It would be different because it wouldn't come under free agency - or, more specifically, restricted free agency.
I don't believe that there is a "Buddy rule" for Sydney. The rule applies to any player recruited as a restricted free agent and the requirement that the whole contract falls under the salary cap is quite reasonable. Otherwise restricted free agency would be open to all sorts of abuse.
However, the restriction is (as I understand it) more draconian than has been discussed on RWO. Not only does the whole contract have to be counted under the salary cap, the pattern can't be shifted between years. So say both Reid and Jones left this year and the Swans couldn't (or chose not to) recruit other players to take up the salary cap that would be free as a result. They are not allowed to shift salary due to Buddy in, say, his final year forward to 2018 to reduce the risk of them bearing a large chunk while he is no longer able to play. That bit I am not 100% sure whether it applies to all RFA players, or if that was something specifically applied to the Buddy situation. You'd like to think the former, but who knows with the AFL.
More generally, once any player is contracted by any club, they have a commitment that needs to be counted under the salary cap unless that player is traded away and the new club agrees to take on the contract. There may be some modification to this is a contracted player refuses to play out his contract, or if he is incapable of doing so for a reason other than a football-related injury. But a player who retires due to a football injury still gets his full contract value, and it still counts in the cap.
Which year it counts under can be a bit complicated. The rules may have changed but there was a time when, if a player retired due to injury, the entire remaining contract value counted in the cap when he retired. Clearly that can be problematic for a club that is close to its limit, especially where the retirement wasn't foreseen at the start of the year. But it explains why Brisbane retained Voss on their list for a season after he had retired in practice, and why the same happened to the Swans with Fosdike. Both clubs had to play a man short the following year because Voss and Fosdike were still included on their lists. Had they cut them from their lists at the end of the season they stopped playing, the would have had salary cap issues for those years.
I don't believe that there is a "Buddy rule" for Sydney. The rule applies to any player recruited as a restricted free agent and the requirement that the whole contract falls under the salary cap is quite reasonable. Otherwise restricted free agency would be open to all sorts of abuse.
However, the restriction is (as I understand it) more draconian than has been discussed on RWO. Not only does the whole contract have to be counted under the salary cap, the pattern can't be shifted between years. So say both Reid and Jones left this year and the Swans couldn't (or chose not to) recruit other players to take up the salary cap that would be free as a result. They are not allowed to shift salary due to Buddy in, say, his final year forward to 2018 to reduce the risk of them bearing a large chunk while he is no longer able to play. That bit I am not 100% sure whether it applies to all RFA players, or if that was something specifically applied to the Buddy situation. You'd like to think the former, but who knows with the AFL.
More generally, once any player is contracted by any club, they have a commitment that needs to be counted under the salary cap unless that player is traded away and the new club agrees to take on the contract. There may be some modification to this is a contracted player refuses to play out his contract, or if he is incapable of doing so for a reason other than a football-related injury. But a player who retires due to a football injury still gets his full contract value, and it still counts in the cap.
Which year it counts under can be a bit complicated. The rules may have changed but there was a time when, if a player retired due to injury, the entire remaining contract value counted in the cap when he retired. Clearly that can be problematic for a club that is close to its limit, especially where the retirement wasn't foreseen at the start of the year. But it explains why Brisbane retained Voss on their list for a season after he had retired in practice, and why the same happened to the Swans with Fosdike. Both clubs had to play a man short the following year because Voss and Fosdike were still included on their lists. Had they cut them from their lists at the end of the season they stopped playing, the would have had salary cap issues for those years.
Comment