There was a NHL case where a player was on a 17 year contract but the last 10 years we only 50K each.
It was to spread the salary cap pressure.
He retired after 4 years.
It's a dodgy loophole that the AFL need to clean up.
Mate I don't see how there is a loophole. If Buddy doesn't see out his contract because of injury or crapness, the Swans still have to pay him and include it in the salary cap. Whether they keep him on the list and include it each year or cut him after 5 years and weare the last 4 years costs in one season is up to them, but either way there is a big risk for them.
I hope it ends up happening and that Buddy turns into dud within 3 or 4 years and the Swans are screwed for years as a result.
That's the bit you don't get.
The deal is front ended knowing Buddy won't play after 5 years.
That is the loophole.
As they have so many players leaving this year they have cash now. So pay him 1.2 or 1.3 this year. Then the last 4 years are only 200K or what ever. Total over the 9 years is the same but the pain is just now.
We don't want to get to a situation where we spread out a contract over 17 years to get around the salary cap like the NHL does.
There was a NHL case where a player was on a 17 year contract but the last 10 years we only 50K each.
It was to spread the salary cap pressure.
He retired after 4 years.
It's a dodgy loophole that the AFL need to clean up.
Mate I don't see how there is a loophole. If Buddy doesn't see out his contract because of injury or crapness, the Swans still have to pay him and include it in the salary cap. Whether they keep him on the list and include it each year or cut him after 5 years and weare the last 4 years costs in one season is up to them, but either way there is a big risk for them.
I hope it ends up happening and that Buddy turns into dud within 3 or 4 years and the Swans are screwed for years as a result.
That's the bit you don't get.
The deal is front ended knowing Buddy won't play after 5 years.
That is the loophole.
As they have so many players leaving this year they have cash now. So pay him 1.2 or 1.3 this year. Then the last 4 years are only 200K or what ever. Total over the 9 years is the same but the pain is just now.
We don't want to get to a situation where we spread out a contract over 17 years to get around the salary cap like the NHL does.
I haven't seen any reports suggesting it's front ended that much. In fact, many have suggested the first few years are low and there is still plenty in the last few.
Anyway, even if you're right Sydney are still taking a massive risk because under that scenario Buddy would be using close to 20% of their salary cap in the first 5 years.
If you're wrong then they're paying for an old crock in the last few years.
Either way, the $10m has to go into their salary cap at some point. Whether it ends up being for 5 years or 9 it could still potentially hurt them.
Again, I don't see how it's a loophole I n the way you're suggesting. Or at least, in my opinion, the loophole is closed by the fact that all of the $10m has to be accounted for somewhere in their salary cap. If they're stupid enough to offload him 4 years early, still have him on the list for 4 years on whatever the terms are for those 4 years and have less to pay the other players then that's their problem
Anyone else heard the last three year of buddy’s contract at Sydney clearly state he is being payed as a marketing person at the club not a footballer so if he can’t play it won’t come under the cap?
Let me get this straight:
1) Sydney say Buddy approached them.
2) Buddy says he didn't make contact till after the Grand Final.
3) Sydney worked out 9 years/$10m of salary cap within 2 days (presumably less).
Uh huh. Just stop lying.
Anyone else heard the last three year of buddy's contract at Sydney clearly state he is being payed as a marketing person at the club not a footballer so if he can't play it won't come under the cap?
I heard the last three years of his contract he is getting a McDonald's.
Let me get this straight:
1) Sydney say Buddy approached them.
2) Buddy says he didn't make contact till after the Grand Final.
3) Sydney worked out 9 years/$10m of salary cap within 2 days (presumably less).
Uh huh. Just stop lying.
Let me get this straight:
1) Sydney say Buddy approached them.
2) Buddy says he didn't make contact till after the Grand Final.
3) Sydney worked out 9 years/$10m of salary cap within 2 days (presumably less).
Uh huh. Just stop lying.
Let me get this straight:
1) Sydney say Buddy approached them.
2) Buddy says he didn't make contact till after the Grand Final.
3) Sydney worked out 9 years/$10m of salary cap within 2 days (presumably less).
Uh huh. Just stop lying.
Let me get this straight:
1) Sydney say Buddy approached them.
2) Buddy says he didn't make contact till after the Grand Final.
3) Sydney worked out 9 years/$10m of salary cap within 2 days (presumably less).
Uh huh. Just stop lying.
To be fair, Buddy never disputed he contacted them after the 2012 grand final. He said he didn't make the final decision until after the 2013 grand final.
I don't believe he hadn't already made a decision, but he never claimed he only contacted them recently.
To be clear, if the contract is fairly paced (i.e. no major front/back loading) then if the player retires early they don't have to pay any of the final years. However, if Sydney cut him they do. If it is back loaded and he retires, they have to pay the element of back loading in the future years in the next year's salary cap.
It would be interesting to know what Buddy has told them about retiring off the record. Of course, even in that case Sydney are leaving themselves open to Buddy doing them over.