Have the Sydney Swans become too greedy?

Agree he was better last year. I feared for Mumford last year simply because Pyke was outperforming him. Mumford also wanted to go home to Vict but obviously couldn't get a deal and decided to go to the Giants.

Geelong's success has come because they were able to take full advantage of draft rules by signing a few quality father son players to their list. They have also benefitted from the veterans list where they had some 9 players taking advantage of it last year. I wouldn't throw Hawthorn into the "greatest teams of the past decade" category, but they too have benefitted from draft rules allowed to them as reward for being a pathetically bad team, which gifted them such players as Roughead, Buddy & Lewis, key ingredients to their "greatness" if you wish. Once again some teams' supporters getting a little ahead of themselves by forgetting how & from where their "greatness" was born & that is basically from having been crap not all that long ago. Short memories!

A well researched piece, highlighted with the elevation of one "Brett Bird" to our famous leadership group. Greedy? Greedy is Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon, Richmond, North in the 90's etc etc. Tell me if this is greedy. When a once struggling club like Sydney lost some 30 odd games on end and for finishing bottom, were given a 'chance for some equality', when given top draft picks. Remember we were the laughing stock of the competition. Here are just some of the players we chose with those picks. Anthony Rocca. To Collingwood after one year. Shannon Grant. To the then brilliant North team after two years. Darren Gaspar. To Richmond after one year. Ben Doolan. To Essendon after two years. All went to strong Victorian clubs. Was that "greedy"? Well finishing bottom & getting top draft picks worked out well for us didn't it? So why don't we get "greedy" & get ourselves some established stars of the competition & balance that off by recruiting some footballers that just aren't getting a chance at another club, who in turn won't put a strain on our salary cap? Great idea..First Plugger, then Hall & now Tippett & Buddy. This is nothing new to our recruiting policy ever since we decided that finishing bottom & gaining early top draft picks wasn't going to work for our club because these young guns would just get taken by the big Vic clubs after we put the hard wotk into them. Oh by the way. All the nonsense talk of disgruntled players at our club has been contradicted by the re-signing of talented youngsters, Gary Rohan, Luke Parker & Nick Smith. Add to that the re-signing of Ben McGlynn and you can see how these type of articles are just written with nothing of substance to back them up. Plenty if's & maybe's. Give Buddy & his team mates a chance to gel & don't try associating the word "greedy" with the Swans when you have a club like Collingwood calling the shots on anything AFL that doesn't go their way! Equalisation! Indeed!

I've watched every game Lance Franklin's played since 2008 and I would've happily told you last year he was 'past his best years' as Matthew Lloyd put it. Do yourself a favor and use a little deductive reasoning here - do you honestly think Al Clarkson would've demoted Franklin to the #2 Forward slot in Hawthorn's pecking order behind Jarryd Roughead if he was still capable of delivering his 2008 form? Franklin's form has been declining each and every year since 2008. That he is still a such a great forward is a measure of how good he once was, but make no mistake his best years were already in his rear view mirror long before 2013, let alone 2014. Thankfully you now have 9 long years to arrive at this realization for yourself.

Two of the greatest teams of the past decade -Geelong & Hawthorn- have both been able to perpetuate their success thanks to star players being willing to take pay cuts or at least sign for significantly less than they'd earn elsewhere, due to a strong desire to keep their teams intact and chase further premiership glory. This has rarely happened at Sydney, a club which has relied extensively on offering fringe players more than their existing clubs were able to afford - thanks in large part to the now defunct COLA. What the Franklin deal has done beyond any doubt is killed any remaining hope Swans management might've had of convincing their younger players to re-sign for under market value in the coming years when Franklin & Tippett's enormous contracts start putting a stranglehold on the team's depth and ability to trade for mature talent. Worse still for the Swans is the knowledge that these two players consuming 20% of their salary cap both have chronic knee issues. As the saying goes, buyer beware.

Quite a few odd comments doing the rounds here. Mumford left for the cash ($650K at the Giants), Everitt wanted to go home to Melbourne, Jessie White felt he wasn't getting much of an opportunity, Armstrong was a fringe player at the Swans. I agree that a club shouldn't revolve around one player but Franklin approached the Swans (as did Kurt Tippett). What does a club do when top-line players approach them? They work out a way of getting them to the club. The Swans are a professional outfit and would have worked out the pros and cons of signing up Franklin. If they didn't do their due diligence, then they will deserve every problem that comes their way. It's also quite astonishing that after one game, Franklin has been described as 'past his best years' by Matthew Lloyd, and people been questioning whether the deal is 'worth it'. Time will tell, but probably best to come back to this issue in a few year's time to see whether it's worth it or not. The main problem for the Swans in their loss to the Giants was psychological – they were quite slick in the first quarter but, after that, fell into a hole. Perhaps they were expecting to win easily, and looked like they would in that first quarter. Physiologically, lactose levels after a lengthy break increase at a greater level for older players (lactose slows the body down slightly), and having two 20-minute breaks would have hampered the Swans more (having an team with is an average of 3 years older than the Giants). Having two lengthy breaks is a rare event in AFL but, if it ever happens again, the younger team will win. People have also based their expectations of the Giants on 2012 and 2013. The Giants are a far stronger proposition in 2014, and the win, in hindsight, probably shouldn't have been seen as such a huge shock. Yes, it was an upset, but not as great as has been reported. The Swans will be back for the Collingwood match – if they lose that match, or perform poorly, perhaps a few more questions can be asked then.

Umm...durability means you last longer, I.e. you have greater stamina, but recovery does take longer that's true (as in the younger you are the faster your recovery).

A lot of this is in the talent the clubs attract off field. They're the ones that sway a club's fortunes to a significant extent. Look at St Kilda and Melbourne - interesting decisions by the boards in recent years. The money is already significant enough to attract young kids, depending on how it's spread out. Capping footy club spending is an interesting proposition. The rich clubs will resist it the poor clubs will welcome it.

Currently the AFL gives millions to each club yearly so I would assume the AFL will give more to the clubs to fund the raise after all they will have a lot of money once the expansion clubs are reasonably self funded and not having to inject vast sums like revamping stadiums, setup etc. Also another equalization measure being talked about is a cap on football department spend so either no one or everyone goes on high altitude training, same amount of coaching staff etc. The AFL gets more than $200 million each year in media rights alone and presumably that figure will go up in a couple of years so an extra $36 million a year to the 18 clubs is affordable.

People are not criticizing Sydney because they went out and got 2 new forwards. People are criticizing Sydney because of their stupid recruiting of Franklin. Which comes with the cost of Mumford, Everitt, White and Armstrong. It will also result in them not being able to fit new and upcoming stars, that play for them now, inside their salary cap. Especially cos they also have to pay a ridiculous sum for the unproven Tippet.

And yet there are teams struggling to pay the current cap to its full, best not rush off and raise caps before considering the impact across the board.

Let me start by saying the nine year deal was ridiculous on behalf of the Swans list management. It would be a miracle if Buddy was even playing at 35, let alone being a million-dollar superstar at 35. But I do think that the recruitment of Tippett and Franklin is to phase in a new era for the Swans. Think about the current Swans list: some of it's best players are 30 or over, including Malceski, Goodes, O'Keefe, Shaw, Roberts-Thompson, Pyke and Richards. Many of them will be retiring over the next few years, and some of them, like Goodes and Roberts-Thompson have been viable forward options for Sydney and their loss will be felt greatly (think back to last year when the Swans could have benefitted from two extra goal-kickers). So for a theory, I believe Longmire simply saw that we needed some tall, forward power on the right side of 30. Bringing in two fit forwards in their prime (most believe Franklins past his prime, though around 27 is when most players hit their peak so who knows) may be just what the Swans need. Think about it. Over the last few years, they've had arguably the best defense in the AFL, and arguably the best midfield in the AFL. Their forward line, however, has always been a questionable prospect. They've too often relied on their small forwards and even midfielders and back men to score goals for them. People have constantly said Sydney's forward line is weak, now that they get two good forwards everyone is saying it won't work? They aren't being greedy, they simply saw two players that they needed, had the opportunity to recruit them, and did the job. If it was two forwards with less of a profile than Tippett and Franklin, no one would have a problem with Sydney having two forwards. I just have to laugh at how everyone admires Sydney when they are under dogs lacking the star power of other clubs, yet when they try to rise above that and do whats best for their team and make it as strong as possible, everybody criticizes them. Now, as for season 2014. I don't think Franklin and Tippetts arrival will disrupt their famous culture, but I think it will disrupt their style of play. For too long now they haven't really had that strong forward presence. It will take a while for the Sydney team to gel now that they have two giant targets in the forward that they never really had before. I think you could almost scratch out 2014 for them, since Tippetts injury means it will take even longer for the forwards and midfields to gel, and Sydney need this year to allow Goodes and Roberts-Thompson and those older players a chance to retire and finally close the door on that chapter of Sydney so that they can move on with a fresh-looking list and a new game plan. I don't think Buddy will ever be near his best whilst he's at Sydney since he's only going to get older, but I think his presence will be enough. Someone you can rely on to kick a few extra goals each game is an understated privilege. All Longmire has to do is structure his team into a disciplined unit that understands it's style of play, and how to best utilize those two powerful forwards and it's amazing mid field. I think 2015 will be a huge year for Sydney once they've all had time to play together and understand what they doing on the field, but until then, people need to realize this is a different side to the one that won the 2012 premiership, and people need to realize premiership-winning sides don't just come together over night. It takes experience, but once Sydney get that, look out!

Yes I read that was being talked about but a raise in the salary cap is a better idea because the AFL can afford it and if they raise the player wages across the board then young talented kids are more likely to want to play AFL for the money.

I think the veterans list discount is getting scrapped under the equalisation changes that scrapped COLA. Could be wrong. But part of the equalisation recco's was that salary cap should increase. So Buddy & Tippett's salaries, while big, won't consume as much of the % of cap as they do now. I think million dollar contracts will be far more common in a few years. That's why Buddy's back ended - to take advantage of future increases.

He is a QLDER !.

Ah yes, when he goes 'home' to Victoria

Hawks ain't the only one with culture equal to or better.

And take into account in 2017 he will be on the veterans list (if it's still around) then he will start getting paid the bigger money (he's on $700000 this year) so they will only have to claim half his wage under the cap, I'm guessing $1.5 million per year becomes $750000.

the older you are the more often you need rest and longer recovery periods.

The notion in some of these comments that the implications of Franklins contract will be the demise of the Swans has been blown way out of proportion. The Swans has been recuriting and managing there list well for years and I believe they know what they are doing. Firstly, I recently read that last year 36 players were getting payed between 600,000 and 1 million. Its not like the swans are the only team paying a player a high salary. They have chosen a very high profile player and public arena to display this knowledge. When you consider players such as Crameri are getting 450,000 a year and Clark about 700,000; a million for buddy doesnt sound to bad. Plus factoring in the inflation in the salary cap which will naturally occur over the next 9 years just as it has the previous 9 and the 9 before that, Salaries will increase, and Franklins will become more realistic. Somehow, I reckon over time the Swans will get a solid return for their investment. If they continue to recycle players well, have a strong culture and make there home ground a fortress, I cant see why a succesful period with a few flags doesnt lie ahead; and what exactly is the price of a few flags in a decade? And what risk is worth taking to try and achieve it?