Buddy the Game Changer

[erica]

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.

There may also be a bit of "why didn't we think of that first" from some clubs. IMO, our club should never have to apologise for being excellent list managers.

[barry]

Does buddy qualify as a veteran after 7 years?. So the last 2 years we get cap relief?

[Primmy]

The childish and manipulative squarkings are coming from only a few areas of Victoria. Malthouse, Eddy and Caro, slightly seasoned by a bit of GWS. Noone else seems all that fussed.

[dimelb]

I know people are critical of Caro for writing about football politics rather than football, but she does know a bit about the game. And while the article is, imho, written in highly coloured prose and shows a failure to understand the nature of the bid for Buddy, I think the main thing bothering her is that the game has gone further down the corporatisation track. It took some smooth and practised business heads, especially Andrew Ireland, to put the deal together and think through the possible consequences. It is a high risk step that offers high gains - a bit like borrowing to invest - and we could come unstuck, but I trust the club on this one to foresee what needs to happen so that we make the most of our opportunity.

On Marx's view that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce, here's Jake Niall's take on the situation, though I think he is dealing with the same issues as Caro, i.e. corporatisation:

Sydney's Buddy big problem

[On-Baller]

This club goes on about two cities one team but the vitriol directed at ALL Victorian supporters in this thread is shameful. Do those of you labelling us all warped etc ever stop to think about those of us who love the swans but happen to be from Melbourne? Whether you like it or not the club loves its Melbourne heritage and its Vic supporters. Hate to think a great of South would ever read rubbish like some of the above and think its a true indication of what the club and its fans think of its South Melbourne heritage.

Alot of us speak about the bloods culture well sorry to inform those who think nothing worth praising happens outside of NSW but the players went back and embraced once being South Melbourne and have shown great respect for their clubs history. I get the hate of the melbourne media and some supporters but alot of the comments in here are just so broad seemingly everyone who loves footy in Melbourne is tarnished with the same brush.

Just on the media as well yes they are shocking down here but it goes both ways ever heard channel 9 do a Storm game? The vitriol and bias is astounding, and it happens in the print media as well, so its not mutually exclusive to melbourne journos.

[ugg]

I know people are critical of Caro for writing about football politics rather than football, but she does know a bit about the game. And while the article is, imho, written in highly coloured prose and shows a failure to understand the nature of the bid for Buddy, I think the main thing bothering her is that the game has gone further down the corporatisation track. It took some smooth and practised business heads, especially Andrew Ireland, to put the deal together and think through the possible consequences. It is a high risk step that offers high gains - a bit like borrowing to invest - and we could come unstuck, but I trust the club on this one to foresee what needs to happen so that we make the most of our opportunity.

On Marx's view that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce, here's Jake Niall's take on the situation, though I think he is dealing with the same issues as Caro, i.e. corporatisation:

Sydney's Buddy big problem

That's one of the more enjoyable Swans articles I've read in a while. The mind boggles at the thought of Malcolm Turnbull as the prez

[Auntie.Gerald]

hmmm...........interesting

i sum it up in my mind like thus

you are either a non paid sport or you are a paid sport - that is the equation.

(i wont use the words amateur or professional as they just dont sound right anymore)

so you take the bells and whistles like the AFL or you dont and stage yourself locally

Collingwood have lead the charge hard for many years and now the other clubs are trying to catch up as the divide will only grow between the rich clubs and the poorer clubs....The AFL is so aware of what direction everything is heading and it is highly unlikely that they will be able to maintain a status quo .......with their research studies of the NFL, BASEBALL, Soccer they are fully aware that the Melbourne team and many others in the comp will not be able to compete.......the AFL is making a last ditch effort on the Demons by bringing Roo's but i honestly dont think it will work and we will see the richer clubs simply level jumping again again

its the sport of kings.........where ever there is significant money to be made in marketing / broadcast etc clubs will want more then their fair share

[Ludwig]

IMO, the AFL made a bit mistake expanding to 18 teams instead of consolidating 2 of the Melbourne clubs. The supporters of relocated clubs would have recovered, just like South Melbourne fans have. Now the AFL will have a massive ongoing headache not only getting the expansion clubs up and going, but also supporting the weaker Melbourne clubs. It doesn't do the competition any good for its revenue stream to have basket cases, like the Demons, popping up every few years.

Franklin coming to the Swans on a big contract would not have elicited the Melbourne hysteria that it has, had the Melbourne foundation clubs been stronger as a group. And the expansion clubs would have had the seeds of their Melbourne supporter base to kick start them on their precarious journey in rugbyland.

[aardvark]

Main board on Big Footy doesn't have one "Buddy" thread atm. Yesterdays news!

[Swansongster]

hmmm...........interesting

i sum it up in my mind like thus

you are either a non paid sport or you are a paid sport - that is the equation.

(i wont use the words amateur or professional as they just dont sound right anymore)

so you take the bells and whistles like the AFL or you dont and stage yourself locally

Collingwood have lead the charge hard for many years and now the other clubs are trying to catch up as the divide will only grow between the rich clubs and the poorer clubs....The AFL is so aware of what direction everything is heading and it is highly unlikely that they will be able to maintain a status quo .......with their research studies of the NFL, BASEBALL, Soccer they are fully aware that the Melbourne team and many others in the comp will not be able to compete.......the AFL is making a last ditch effort on the Demons by bringing Roo's but i honestly dont think it will work and we will see the richer clubs simply level jumping again again

its the sport of kings.........where ever there is significant money to be made in marketing / broadcast etc clubs will want more then their fair share

The NFL and NBA do a great job of equalisation in the US through a combination of salary caps, drafting systems and TV rights redistribution. Baseball is different. It is pure capitalism, so the financially stronger organisations dominate over time. When it comes to equalisation, the AFL seems to be some type of hybrid which talks the talk but allows politically powerful clubs to walk at a quicker pace.

[wolftone57]

The difference between us and the US is how much we pay guys, and that's only a reflection of the size of markets We're heading the same way in everything else.

Yes we are Royboy but at least we have the salary cap and draft. The cap, unless some smart bastard recruiter from a club takes the AFL to court for restraint of trade, will at least limit the number of elite players at each club.

On the article, I don't think Caro really looked at the facts.

1. Buddy approached us

2. Buddy was very firm in that he did NOT wish to join GWS or any other bottom side

3. We did NOT approach him

4. Our senior management approached a player representative, our co-captain, Jared McVeigh, to ascertain if there would be trouble within the playing group.

5. Senior management confirmed that if there was any indication the players would be upset with the deal it was gone

6. The deal, while unusual, may still carry on after Buddy has retired. He could be working for the club in the capacity of Forward Coach after he retires, his salary unfortunately within our salary cap. A very big risk to sign a 26 year old for 10 years, especially on his money. The only compensation is the cap rises every two years.

7. If one of the Melbourne clubs pulled this off, say Bullies or Wretchmond Caro would be hailing it as a huge win and a master stroke.

8. How has it damaged our relationship with GWS? Firstly, I didn't think there was one in place. I went to a GWS pre-match function and Sheeds wasn't at all nice about the Swans. The attitude was wait until we are on top and you are a bottom side and then we will kick you in the guts so hard you will never recover. I don't think there was ever a relationship and it has from the start been seen from the GWS point of view as a rivalry.

9. If the rules allow this sort of transaction then so be it and laud the assholes who made it. But if there is a problem with the spirit of the agreement then change the rules to suit.

I personally don't feel that having 20% of the salary cap in the hands of two players is necessarily a good thing either. I think we may have put all our eggs in the TWO BASKETS. What happens when all the young talent that we have been developing and who are now playing super roles in our team come up for contract renewal and find there isn't any money in the coffers for them? What do we do then? Do we say like we just did to Mummy and Jesse, BYE BYE?

- - - Updated - - -

hmmm...........interesting

i sum it up in my mind like thus

you are either a non paid sport or you are a paid sport - that is the equation.

(i wont use the words amateur or professional as they just dont sound right anymore)

so you take the bells and whistles like the AFL or you dont and stage yourself locally

Collingwood have lead the charge hard for many years and now the other clubs are trying to catch up as the divide will only grow between the rich clubs and the poorer clubs....The AFL is so aware of what direction everything is heading and it is highly unlikely that they will be able to maintain a status quo .......with their research studies of the NFL, BASEBALL, Soccer they are fully aware that the Melbourne team and many others in the comp will not be able to compete.......the AFL is making a last ditch effort on the Demons by bringing Roo's but i honestly dont think it will work and we will see the richer clubs simply level jumping again again

its the sport of kings.........where ever there is significant money to be made in marketing / broadcast etc clubs will want more then their fair share

The derivation of the word 'amateur is french meaning 'lover of'. Not until the English decided there was a difference between taking money and not taking money for a pastime did amateur come to denote non-paid. In fact it doesn't even mean non-paid just 'lover of'.

[Meg]

I personally don't feel that having 20% of the salary cap in the hands of two players is necessarily a good thing either. I think we may have put all our eggs in the TWO BASKETS. What happens when all the young talent that we have been developing and who are now playing super roles in our team come up for contract renewal and find there isn't any money in the coffers for them? What do we do then? Do we say like we just did to Mummy and Jesse, BYE BYE?

Wolftones, I like most of the points you make in your post. But re your concern about the amount of the salary cap committed to two players: first as you have said, the salary cap will continue to rise (inflation + hopefully revenue growth) while the Franklin & Tippett contracts are set; second there are some older players whom we know must be on high salaries who will be retiring in the next couple of years, probably to be replaced by good but younger, less experienced and therefore lower paid players; third, we know from what the Club has said that a significant part of Franklin's contract is composed of a marketing agreement (or ASA) which is paid out of a separate pool of money While the total ASA amount that can be paid by a club is capped (currently $613,000) it is not part of the salary cap (currently $9,130,000). So Franklin + Tippett will not be 20% of salary cap as we move into the later years of their contracts.

[wolftone57]

Wolftones, I like most of the points you make in your post. But re your concern about the amount of the salary cap committed to two players: first as you have said, the salary cap will continue to rise (inflation + hopefully revenue growth) while the Franklin & Tippett contracts are set; second there are some older players whom we know must be on high salaries who will be retiring in the next couple of years, probably to be replaced by good but younger, less experienced and therefore lower paid players; third, we know from what the Club has said that a significant part of Franklin's contract is composed of a marketing agreement (or ASA) which is paid out of a separate pool of money While the total ASA amount that can be paid by a club is capped (currently $613,000) it is not part of the salary cap (currently $9,130,000). So Franklin + Tippett will not be 20% of salary cap as we move into the later years of their contracts.

Meg yes some players on high payments will retire; ROK & Goodsie both of whom get their salaries offset by the 50% Veterans allowance against the salary cap at this time. But we will wish to retain these players and if we have success they will certainly want more money; joey, Hannas, Parker, Mitchell, Reid, Jetts, AJ, Smithy, Rohan, Kizza, Mal & Macca. Add to this the up & comers like Lambchop, Rampe & BJ then we have a conumdrum. The salary cap will not increase quickly enough to pay everyone if they all want increases after success. Please refer to 2005/6/7.

[Jewels]

Meg yes some players on high payments will retire; ROK & Goodsie both of whom get their salaries offset by the 50% Veterans allowance against the salary cap at this time. But we will wish to retain these players and if we have success they will certainly want more money; joey, Hannas, Parker, Mitchell, Reid, Jetts, AJ, Smithy, Rohan, Kizza, Mal & Macca. Add to this the up & comers like Lambchop, Rampe & BJ then we have a conumdrum. The salary cap will not increase quickly enough to pay everyone if they all want increases after success. Please refer to 2005/6/7.

So you don't think Ireland and co took all that into account? You think they just said "well Buddy and Tipps you want a mill plus a year, let's give it to you and be damned with the future"! That may be the way you do business but history shows that our list managers and money men are far more in control then that.

You should get a job in the Melbourne media.

[Meg]

Meg yes some players on high payments will retire; ROK & Goodsie both of whom get their salaries offset by the 50% Veterans allowance against the salary cap at this time. But we will wish to retain these players and if we have success they will certainly want more money; joey, Hannas, Parker, Mitchell, Reid, Jetts, AJ, Smithy, Rohan, Kizza, Mal & Macca. Add to this the up & comers like Lambchop, Rampe & BJ then we have a conumdrum. The salary cap will not increase quickly enough to pay everyone if they all want increases after success. Please refer to 2005/6/7.

You might be overstating the amount of Goodes' and O'Keefe's salaries that are outside the cap. New rules for veterans started on 1 November 2012 and I think both players probably come under them as they both signed new/extended contracts in 2013. Under the new rules as I interpret them only $112,320 can be paid as a veteran's allowance. But I do agree with your general point that our younger stars will want more money as their contracts come up for renewal, all the more so if we have further premiership success. I therefore agree that there will be demands on our salary cap (a good thing when it results from success) but I think it is not as drastic a scenario as you fear.