Buddy hypothetical

[The Great One]

If that were to unfold, I would love to see that. The Bud deserves a flag with us......and then we could all go and stand outside Mike Fitzpatrick's house and chant an expletive laden version of our club song through megaphones for days on end. That would be glorious!

I think the AFL had plans for Buddy to lob at GWS. When he ended up with us in a somewhat secret coup I think it got us offside with the AFL, particularly one of the top dogs. Since then we seem to get the rough end of the pineapple both on and off the field

The 2016 Grand Final free kick count of 23 to 9 is one we will never forget when our season average was close to 50/50.

While I am not fully aware of the decisions hat went against GWS in their Prelim Final against the Dogs I think under no circumstances did the AFL want an all Sydney Grand Final knowing full well that GWS were a big chance of choking as they did in 2019. This would have handed the title and Buddy the flag.

I doubt we will be allowed to win a flag until Buddy has retired.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

I always thought the $10million etc was required not to entice Buddy, but to outbid the Hawks because he was a RFA

I'm sorry I mustn't be making myself clear. That's what I meant when I wrote "the Swans did need to top the Hawthorn offer." I then went on to pose the question "But by how much? . . . Did we top the Hawthorn offer or did we over-the-top the Hawthorn offer?"

[Ruck'n'Roll]

So your saying . . . .

You quote my post which suggests that people may be seeing implications in what I wrote, that aren't actually there - and then respond to that by telling me what it is I'm saying.

Forget the Pilbara - that's some high quality irony right there.


I think I'll back away from this conversation before some zealot accuses me of trying to barbecue a holy cow.

[Markwebbos]

I'm sorry I mustn't be making myself clear. That's what I meant when I wrote "the Swans did need to top the Hawthorn offer." I then went n to pose the question "But by how much? . . . Did we top the Hawthorn offer or did we over-the-top the Hawthorn offer?"

Your implication is that the “over-the-top”ping of Hawthorn was driven by Buddy, not outbidding the Hawks. I’m
Interested what evidence you have to support this?

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Your implication is . . .

In view of my previous posts in this thread on ascribing implications where none are made, I can only assume you're pulling my leg by beginning your post with those 3 words. Very funny

[bloodspirit]

Forget the Pilbara - that's some high quality irony right there.

[Meg]

Buddy hypothetical

Did we top the Hawthorn offer or did we over-the-top the Hawthorn offer?"

Assuming by ‘over-the-top’ you mean: could the Swans have got Buddy for less money or less years had they offered less (with Hawthorn withdrawing) then the question is unanswerable (at least by us, the fans).

But it’s not the right question.

If you make an offer to buy a house for which there is a great deal of interest, the other interested parties don’t match, and your offer is accepted, did you: (a) offer exactly the right amount? Or (b) offer too much?

You will never know. What is important though is: are you pleased, or even delighted, you gained possession of the house? Or indeed perhaps do you love the house and to you it is worth the price you paid?

[stevoswan]

You quote my post which suggests that people may be seeing implications in what I wrote, that aren't actually there - and then respond to that by telling me what it is I'm saying.

Forget the Pilbara - that's some high quality irony right there.


I think I'll back away from this conversation before some zealot accuses me of trying to barbecue a holy cow.

I quoted your post then asked you about it.....then received the above strange answer! So then I can now conclude that you actually think Buddy does deserve to win a flag with us?

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Yeah you press the "Reply with Quote" button, but then you misrepresent what I say stevoswan. It looks a bit like you don't bother reading (or understanding) the posts that you're challenging.

Case in point. I've NEVER said that Buddy didn't deserve to win a flag with the Swans. You just made that up for me, then you complete the circle by disagreeing with the opinion you've just ascribed to me.

You're actually holding a vociferous argument with yourself!

[stevoswan]

Yeah you press the "Reply with Quote" button, but then you misrepresent what I say stevoswan. It looks a bit like you don't bother reading (or understanding) the posts that you're challenging.

Case in point. I've NEVER said that Buddy didn't deserve to win a flag with the Swans. You just made that up for me, then you complete the circle by disagreeing with the opinion you've just ascribed to me.

You're actually holding a vociferous argument with yourself!

No I summarised what I thought you were getting at then asked you about it....I was not putting words in your mouth. Then, again in my last post, I asked you another question. You seem to be avoiding answering it....too busy pleading being the victim of being 'misquoted'.

[Mel_C]

If he was so keen to get to us for reasons other than money, why did we make the highest offer? Dumb management at the Swans? Charity?

Liam Pickering (Buddy's manager at the time) was speaking about the Buddy contract on SEN the other week. He said he provided the swans with a dollar amount and Ireland came back with the 9 year contract. Buddy was shocked when he realised how old he would be when his contract finishes.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Looking over this thread stevoswan, I honestly can't see any issue that you have raised that I haven't made my position clear on.

Nonetheless, if there's something that I haven't been clear on - if you simply ask, I'll simply answer.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Assuming by ‘over-the-top’ you mean: could the Swans have got Buddy for less money or less years had they offered less (with Hawthorn withdrawing) then the question is unanswerable (at least by us, the fans).

But it’s not the right question.

If you make an offer to buy a house for which there is a great deal of interest, the other interested parties don’t match, and your offer is accepted, did you: (a) offer exactly the right amount? Or (b) offer too much?

You will never know. What is important though is: are you pleased, or even delighted, you gained possession of the house? Or indeed perhaps do you love the house and to you it is worth the price you paid?

I completely take your point on the intrinsic v's extrinsic (market) value.
Neither view provides a complete and balanced picture. The former is incredibly subjective and variable, and the latter can make you into an adding machine. I think both have value.

[Markwebbos]

I think we're operating on different paradigms Meg.

The question is: What known facts?

Buddy's pronouncements as to his motivations are NOT facts, they are merely pronouncements. No more, nor less, factual than the pronouncements of any public figure.

I am not suggesting that his pronouncements are false at all. Just that the only actual fact is the value and duration of his contract.

I think you may be seeing implications where they weren't made. I make no comment on his motivation/character etc. or the value for money provided.

He may have wanted to come to Sydney, in his shoes I certainly would have.
And as has been noted, the Swans did need to top the Hawthorn offer.
But by how much? I can't think of any free agent that's ended up staying at his existing club. Did we top the Hawthorn offer or did we over-the-top the Hawthorn offer?

The $10 million needed to induce a move to Sydney, is hard to reconcile with the get to Sydney and win flags motivation ascribed to him.

Sorry RnR, but I think you are making comment on his motivation when you say "The $10 million needed to induce a move to Sydney, is hard to reconcile with the get to Sydney and win flags motivation ascribed to him." Or have I misunderstood you? I believe you are implying that Buddy came for money not for flags. You also made a comment elsewhere about Buddy going to the highest bidder.

You comment states that "the $10 million was needed to induce a move to Sydney". I understand that to mean that the $10M was need to induce BUDDY to move to Sydney.

My comment "I always thought the $10million etc was required not to entice Buddy, but to outbid the Hawks because he was a RFA" was a direct challenge to the factual basis of what you've said.

Just to be totally clear, I also understand when you say "over-the-top the Hawthorn offer" to imply that the over was "over-the-top" in the sense we had to pay more to entice Buddy than was required to outbid Hawthorn.

Have I got that right? You are saying Buddy came to the Swans for money and we paid $10m was because that was what was how much $ it took to motivate him to leave Hawthorn. Had we offered less presumably, he would have stayed?

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Liam Pickering (Buddy's manager at the time) was speaking about the Buddy contract on SEN the other week. He said he provided the swans with a dollar amount and Ireland came back with the 9 year contract. Buddy was shocked when he realised how old he would be when his contract finishes.

That is an astonishing revelation, and it seems a bit indiscreet.

If true I'd love to know where the "dollar amount" came from. Was he leaking (or indicating the vicinity of) the Hawks offer, the Giants offer or simply stating Buddy's (or Pickers' own) aspiration?