that year it is spread out over the last 4 years.

This deal will be vetoed by the AFL commission for sure

WIll they ask for it to be revised so Hawthorn have a shot to match, or will they tell the swans the COLA is now dead and to make an offer based on that

Or will he be forced to go to GWS or stay at the Hawks

Papers are saying Goodes on $750k and O'Keefe on $500k.

Their rookies must be getting paid shiite. No wonder Roos is trying to nab a few!!

Apologies if this has already been covered, but I'm not going to wade through seven pages of this to find out. What happens if Sydney wants to delist Franklin after 6 years and pay out the remaining 3 years, $3.5M of his contract? I assume that amount doesn't count against their salary cap for the next three seasons.

no...it will count as one lump sum in the following years cap

This is why the AFLPA, and the AFL, are not happy.

There is very little chance Franklin is going to last 9 years. More important, there is very little chance either Sydney or Franklin expect him to keep playing for 9 years.

The main issue that arises is one of payments. If he doesn't make it through the 9 years, and retires or is delisted, the remaining wages owed to him have to be paid in that year's cap. Brisbane got around this by keeping Voss on their list despite him having retired. In the modern era, with a stronger AFLPA, I don't think Sydney can get away with that. Rookie or otherwise, to waste a spot on an AFL list just to benefit a rich player, for what might be 2-3-4 years, won't be acceptable.

There may well also be legal issues, relating to competition law. If Sydney is trying to shore up Franklin to mainly keep him off the market for 9 years, the AFL might be concerned with the anti-competitive nature of the contract.

Entertaining article in today's Sydney Morning Herald from the pen of Peter FitzSimons.

This deal will be vetoed by the AFL commission for sure

WIll they ask for it to be revised so Hawthorn have a shot to match, or will they tell the swans the COLA is now dead and to make an offer based on that

Or will he be forced to go to GWS or stay at the Hawks

On what grounds? They were very happy he was going to GWS for more money per year, just a shorter deal.

Possibly clever accounting as $1.4 million in today’s money is not the same in 10 years’ time, the salary cap will be higher in 5 years let alone 10 years so his hit to the cap will be lower as time goes on (depending on how the payments are structured, is it back ended?). The concern is it is ALL guaranteed.. if he goes down in year 6 they still have to pay him out, not sure if all of that hit goes to the salary cap in that year it is spread out over the last 4 years.

If they take him off the list it must be realised in 1 year.