2020 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[Mr Magoo]

Cap coming down 10% apparently. Not sure how it's applied and to who.

Can't believe we've got cap problems, many teams have players on $1m plus

Maybe we have to pay players more to stay in Sydney . Funny that , used to be a thing called cola that recognised that fact .

[Auntie.Gerald]

Knowing that we would have a smaller list or minimum less $ to contract did anyone find it strange we would give so much game time to Thurlow ?

Or do u think he will be signed on with us over the next couple weeks and all that game time for a "developing team" was right on and warranted?

[barry]

Can't believe we've got cap problems, many teams have players on $1m plus

Its quite likely Buddy's backended contract is bigger than we think. We could be in a situation like GWS with Cameron, where they kept pilling on the backend of his contract to get around salary cap issues earlier in the contract.
I think that sort of thing would be more common than we realise.

[waswan]

Its quite likely Buddy's backended contract is bigger than we think. We could be in a situation like GWS with Cameron, where they kept pilling on the backend of his contract to get around salary cap issues earlier in the contract.
I think that sort of thing would be more common than we realise.

Buddys figure is commonly known and has been since day 1

His deal would be subject to any % reductions in line with every other player in the comp.

I do wonder how the reductions work with players still on the books like Beams.

[Markwebbos]

Buddys figure is commonly known and has been since day 1

His deal would be subject to any % reductions in line with every other player in the comp.

I do wonder how the reductions work with players still on the books like Beams.

Are you sure? I thought as a RFA his deal was set in stone, which worked in our favour when the TPP|Salary Cap was increasing but now counts against us

[waswan]

Are you sure? I thought as a RFA his deal was set in stone, which worked in our favour when the TPP|Salary Cap was increasing but now counts against us

From the Age

Which brings us to one of the most famous deals in AFL history. Lance Franklin went to Sydney on a bumper nine-year contract that averaged more than $1 million a year when he started in 2014. This year "Buddy" was due to earn $1.4 million, next year $1.5 million and in 2022 a flat million. So the pay cut has hit big this year.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/how-will-afl-player-pay-cuts-work-and-will-they-change-the-game-20200401-p54fzz.html

Its not straight forward 50%, its staged, read the full article

[Captain]

I think history will judge the Buddy deal to be a failure.

Hindsight is wonderful though and at the time I was a massive fan of the deal.

[barry]

Buddys figure is commonly known and has been since day 1

His deal would be subject to any % reductions in line with every other player in the comp.

I do wonder how the reductions work with players still on the books like Beams.

The total figure was known since day 1. $10 million over 9 years. And we would have set out a draft plan of payments to him per year. But there is nothing holding us to those yearly payments, only the total.
So if, in 2018 we were looking like exceeding our cap by $300,000, they could have easily asked buddy to reduce his payment that year, and add it back in in later years. (if he agreed). Thats one advantage of a long contract to the club: flexibility to pay per year. However, its not without risk if managed badly.

[Mr Magoo]

I think history will judge the Buddy deal to be a failure.

Hindsight is wonderful though and at the time I was a massive fan of the deal.

If premierships alone are a measure then your probably correct but the fact is that he has drawn increased membership and up until recently we were never out of finals and did compete for two flags. In both instances , Buddy was a driving force of us being there.

For me , hindsight would definitely say that the Tippett deal was a Dud, albeit when they did that deal they probably had no idea that buddy would land in there lap a year of so later. Tippett was the triggerring factor in the fanfare and subsequent punishment handed out to the Swans. If Tippett doesnt happen , I reckon the Buddy deal , while controversial , would not have had so many repercussions.

[waswan]

The total figure was known since day 1. $10 million over 9 years. And we would have set out a draft plan of payments to him per year. But there is nothing holding us to those yearly payments, only the total.
So if, in 2018 we were looking like exceeding our cap by $300,000, they could have easily asked buddy to reduce his payment that year, and add it back in in later years. (if he agreed). Thats one advantage of a long contract to the club: flexibility to pay per year. However, its not without risk if managed badly.

I understood it to be a fixed rate, no benefit in deviating from the contract

The AFL has confirmed that the Swans must include Franklin's contract terms in each of the nine years of the contract, irrespective of how long he plays.The amounts would remain in those particular years even if they paid him a massive lump sum early.

[barry]

I think history will judge the Buddy deal to be a failure.

Hindsight is wonderful though and at the time I was a massive fan of the deal.

I think it will be judged as a failure too. If we had won in 2016, you could say it broke even, but we didnt.

While they say Buddy added a lot of revenue, whatever he added has been fritted away, such that we lost money in 2019, and probably lost even more in 2020, with nothing to show for it.
But the real sting in the buddy deal is being felt right now as we have no room to trade our way up the ladder.

Carlton and Essendon received relatively minor draft and financial penalties for bad practices, and will take decades to get back to strength. Buddy's deal feels a bit like that now to us. It could set us back a decade.

[Captain]

If premierships alone are a measure then your probably correct but the fact is that he has drawn increased membership and up until recently we were never out of finals and did compete for two flags. In both instances , Buddy was a driving force of us being there.

For me , hindsight would definitely say that the Tippett deal was a Dud, albeit when they did that deal they probably had no idea that buddy would land in there lap a year of so later. Tippett was the triggerring factor in the fanfare and subsequent punishment handed out to the Swans. If Tippett doesnt happen , I reckon the Buddy deal , while controversial , would not have had so many repercussions.

We needed a premiership between 2014 - 2016 when we were in our prime. That didn't happen which was unfortunate but premierships are hard to win.

It is after this period that the Buddy trade has hurt us. Losing players like Mitchell, Nankervis and Jones (plus potentially more to come this trade period) and gaining nothing is going to hurt us for quite some time.

Getting Buddy meant a trade ban and loss of COLA. Obviously this is not Buddy's fault but the outcome is still related to us getting him.

- - - Updated - - -

I think it will be judged as a failure too. If we had won in 2016, you could say it broke even, but we didnt.

While they say Buddy added a lot of revenue, whatever he added has been fritted away, such that we lost money in 2019, and probably lost even more in 2020, with nothing to show for it.
But the real sting in the buddy deal is being felt right now as we have no room to trade our way up the ladder.

Carlton and Essendon received relatively minor draft and financial penalties for bad practices, and will take decades to get back to strength. Buddy's deal feels a bit like that now to us. It could set us back a decade.

Exactly. It's going to be felt for years to come unless we get very lucky in the draft.

[barry]

I understood it to be a fixed rate, no benefit in deviating from the contract

The AFL has confirmed that the Swans must include Franklin's contract terms in each of the nine years of the contract, irrespective of how long he plays.The amounts would remain in those particular years even if they paid him a massive lump sum early.

Can you provide a link to that. It would be highly unusual if that was the case. I understood the $10m had to be over 9 years. (ie not, 10,11 or 12). But we could vary the payments per year to fit in with cyclical salary cap costs, which you never fully know before each year (eg, finals bonuses, trigger clauses, etc).

[ugg]

"If the Tom Hickey deal falls over at Sydney, then the Swans have interest in Nathan Vardy"

- @cleary_mitch #AFLTrade

— AFL Trade Radio (@traderadio) November 10, 2020

[Kumarangk]

If premierships alone are a measure then your probably correct but the fact is that he has drawn increased membership and up until recently we were never out of finals and did compete for two flags. In both instances , Buddy was a driving force of us being there.

For me , hindsight would definitely say that the Tippett deal was a Dud, albeit when they did that deal they probably had no idea that buddy would land in there lap a year of so later. Tippett was the triggerring factor in the fanfare and subsequent punishment handed out to the Swans. If Tippett doesnt happen , I reckon the Buddy deal , while controversial , would not have had so many repercussions.

Spot on. Interesting to how they get a real gauge to Buddy's contract to memberships & finals appearances and a direct correlation to what profit they made from the deal ( if any )