Should first round draft picks be given 4 year contracts

[RobbieGray17]

I'm looking at different ways clubs like Gold Coast can be given an opportunity to build success as two years is not enough to build the hope and culture within a group of players. As much as I'd love to take Rankine and Lukosious in two years time, it simply isn't fair to those clubs that need an opportunity to grow.

My thoughts are that first round picks, OR a set number of choices within each draft period can be selected for 4 year contracts. This would ensure that those clubs can secure and put time and resources into the players aforementioned. Additionally, given that the Free agency was included to give players the freedom to move, I think clubs should be able to keep players that are required and prevent them from going into the draft prior to free agency eligibility.

Here is the case example. If Rankine or Lukosious were to get 4 year contracts, and those two players are required by the club and were playing say 60% of games (arbitrary value), were in the top 10% of players at the club etc then the club should have the right to keep them and ensure that they are NOT eligible to enter the draft.

The whole idea of free agency is to allow player movement after a set period of time. This whole go home thing is hurting the game and we need to make some changes to the system.

Obviously, clubs would do well to move on players with toxic attitudes but in the case of players simply wanting to go home, the club should have the right to hold onto their best players.

 

[RUNVS]

I think these are the changes the AFL should make

1. Lower the minimum cap payments to 85%, allowing teams like Gold Coast and Carlton to actually create a real war chest to go after big named players.
2. Change the rules so a player can specify they want to go to a particular state but they are not allowed to specify a specific club.
3. Make it against the rules for opposition clubs to contact new draftees in the first 18 months.

 

[____]

I think these are the changes the AFL should make

1. Lower the minimum cap payments to 85%, allowing teams like Gold Coast and Carlton to actually create a real war chest to go after big named players.
2. Change the rules so a player can specify they want to go to a particular state but they are not allowed to specify a specific club.
3. Make it against the rules for opposition clubs to contact new draftees in the first 18 months.

I'd rather bin the draft altogether but if there has to be one, then 1 and 2 make perfect sense. When a player says he had to play for this club he is not legitimately "homesick"

 

[blitzer]

I think these are the changes the AFL should make

1. Lower the minimum cap payments to 85%, allowing teams like Gold Coast and Carlton to actually create a real war chest to go after big named players.
2. Change the rules so a player can specify they want to go to a particular state but they are not allowed to specify a specific club.
3. Make it against the rules for opposition clubs to contact new draftees in the first 18 months.

1) would fix every problem of clubs who have sustained runs at the bottom of the ladder and the only reason it won't happen is the AFLPA.
Its the single biggest flaw to using the salary cap as an equalisation measure right now. You only have to point out that Gold Coast/Carlton are paying 95% as much as say Richmond or West Coast etc to realise the issue (acknowledging that they can front/back end contracts to gain a bit of a warchest but its still quite limited and you definitely end up overpaying players).

 

[Furn2]

How much do u pay them in years 3 and 4.

You can't have a set wage where you're paying a Brownlow winning Judd or 100 goal Buddy the same as a Dowler or Toumpas.

 

[RobbieGray17]

How much do u pay them in years 3 and 4.

You can't have a set wage where you're paying a Brownlow winning Judd or 100 goal Buddy the same as a Dowler or Toumpas.

I did think of that, and you could pay them the comparable rate to players on the list, or from the league if known.

 

[Underarm]

1) would fix every problem of clubs who have sustained runs at the bottom of the ladder and the only reason it won't happen is the AFLPA.
Its the single biggest flaw to using the salary cap as an equalisation measure right now. You only have to point out that Gold Coast/Carlton are paying 95% as much as say Richmond or West Coast etc to realise the issue (acknowledging that they can front/back end contracts to gain a bit of a warchest but its still quite limited and you definitely end up overpaying players).

Money isn't the issue for those clubs. Players will take extreme unders multiple flags. Tom Lynch could be earning 3 times as much at the gold coast next season.

 

[quotemokc]

How much do u pay them in years 3 and 4.

You can't have a set wage where you're paying a Brownlow winning Judd or 100 goal Buddy the same as a Dowler or Toumpas.

Yes you can.

NFL players regularly play for peanuts (relatively) on their rookie contracts even when they are dominating.

 

[The_Reaper]

As an Australian I am not in favour of further reducing the rights of teenagers and giving more power to the employer.

 

[quotemokc]

As an Australian I am not in favour of further reducing the rights of teenagers and giving more power to the employer.

What does being Australian have to do with it?

A longer contract = more security.

 

[Cripptonite]

I'm not usually a fan of copying American sports, but it is my understand that they give the clubs the ability to be able to extend a draftees contract without consent from the player.

Therefore I think that all draftees should be given 2 year contracts and then the club should be given discretion to extend for another 2 years if it desires. Therefore the clubs are given leverage and flexibility. They can hold the player for 4 years or trade for "overs", and if the player is trash they can still be flicked after 2 years instead of wasting space on the list.

 

[El_Scorcho]

The player movement system in the US works because players under contract can be traded without their consent. At the moment players can nominate a club and get there whether they are contracted or not. It's a huge disadvantage to a club like Gold Coast who will continue the player retention fight with 1 hand tied behind their backs until something is done about it. It was great to see Geelong refuse Tim Kelly's trade request, especially when he refused to go to Fremantle.

It's probably too late to ever introduce no-consent trading here, because the AFLPA would want something massive in return.

Perhaps we do give draftees in the 1st and 2nd rounds 4 year contracts and use that as a bargaining chip. Maybe make it so that players can be traded against their will for their first 6 years and then after that gain right of refusal. Something needs to be done to balance things in the favour of clubs if they ever want Gold Coast to be successful, or alternatively we should just dissolve the draft and trade period and go with the NRL model of zones and junior setups.

 

[Ok Boomer]

2 years gives flexibility for both club and player. Clubs can ship off their dud picks, players can have 2 years to evaluate whether they are happy interstate. If they are good, they can test the market for a better deal. I would rather homesick players leaving their club earlier over them leaving the game for good because they are sick of living away and are stuck somewhere for 4 years.

Ultimately, smart clubs will have to evaluate what players they can draft, or they can back in their system. We have a great system with interstate draftees, Brisbane are developing a good one, Freo’s isn’t bad.

 

[blitzer]

I think the 4 year contracts is over the top and will legitimately lead to less talent in the game because some youngsters will be off put at the prospect of spending 4 years interstate. I know there's a huge 'suck it up' crowd on here but I still have sympathy for individual cases. Not everybody is equally well equipped for living interstate and I don't buy the idea that its as simple as "well they shouldn't play AFL then".

Ultimately if you truly want the best talent playing in the game, you need to maximise the appeal of playing in the AFL. Flexibility is important to many people.

 

[____]

The player movement system in the US works because players under contract can be traded without their consent. At the moment players can nominate a club and get there whether they are contracted or not. It's a huge disadvantage to a club like Gold Coast who will continue the player retention fight with 1 hand tied behind their backs until something is done about it. It was great to see Geelong refuse Tim Kelly's trade request, especially when he refused to go to Fremantle.

It's probably too late to ever introduce no-consent trading here, because the AFLPA would want something massive in return.

Perhaps we do give draftees in the 1st and 2nd rounds 4 year contracts and use that as a bargaining chip. Maybe make it so that players can be traded against their will for their first 6 years and then after that gain right of refusal. Something needs to be done to balance things in the favour of clubs if they ever want Gold Coast to be successful, or alternatively we should just dissolve the draft and trade period and go with the NRL model of zones and junior setups.

NRL actually don't have zones (the Storm have academies in Queensland), but yes the draft should be dissolved and then we can finally see a true level playing field

 

[Nugett]

I say no

How else can Hawthorn redevelop our geriatric list?
Especially as we don’t know how to develop our own?


*Sarcasm intended*

 

[Monkey King]

I think these are the changes the AFL should make

1. Lower the minimum cap payments to 85%, allowing teams like Gold Coast and Carlton to actually create a real war chest to go after big named players.

Not only that, but have a rolling cap that allows clubs to bank the difference between the cap ceiling and their actual TPP. As an equaliser, that would far better compliment free agency than the current system.


Better than 4 year contracts would be a 2 year contract and 2 year extensions, optional for the club and mandatory for the player. At least then, even if they choose to leave, they’re under contract.

 

[Topkent]

So when Melbourne drafted Lucas Cook with pick 12 in the first round, instead of binning him after the 2 years like we did we would have to keep him for a further 2 years in the reserves? Should be conditional on the amount of games they play. So if they play say 50% of games in the first 2 years the club gets an option to extend or else it's between the club and player

 

[juss]

Personally rather than 4 years for first rounders, I would much prefer all players taken in the National Draft to have 3 year contracts. I think that's a nice balance for player and club.

 

[PatientMental]

2 and a team option of another 2.

If the player is s**t, they can cut him or trade him after 2.

If he is okay and worth persisting with they can extend him for another 2.

If he is really good they can renegotiate a fair extension of 2 or more years.

Player cannot ask to be traded until they've been there for at least 4 years.

 

[Power Raid]

Gold Coast need a COLA

Money will solve the issue until the club is a destination of choice

 

[go_the_dockers]

Team options, and player options contracts would make things interesting.

Gold Coast need a COLA

Money will solve the issue until the club is a destination of choice

Only until they are a top 4 team, and then they won't need it.

This is the issue with the COLA.

 

[Mofra]

Gold Coast need a COLA

Money will solve the issue until the club is a destination of choice

Don't they already get an increased marketing allowance?
I don't think too many people would have an issue with increased marketing allowance for teams in non-traditional AFL states.

 

[juss]

Don't they already get an increased marketing allowance?
I don't think too many people would have an issue with increased marketing allowance for teams in non-traditional AFL states.

If it's used for marketing no problems. Just dont want uneven salary caps.

 

[mpal6]

I think these are the changes the AFL should make

1. Lower the minimum cap payments to 85%, allowing teams like Gold Coast and Carlton to actually create a real war chest to go after big named players.
2. Change the rules so a player can specify they want to go to a particular state but they are not allowed to specify a specific club.
3. Make it against the rules for opposition clubs to contact new draftees in the first 18 months.

Apply restricted free agency rules across the board but favoring the club at the first renewal.

At the first contract renewal, If the club choose to match an offer then player needs to stay. No room for negotiation, trade etc. This will enable the club to retain the player through at least 4 years as well as ensure player gets paid what he's valued in open market.

From second contract renewal onwards, RFA offer match can trigger a trade if the player is adamant about leaving.