daysofourlives wrote:Yes he wouldve and Sydney may not have to pay him but the AFL made it very clear his portion of the salary cap would be counted for the entire 9 years of the contract regardless of how many years he played. I will be spewing if the AFL back down on that and make any concessions to Sydney.
People who write media releases delight in saying things that are literally true, but misleading. To wit, the actual wording of the AFL's media release regarding its decision to approve the Franklin contract in 2013: the Swans must promise that its "long-term specific financial commitment over the nine-year agreement will apply to the Sydney Swans FC’s Total Player Payments (TPP) for each of the nine years".
But what is the "specific financial commitment" in the agreement, in the event of Franklin retiring? That's the $10m question. I simply don't believe that a club as professionally-run as the Swans failed to consider and allow for a circumstance where he couldn't play all 9 years, bearing in mind that the contract runs to an age when 98% of players are well and truly retired. Nor, on the other side of the coin, would Franklin's reps have accepted not receiving a cent towards the back end of the deal if he were forced into retirement for injury (or, as it might turn out, illness) reasons.
Remember that these contracts are not made public. And remember that what is 'leaked' and publicised is always the most exciting, largest, headline figure. Don't be surprised at all if Franklin is forced into retirement in 2016, 2018 or 2020 that the Swans:
a) have to keep paying him money in retirement until the 9 years is up, and
b) the amount that they have to keep paying him is still counted in the cap,
but that amount is a lot, lot less than $1.2m a year.