Bluemour Discussion Thread XVIII - Please Sir, Can We Have More?

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can someone with more brains than me, explain why the Swans have to pay Tippet anything? He retired. I get there may have been an agreement, to stop him taking a list spot for the remainder of his deal but surely it wouldn't be a great deal.

Because the afl got pissed with Sydney for stealing buddy from GWS when they already had Tippet so made the swans accountable with the tippet and buddy contracts.
 
Because the afl got pi**ed with Sydney for stealing buddy from GWS when they already had Tippet so made the swans accountable with the tippet and buddy contracts.

Sorry, thats not true.

Well the AFL being pissed at Sydney regarding Buddy yes, Tippet wasn't a free agent, the AFL didn't say or do squat in regards to a regular contract to a player taken in the draft
 

Log in to remove this ad.

3 top 30s just sounds like the biggest load of BS.

So picks 26, 28 and 30 is ok?

Im not buying it.

I’m pretty sure it was in reference to their draft strategy for this year, that they want to take/have 3 within top 30 picks. Kelly would assist in that with his transfer & GFC don’t want players.
 
Sorry, thats not true.

Well the AFL being pi**ed at Sydney regarding Buddy yes, Tippet wasn't a free agent, the AFL didn't say or do squat in regards to a regular contract to a player taken in the draft

Na it’s true. Tippet was still with Sydney when they got Buddy and they made sure the Swans added Tippets wage after he retired or was delisted so they were seen to be “punishing them”
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

They hide players, home ground advantage, players wanting to get back to surfing... never out of contention. Shits me
 
I still don’t understand why it should have been under the salary cap if the guys ankle was rooted & a legit retirement.

It should be off the books (but perhaps other means at play with regards to any liability).

?

Part of the risk with giving players long-term contracts is the potential of injury.

You're suggesting that risk should be taken away? Then you'd be saying crazy length deals become more and more common.
 
?

Part of the risk with giving players long-term contracts is the potential of injury.

You're suggesting that risk should be taken away? Then you'd be saying crazy length deals become more and more common.

If medically unsound, then they’re off as a legitimate retirement.

Not sure any club would want a recently signed player on the sidelines, nor a player wishing to curtail their career by pulling stumps so early (they should forfeit payment, which should be covered by insurance coverage).
 
I still don’t understand why it should have been under the salary cap if the guys ankle was rooted & a legit retirement.

It should be off the books (but perhaps other means at play with regards to any liability).

He was probably owed a few million over the next 3 years, backended and their cap was tight. He could have just hung on and kept rehabbing to get the dollars. Work out a figure and free up the list spot.
 
After the rumour about Papley coming if the swans get Daniher, what do we think their worth is comparative to each other? Are they the same? Would essendon want more?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top