Are Swans fans paranoid?

[Ludwig]

I'll speak for myself. Why do I have the feeling that someone is out to get us?

We sign Buddy Franklin and they take away our COLA. Everyone said we abused the COLA, but could not supply any evidence.

We are banned from trading for no explicable reason other than suspicion that we might do something wrong which would have been impossible to do under any circumstances since all such things that we might have done wrong would have been reviewed and required approval by the AFL before the alleged possible wrongdoing would have become a hang-able offense. Whooooooooo .......................

After 4 million dollars invested in a AFL promoted program (Academy), we finally land a potential star at a decent draft pick the entire academy bidding system gets reviewed with the probably that we will no longer get any real equitable benefit from the program.

We also have a potential high value Father-Son selection, so let's throw that in with the reduced benefits as well.

Now I read that Colin Sylvia and Freo have parted ways: Sylvia 'wasn't at the level required': AFL days over for Freo mid - AFL.com.au
I was surprised to read:

Sylvia had another year to run on a lucrative three-year deal. It is understood that the club has negotiated a partial payment to Sylvia in 2015 and no payments in 2016. It is understood, as per any other retirement, he will not be listed in 2016 and no payments will go towards the Dockers' salary cap.

IIRC, the point was made when we signed Buddy that we would have to include his salary in the our salary cap for the entire 9 years regardless of the circumstance that might arise during this time. So even if Buddy is incapable of playing, we could not reach the kind of agreement that Freo have reached with Sylvia.

Or am I wrong about this? And am I just being paranoid?

[annew]

For what it's worth I agree with you.

[barry]

Buddy will retire before 9 years is up, and we will negotiate a settlement like sylvia did. Same, same

[Meg]

Buddy will retire before 9 years is up, and we will negotiate a settlement like sylvia did. Same, same

No, not the same. We might negotiate a settlement and not have to pay Buddy if he retires early, but Ludwig is right - it was quite explicit in the conditions laid down by the AFL that the scheduled payments for Buddy would still be included, as if they had been paid, under our salary cap.

[Meg]

I'll speak for myself. Why do I have the feeling that someone is out to get us? And am I just being paranoid?

I'm paranoid enough to see a new Academy/F-S draft rule come in next year just for the Swans but deferred for the other three Northern clubs because they are in a "developmental phase".

[stevoswan]

I'll speak for myself. Why do I have the feeling that someone is out to get us?

We sign Buddy Franklin and they take away our COLA. Everyone said we abused the COLA, but could not supply any evidence.

We are banned from trading for no explicable reason other than suspicion that we might do something wrong which would have been impossible to do under any circumstances since all such things that we might have done wrong would have been reviewed and required approval by the AFL before the alleged possible wrongdoing would have become a hang-able offense. Whooooooooo .......................

After 4 million dollars invested in a AFL promoted program (Academy), we finally land a potential star at a decent draft pick the entire academy bidding system gets reviewed with the probably that we will no longer get any real equitable benefit from the program.

We also have a potential high value Father-Son selection, so let's throw that in with the reduced benefits as well.

Now I read that Colin Sylvia and Freo have parted ways: Sylvia 'wasn't at the level required': AFL days over for Freo mid - AFL.com.au
I was surprised to read:


IIRC, the point was made when we signed Buddy that we would have to include his salary in the our salary cap for the entire 9 years regardless of the circumstance that might arise during this time. So even if Buddy is incapable of playing, we could not reach the kind of agreement that Freo have reached with Sylvia.

Or am I wrong about this? And am I just being paranoid?

All bar the last of those above examples have one common factor behind them, apart from a gutless AFL administration, and that is one Eddie McGuire, and he'll probably try to ensure we don't get a Sylvia style agreement if Buddy retires early. So someone is out to get us, and he has his own thread on this site! But apart from that, one does get the feeling that we are feared/loathed and, by underhanded dealings driven by a prejudicial powerbase, we are being slowly undermined. This could be paranoia, but with powerbrokers such as McGuire and Newbold, and a lesser extent, Gordon around, pulling Gillons strings, I think we have to at least be on our guard, but preferably firmly on the front foot, regarding what is rightfully ours.

[0918330512]

This could be paranoia, but with powerbrokers such as McGuire and Newbold, and a lesser extent, Gordon around, pulling Gillons strings

[Meg]

Are Swans fans paranoid?

Having given this a bit more thought, I think that there is an important difference between the recruitment of Buddy by the Swans and the recruitment of Sylvia by Freo.
Buddy was a RESTRICTED free agent which meant Hawthorn had the right to match the deal the Swans offered, and if Buddy didn't accept he would have had to go into the draft and almost certainly not end up with the Swans. Under those circumstances I can see the reasoning behind the conditions the AFL attached. It would have been too easy otherwise for the Swans to offer a deal over 9 years that Hawthorn would not match, but on a nod and a wink with Buddy that he would retire after (say) 6 years and the rest of the money would not be paid and would not count under the salary cap.
Sylvia on the other hand was an UNRESTRICTED free agent which means he could move to the club of his choice. So Freo (or any other club) could have offered whatever they wanted knowing that if it didn't work out, and Sylvia retired, they would not have to pay out the contract. In that sense all clubs were on an equal footing in competing for Sylvia.
So I think the difference between the Buddy and the Sylvia situations is reasonable. Doesn't meant that they aren't out to get us though!!

[S.S. Bleeder]

Good point Ludwig. It does seem like double standards. My understanding was always that retirements were included in the clubs TPP and hence our situation with Buddy was the norm.

[goswannies]

Or Buddy plays out his contract winning multiple Colemans, a Norm Smith or two and perhaps a Brownlow and the Swans channel their inner EJ & "stick it up 'em!" with the deal (or steal) of the decade!

[Xie Shan]

Having given this a bit more thought, I think that there is an important difference between the recruitment of Buddy by the Swans and the recruitment of Sylvia by Freo.
Buddy was a RESTRICTED free agent which meant Hawthorn had the right to match the deal the Swans offered, and if Buddy didn't accept he would have had to go into the draft and almost certainly not end up with the Swans. Under those circumstances I can see the reasoning behind the conditions the AFL attached. It would have been too easy otherwise for the Swans to offer a deal over 9 years that Hawthorn would not match, but on a nod and a wink with Buddy that he would retire after (say) 6 years and the rest of the money would not be paid and would not count under the salary cap.
Sylvia on the other hand was an UNRESTRICTED free agent which means he could move to the club of his choice. So Freo (or any other club) could have offered whatever they wanted knowing that if it didn't work out, and Sylvia retired, they would not have to pay out the contract. In that sense all clubs were on an equal footing in competing for Sylvia.
So I think the difference between the Buddy and the Sylvia situations is reasonable. Doesn't meant that they aren't out to get us though!!

Yep, you're probably right. I think it'll work out in the end, I can't imagine that they wouldn't have thought of this scenario when they did the Buddy deal.

[stevoswan]

Nice one!

[Ludwig]

Having given this a bit more thought, I think that there is an important difference between the recruitment of Buddy by the Swans and the recruitment of Sylvia by Freo.
Buddy was a RESTRICTED free agent which meant Hawthorn had the right to match the deal the Swans offered, and if Buddy didn't accept he would have had to go into the draft and almost certainly not end up with the Swans. Under those circumstances I can see the reasoning behind the conditions the AFL attached. It would have been too easy otherwise for the Swans to offer a deal over 9 years that Hawthorn would not match, but on a nod and a wink with Buddy that he would retire after (say) 6 years and the rest of the money would not be paid and would not count under the salary cap.
Sylvia on the other hand was an UNRESTRICTED free agent which means he could move to the club of his choice. So Freo (or any other club) could have offered whatever they wanted knowing that if it didn't work out, and Sylvia retired, they would not have to pay out the contract. In that sense all clubs were on an equal footing in competing for Sylvia.
So I think the difference between the Buddy and the Sylvia situations is reasonable. Doesn't meant that they aren't out to get us though!!

This is a very interesting point you raised and the first time I've seen it.

If you are correct, then it should mean that all restricted free agent signings would come under the same provisions. RFAs Dale Thomas and Eddie Betts also signed multi year deals for big bucks with new clubs, albeit not on the order of Buddy's deal, but nothing was ever said that the deals had to be fulfilled to the end and included in the salary cap whether they played or not. Thomas especially, given his ankle injury, may not have been able to play out his contract and many had questioned Carlton's decision to sign him up on such a big contract given the situation. Yet, I cannot recall a mention that Carlton would he stuck holding the bag if Daisy had to retire.

It would also seem that if Hawthorn had in fact matched the deal the Swans offered, they too should be subject to the same provisions, meaning that they would be stuck with Buddy's 9 year contract come hell or high water, even if Buddy retired from the Hawks after 6 years. Yet nothing was said if this would be the case.

I doesn't mean that it's not the case. Perhaps the Buddy provisions hold for all RFA contracts, yet it is odd that this matter only arose in relation to Buddy Franklin and the Swans.

It seems incredible how many regulations and special rulings have applied to restrict or modify the dealings with and access to players for just the Swans. Even those that will ostensibly effect other clubs have the most significant and immediate impact on the Swans and seem specifically designed to restrict a perceived benefit the Swans might receive. Or am I just being paranoid?

I wonder if some crack sports journo will point out that Freo have an exit clause in the Sylvia contract that was not available to the Swans because of such and such. I'll be waiting with bated breath.

[AnnieH]

It just reeks of Eddie @@@@, doesn't it?
I told you the club had a few more "issues" to work out with the AFL.
I'm pretty sure they add to the list every day.

[dejavoodoo44]

Now, now; if we all keep on taking the piss out of Eddie, none of us will ever win big on Millionaire Hot Seat. That is, any identified Swans follower will end up a quivering mess on the studio floor, muttering, "But when you said, 'Is that your final answer?' like that, I just assumed I was wrong...baaassstaaaard"