Buddy hypothetical

[Ruck'n'Roll]

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." I believe you are implying that Buddy came for money not for flags.

Dear Markwebbos, I don't think I am implying Buddy came for money not flags. Is it really an either/or thing? If I had to guess at a primary motivation (this is a Buddy hypothetical thread), I'd punt for neither - I think he wanted to get out of Melbourne and come to the city of Sydney. The largest volume of discussion reportage seems to have been with the Swans and Giants, and the Swans would definitely have been the preferred destination on the grounds of flags.

You also made a comment elsewhere about Buddy going to the highest bidder.

I haven't read any suggestion that he went to a lower bidder, if he had, surely such a decision would have been reported exhaustively in the media?

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.

That was the price that was widely reported and accepted. Mel_C has reported that this was the price his agent gave to the Swans.

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.

That's not 100% correct, the salary offered by the Swans certainly had to better what the Hawks would match, but it also had to be acceptable to the player. A bit like a house auction, the highest bidder doesn't get the house unless the owners reserve has been reached.
To extend the analogy, We know what the 'house' went for ($10 million), but we don't know how high the losers of the Auction (the Hawks initially) were prepared to bid, nor what the reserve was.
The two can be different, and that was my original question, not a statement, a question.

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.

No that is emphatically NOT what I have said. I was asking a question. "Did we top the Hawthorn offer or did we over-the-top the Hawthorn offer?"
Or to put it another way, what was the $10 million required for?
a) Was it the price to get Buddy to leave Hawthorn?
b) Was it was the price to get Buddy to come to the Swans?
or c) Was it a price that was in excess of both of these outcomes, but which Buddy (or Pickers') were delighted to achieve?

Meg says the question in unanswerable, which I think is only correct up to a certain point.

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.

I made no such claim, I merely asked a question.
It is definitely possible that the two numbers were different - see above.

Had we offered less presumably, he would have stayed?

Everything I've read suggests to me that he wanted out of Melbourne and wanted to be in the city of Sydney. So if our offer had been insufficient he might have been more tempted to become a Giant, as the AFL desired than stayed.

[KTigers]

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.

2016 Final Series W Bulldogs Free Kick Count
Week 1 : 17 for, 13 against
Week 2 : 19 for, 14 against
PF (against GWS): 23 for, 13 against
GF : 20 for, 8 against
Total : 79 for, 48 against
We lost by 22, but GWS only lost by 6.
You have to think 10 additional free kicks will gain a team more than one goal. Also here was another obvious free that wasn't paid
(I think to Tom Scully) with a few minutes to go that would have put him 35M out directly in front. I'm not
sure GWS would have choked in the 2016 GF had they have made it. They beat us up pretty badly in Qualifying Final in front of
60,000 (mostly Swans fans) at ANZ a few weeks earlier.
In the GF the issue was only 8 free kicks were paid against the Dogs. How is it even possible for any team to make so few infringements
in a super high pressure game like the Grand Final?

[KTigers]

Re Buddy coming to Sydney ; He has stated many times that one of the main reasons he moved was that his girlfriend (now wife)
lived in Sydney. He won't be the first person to move, partly at least, because of a personal relationship. Also I'm not sure every
player is counting every dollar when deciding where to move to. And when you are in Buddy's pay bracket almost 50c of every
extra dollar goes in taxes anyway.

[Mel_C]

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?

The topic came up because they were discussing a player that had signed a 5 year contract and whether large multi year contracts were a risk. Buddy's 9 year contract was brought up and that's what Pickering responded with. So the discussion was more about the length rather than the dollar amount.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

A Buddy Hypothetical – The Contract

This post contains no judgement whatsoever on Buddy’s past or present performance, his value to the Swans, the overall success ROI of the contract or other similar subjects. This post is all about what machinations could have brought Buddy's ground breaking contract into exitance 8 years ago and that is all – history not currant events.

I have always found the Buddy deal difficult for me to get my head around. However, a few bits of information have fallen into place recently and I think I’m getting closer to comprehending it now - and have decided to share.

To start with, I’ll look at the $$$’s – I’ll address the duration of the contract a little later. The Giants' offer was for $7 mill, the Swans offer was $10 mill.

Not even in the currently hyper-inflated Sydney real estate market does a bidder surpass the previous bid by more than 40% - to suggest the Swans did, is to suggest utter incompetence on their part.

I’m not suggesting this.
But I have always wondered how the Swans got to $10 mill?
It’s been suggested that the Swans were given that number by Buddy’s agent, in which case did Pickering pluck that number out of the air? Or was a $10 mill payday already a possibility for Buddy. I believe so.

So where did the extra $3 mill come from?
I think there can be only one possibility, the AFL itself.
Finding an extra $3 mill in your salary cap would be extremely difficult for a club, but not so for the AFL, who’ve invested $267 mill into GWS.
Does a 7 year ambassadorial role for the most bankable star in the AFL to headline their push into the leagues heartland - $3 mill sound implausible to anyone here? It sounds like a bargain to me.

At the time Andy Demetriou denied offering inducements to any player to leave their current club. He later acknowledged that the AFL “could” offer Buddy an ambassadorial role – so the money was available.
Inducement? Ambassadorship? - You say tomarto, I say tomayto.

The above suggestion is the only way I can see to reconcile the size of our Buddy’s offer with his frequently expressed and apparently sincere preference for the Swans. If the above is substantially correct then Buddy did not gouge the Swans for an extra $3 mill – Buddy effectively gave us last refusal by allowing us to match an existing offer.

I believe the Swans actually managed to outbid the Giants and the AFL offer combined – an astonishingly bold move.

The AFL under Demetriou has always had a completely self absorbed and almost biblical “Whoever is not with me, is against me” approach to conflict. Anyone who thwarts their desires, or even inadvertently damages their brand, will be punished.

In the case of Buddy, he actually spurned their offer. Mike Fitzpatrick’s immediate reaction, a threatening and expletive riddled phone call to Richard Colless – is a textbook illustration of the narcissists (or narcissistic organisations) response to not getting their own way.

It was followed by the scrapping of COLA - unfortunately this affected all the expansion teams, so the AFL added it’s ridiculous trade ban to remove all doubt as to who was in the naughty corner.

Is that it? Maybe not quite. The AFL may have had a whack at Buddy too.
With Buddy in the Sydney market you’d think the AFL marketing department would make saturation use of his unparalleled star power to promote the game wouldn’t you? Astonishingly this is not the case. It’s actually really hard to find much in the way of AFL-originated Buddy based marketing. Nor did Buddy get to enjoy the anticipated AFL ambassadorial role.

Finally let’s turn back to the duration of the contract.
Matching the Giants and AFL offer combined the Swans put considerable pressure on their salary cap. I suspect achieving the necessary $10 mill was only possible by amortizing the costs, with the use of a 9 year contract.
Many in 2013 thought the idea of a 35 year old making a significant contributions to his team was preposterous, but Buddy’s proved them wrong.

It was also reported that Buddy himself was shocked at the duration of the Swans contract. However, there's never been any suggestion that Buddy was unhappy/shocked with the $10 mill, so maybe he was less across some of the other details – in particular the duration of the contract. His decision to dismiss his manager immediately after he'd just negotiated the biggest contract in AFL history is very hard to convincingly explain otherwise.

Sorry for the length of this post, and hope it won’t preclude it form receiving due consideration.

[barry]

Thats quite a probable scenario "RucknRoll".

Buddy wanted to move to Sydney. I dont think he really cared where he went (Swans or GWS), but Swans were more of a sure thing for finals as they'd just won a flag. GWS was riskier, but all pundits said finals was a sure thing anyway.

GWS's bid of $7m must have been enough for Hawthorn not to match.
And the Swans jump to $10m must have been driven by something such as other income incentives for going to GWS.

The GWS's bid (as far as salary cap goes) sounds fair. The swans paid overs, and at the end of the day, thats the swans decision and only their decision.

Would he have won a flag at either club... dont know. The odds were stacked against him, because the sides that win flags (like Hawthorn or Richmond) are the sides where everyone across the team was prepared to get paid less than open market value to stay together. He was getting paid at market at GWS, or above market at the swans.

The swans really only had one crack at a Buddy flag... in 2016. His payments were still 'normal', and the 2012 premiership team was still largely together. In later years, Buddies contract loading of $1.4+m means other stars were forced out, or we couldnt get stars in. ie. We couldnt afford a team around him.

So, in the harsh light of getting Buddy for a 9 year period, where we had a window of a flag only in the first 3-4 years, followed by mid-lower table placings, and then at the end of the 9 years, as rebuilding is kicking in, losing young stars like Dawson and Allir.. prolonging a the next shot at a flag to the 12 year mark...... was it worth it?

I dont think so.

[barry]

I can understand the AFL anger at Swans getting Buddy ahead of GWS. The AFL has a history of moving players to outpost clubs to change their fortunes. And we have been the biggest beneficiaries of that with Plugger. In that case, Collingwood were ready to poach him, but got arm-twisted out of it for fairly tenuous public reasons.

Killing COLA was a spiteful thing that has probably hurt GWS the most of all clubs.

[Aprilbr]

Some good points there, Barry. There are a couple of points you raise that I would like to query.

1. Would he have won a flag at either club... dont know. The odds were stacked against him, because the sides that win flags (like Hawthorn or Richmond) are the sides where everyone across the team was prepared to get paid less than open market value to stay together. He was getting paid at market at GWS, or above market at the swans.

I think that the often cited view that players at these clubs accept unders out of loyalty is a myth in most cases. I firmly believe that these big Clubs in Melbourne and Perth are able to offer inducements outside of the official cap that make the player's deal similar to others. This may be in the way of "marketing" side deals or opportunities post-career.

2. The COLA was discontinued due to the Buddy deal.

For at least 10 years prior to the Buddy deal, the bigger clubs lead by Eddie McGuire were lobbying the AFL hard to get rid of this concession. It was inevitable that it was going to be discontinued despite our arguments for. We were doing well on the field and the big Clubs did not like it. The view was that we no longer needed it. The Buddy deal simply speeded up this process of elimination.

Just my thoughts.

[Bloods05]

I can understand the AFL anger at Swans getting Buddy ahead of GWS. The AFL has a history of moving players to outpost clubs to change their fortunes. And we have been the biggest beneficiaries of that with Plugger. In that case, Collingwood were ready to poach him, but got arm-twisted out of it for fairly tenuous public reasons.

Killing COLA was a spiteful thing that has probably hurt GWS the most of all clubs.

You might be able to understand the AFL's anger at the Swans, but in no way does anger justify the punitive measures that were invoked. It was pure petulance on their part. Their plans were thwarted, so what? It was and remains a travesty.

[dimelb]

"Was it worth it?"

Damn right it was worth it. The jump in crowd numbers, the excitement he brought to the game, the learning that has gone into other players, not to mention the possibility of father/son or in the new world father/daughter! And is he in line for a coaching role? I would think so - he has been doing that on ground for most of his time with us.

[Markwebbos]

At the risk of repeating myself, I would heartily recommend reading The Boys Club, which devotes pages to Buddygate and the AFL's vicious and unwarranted reaction... Mick Warner says that the removal of COLA was all in reaction to Buddy going to the Swans.

[Mel_C]

It was also reported that Buddy himself was shocked at the duration of the Swans contract. However, there's never been any suggestion that Buddy was unhappy/shocked with the $10 mill, so maybe he was less across some of the other details – in particular the duration of the contract. His decision to dismiss his manager immediately after he'd just negotiated the biggest contract in AFL history is very hard to convincingly explain otherwise.

Buddy changed management because he wasn't going to need Pickering to negotiate another AFL contract. He now needed someone to negotiate off field deals not connected to footy. I think he moved to Jesinta's management.

[Aprilbr]

At the risk of repeating myself, I would heartily recommend reading The Boys Club, which devotes pages to Buddygate and the AFL's vicious and unwarranted reaction... Mick Warner says that the removal of COLA was all in reaction to Buddy going to the Swans.

There is no doubt that the Buddy deal pushed COLA over the edge. By his own admission, Fitzpatrick was one of the last left on the Commission who supported its retention till the Buddy deal. But it was going to disappear anyway. It was just a matter of time. The Eddie-led big Clubs were lobbying intensely behind the scenes to remove it. Moreover, as new Commission members joined who were more pro the Victorian Clubs its days were numbered. It was introduced when the Swans were a basket case in the early 1990s as they could not hang onto players at that time. This was far less so by 2013 when the Swans had won 2 flags in 8 years. Its just good that we managed to get Buddy in before it was dropped.

[liz]

There is no doubt that the Buddy deal pushed COLA over the edge. By his own admission, Fitzpatrick was one of the last left on the Commission who supported its retention till the Buddy deal. But it was going to disappear anyway. It was just a matter of time. The Eddie-led big Clubs were lobbying intensely behind the scenes to remove it. Moreover, as new Commission members joined who were more pro the Victorian Clubs its days were numbered. It was introduced when the Swans were a basket case in the early 1990s as they could not hang onto players at that time. This was far less so by 2013 when the Swans had won 2 flags in 8 years. Its just good that we managed to get Buddy in before it was dropped.

We (and Brisbane) used to have a retention allowance. Ours was higher than the Lions' (Bears') because it explicitly included a cost of living allowance. After the Lions won their threepeat, they lost their retention allowance and we had ours reduced, with just the cost of living element remaining.

I'm not disputing that clubs were lobbying to get rid of it, but not for any "fair" reason. Indeed, when Ed had his brief spell in Sydney as Nine CEO, he came out publicly in defence of the allowance, observing how much more expensive it was to live in Sydney than in Melbourne. The academy is a tangible advantage (albeit justified, IMO, for reasons oft-discussed). The Cost of Living Allowance was never an advantage. Just a (maybe clumsy) way to offset an inherent disadvantage. I think referring to it as COLA clouds its very purpose. Cost of Living equalisation measure.

[barry]

"Was it worth it?"

Damn right it was worth it. The jump in crowd numbers, the excitement he brought to the game, the learning that has gone into other players, not to mention the possibility of father/son or in the new world father/daughter! And is he in line for a coaching role? I would think so - he has been doing that on ground for most of his time with us.

The Swans have been losing substantial sums of money the past few years.

I just think a less expensive player would have had a better outcome.