Yeah he missed quite a bit of time last year due to "injury".

Yes, and that's another thing that could see his life at the club curtailed prematurely if the "no d'heads" policy is strictly adhered to.

No need to be a [censored]. So what year is he leaving the Swans and what for oracle?

Hey, I don't want him working with me!

I find this statement interesting.

"Mumford: I never got sat down (to be told I wasn't going to be offered a contract). I put two and two together:"

AFL media reports:

: Shane Mumford tells Trade Radio no player at the Swans had any idea Buddy was going to join the club. Says he wish he could have stayed at Swans but saw the writing on the wall when Buddy signed.

The rot in the culture has started, imagine not telling your players whether they are required or not. Will we see others take a similar view?

see hardtack above (#194). its only simple probability

Lynch played his ten years and had chronic fatigue. There are examples of both scenario's coming to fruition. It is a guess both ways.

Swans have lost the plot this year, pure and simple:

- lost any goodwill with Roos

- effectively chopped out three good talls in Mumford, White and Reid

- lost the last of the true bloods in Bolton’s retirement

- are paying way overs to fund what Buddy has openly stated is a ‘lifestyle’ move - he can't ruck and he has already won himself two flags – the hunger to play will be gone

- signed a death warrant for their cost of living allowance

- annoyed the hell outta the AFL by standing up the GWS pet project - and no club can afford to do this - it’s the AFL's bat, ball and backyard, and they'll do whatever they want (as we all know).

Franklin's a great player and will kick some bags, but surely the negatives far outweigh the positives on this one.

It's actually quite funny to watch another club do the dumb stuff for a change.

They're eating from an odd box of chocolates up there

Dumb is as dumb does.

Sydney have ten core players aged 29 or over at the start of next year, most of them over 30.

I would anticipated that their plan in grabbing Franklin is to bring in an individual who can keep the fires and excitement burning during a rebuild. The theory being that with a pretty good midfield and a couple of potent forwards, they'll at least be competitive most games. Add a bit of flair and you remain commercially viable.

Franklin will probably pay for his own salary in general terms, attendances, merchandise, coverage, sponsorship, it'll all get a boost. So there is only an issue of the level of pressure he puts on the salary cap.

If Sydney expect that they'll mostly be rebuilding through the draft, well, that's a lot of under-100k salaries to balance the ledger. While they are coming through there will be a long trough in Sydney's salaries and they will use that time to bring forward as much of Franklin's salary as they can. With the main body of the deal paid out within the 4 years of the rebuild, Franklin will become a relatively cheap player on the list in his last years.

Sydney have ten core players aged 29 or over at the start of next year, most of them over 30.

I would anticipated that their plan in grabbing Franklin is to bring in an individual who can keep the fires and excitement burning during a rebuild. The theory being that with a pretty good midfield and a couple of potent forwards, they'll at least be competitive most games. Add a bit of flair and you remain commercially viable.

Franklin will probably pay for his own salary in general terms, attendances, merchandise, coverage, sponsorship, it'll all get a boost. So there is only an issue of the level of pressure he puts on the salary cap.

If Sydney expect that they'll mostly be rebuilding through the draft, well, that's a lot of under-100k salaries to balance the ledger. While they are coming through there will be a long trough in Sydney's salaries and they will use that time to bring forward as much of Franklin's salary as they can. With the main body of the deal paid out within the 4 years of the rebuild, Franklin will become a relatively cheap player on the list in his last years.

Don't worry, they are in the age bracket some on site love to go after. Could be a great recruiting opportunity for us next year.

Lynch played his ten years and had chronic fatigue. There are examples of both scenario's coming to fruition. It is a guess both ways.

read lynch's comments in today's age

the game has changed

no more sit in the square forwards

and even then lynch was very much the exception

but you believe what you want

A caller on SEN today made a valid point (apologies if anyone's mentioned it previously):

Hawks should only have to match the Swans offer less living away from home allowance (1.1m - 10%) because if he didn't go up there it wouldn't be required.

It wouldn't matter, it's the 9 years that blew everyone out of the water.

It wouldn't matter, it's the 9 years that blew everyone out of the water.

Yeah, they were never going to match the length of the contract (would be silly to).

I thought the point interesting though, because surely this could and should be applied to other players Swans are chasing.

The AFL has to scrap it, it is just absurd.

I heard a rumour that Buddy and Clarkson dont get along.Don't talk at all in fact, for the past year.

At the start of the year it was "It's him or me".

Yet they still won a flag.

I am starting to really get irritated by the squeaky clean Swans.

Just as I wrote earlier-the cap allowance at the Swans only helps Buddy and Tippet get a better view of Bondi Beach.

It does not help rookie kids from Shepparton get a flat in Maroubra.

The comp is a bit of a farce.

Although I would like to win it still!

A caller on SEN today made a valid point (apologies if anyone's mentioned it previously):

Hawks should only have to match the Swans offer less living away from home allowance (1.1m - 10%) because if he didn't go up there it wouldn't be required.

Leaving the unmatchable 9 years aside in this particular case, it would be a good principle that it is an equal offer if you can match within 10% Sydney's offer. By the very definition of the COLA, this is true.

A caller on SEN today made a valid point (apologies if anyone's mentioned it previously):

Hawks should only have to match the Swans offer less living away from home allowance (1.1m - 10%) because if he didn't go up there it wouldn't be required.

wasn't the hawks latest offer around that mark?? They are in a similar boat with Guerra retiring. Hodge, Mitchell and Sewell are getting up around late 20's

A caller on SEN today made a valid point (apologies if anyone's mentioned it previously):

Hawks should only have to match the Swans offer less living away from home allowance (1.1m - 10%) because if he didn't go up there it wouldn't be required.

An astute point, but don't Hawthorn also have to match the length of the contract?

An astute point, but don't Hawthorn also have to match the length of the contract?

You got me, hence the ridiculous nine years.

Someone the other day asked what Schwab was up to - just published an interesting article on The Age re Franklin and the Swans:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/bending-the-rules-results-in-a-twotiered-competition-20131003-2uxh6.html

Someone the other day asked what Schwab was up to - just published an interesting article on The Age re Franklin and the Swans:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/bending-the-rules-results-in-a-twotiered-competition-20131003-2uxh6.html

I don't think many will read that one...

I don't think many will read that one...

I did...was OK...a bit fluffy but he does quite eloquently put it all together as to why there are dangerous elements to how the COLA influence distorts the original motives and hopes of FA etc.

Many could do worse than just forget who wrote this and just read it.