Lance Franklin to become a Swan

[DamY]

Pretty clear COLA (at least for high earning players) is going to be discontinued so club won't get it anyway. But Franklin will get the full amount as specified in his contract whether the club gets COLA or not.

Ireland said that the COLA applies to an insignificant part of his salary, a lot of it is tied up in the marketing component (up to $613,000p/a) so it won't affect much of Buddy's contract.

[Meg]

Ireland said that the COLA applies to an insignificant part of his salary, a lot of it is tied up in the marketing component (up to $613,000p/a) so it won't affect much of Buddy's contract.

$613,000 is the total amount pa that the club is currently allowed to spend on marketing agreements with players. It wouldn't surprise me if Franklin is going to get nearly all of it, particularly after Goodes retires, as Franklin's profile far outstrips that of any other player.

[Cosmic Wizard]

$613,000 is the total amount pa that the club is currently allowed to spend on marketing agreements with players. It wouldn't surprise me if Franklin is going to get nearly all of it, particularly after Goodes retires, as Franklin's profile far outstrips that of any other player.

So does this mean that our salary cap wont be destroyed by Buddy???
Does anyone have the actually contract or know what is our total player payments in one year???

[Ludwig]

Pretty clear COLA (at least for high earning players) is going to be discontinued so club won't get it anyway. But Franklin will get the full amount as specified in his contract whether the club gets COLA or not.

I thought the contracts were written with a salary plus COLA. For instance, one particular year of Buddy's schedule might say $1,000,000 + 9.8% COLA (which is paid by the AFL). Then suppose the AFL eliminates the COLA. What happens?

[magic.merkin]

So does this mean that our salary cap wont be destroyed by Buddy???
Does anyone have the actually contract or know what is our total player payments in one year???

I think they release the % we pay of our cap, but never player contracts specifics.

- - - Updated - - -

So does this mean that our salary cap wont be destroyed by Buddy???
Does anyone have the actually contract or know what is our total player payments in one year???

I think they release the % we pay of our cap, but never player contracts spec

correct. Buddy and all other players lose 9.8% of their income (made up of salary from swans and 9.8% COLA from AFL). They are effectively on the same cash as if they play outside of NSW.

[Meg]

I thought the contracts were written with a salary plus COLA. For instance, one particular year of Buddy's schedule might say $1,000,000 + 9.8% COLA (which is paid by the AFL). Then suppose the AFL eliminates the COLA. What happens?

In that Sen interview with Gil McLachlan that On-Baller posted, McLachlan makes it clear that the Swans would be obliged to pay the full amount, that is fund the COLA component themselves, if the AFL discontinues paying COLA to us.

[chammond]

So does this mean that our salary cap wont be destroyed by Buddy???
Does anyone have the actually contract or know what is our total player payments in one year???

I think we're all getting blinded by the bulldust coming out of the Melbourne press. If you strip this deal down to essentials, the Swans have valued Buddy at $10 million as the total of his on-field, sponsorship, ambassadorial, and PR value-added for the foreseeable future. What they very cleverly have done is to minimise the impact on the TPP by allocating some of the contract to ASA, and spreading the rest over 9 years (instead of the more usual 3 or 4 years). That way the impact per year will be roughly the same as Tippett's salary, and still leaves at least $7million for the rest of the squad. On past experience, if Buddy plays say six years, there will be another $6 million available in the TPP by the time he retires, and he will still have his PR role even if he's not playing.

[magic.merkin]

In that Sen interview with Gil McLachlan that On-Baller posted, McLachlan makes it clear that the Swans would be obliged to pay the full amount, that is fund the COLA component themselves, if the AFL discontinues paying COLA to us.

wow this is news to me. I'll have to look into. strange as cola is in the contract but i thought not part of the swans responsibility to pay At worst its what 110k a year? I guess they budgeted for it.

[Meg]

In that Sen interview with Gil McLachlan that On-Baller posted, McLachlan makes it clear that the Swans would be obliged to pay the full amount, that is fund the COLA component themselves, if the AFL discontinues paying COLA to us.

But as set out in earlier comments above, a significant part of Franklin's contract is going to be made up with a marketing agreement (ASA). ASAs don't have COLA applied to them so discontinuing COLA would have no effect on the Swans' financing of this component.

[Meg]

I think we're all getting blinded by the bulldust coming out of the Melbourne press. If you strip this deal down to essentials, the Swans have valued Buddy at $10 million as the total of his on-field, sponsorship, ambassadorial, and PR value-added for the foreseeable future. What they very cleverly have done is to minimise the impact on the TPP by allocating some of the contract to ASA, and spreading the rest over 9 years (instead of the more usual 3 or 4 years). That way the impact per year will be roughly the same as Tippett's salary, and still leaves at least $7million for the rest of the squad. On past experience, if Buddy plays say six years, there will be another $6 million available in the TPP by the time he retires, and he will still have his PR role even if he's not playing.

Yes I think you are right. Good boards undertake careful risk analysis. For all the reasons you have outlined the Swans board have decided the potential benefits of this contract outweigh the risks involved.

[magic.merkin]

But as set out in earlier comments above, a significant part of Franklin's contract is going to be made up with a marketing agreement (ASA). ASAs don't have COLA applied to them so discontinuing COLA would have no effect on the Swans' financing of this component.

Ah yes i forgot this with Buddys deal, Ireland said this on SEN. Ok, so a minimal part of his salary has COLA applied to it. What about the rest of the list with most if not all of their salaries in the TPP cap? If COLA is stripped prior to contract renewels, do we make up the 9.8% difference to fulfill their contracts? Or do we/they just forfeit it until next contract negotiations? Where we will have to compete with interstate teams $ for $ with a higher cost of living in the back of the players mind?

[Ludwig]

In that Sen interview with Gil McLachlan that On-Baller posted, McLachlan makes it clear that the Swans would be obliged to pay the full amount, that is fund the COLA component themselves, if the AFL discontinues paying COLA to us.

I heard the same thing, but it seems a bit disingenuous when they insist that the COLA is allocated separately to every player, but the club still has to pay it even if the AFL discontinues it. How can the AFL insist we write their own supplemental payment into a player contract and then pull the plug on it?

I noted that Nick Dal Santo has 'triggers' in his contract that would allow him to re-sign or become a free agent. Why couldn't Buddy's contract have similar clauses for the latter part of his contract? What would prevent a team from writing a 9 year contract, specifying 6 as a player with the last 3 as either a player or a coach, but guaranteeing the money part whichever path were chosen. This would theoretically unlock the TPP obligation in the latter years if the player decided to coach instead of play.

I've never seen the exact specifications of what kind of contracts are allowable regarding TPP and ASA. And there are many conflicting statements made by the AFL and commentators on the matter.

[Meg]

Ah yes i forgot this with Buddys deal, Ireland said this on SEN. Ok, so a minimal part of his salary has COLA applied to it. What about the rest of the list with most if not all of their salaries in the TPP cap? If COLA is stripped prior to contract renewels, do we make up the 9.8% difference to fulfill their contracts? Or do we/they just forfeit it until next contract negotiations? Where we will have to compete with interstate teams $ for $ with a higher cost of living in the back of the players mind?

It seems that the future of COLA is being decided in the context of the full equalisation review. So the cap may have a quite different composition from 2015. In regard to COLA in contracts that run past 2014 I think the Swans would be legally obliged to pay it. It may be that the AFL would phase out their payment for those contracts other than Franklin's as the other contracts are relatively short term and were made in good faith before the review was announced.

[Meg]

I've never seen the exact specifications of what kind of contracts are allowable regarding TPP and ASA. And there are many conflicting statements made by the AFL and commentators on the matter.

You are right there! It is very difficult to get an accurate understanding of this whole topic.

[Flying South]

My god. Horse specifically described Reid as "a 20 year old premiership centre half forward". We're planning to run Tippett, Franklin and Reid in the same forward line.

Tippett and Pyke the stay at home FFs with Franklin and Reid as quick and powerful dual CHFs. Goodes roaming the field however he wants.

(Or rest Pyke on the bench to give him maximum ruck time and leave Tippett forward as much as possible.)

I'm a little excited.

I have concerns about Sam at CHF. I am happy to be corrected but I think Sam has a problem with marking the ball on the lead. When we moved Sam forward, he played a deep full forward position. He was a revelation taking big pack marks when the ball was coming into him. His confidence was sky high and he had hands like glue. In the last couple of years, he has been playing a half forward role where he is presenting on the lead and trying to take marks with hands out front. Maybe it is me, but it seems to me that the majority of these marking attempts are being spilt. Even ones where he had no pressure. I think he has a weakness with marking the ball out in front and when leading to the ball. He much prefers the ball coming to him where he can take those pack marks or come in from the side. Therefore I do not think he is suited to that roaming half forward position, and would be much better suited to that centre half back role. Generally when in the backline, the ball is coming to you and I think he is much more confident and stronger in that position. He can still inject himself into the midfield, or be that swingman like Harry Taylor and LRT. Happy for people to disprove my theory. And don?t get me wrong, I think Sam is a great player and will be a corner stone of our team for the next 10 years. Any talk of trading him is just crazy.