Time for the AFL to set a max contract length (amongst other things)

[The Swert]

A long contract worked out for Alistair Lynch and the Brisbane Lions.

Everybody thought that was a big risk, that it wouldn't pay off, that is would ruin the Lions. 3 Premierships later and they all shut up.

 

[Senor Ed]

And this is the problem. We all know the AFL will & do bail clubs out when their bad decisions lead them into financial trouble. The well run clubs always have to pick up the slack.

I don't object to whatever contract a club wants to give a player but they should have to deal with consequences.

But clubs have to pay the 95% of the salary cap, whether you are on top or the bottom.

It's not like we are going around hitting up the AFL / supporters / rattling tin to pay that; we are legally obliged to pay it. How we decide to allocate that mandatory amount is up to us.

Fair enough if we locked in a coach for $1mil a year for 10 years. That is not a mandatory cost and if we were to financially crumble well fair enough we should be lambasted.

 

[Mark_K]

Agreed. Bring in a max term, be it 5 or 6 years, whatever it is. Anything longer is dumb.

You also can't have someone going into his 3rd year being one of the highest paid players in the league.

Based on years of experience, it should determine how much you can earn as a % of the entire cap.

Also need to fix up something about helping the clubs that draft players to entice them to stay.

Incumbent can offer 5 years, other teams can only offer a max of 4. That would be similar to the NBA, which i think is a good idea.

 

[JackFlash]

Given Kreuzer is about to enter his 8th year in the AFL, he would have fulfilled his contract.

I don't understand the point you're making. Are you suggesting he might not live up to the hype? He mightn't but as Kreuzer shows, that doesn't he won't be handy and fulfil his contract.

I'm making the point that Kreuzer was going to be the ants pants and teams actually tanked to get him, but he has never become an elite player. A 7 year deal on that money for a bloke that's played 9 games! Jesus, they are paying him Buddy rates and he might be a dud? I like the Dogs, but someone has gone nuts and it all smacks of desperation in order to land what they think is a big fish. I understand the need to land a big name, but Boyd is basically untested and considering the dilemma the Dogs are in currently it's one helluva risk.The Lonergan offer was crazy also and then they lose their coach, so where is the stability? 3 years would've been more than a good offer for Boyd and then at age 22-23 after 70 odd games you hand him the big multi million dollar deal if he's been worth it. This is a very risky move for a club that cannot afford any risks at all! Boyd had better win a few B&F's and Brownlow for this to be a viable deal. Pickering is nailing clubs to the wall here. I fear for the future of the Dogs if this all turns sour.

 

[JackFlash]

Happy to take the chance and if Boyd falls over after a couple of years and can't go on, bad luck to us. But it's a risk and it's a contract that does not stretch beyond the normal lifespan of a full playing career, in fact quite far off it.

Without a long contract like we've given him there is simply no way that a player of his potential would come to a club like the Dogs, Saints, Demons etc. High risk=high reward (hopefully).

As long as you are aware of the repercussions of failure, IMO this is the riskiest deal i have seen in football.

 

[ziad]

why?
why not let clubs contract players - they have to manger their cap?

It is not as if contracted players can not change clubs these days.

 

[Sentinel]

As long as you are aware of the repercussions of failure, IMO this is the riskiest deal i have seen in football.

Perhaps so. But we haven't won a flag in 60 years and that's unlikely to change by just sitting on our hands allowing bigger clubs to raid us without doing much in return. It could make or break the club but at the end of the day I don't think you'll find many Dogs supporters unhappy that we played a hand.

 

[flamethrower]

Like the Franklin contract - it's a huge risk that probably won't pay off. It's their problem.

Don't need rules to stop clubs making like decisions

UNLESS

the afl is going to bail them out somehow in which case every other teams pays for that risk.

It's already paying off. The publicity alone for a club labelled "irrelevant" by The Age, coupled with the spike in membership enquires will more than offset Boyd's salary.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

It's already paying off. The publicity alone for a club labelled "irrelevant" by The Age, coupled with the spike in membership enquires will more than offset Boyd's salary.

Publicity is a entry point. If you get it, then don't deliver on the promise it makes you even more irrelevant than before.

 

[The 747]

As long as you are aware of the repercussions of failure, IMO this is the riskiest deal i have seen in football.

The risk is they pay 1 million or whatever of their cap for no decent on field output. Most clubs already pay that to a combination of players for no decent on field output. It does limit what they can do in the future, but it is miles from the riskiest deal in football.

 

[KnaveyBlue]

Boyd 7 years? What's wrong with that?

Because his leg could fall off tomorrow and the Dogs' list management will be screwed for half a decade.

 

[Damon_3388]

I think we need some changes to simplify and clean up the system:

- Two full weeks of no footy action post-Grand Final (eg. 28/09/2014 - 11/10/2014)
- Clubs to officially announce and lodge delistments and retirements in the week that follows, as well as nominate academy picks and father/son selections (eg. 12/10/2014 - 18/10/2014)
- Abolish the Pre-Season Draft. It's wank, and next to useless now that players have free agency.
- Abolish the Rookie Draft. Just make the National Draft six picks for each club, with all six picks needing to be used.
- Four week Draft/Trade/Free Agency Period (eg. 19/10/2014 - 15/11/2014), with the National Draft placed in the middle (eg. 03/11/2014). Draft picks tradeable prior to the draft, drafted player's rights tradeable after the draft, until end of Period.
- 44 senior list places for each club, with each list space needing to be filled (792 AFL list spaces available each season), with minimum TPP for clubs being 85% of salary cap. No rookie lists, veterans lists, or any other variants or special list spaces.
- National Draft only open to players who have not been on an AFL list before. If you've been de-listed previously, you're an "unrestricted free agent", meaning any club can sign you for whatever contract they see fit (within contract and salary cap rules).
- Maximum contract lengths (5 years IMO) and amounts (10% of salary cap seems like a good amount IMO).
- Players selected in National Draft have guaranteed two year contract, at league minimum wage (1% of salary cap).
- Players coming off their first contract to be "restricted free agents", in that any club can make an offer for them if they are out of contract, with their original club having the right to match. Clubs making offers to restricted free agents can only offer 125% of the players current salary. This would encourage players to re-sign early with their original club, so as to receive a bigger pay rise on their second contract.
- All other players to be "unrestricted free agents" if they are out of contract.
- Players tradeable in contract to original club's destination of choice (would provide some disincentive for players demanding trade while contracted).
- A single, hard salary cap for all clubs.
- Final list changes (players who were not able to be traded can be delisted, but will not be eligible to be picked up again until next year) and contract signing week, after Draft/Trade/Free Agency Period (eg. 16/11/2014 - 22/11/2014). New draftees, tradees and signings move to their final destination and officially put pen to paper.
- Final list lodgement for the upcoming season at the end of this (eg. 5pm, 22/11/2014).
- Full public disclosure of club salary cap numbers, and player contract lengths and amounts for the upcoming season available for all to see on the AFL website post-list lodgement (eg. 9am, 24/11/2014). The fact that we're all pretty much oblivious to the terms of player contracts, particular the terms under which first year players are under and the length of time they're "tied" to their first club, creates too much hearsay and uncertainty in the whole free agency process. More transparency in terms of what could happen, what can be offered, etc. would make everyone far more comfortable with the free agency and trade process IMO.

Initially would look like a lot of different rules and regulations, but after the initial adjustment in the first year, it'd be pretty clear how it works:

- Off-season, post-GF - Two weeks
- List changes and first list lodgement - One week
- Draft/Trade/Free Agency Period - Four weeks
- Official signing and final list changes - One week
- Final list lodgement

That way, all clubs are all over and done with all changes a week before summer, and get the full summer period (plus a bit more, depending on when pre-season games start, probably around 15-16 weeks in total) to train and prepare for the next year with their full, final list.

 

[clogged]

Seven years is not all that unreasonable.

 

[KnaveyBlue]

Seven years is not all that unreasonable.

We signed Kouta for $4m over 5 years and it screwed us pretty hard once he did his knee.

 

[Suma Magic]

I will always oppose regulation that is not based on evidence-based policy.

Just let the clubs do what they want FFS.

 

[SM]

If a club wants to shoot themselves in the foot, why stop them?

 

[SizeMatters]

How about players actually fulfilling their contracts instead of running off for more cash? Don't care about contract length really only stupid clubs put in 7 year deals...

 

[iameviljez]

And the ability to trade contracted players without their consent is an absolute must.

I don't think that this would be even close to legal, and thankfully not. Could you imagine if you were just told that you had to fit into a brand new club, whether you liked it or not? Or, more to the point, told that bad luck, you're moving interstate, I don't care whether you've got family/partner/mates/house/uni/a business here?

 

[iameviljez]

Perhaps so. But we haven't won a flag in 60 years and that's unlikely to change by just sitting on our hands allowing bigger clubs to raid us without doing much in return. It could make or break the club but at the end of the day I don't think you'll find many Dogs supporters unhappy that we played a hand.

Yeh, this. Winning a premiership is bloody hard and you need to take some risks. You've got a great young midfield group and they were going to go to waste unless you could manufacture a good key forward somewhere.

Also, having lost Ward and with Griffen as good as gone, the Dogs absolutely needed to make a stand on being seen as easy pickings. Well done on not being bullied into losing players.

 

[Underdog]

Because his leg could fall off tomorrow and the Dogs' list management will be screwed for half a decade.

You don't think they'd have contractual contingencies in place should that occur?

 

[El_Scorcho]

The AFL really needed to bring in an evener upper for free agency when it came in.

The obvious one is to allow clubs to trade contracted players without consent to whoever they like. That's how it works in the US.

But doing it now means that the AFLPA are going to rally hard against any change that gives them a worse deal than they had in 2014. Any balancing had to be done when free agency came in.

 

[Spook]

Franklin 10 years from the age of 26. Boyd 7 years. It's time for the AFL to step in and put a stop to these ridiculous contracts. The NBA max of 5 years seems appropriate.

The problem with the system right now is that the AFL have brought over the American model of free agency (more or less) but haven't changed their trading or contract model, so they're effectively trying to meld two separate systems together when they simply don't work. The free-for-all trading model currently utilised by the AFL whereby players are free to nominate a club and accept ludicrously large contracts, yet their own club can't trade them to another club without their permission, just doesn't work, particularly with the free agency system now in place.

It's time for the AFL to step in and actually define a proper system, rather than a cluster of random systems forced together like they currently have.

It can only hurt the clubs so they will,figure it out for them selves.mHawthorn learnt the hard way 10 or so years ago and up until Frawley have not offered any contracts more than 3 years. We have had given 3 year extensions when at the end of their second of 3 years but that's it. You could say that Hawthorn are up there with the best regarding lis management so in time the clubs will figure it out for them selves.
PS losing Franklin did take the pressure off but we did not sacrifice the team for 1 player. You could argue that Sydney with. Franklin and Tippett have an un balanced forward line now.

 

[Underdog]

The obvious one is to allow clubs to trade contracted players without consent to whoever they like. That's how it works in the US.

That doesn't mean it's the right way. I'd hate for that to come in.

Additionally, it's a totally different structure and culture in the US.

 

[quotemokc]

They should implement a dead money system

 

[iameviljez]

Perhaps so. But we haven't won a flag in 60 years and that's unlikely to change by just sitting on our hands allowing bigger clubs to raid us without doing much in return. It could make or break the club but at the end of the day I don't think you'll find many Dogs supporters unhappy that we played a hand.

Yeh, this. Winning a premiership is bloody hard and you need to take some risks. You've got a great young midfield group and they were going to go to waste unless you could manufacture a good key forward somewhere.

Also, having lost Ward and with Griffen as good as gone, the Dogs absolutely needed to make a stand on being seen as easy pickings. Well done on not being bullied into losing players.