The ‘Lance Franklin to the Swans’ story has gone off like a bomb. Most of the conjecture surrounds the terms of the deal, particularly the total dollars and length as well as the vagaries of the cost of living allowance in Sydney.
Both issues are being grossly exaggerated and misunderstood.
Perhaps we had it all in heads that Buddy was going go GWS Giants.
That he’d go for the big bucks to help out the family’s loser nephew was somehow tolerable.
That he’ll instead go to Sydney has set loose an array of anger against the Swans, even more so than when Kurt Tippett apparently changed his mind last year.
I think what is being missed within all of this is the fact players’ salaries aren’t published.
It means the football public gets extremely cynical when they see a player of Franklin’s quality and Franklin’s wage joining a successful team where another player such as Kurt Tippett is already being well renumerated.
That Franklin would be given a ten-year deal makes sense as this huge total figure will be spread out over the term’s duration.
So Franklin might receive around $1 million dollars next year.
Shane Mumford was earning around $600,000 this year and he won’t be there next year, while Jude Bolton is retiring and the likes of Adam Goodes and Ryan O’Keefe aren’t earning the kind of money they were when they were at their peak.
In fact outside of Franklin and Tippett there’s likely not a Swan earning more than $700,000 a year.
Collingwood, who is most outraged about the last two contracts Sydney has configured, is likely paying that kind of money to as many as three players, perhaps four should Dale Thomas re-sign.
It seems the football world will continue to live in a state of bemusement and conjecture so long as these salaries and their length remain undisclosed.
The top sports in the US make no secret of player earnings. They are all published and easily accessed across a number of forums and make issues like this non-existent.
If we knew how much everybody was earning we wouldn’t have to throw our arms in the air like morons when something like this happens.
We could instead simply go to the team page ourselves and do our own math.
If this were available perhaps many would be quite shocked to see there are quite a few Swans who are perhaps underpaid based on their perceived market value?
Mike Pyke was near enough to All-Australian this year. My bet is that he goes about his business earning relative peanuts.
As for the cost of living for players in Sydney I think this does need to be looked at and debated in a context based on the realities of how hideously expensive Sydney actually is and whether the Swans are exploiting this to land some of the league’s bigger fish.
The cost of living allowance should be about players who aren’t the game’s big earners and who might baulk at the prospect of playing in the Harbour Sydney because of reluctance to share a flat in Lewisham with five others.
The cost-of-living allowance should have nothing to do with Franklin as he house hunts in Bondi.
When the dust settles I hope one of the by-products is to put the issue of player salaries and their publication on the agenda.
The AFL was poisoned by the drug scandal this year. It needn’t be sullied further through misunderstanding and secrecy regarding an issue that could be very easily fixed.
Publish everybody’s salaries and the issue would vanish.
Peter
Guest
And speaking of drug scandal.. the AFL cannot sweep drug investigations into the other 12 clubs they named today under the carpet. If it is same as Essendon, get it over & done with
Greg
Guest
Agree with Daryl that there's plenty of issues associated with publishing player wages, but I'd say let the Players (Association) decide. They may be willing to suffer the 'cost' of having their earnings made public to avoid all of the scrutiny that james rosewarne talks about...
Reece Jordan
Roar Pro
To further add to that, it's been stated in multiple sources that Franklin's contract is back-ended so he'll be earning less straight away and it'll bulk up later...once Goodes, O'Keefe etc. retire and free up a heap of space.
Penster
Guest
The Macquarie Bank of AFL.
Garth Jones
Roar Rookie
I think you'll find the Swans are gambling on the Salary Cap increasing over the next few years. They only have to pay him a relatively small amount this (next) season then up the amount later in the contract as the salary cap goes up and there is more room to pay him. Buddy's salary is 10 million over 9 years, that doesn't necessarily mean it's 1.1m per year.
Daryl Adair
Guest
There may well be precedents for publicising player wages, but I'm not comfortable with it. So long as the club fits into the salary cap, which is the AFL's role to adjudicate, I don't think it's the public's business to know exactly what each athlete earns. I work in a major organisation; there's no way in the world our respective salaries would be known even to each other.
Peter
Guest
There is a whisper going around that Sydney AFL clubs are shopping for more big bucks players from poor clubs
Jesse G.
Guest
Totally agree with you. All other leagues that I can think of that have salary caps have salary transparency so that fans and other teams always know who (or really at what price) those teams will and won't be able to fit into their salary cap at any given time.
Matt F
Roar Guru
A few things Peter 1. You've got the veterans rule wrong. The new rule is $110k per veteran is exempt from the cap, not half of a players wage. 2. You've left out Mattner and Morton retiring. Morton woudn't take out much (though would have been on a bit more than a draftee would be paid) but Mattner would have been on good money. 3. The salary cap is rising 4 or 5% again for next year. 4. Trade week hasn't even started yet. It's possible that more players could leave to clear some room if necessary. 5. You also have no idea whether any Swans players have been on front ended contracts which will decrease every year, or whether any more players are gong into the veterans list which would remove 110k per player. Actually, you're just making up all sorts of figures....
james rosewarne
Roar Guru
Again, the key is to stop the assumptions. Let's have the salaries published so this guessing game which leads to all sorts of suspicions and allegations can end. Also, it's the Swans who are taking the risk and paying the money here for a guy who is perhaps past his best and who might not at all be the kind of person who usually fits the swans ideal character profile. Is it dodgy that the Blues are about to add Daisy Thomas (reputed $3.5 over over 5 years) to a team who has already copped flack for the nature of Judd's deal? What about the Cats who kept together a triple premiership team that only lost Ablett? How did Hawthorn afford to have Franklin, Rioli, Roughehad, Mitchell, Lewis and Lake in their team? The answer is being creative with how you doll out your money and how you handle the cap. After everything that's gone down the last two years (ie Adelaide salary scandal, Essendon drug scandal) do you really believe the Swans would be so blatantly pulling a 'dodgy'?
Peter Care
Guest
Last year it was reported that Sydney were on the salary cap limit after signing Tippett. Jude Bolton is on the veterens list so only half of is salary was included in the cap to be released. Let's assume Bolton was on half a miillion ($400,000 would be closer to the mark), Jesse White would have been on no more that about $300,000. That leaves $250,000 for Bolton, $350,000 for Mumford and $300,000 for White. That's $900,000, and I am being generous, the figure is probably less. They need two young players to replace two of these departures, which will cost them about $150,000 based on minimum wages. In total that leaves $750,000 per year. to pay Franklin over the next couple of years. If Sydney were on the limit last year, do you really expect us to believe they are paying buddy between $700,000 and $750,000 this year? Something is definately dodgy.
westie
Guest
I'm with you Seano on this one. It is damned expensive living over here in the west but, it is a great place.
james rosewarne
Roar Guru
Perhaps your numbers regarding Mumford are a little more realistic than mine Peter, yet with his leaving combined with White and Everitts and Bolton's retirement, I have no issue with the Swans fitting Franklin in the cap. Again, as was my article's main function, I think all of the speculation would vanish if these salaries were made public.
Seano
Guest
Now I'm a Victorian living on the Gold Coast but I have been around and let me tell you the cost of living allowance is a joke. Why? Well because the most expensive city to live in Australia is Perth. Do freo and wce get an allowance? No, just another afl lie. -- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.
Peter Care
Guest
I got my maths wrong it should be $300,000 a year. Therefore it is more likely that Mumford is on no more than $400,000 this year (and probably lower than this amount). Therefore he will NOT release $600,000 for Sydney.
Peter Care
Guest
$600,000 for Shane Mumford??? He wishes. When he left Geelong in 2009 it was reported at the time to be up to $1.2 million dollar deal over four years. That's $400,000 a year. 2013 is the last year of that contract. So where did you get $600,000 from? His departure will fee up only about $400,000 not $600,000.
Andrew
Guest
Only give the cost of living to the 1st and 2nd year players who are on base salary. Just like us. If you paid above the award you don’t get the 3% pay rise.