Buddy the Game Changer

[Ludwig]

I personally think everyone is overthinking this.

1. Buddy came to the Swans and said he wanted to play in Sydney.

2. The Swans looked at what they could achieve in terms of an offer considering the current state of their list

3. Swans put offer to Buddy

4. Buddy accepted

There isn't a club in the land that if Buddy Franklin came to them and said "I want to play for you" they wouldn't make him an offer... even if it was peanuts. It's up to Buddy to decide.

What were the Swans to say - "Sorry Buddy, we think it's fundamentally unfair to the league, but particularly GWS if you were to play for us." ....yeah right. What planet do these people live on?

Exactly right! What other outcome could there be. We did everything we could to make it work. Any club would.

[Bloody Hell]

One of the things that I found most distasteful about the whole Bombers supplements scandal, was the behaviour of the one-eyed Essendon "faithful".

Their blind unthinking support of their club simply made them look stupid, their determination to "shoot the messenger" (in some cases literally) was insane. The personal vitriol directed at Caroline Wilson in particular was shameful.

At the time I thought how lucky I was I didn't support such a club, that the supporters of the Swans were far more intelligent, balanced and simply better people than the fanatics that supported Essendon. Swans supporters I was absolutely certain, could never ever behave in such a manner . . . . . . . . .

Goodness me...bit of an overreaction there.

The article is garbage - but I'm more interested in why you would compare getting Buddy to the Bombers supplement scandal - certainly not balanced or intelligent.

[Bloodthirsty]

One of the things that I found most distasteful about the whole Bombers supplements scandal, was the behaviour of the one-eyed Essendon "faithful".

Their blind unthinking support of their club simply made them look stupid, their determination to "shoot the messenger" (in some cases literally) was insane. The personal vitriol directed at Caroline Wilson in particular was shameful.

At the time I thought how lucky I was I didn't support such a club, that the supporters of the Swans were far more intelligent, balanced and simply better people than the fanatics that supported Essendon. Swans supporters I was absolutely certain, could never ever behave in such a manner . . . . . . . . .

Intelligent people can't stand by and let that CW peice of 'writing' be accepted as the standard, let alone defend the author.

[bloodsbigot]

After the swans won in 2012... Hawk fans screamed 'COLA' until they were blue in the face.

Explanations or reasoning didn't matter to them. You could explain all day that our premiership was legit seeing as our team were mostly made up of rejects and recycled players from other teams, it didn't matter. They wouldn't listen.

The swans board shrugged their shoulders, saying, "well, they think we're buying our premierships anyway, so what's the point of being respected or well-liked?" Then we got Tippett. Then Franklin came to us.

Then they all collectively started crying.

WAAAA WAAA WAAAA. Victorian footy fans (Emphasis on Hawks) are nothing but spoilt, self-entitled turds. They don't give a damn about us, so why should we give a damn about them?

Screw you Caroline Wilson and screw you other teams.

[Legs Akimbo]

One of the things that I found most distasteful about the whole Bombers supplements scandal, was the behaviour of the one-eyed Essendon "faithful".

Their blind unthinking support of their club simply made them look stupid, their determination to "shoot the messenger" (in some cases literally) was insane. The personal vitriol directed at Caroline Wilson in particular was shameful.

At the time I thought how lucky I was I didn't support such a club, that the supporters of the Swans were far more intelligent, balanced and simply better people than the fanatics that supported Essendon. Swans supporters I was absolutely certain, could never ever behave in such a manner . . . . . . . . .

I made a point of saying in my post that well reasoned and quality critical journalism is always welcomed. I personally have quite a degree of disquiet about the whole Franklin signing, but I found this article extremely irritating on a number of levels. The article' is simultaneously incoherent and unreasonably slanted.

There are many good sports and footy writers and journos around. Caroline Wilson is not one of them.

[ShockOfHair]

I don't see much criticism of the Swans in that column, though she makes some scathing remarks about GWS and the AFL's management of them. She does
wonder if having two highly-paid superstars will mesh with the Swans culture - fair enough but she might have pointed out that the McVeigh could have vetoed on behalf of the playing group. She says no Swan administrator or coach will be around at the end of BUddy's contract - probably true but a bit of a cheap shot. It's true relations are poor between GWS and the Swans but that's because the GWS feel humiliated - their problem, not ours. Personally I think that's not bad for the game. It also explains why we got such a low pick for Mumford.

Anyway, Caro's excellent value as far I'm concerned. She covers the stuff that most footy hacks can't understand, or because they are busy reporting on Supercoach or spruiking ridiculous rumours from the Collingwood dressing room. She does overstate her case a bit but I don't mind that - it's good to have your biases challenged. It's telling that there are entire threads on BF personally attacking her, usually on some idiotic sexist ground like 'she doesn't really love the game', a quantum more than any male media figure. She had Hird's number in the supplement saga from early on and she was right. He was the ego that wouldn't budge. Her reporting on Eugene Rocca's departure from the Kangaroos 18 months ago was spot on too . The board was so toxic it took more than six months to find a replacement CEO - an ex-player, if I recall.

Still waiting for someone to write a piece about the ridiculous and uninformed over-reaction to the Buddy deal.

[Bloody Hell]

It also explains why we got such a low pick for Mumford.

A bit off to the side, but I don't think that pick is as bad as it could have been. The reality is GWS have picks 1, 2, 20 and 21 - they are unlikely to use 35. If they were to use it we would have gotten a lower pick, no doubt. Swans had absolutely no bargaining power in that deal.

I feel for Mummy. I remember him speaking about picking No. 41 when he came to the club - how there were no names on the locker and how he wanted to change that...

[Bloodthirsty]

Seriously, I couldn't even decipher what CW's point was in writing that article. Rambling cr@p, blatant lies, aspersions, assumptions, contradictory statements - and once I had finished reading it, I was like, "what's your point? You hate the Swans but you can't find a legitimate reason, let alone elucidate it in a way that suggests an IQ in the double figures?"

[DamY]

Sorry, I'm with ShockofHair on the topic. She has backed the Swans on numerous occasions, and has defended the COLA on Footy Classified. She writes about how the other clubs are seething about the Buddy deal - that's a fact. Just look around us, everyone is pissed. She's just reiterating that. She has an ability to write the story behind the headline, what I mean is that she writes about why things happen, not just *what* happens. Whether it's true or not, no-one will ever know but she saw the Hird/Bombers saga coming from a mile away. Most of the points she makes are valid, GWS and Sydney hate each other, the other 17 clubs are pissed Buddy is at Sydney and not GWS. I'm not sure about the whole cutting the nose off to spite the face bit, that I think is reading a bit much into it, but the rest of it I think is pretty spot on.

[Bloodthirsty]

Sorry, I'm with ShockofHair on the topic. She has backed the Swans on numerous occasions, and has defended the COLA on Footy Classified. She writes about how the other clubs are seething about the Buddy deal - that's a fact. Just look around us, everyone is pissed. She's just reiterating that. She has an ability to write the story behind the headline, what I mean is that she writes about why things happen, not just *what* happens. Whether it's true or not, no-one will ever know but she saw the Hird/Bombers saga coming from a mile away. Most of the points she makes are valid, GWS and Sydney hate each other, the other 17 clubs are pissed Buddy is at Sydney and not GWS. I'm not sure about the whole cutting the nose off to spite the face bit, that I think is reading a bit much into it, but the rest of it I think is pretty spot on.

She wrote biased garbage with no point. You don't have to be a genius to see that.

Swans and GWS HATE each other? Turn it up. The AFL wishes.

She also stated that the Swans 'made a mockery' of free agency....and if I have to point out everything that's wrong with that article to you then I can't really bring myself to pay too much attention to what you're saying on this topic.

[DamY]

She wrote biased garbage with no point. You don't have to be a genius to see that.

Swans and GWS HATE each other? Turn it up. The AFL wishes.

She also stated that the Swans 'made a mockery' of free agency....and if I have to point out everything that's wrong with that article to you then I can't really bring myself to pay too much attention to what you're saying on this topic.

And all I have to say to that is to each their own
I didn't say there was no hyperbole, there is some OTT-ness to it. But it's in The Age. It's pandering to the VIC market to an extent. The Swans and the Giants DO hate each other. The Swans have on the record stated that they don't believe that there is a need for a second NSW-based team when the first NSW-based team can't even crack 40k members. The Giants have been trying to gain traction with their "Battle of the Bridge" malarky but the Swans still call it the Sydney Derby because the "Bridge" implies it's east sydney v west sydney and the Swans disagree with that assessment. The Giants HAVE been supremely embarrassed by the Swans trumping them by Buddy.

To be fair, Buddy HAS thumbed his nose at the Indigenous All Stars team. He hasn't trained with the rest of them, which is pretty slack. He's lost the captaincy which was mooted prior to the international rules series.

Caro mentions that the offer "isn't real". We all know that the 9 years was to blow the other clubs out of the water. That was why it was hush-hush. No-one could know that the Swans were making a play and also the terms of the agreement. That is why the AFL have forced the Swans to hold Buddy's allocation of funds aside regardless of whether he retires or plays the full term. That is in fairness to the other clubs and to stop other clubs from doing the same in the future saying "Well I'll take Gary Ablett for 15 years!!" etc.

You can agree to disagree, but I see different points in the article stated. And I'm sorry that you can't "bring yourself to pay too much attention" to what I have to say on the topic because it's not what you want to hear.

Note that I did not denigrate your point of view when you made yours, as that is what forums and debates are all about.

[annew]

Who cares if Buddy has thumbed his nose at it it's a Mickey Mouse game.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Goodness me...bit of an overreaction there.

The article is garbage - but I'm more interested in why you would compare getting Buddy to the Bombers supplement scandal - certainly not balanced or intelligent.

I was not comparing getting buddy to the bombers supplements scandal, I was however comparing the tone and language used i. some of the comments in this thread to those of the contemptible Bombers faithful's.
And no, I dont think I overreacted, I do not see: "Ignorant twit" "The woman is a nightmare." "worthless degenerate puppet." and especially "##### you Caroline Wilson and ##### you other teams." as being worthwhile additions to any discussion.
Such comments don't refute her argument, they just demonstrate ones own limitations. I also suspect that if those comments had been directed at another RWOer they would probably have been deleted by the moderators under rule 6 "Play the ball, not the man".

Intelligent people can't stand by and let that CW peice of 'writing' be accepted as the standard, let alone defend the author.

Regardless of your evaluation of my intelligence, I have no hesitation in 'defending' the author herself from comments such as your intial post.
I am not however, defending what she wrote (I have criticised her writing on several previous occasions in this very forum), I simply suggest you refute her argument, identify factual errors in the article, etc. etc. It's so much more convincing to people reading your post than intemperate personal comments.

[Bloods05]

This is exactly how I see it. I cannot for the life of me see how anyone can accuse us of impropriety of any kind. We have taken a big risk with the length and size of the contract, a risk that other clubs could have taken but chose not to take, so we have to live with the consequences of that choice and they don't. I truly believe that the real problem commentators like Wilson have with this deal is that we got him and their team didn't, and that it shouldn't be possible because we're already strong. But it is possible, purely because of good management and our preparedness to take a risk.

[spiffy-dude]

Victorians have a warped view on most things, but this issue they have with the swans buying a superstar that came to us intially and all above board is just one of the most bizarre and childish things i have witnessed.

After you peel all the layers, the behaviour to us signing buddy has been immature and the conversations and hurt is something i would have heard and expected from 5th graders in the playground.