Should first round draft picks be given 4 year contracts

[_Mike_]

A longer contract = more security

not necessarily, contracts can be terminated by agreement well before they expire and so long as both parties agreeing. We're seeing more and more of players wanting to opt out of their current contracts and clubs agreeing. Its been a long time since we've seen clubs hold steady and fast in holding players to their contracts.

 

[V_23]

2 years with a team option for another two years. Time to give some power back to the clubs.

If Lukosius and/or Rankine request a trade after their first two years, I expect the AFL to step in and change things significantly (and so they should).

 

[CrowMan90]

2 years with a team option for another two years. Time to give some power back to the clubs.

If Lukosius and/or Rankine request a trade after their first two years, I expect the AFL to step in and change things significantly (and so they should).

Why would the AFL do that? Plenty of other clubs have already benefited from this happening. Why shouldn't Adelaide or Port?

 

[bungalow_bill]

Gold Coast need a COLA

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

I know it's not popular but a retention allowance should be reintroduced. Applies to all teams based on the % of interstate players on your list.

 

[loki04]

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.

Yep I think 3 years is good, most players don't come on until the 3rd year anyway. Cutting players after 2 years can sometimes be a tad premature.

 

[loki04]

I know it's not popular but a retention allowance should be reintroduced. Applies to all teams based on the % of interstate players on your list.

Any cap has to be done per player off %, shouldn't be allowed to pool the cola and use it to poach for 1 or 2 players like Swans were doing.

 

[Power Raid]

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


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

This is the issue with the COLA.

Cola is about supporting a business model, meaning ladder position is irrelevant on a short term basis

 

[Power Raid]

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


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

This is the issue with the COLA.

Cola is about supporting a business model, meaning ladder position is irrelevant on a short term basis

 

[Scotland]

No, two years is plenty. People need to stop viewing drafting a player as trapping them for life. Pick 1 or pick 100, they are out of contract after two years and free to move via the trade/draft system. No FA rights until 8 years which is fair enough given players are drafted young and clubs often don't get anything out of them the first few years.

The AFL just needs to have rules against clubs buying young players with massive contracts. Tom Boyd, Tom Scully (one off circumstance), Jake Lever... these sort of guys don't get max contracts in the NBA because they haven't met the criteria. Tom Lynch getting a big deal from Richmond after 8 years, 4x leading goalkicker, AA selection yeah that's fair enough. If you simply made it so the best players in the 25-30+ bracket were the only ones who could get the biggest contracts it would make a difference across the competition.

 

[Furn2]

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.

Then what happens when a deal can't be negotiated?

 

[PatientMental]

Then what happens when a deal can't be negotiated?

at the end of the 2nd year?

AFL steps in and works with both parties to reach an agreement. Players should have 0 leaving power before the age of 22. If the player, club, and afl still can't reach an agreement, the player is immediately de-registered for 10 years.

 

[Starburns_]

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).

Lowering the floor would have the added benefit of players not being paid overs before they've earnt it. It's much easier for Lynch to take significant unders at Richmond when he's already made plenty at the Suns.

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.

The 'something in return' could very easily be a shorter period of time before qualifying for Free Agency. The AFL are probably going to give it away for nothing eventually, may as well bring it forward to tie draftees to clubs for longer.

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.

If someone can't hack being interstate for that long then they will make a greater effort to get home, which perhaps means none of this nominating a preferred club bullshit.

A club will concede a talent for a fair price if the reasons are pure enough, too many players taking liberties with 'homesickness' these days though.

Gold Coast need a COLA

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

As has already been mentioned, GC are obligated to pay 95% of what the top clubs do. It's clearly not a money issue that is hurting them, it's the revolving door that has opened up.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

It's a no from me. I cant see a proposal in this thread that looks better than what we have. It's a balance and when you change it it will have unintended consequences. Specifically there's a reason for the initial contracts being fixed and that's just not gonna work for longer timeframes.

The lowering the floor for the minimum cap makes sense to me. I dont get why that restriction exists. It seems to me the market can sort out players values, if a club is paying way under somethings wrong, it's not a place a club would be happy to be.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

The issue with clubs keeping players isn’t contract length, it’s the state of the club.

 

[RUNVS]

The issue with clubs keeping players isn’t contract length, it’s the state of the club.

Location is also key. There is a reason Carlton did not lose as many big named players in their years of rubbishness compared to teams like Gold Coast and Brisbane.

 

[Luv_our_club]

Location is also key. There is a reason Carlton did not lose as many big named players in their years of rubbishness compared to teams like Gold Coast and Brisbane.

The reason that players did not exodus Carlton is because they often had some hope.... they had Ratten, then they had the messiah in Malthouse.... and since then most have bought into hope again. Hope.


It is the hopelessness at Gold Coast that makes players leave.... that is compounded by the fact they are a low supporter franchise.

Brisbane was hopeless for a few years. The fact they are attracting players now for 2 years while being 2 years at the bottom of the ladder is because hope has been restored.

 

[hoianbulldog]

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.

So they will become tyre fitters at their local Bob Jane Tmart?

 

[blitzer]

So they will become tyre fitters at their local Bob Jane Tmart?

Or they might pursue other sports or other opportunities.

 

[Wally Walpamur]

I’ve been harping in about this for ages but there’s a lot about the NBA equalisation that I think could work in the AFL:

- lower the salary cap floor
- bottom 6(?) teams go into a lottery for the first 6 selections of the draft with the rest in order of their finishing position
- clubs can trade up to 4 years of future picks
- lower the RFA qualification to six years
- draftees can trigger a two year player option by hitting a certain number of targets
- the club of the draftees can trigger a club extension

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

I don't mind the idea of lowering the salary floor but that's not going to help with retention which seems to be the biggest problem.
3 year contracts for first rounders and 2 year contracts from the second round on with a club option for a third seems fair for everyone. 3 years should be enough to change the mindset of the draftees.

 

[Underarm]

I’ve been harping in about this for ages but there’s a lot about the NBA equalisation that I think could work in the AFL:

- lower the salary cap floor
- bottom 6(?) teams go into a lottery for the first 6 selections of the draft with the rest in order of their finishing position
- clubs can trade up to 4 years of future picks
- lower the RFA qualification to six years
- draftees can trigger a two year player option by hitting a certain number of targets
- the club of the draftees can trigger a club extension

Nba is the most unequal league of the big 4 American sports.

 

[Dirty Bird]

Nba is the most unequal league of the big 4 American sports.

Probably more to do with team structure tbh
1 superstar can be the difference from winning 70% of the time to just 20%

Ala. Cleveland with and without Lebrun.

 

[longsuffreosupp]

Problem is too many teams and not enough superstar talent. It means really good players can get to where they want easy, and bog average players can earn good money at the less desirable clubs.

 

[Wally Walpamur]

Nba is the most unequal league of the big 4 American sports.

I would say that has to do with no hard salary cap and the teams with the biggest wage bill, the owners/clubs are paying heaps in luxury tax. As long as we have a hard salary cap here, it will work.

 

[swiftdog]

I think the biggest issue is that there isn't a set pathway for a player to leave a club until the reach Free Agency. In theory, before this time, a player only has an option to with re-sign with their current club or go back to the draft. In practice though, players demand a trade to their club of choice and a circus generally follows. The club losing the player generally loses and it does run the risk of clubs like Gold Coast becoming farm teams. I think there's a need to sure up this pathway.

1) As has been mentioned, lower the cap floor.

2) Introduce no-consent trading. This would help give some power back to the clubs.

3) I like the OPs idea but prefer the 2 years + 2 year team-option (for all 18-year old draftees). Maybe a 2 + 1 option for 19-year old draftees and a flat 2 year contract for mature-age draftees 20+ years of age. Maybe a 1 + 1 option for all rookies.

4) Introduce free agency for all uncontracted players. Anyone coming off their first AFL contract is a restricted free agent. Otherwise, criteria for RFAs, UFAs, and DFAs could stay the same. It means all players could be free agents by 22 years old (bar some mature-age draftees). This would help stop the messy 'demanding' of trades + increase the free agent pool. In my opinion, it's good to see that clubs are more willing to hold their players to their contract rather than let them go relatively cheap. I'd want to see clubs 'poaching' free agents to have to pay through the nose to do so. I'd also like to see compensation picks come from the clubs getting the FA but that's a conversation for another thread.

5) Introduce no-trade clauses into contracts. I know they do this in the NHL, not sure if it could work legally here though. Fairly self-explanatory, club and player can organise no-trade clauses into contract negotiations how they see fit. Maybe a it's a flat no-trade to any other team clause, or maybe no-trading to selected teams or states, or bottom 4 teams. I'd keep it flexible and would help players and maybe even clubs. Players can get peace of mind with a NTC while clubs might be able to keep a player for 100k cheaper (for example) by including a NTC into the contract.

I can't see the AFLPA going for something like this though. Current AFL contracts seemingly already have an equivalent (in practice) to NTCs in them. They won't like lowering the cap floor and they certainly won't like no-consent trading. Not sure how they'd stand on longer draft contracts. The AFL would really have to sell drastically loosening free agency criteria to get any of the others through.