Tippett!!

[waswan]

The football he played in the first half of 2016 was very very good.

An 11 Game period 3 yrs into a big money contract, you cant polish a turd of a deal mate

[Ludwig]

If he's on our rookie list, doesn't that mean we ARE free of his salary within the cap?

I think this is the reason for rookie listing Tippett. He probably has a negotiated payout which includes payments for the 2019 season. By rookie listing him, these payments should be excluded from the salary cap. The details of the settlement are not likely to be released, so it's hard to know for sure.

[Ludwig]

An 11 Game period 3 yrs into a big money contract, you cant polish a turd of a deal mate

Liz is right that he started 2016 on fire. If he would have stayed fit and continued in that form we would have been more than happy with his contract. Every club has injuries that can make a big contract look like a bad deal. We can't evaluate them retrospectively; we have to look at the situation at the time the contract is made.

Another example has been debated a lot in other threads, which questions the Hannebery contract after 2016. That looked like a good deal at the time, but not so great in retrospect. Perhaps St. Kilda could be rightly criticized for signing Hanners to such a big contract if he doesn't rebound from his injury plagued 2018. It looks like a lot of risk for that kind of money.

[caj23]

He didn't have a trigger for an additional four years. He had a trigger for an additional year. He then renegotiated that, accepting a lower per annum amount over a longer period. And then he got injured and realised he couldn't get back to his best (and/or didn't have the appetite to).

The trigger was for an additional 2 years. I don't think anyone has an issue with the term of the contract, but the annual amount was clearly substantial, hence the need to pay it out over three years.

[redsox]

I think this is the reason for rookie listing Tippett. He probably has a negotiated payout which includes payments for the 2019 season. By rookie listing him, these payments should be excluded from the salary cap. The details of the settlement are not likely to be released, so it's hard to know for sure.

I think you will find that whilst it reduces some of the salary cap impact that about $600,000 of the 2019 salary cap will be going to Kurt


At no stage in his time at the swans did he show any form that would justify $2m for the extra 3 years.

No other club would have traded for him at that price.

[stevoswan]

If the Swans are guilty of anything in the Tippett deal, it was being excited at the prospect of what a fully fit Tip could do alongside Buddy and co and in turn, having too much faith. The Geelong match from 2015 and his first half of 2016 had us all salivating at the prospect of what might be....you included.....go on, admit it. So it didn't turn out that way but if it did go the way we all wanted, he would have been worth EVERY penny......

Hindsight, crystal balls.....yada yada yada. Tippett, Mitchell, Hannebury.....yada, yada, yada. We move on.....hopefully.

[CureTheSane]

If the Swans are guilty of anything in the Tippett deal, it was being excited at the prospect of what a fully fit Tip could do alongside Buddy and co and in turn, having too much faith. The Geelong match from 2015 and his first half of 2016 had us all salivating at the prospect of what might be....you included.....go on, admit it. So it didn't turn out that way but if it did go the way we all wanted, he would have been worth EVERY penny......

Hindsight, crystal balls.....yada yada yada. Tippett, Mitchell, Hannebury.....yada, yada, yada. We move on.....hopefully.

Yep,

It seems like if blame is going to be cast at the Swans, it should be in regard to the contract extension rather than the original signing.
I mean if anyone is going to complain about either, they should qualify it by posting their objections posted here at the time, and then... fair enough.
Otherwise, it's just hindsight and rhetoric.

[caj23]

Yep,

It seems like if blame is going to be cast at the Swans, it should be in regard to the contract extension rather than the original signing.
I mean if anyone is going to complain about either, they should qualify it by posting their objections posted here at the time, and then... fair enough.
Otherwise, it's just hindsight and rhetoric.

I think if you went back and looked at posts when the extension kicked in most assumed it was for a substantial pay reduction

There were plenty of WTF posts on here when it became apparent the extension was on similar $$’s to his initial contract

[AnnieH]

If the Swans are guilty of anything in the Tippett deal, it was being excited at the prospect of what a fully fit Tip could do alongside Buddy and co and in turn, having too much faith. The Geelong match from 2015 and his first half of 2016 had us all salivating at the prospect of what might be....you included.....go on, admit it. So it didn't turn out that way but if it did go the way we all wanted, he would have been worth EVERY penny......

Hindsight, crystal balls.....yada yada yada. Tippett, Mitchell, Hannebury.....yada, yada, yada. We move on.....hopefully.

Thing is, though, we got Tipoff a full year before we got Buddy.... so there was really nothing to get too excited about at the beginning of the deal.
Brave is the club that recruits a player renown for "concussions"... little did we know that it was the rest of his body that would give out.

[barry]

If the Swans are guilty of anything in the Tippett deal, it was being excited at the prospect of what a fully fit Tip could do alongside Buddy and co and in turn, having too much faith. The Geelong match from 2015 and his first half of 2016 had us all salivating at the prospect of what might be....you included.....go on, admit it. So it didn't turn out that way but if it did go the way we all wanted, he would have been worth EVERY penny......

Hindsight, crystal balls.....yada yada yada. Tippett, Mitchell, Hannebury.....yada, yada, yada. We move on.....hopefully.

Very simplistic approach to the world that you never review decisions in hindsight. How are you ever expected to learn anything without that feedback loop ?

When Tippett first came, tall forwards come ruckmen were seen as the most critical position in AFL, and we had nothing in that department except LRT. We paid big, but we paid market rates really. I'm comfortable with that.
The contract renewal does seem high though. It seems a short-sighted overspend to try and eek out a flag with Buddy and Tippett. We didnt really have an alternative ruckman because Nainsmith and Nankervis were still too raw.

I think we went into a plan to build a team around Tippett, and then Buddy came along, and we could build a team around him, but in the end couldnt build a team around either.
Unfortunetly history will judge us over this period as failing, whereas a few free kicks our way in 2016 we could have got away with a pass mark (1 flag)

[The Big Cat]

whereas a few free kicks our way in 2016 we could have got away with a pass mark (1 flag)

Are you kidding! A flag is a pass mark? Just remaining competitive is a pass mark. A flag is an A+

[stevoswan]

Very simplistic approach to the world that you never review decisions in hindsight. How are you ever expected to learn anything without that feedback loop ?

Yes, we all must learn by mistakes in life.....I get it. I also get that while that may work in the business world, sport is different, with many more variables and unforeseen traps.....such as injury, loss of form and in our unique case, the removal of COLA and an AFL trading ban because the 'business' men who run the league favour one state over another and are corrupt......and no one, including you, saw that one coming because their was no precedent. Cola removal and the trading ban have probably done more to squeeze our cap than the deals themselves.....deals which, while sizeable, are common place in footy now.

[barry]

Are you kidding! A flag is a pass mark? Just remaining competitive is a pass mark. A flag is an A+

I think a flag is a pass mark, 2 flags in the buddy era would have been nice.

Remember we won a flag the year before Tippet and Buddy came along. We already were at the top of the tree in competitiveness.

[CureTheSane]

I think a flag is a pass mark, 2 flags in the buddy era would have been nice.

Remember we won a flag the year before Tippet and Buddy came along. We already were at the top of the tree in competitiveness.

Thank you.
That explains a lot about your opinions and allows me to understand why you say what you say.

I side with The Big Cat

[goswannies]

Yes, we all must learn by mistakes in life.....I get it. I also get that while that may work in the business world, sport is different, with many more variables and unforeseen traps.....such as injury, loss of form and in our unique case, the removal of COLA and an AFL trading ban because the 'business' men who run the league favour one state over another and are corrupt......and no one, including you, saw that one coming because their was no precedent. Cola removal and the trading ban have probably done more to squeeze our cap than the deals themselves.....deals which, while sizeable, are common place in footy now.

While I don’t really agree with Barry, the business men wanted Buddy to go to Sydney ... just not to the Swans

Similarly, they were happy for Tippett to go, but just further north of the NSW/Qld border