Front ended contracts

Frank Gallagher

Diamond Encrusted Unobtainium Premium Member
Aug 26, 2016
12,136
15,079
AFL Club
Collingwood
Bryce Gibbs last contract at Carlton was around 5 years, was heavily front ended according to what i read, he serves 3 years on inflated coin then wants out when the squeeze hits, apparently Dayne Beams contract with the Lions was front ended as well, now there's strong rumours he wants out.

I'm sure there are other examples as well, my question is, should this be allowed? Doesn't sit well with me anyway.

Beams (as an example, and i'm not saying he's leaving) could earn over 200kpa more if he leaves Brisbane after receiving the vast majority of his contract already.

Should it be buyer beware, or do the clubs deserve a safety net?
 
Last edited:

Luv_our_club

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 14, 2017
6,883
12,955
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I think there are some players who have had very suspicious form spikes around the time that their contracts are being negotiated. So disappointing for the supporters when that form is not sustained.

But on the subject of the OP, didn't this happen with Ablett last year?
 
But should the player requesting a trade after reaping the majority of his contract repay the money?
No.

A player in contract can't leave if the club refuses to sell. If they agree to sell then why should they get money back.
If the deal is up then he's fulfilled what he set out to.
I also forgot about GAJ, he did exactly the same.
Not touching that as it'll derail the thread.

How about Frawley. Was front ended which suited the club at the time then was able to leave as a UFA instead of RFA as a result.
It goes both ways. It can help and hinder clubs.

Clubs should not have their list management autonomy hindered.
 

Luv_our_club

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 14, 2017
6,883
12,955
AFL Club
Hawthorn
No.

A player in contract can't leave if the club refuses to sell. If they agree to sell then why should they get money back.
If the deal is up then he's fulfilled what he set out to.

Not touching that as it'll derail the thread.

How about Frawley. Was front ended which suited the club at the time then was able to leave as a UFA instead of RFA as a result.
It goes both ways. It can help and hinder clubs.

Clubs should not have their list management autonomy hindered.


But Frawley was out of contract. That's different from a player seeking to exit an existing front loaded contract.


Also, Cat B International Rookies don't fall within the salary cap. Thus a player like Cox could theoretically be paid 1 million dollars this year outside the cap and then have a relatively decreased salary once moved onto a standard contract.
 
Last edited:
But Frawley was out of contract. That's different from a player seeking to exit an existing front loaded contract.
I don't care if it's different.

Front ended contracts can work for and against the clubs. That time it worked against a club.
If a player is in a contract and the club lets them leave then why feel sorry for them? Why demand the player pays back some of the money? Why is it a problem?

A contract gives security to club and player. Requires both sides to break a contract.
 

Luv_our_club

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 14, 2017
6,883
12,955
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I don't care if it's different.

Front ended contracts can work for and against the clubs. That time it worked against a club.
If a player is in a contract and the club lets them leave then why feel sorry for them? Why demand the player pays back some of the money? Why is it a problem?

A contract gives security to club and player. Requires both sides to break a contract.

It is a problem when the player has a huge hold over their club, because the club is desperate for success, or has a terrible list, or because the player is a freak or franchise player, or if the player has been paid a lot of money for their potential and not their output.

If you get paid up front, then i think you need to pay it back if you then leave. Why would that not be fair? It normally only impacts players with a strong bargaining position who obtain long contracts.... not your average player.

It is okay if you don't care... but not caring is not an answer to supporters or clubs who might care.

I don't see why it is not a problem... is this about GAJ?
 
Last edited:

Frank Gallagher

Diamond Encrusted Unobtainium Premium Member
Aug 26, 2016
12,136
15,079
AFL Club
Collingwood
No.

A player in contract can't leave if the club refuses to sell. If they agree to sell then why should they get money back.
If the deal is up then he's fulfilled what he set out to.

Not touching that as it'll derail the thread.

How about Frawley. Was front ended which suited the club at the time then was able to leave as a UFA instead of RFA as a result.
It goes both ways. It can help and hinder clubs.

Clubs should not have their list management autonomy hindered.
As far as i know a contracted player can't just "leave" mate, if he does he forfeits his contract and is ineligible for the draft.
 
As far as i know a contracted player can't just "leave" mate, if he does he forfeits his contract and is ineligible for the draft.
I literally said that o_O
So if both club and player agree to part ways with years left to run why should a) money be paid back b) this practice be wrong or forbidden or c) the player committing a heinous act?

It requires player and club to break a contract and let someone leave, not just the one party. if the club chooses to do so then why any sympathy for having paid more up front? They would have agreed to the contract and agreed to let someone leave in contract. If that is important to them then they can force a player to see out the remaining years on lower coin.

I'm all for maintaining a club's right to construct, change and build a list however they choose to.
I don't agree with the stance this thread is making.
 

Frank Gallagher

Diamond Encrusted Unobtainium Premium Member
Aug 26, 2016
12,136
15,079
AFL Club
Collingwood
IMO, players who forfeit a front ended contract should only earn what they were supposed to be on until that contract expires.

So, lets say player A scooped up the majority of his contract in the first 3 years and was only owed 350k for his next 2 years that should be the cap, none of this "Daddy is sick i need to go home and BTW, just add another million dollars to my coffers", it's bullshit.
 

Frank Gallagher

Diamond Encrusted Unobtainium Premium Member
Aug 26, 2016
12,136
15,079
AFL Club
Collingwood
I literally said that o_O
So if both club and player agree to part ways with years left to run why should a) money be paid back b) this practice be wrong or forbidden or c) the player committing a heinous act?

It requires player and club to break a contract and let someone leave, not just the one party. if the club chooses to do so then why any sympathy for having paid more up front? They would have agreed to the contract and agreed to let someone leave in contract. If that is important to them then they can force a player to see out the remaining years on lower coin.

I'm all for maintaining a club's right to construct, change and build a list however they choose to.
I don't agree with the stance this thread is making.
You did but you're being naive man, players are coming up with all sorts of reasons to break front ended contracts.

Player A is earning 700kpa, life is good, then he's only earning 400k, Mrs player A decides life aint that good here anymore, i want to go home, knowing full well those 700kpa days will come back, open your eyes bro.

It's funny how players don't request trades when their on top dollar.
 
Jul 19, 2008
16,844
18,416
Perth
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Atlanta Falcons/Winnipeg Jets
IMO, players who forfeit a front ended contract should only earn what they were supposed to be on until that contract expires.

So, lets say player A scooped up the majority of his contract in the first 3 years and was only owed 350k for his next 2 years that should be the cap, none of this "Daddy is sick i need to go home and BTW, just add another million dollars to my coffers", it's bullshit.
Pretty much this, if you are contracted and a club tries to lure you away, that club should have no business paying him more than what his contract was.

By all means pay him well for the extension part of it.

The entire point of front loading contracts (from the clubs perspective) is that they have ample cap space for a good player, they are relying on his smaller contract eventuality to better manage their cap down the track.
 
You did but you're being naive man, players are coming up with all sorts of reasons to break front ended contracts.

Player A is earning 700kpa, life is good, then he's only earning 400k, Mrs player A decides life aint that good here anymore, i want to go home, knowing full well those 700kpa days will come back, open your eyes bro.

It's funny how players don't request trades when their on top dollar.
Were never going to agree on this so please don’t condescend me.

Two consenting parties can and should be allowed to do whatever they see fit within the present constraints of the salary cap (cap floor and cap maximum).
 

Kappa

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 7, 2014
27,769
37,134
AFL Club
Collingwood
Bryce Gibbs last contract at Carlton was around 5 years, was heavily front ended according to what i read, he serves 3 years on inflated coin then wants out when the squeeze hits, apparently Dayne Beams contract with the Lions was front ended as well, now there's strong rumours he wants out.

I'm sure there are other examples as well, my question is, should this be allowed? Doesn't sit well with me anyway.

Beams (as an example, and i'm saying he's leaving) could earn over 200kpa more if he leaves Brisbane after receiving the vast majority of his contract already.

Should it be buyer beware, or do the clubs deserve a safety net?

Do you think there's no clauses in these contracts that cover if one party wants to terminate it early?
 

Frank Gallagher

Diamond Encrusted Unobtainium Premium Member
Aug 26, 2016
12,136
15,079
AFL Club
Collingwood
Were never going to agree on this so please don’t condescend me.

Two consenting parties can and should be allowed to do whatever they see fit within the present constraints of the salary cap (cap floor and cap maximum).
Wasn't trying to be condescending, but mate, a club doesn't have a choice when a player decides to leave, when a gun player wants out it's never amicable, the club just does what it can to get the best outcome.
 
Wasn't trying to be condescending, but mate, a club doesn't have a choice when a player decides to leave, when a gun player wants out it's never amicable, the club just does what it can to get the best outcome.
That’s a choice. They are choosing to break the contract and let them leave.

I won’t agree with something that lessens their autonomy. They can do what they like, and if a player wanting out once the expensive years are over bothers them they can force him to stay.
 
Back