Australia, insurance, car, home, live, holidays

Virtually untradeable:Lance Franklin.Credit:AAP

No club that Franklin would consider,would entertain those numbers - a tick under $4 million over three seasons - despite his lofty stature in the game. No club in finals contention has that kind of room in their salary cap,and in the unlikely event that a lowly team was seduced by the prospect of landing Buddy,I can't see Franklin crossing to a team with little immediate prospects of success.

Buddy will almost certainly be the highest paid player in the competition over 2020 and 2021,and his output is - quite reasonably and predictably - on the downswing. He has already defied the life cycle of normal footballers to be among the top handful of players in the game last year and remains Sydney's most dangerous player.

Yes,the Swans could theoretically pay a share of the contract,saving themselves several hundred grand or even a million per season. But why would they do that? They've committed to Buddy and he to them and there's never been the slightest hint that either party was unhappy with the arrangement.

Sydney isn't the kind of club that would fork out,say,a million dollars over three years to pay for Franklin to play for a competitor,because that's the kind of number that would be necessary for him to end up at a decent club. And I can’t see Franklin agreeing to a gigantic pay cut,either.

When Franklin left the Hawks on that nine year deal worth slightly over $10 million,the AFL warned the Swans of the risks and made plain that,as a restricted free agent,his contract would stay in their salary cap,as specified,even if he couldn't go the distance.

While the AFL was angry about Sydney's bold and secretive raid on Franklin (they'd wanted him at the Giants),there was still a clear rationale for their ruling that the deal must remain in the salary cap:if clubs were not compelled to honour official offers to high priced free agents and were allowed to tear up those contracts,teams could manipulate and rort the matching system.

Geelong,for example,could have offered Patrick Dangerfield $10 million over five years and then soon changed it to $5 million over six years,stopping Adelaide from the opportunity to match,as per the rules.

The Franklin contract made no sense for Hawthorn,who were in the throes of winning premierships and could not afford to pay one player for that long,on those rates. Hawthorn's offer to Franklin was $5 million over five years (and would have ended last year). The Hawks acknowledged they would have lost players and their recruiting hands would have been tied. They didn't contemplate matching the deal for a second.

The Hawks were never going to match the offer for Buddy.Credit:Joe Armao

But the Buddy deal was more feasible for a team in the parlous Sydney market,where Franklin is easily the most marketable player - this era's answer to Tony Lockett - and the Swans have benefited mightily in terms of membership,sponsorship,media exposure and so forth.

They gained a marquee footballer at a time when the Giants were muscling into the Sydney market - edging eastwards to Homebush - and landing Franklin strengthened their position against their local rival commercially.

On the field,the Swans made two grand finals,in 2014 and 2016,and they were unfortunate to lose the latter game to the Bulldogs on an afternoon when Buddy hurt his ankle in the opening minutes and the footy gods wore red,white and blue.

Had the AFL not slugged them with a trading ban in 2014,the Swans might indeed have franked the Franklin era with a flag between 2015-2017. They won't win one this year and next year is improbable,so the prospects are greatly diminished.

The major casualty from the Buddy deal was the long-term loss of their cost of living allowance,although it's possible the AFL would have removed COLA regardless of their fury over Franklin.

Leigh Matthews compared the thought of Franklin being traded for draft choices to the Louvre swapping the Mona Lisa for the works of unknown artists.

In this case,however,the AFL rules mean that the Louvre would struggle to find a buyer for their Mona Lisa - unless the museum was willing to subsidise the sale.

License this article