At first glance, Sydney’s reported offer of $10m over nine years to Lance Franklin – fresh off the back of last year’s multimillion dollar poaching of Kurt Tippett – is evidence enough that Sydney’s extra salary cap allowance has to go.
The argument goes that if the premiership-winning side of 2012 can afford to further enhance its list so dramatically, then there is something up with the system.
If Sydney won that flag with a glittering array of superstar talent, I’d be inclined to agree.
The fact of the matter – and a point that many pundits and rival club presidents are choosing to ignore – is that Sydney won that flag with a champion team, not a team of champions.
A team it cobbled together from recycled players other clubs didn’t want anymore and its own second-tier talent.
There were very few high or even first-round draft picks in the 2012 premiership team. Before the season began, the vast majority of the football public expected the Swans to continue to slide down the ladder, not challenge for a flag.
Much of the current Swans line-up were signed at bargain-basement prices before they were premiership players. And plenty are either on the veteran’s list or on their way to retirement, freeing up even more space.
So, it is in that context that the poaching of Tippett and now Franklin needs to be viewed.
Even with a normal salary cap, the Swans would have had ample room to manoeuvre.
Secondly, 10 million dollars is a headline-grabbingly huge amount of money. Spread out over nine years, it actually isn’t so outrageous.
The Swans are gambling that Franklin is going to be one of the tiny minority of players that continues playing deep into their thirties. It is not Sydney’s enlarged salary cap that has allowed this move to happen, it is their willingness to take a risk.
The reason Sydney are willing to do so is because their premiership window is wide open, and what matters most is they get Franklin playing well now.
If in five years their time has passed, it doesn’t matter so much if a large chunk of the salary cap is going towards a hobbled veteran who can barely compete.
The situation is similar to the Brisbane Lions in their heyday, where they signed a number of heavily back-ended contracts with superstars such as Voss.
Yes, they forked out huge amounts more than the player was worth in his final years (including a season where he didn’t even play), but they had salary cap room to spare as they were in rebuild mode and playing low-wage kids anyway.
There should be a debate on the merits of extra salary cap space for Sydney teams, but Franklin’s signature should not be a key part of the discussion.
Sydney have taken a huge risk to get him, and only time will tell if it was the right move.
Cody
Guest
The lions didnt rob teams of there best players, they used it to keep its team together and in the end the AFL got rid of it and changed the draft rules! Let's see what happens to Sydney?
Penster
Guest
He'd have had much greater impact at GWS than Swans. I think it's shabby that GWS were used by Pickering and Franklin as a smokescreen while negotiating with Sydney.
Liam
Roar Rookie
It is arguable that GWS with Buddy, would not be playing at a empty Skoda.
Max Opray
Roar Rookie
Exactly Ryan. I think this one in particular has irked people just because the Swans have this reputation of being a team of battlers that win against the odds, and a big name glitzy signing seems so out-of-character.
Matt F
Roar Guru
Only Bradshaw cost serious money, the rest would be on a very low wage and it's debatable whether Everitt or Morton "failed" anyway. Morton played a very good role in our 2012 finals series and helped us win the flag while Everitt has played 40+ games in 3 seasons and looked quite good this season. At the very least he's been a handy depth player.
Max Opray
Roar Rookie
Being close to the beach probably enticed him a bit too, not to mention being able to play in front of decent crowds, rather than an empty Skoda Stadium...
Max Opray
Roar Rookie
Recycled players are certainly a bit more expensive than draftees, but the key is these recycled players are forming the core of the Swans team, so what you need to be doing is comparing their probable wages with the star players of rival sides. Take a look at their side - how many players would you want your team to pay big money to poach as a free agent?
TomC
Roar Guru
Yes, but they cost a lot more salary cap space than failed draftees would've done. Particularly Bradshaw, who apparently was on good money for a three year contract that he didn't complete.
Matt F
Roar Guru
None of those failures really cost the club anything though. Bradshaw was taken in the PSD. Morton cost us Pick 79 which we wouldn't have used anyway and played a big part in the 2012 finals series which to me makes his move well worth it. Everitt cost us Vezpremi who has done a lot less than Everitt. Armstrong I'll give you but again we didn't give up a lot for him at all
Peaches
Guest
Most people are forgetting that Franklin wants out of Melbourne and an opportunity to experience the Sydney lifestyle. Now the option is a wooden-spoon winning Giants or a premiership winning Swans side. It's not exactly a difficult choice.
Ryan
Guest
Exactly my thoughts. They recycle players better than any side, and seem to get the most out of what they have. Good on Sydney for getting the deal done and giving themselves every chance to keep the premiership window wide open. If it doesn't work out, than so be it. But if it does and they win 1 or a couple of flags than for the price of having an ageing Franklin on a rebuilding list, it will be a masterstroke. I don't really understand everyone whinging and carrying on, its like some unwritten rule than good players shouldn't go to good teams and shouldn't be payed well for there services. Everyone forgets that there club has superstars on big salaries and how you structure your payments is up to the club. Don't blame Sydney for good list management. I was personally back a side list management that has been successful for over a decade against the initial reaction of the common fan. Also, everyone complaining abut the COLA. I have heard numerous times on numerous occasions that it is written into every players contract which are signed off by the AFL. They simply do not save it up and splurge on stars. So, COLA or not Sydney would of been able to fit Franklin into the salary cap and the fact Franklin wanted to go to Sydney would of offset the maybe hundred thousand a year he would lose on a 10mil contract. Well played Sydney, well played.
TomC
Roar Guru
I think there's a big misconception that Sydney's recruiting strategy is more cost-effective than other clubs. In fact it's likely to be more expensive. Mature recruits like Kennedy, Shaw, McGlynn and Mumford typically cost a lot more than draftees. And it almost never seems to get brought up, but for every successfully recycled player there's a failure: look at Everitt, Morton, Armstrong and Sydney's great forgotten blunder, Daniel Bradshaw. The extra salary cap space means Sydney can take on the risk of recycled players better than other clubs can. They've implemented their list management strategy very well, but it's a strategy that isn't available to everyone else.