Should first round draft picks be given 4 year contracts

[Silent Alarm]

Or just fold them.

 

[Starburns_]

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

Easier to turn the state of a club around over 4 years than it is 2 though.

 

[Coaster2012]

When I was a teenager, I really couldn't care less about leaving the state, hence my years of back packing. I thought teenagers would love the idea of getting out of the state and experiencing a new world with fame, money, new mates, the increased attention of females. Or am I just a product of the 90's?

 

[dylan93]

Length of contracts in footy these days means sweet FA, so no difference how long the initial contract is anyway.

 

[Coaster2012]

Length of contracts in footy these days means sweet FA, so no difference how long the initial contract is anyway.

They mean a lot actually. It would mean for the first 4 years, teams would have to trade for them and so teams like the GC would have a choice to force the player to stay, or the other team to pay overs, or get a deal for mature players that could have an immediate impact or players that would fill holes in the list, rather than having the AFL judge how important the player is with a compo pick that may provide little value, but perhaps after 4 years, that player would have gotten good enough to actually get a decent pick.

 

[class78]

When I was a teenager, I really couldn't care less about leaving the state, hence my years of back packing. I thought teenagers would love the idea of getting out of the state and experiencing a new world with fame, money, new mates, the increased attention of females. Or am I just a product of the 90's?

nah would rather stay in some boring af suburb like kew and have the same people that have sucked up to me the last 5 years continue to do so

 

[RobbieGray17]

My prediction is that if the AFL don't step in and do something, both Lukosious and Rankine will both want to head home in two years. To add to that, even if GC played hardball those young guys would do much better at a Melbourne club than to stick it out at GC. As mentioned earlier, the club needs some sort of hope going forward. In the end, they need help.

 

[kreglze]

Get the state of the club sorted and people will want to stay. Simple. All the sounds out of the club sound like they are on the way to doing that.

Though since people are linking this to us, we have only had 2 people leave after their initial contract. Caddy, who we didn't want to lose, and Scrimshaw, who we couldn't get to Coolangatta airport quick enough.

 

[RUNVS]

My prediction is that if the AFL don't step in and do something, both Lukosious and Rankine will both want to head home in two years. To add to that, even if GC played hardball those young guys would do much better at a Melbourne club than to stick it out at GC. As mentioned earlier, the club needs some sort of hope going forward. In the end, they need help.

Could be even worse as it would not surprise me if one of them tried to request a trade back to South Australia after only 1 year.

 

[RAPPA]

I would be interested to see the fallout of s club taking action or threatening to take action against one of its players seeking to break their contract and change teams. Clubs do the benevolent thing and try to get the player to the club of their choice while at the same getting the best possible deal.

If players are willing to break their contract then clubs should feel empowered to call their bluff and hold them to their contract, but the message that sends has ramifications and I suspect clubs take the lesser of two evils approach.

There’s no element of deterrence for players to honour their contract.

 

[Alphonse_]

I am certain the AFL will do everything in its power to ensure Rankine and Lukosius stay at the Gold Coast. I don't think either SA club will come close to matching what they get from an extension at the Suns. I am fairly confident they sign 2 or 3 year extensions before the season starts (for an undisclosed, inflated amount).

You through a ridiculous 7 figure amount of money to a 19 year old, and i am sure all thoughts of wanting to return home goes away.

Anyhow, as we have seen in the last 5 - 10 years, the go home factor is nowhere near in strong for SA kids than it is for Victorian clubs. You can hardly make a case for Adelaide or Port being destination clubs, far from it.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

I am certain the AFL will do everything in its power to ensure Rankine and Lukosius stay at the Gold Coast. I don't think either SA club will come close to matching what they get from an extension at the Suns. I am fairly confident they sign 2 or 3 year extensions before the season starts (for an undisclosed, inflated amount).

You through a ridiculous 7 figure amount of money to a 19 year old, and i am sure all thoughts of wanting to return home goes away.

Anyhow, as we have seen in the last 5 - 10 years, the go home factor is nowhere near in strong for SA kids than it is for Victorian clubs. You can hardly make a case for Adelaide or Port being destination clubs, far from it.

I think might wait a bit and see how they handle the club system first. Draft preference is one thing but the clubs view if their value will be formed more about what they see I would think.

Of course it will be confidential, all contracts are required to be.

If they do decide that one or all three is worth a $400- $500k commitment for an extension that's a decision for them.

It's no bad thing for the players. Although they cant have the coin for a while the contracts are virtually unbreakable when signed. I imagine they could finance a property with it in their back pocket.

 

[Alphonse_]

I think might wait a bit and see how they handle the club system first. Draft preference is one thing but the clubs view if their value will be formed more about what they see I would think.

Of course it will be confidential, all contracts are required to be.

If they do decide that one or all three is worth a $400- $500k commitment for an extension that's a decision for them.

It's no bad thing for the players. Although they cant have the coin for a while the contracts are virtually unbreakable when signed. I imagine they could finance a property with it in their back pocket.

Most clubs are trying to lock in their early top 5/10 draft picks to extensions ASAP these days. Carlton and North did it last year before the start of the season for Paddy Dow and LDU (which i am very comfortable with as a Blues fan).

The idiotic comments by Port's recruiting manager on Trade Radio about looking to poach the two SA lads after 2 years, is another reason why The Suns will act.

Both of them appear to be safe bets to be blue chip prospects, the best and most sensible thing The Suns can do is pay them overs to keep them for another 2 years on top of their initial contract, and back themselves in to get their house in order in that time (lets remember it seems to have taken Brisbane nearly 4 years themselves ti finally have turned things around, that club was just as bad as The Suns were before Fagan, IE mass exodus of quality players etc)

Things can turn around for The Suns, they have finally seemed to have ditched all the bad eggs from that club, and are number crunching to repair their mismanaged salary cap.

If Rankine and Lukosius sign extensions before the season starts, than bang, the rehabilitation of Gold Coast starts.

Losing Tom Lynch isn't the doom and gloom scenario the media is making it out for The Suns to be tbh.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

Most clubs are trying to lock in their early top 5/10 draft picks to extensions ASAP these days. Carlton and North did it last year before the start of the season for Paddy Dow and LDU (which i am very comfortable with as a Blues fan).

The idiotic comments by Port's recruiting manager on Trade Radio about looking to poach the two SA lads after 2 years, is another reason why The Suns will act.

Both of them appear to be safe bets to be blue chip prospects, the best and most sensible thing The Suns can do is pay them overs to keep them for another 2 years on top of their initial contract, and back themselves in to get their house in order in that time (lets remember it seems to have taken Brisbane nearly 4 years themselves ti finally have turned things around, that club was just as bad as The Suns were before Fagan, IE mass exodus of quality players etc)

Things can turn around for The Suns, they have finally seemed to have ditched all the bad eggs from that club, and are number crunching to repair their mismanaged salary cap.

If Rankine and Lukosius sign extensions before the season starts, than bang, the rehabilitation of Gold Coast starts.

Losing Tom Lynch isn't the doom and gloom scenario the media is making it out for The Suns to be tbh.

Not necessarily.

Right now they're untried and their contribution unknown. Absolutely the club has reason to be optimistic, but I dont think it's as simple as offer them a mil a season and everything comes together like magic.

 

[Alphonse_]

Not necessarily.

Right now they're untried and their contribution unknown. Absolutely the club has reason to be optimistic, but I dont think it's as simple as offer them a mil a season and everything comes together like magic.

At the very least, it buys them buy more time. That's what i would do anyway (which isn't necessarily the right thing).

Just getting a tad annoyed with the anti-Gold Coast, Pro Tasmania agenda in the mainstream media at the moment.

Feel like we as a footy community should get behind and back in the expansion clubs

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

At the very least, it buys them buy more time. That's what i would do anyway (which isn't necessarily the right thing).

Just getting a tad annoyed with the anti-Gold Coast, Pro Tasmania agenda in the mainstream media at the moment.

Feel like we as a footy community should get behind and back in the expansion clubs

I'm not really disagreeing with you. I dont think Gold Coast really have that much of a problem. They are getting people to the footty up there. If some want to call for them to be chopped, so what, it isn't going to happen.

They would certainly want to improve on the field. I'm just cautious about the perception of putting all that responsibility on a few talented teenagers. talls particularly take time. Absolutely they should look at extending them, with more data about their value in the next year, possibly early next season.

They've put their faith in Dew to turn them around and now he has to be given time. Lynch and May leaving likely relate to things prior to him. It gives him a chance to build a leadership group of his own making anyway.

 

[falcons2]

Two years is about right. Perhaps clubs should have more power of 3rd and 4th rounders as the clubs have probably taken more risk in drafting them. Early picks are certainties for the system and owe the club nothing.
Clubs like the Suns need to play hard ball if young players want to leave. If an interstate team comes knocking after two years - fine but make it cost. The player can always quit the club and go back into the draft. The Suns must call others bluff.

 

[Mitchell54]

Think 2 years is good as it is.

 

[Juddernaut08]

Have a trade kicker for players traded within first 4 years.

Have the kicker apply only to the cap, not the player's pocket.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

Not sure I want to committ to Beau Dowler and Mitch Thorp for 4 years !!

 

[Coach_Required]

2 year contracts are fine but there needs to be some kind of cost to the team gaining this young player from a struggling side, not just compensation to the team losing the player..

 

[blitzer]

Anyone suggesting that Gold Coast runs the risk of becoming a long term farm for other clubs only has to look at how Brisbane has turned around that perception for their club within just a few years. Get your act together on and off field and you will be able to keep your core talent together and be more successful in recruiting players to your club as well. Not saying its an automatic process but its doable.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

A simple solution: give salary cap relief to the clubs that draft a player (or punish a club if they recruit a young player, same principle).

If a player truly wants out of a city for two years, I think it's fundamentally unfair that a club can be able to force them after that two years to stay.

But that player - who is already earning more than the vast majority of professional, full-time Australians - should be forced to take a pay cut to leave.

This is in the form of either discounting that player's salary by 10% for the 3rd and 4th year after being drafted when counting against the salary cap, by the team that drafted them.

Simple solution.

 

[RonnieRaven]

4 years first rd
3 years second rd
2 for the rest
In the real world Most apprenticeship are four years
In the army you don’t get to chose where your posted early on.
The players want all the perks without the hardship it’s a joke
But there careers are short?!
Anyone in society that can’t do there job properly has a short career
Now I have to pay higher membership for there perks pay monthly to watch them
I’ve had to move multiple states and multiple locations for work and I don’t even have $100 notes to wipe my homesick tears away
4 years lock and load
Watch out the anchor is rising

 

[footyfan1978]

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.

4 years is fine if you 18 or 19 year old draftee. Not following other rubbish you going on with. Should be very simple. You drafted on standard 4 year contract as a teenager so clubs have plenty of time to settle you in and develop. That is plenty of time to develop into a proper senior footballer and have you want to stay longer. Two years is not enough for 90% of players to truly become senior footballers so tough on clubs like Gold Coast to draft Ben King on two year contract and before he even really gets going Saints knocking on his door to come play with his brother and pressure Gold Coast to trade him early or possibly get less for him at end of two year contract.
If you 18 year old and not like 4 year contract you do not nominate for the draft, play at home out of AFL and try your luck when you 20 or 21. Simple.
The two year contracts for draftees new to AFL should only apply if 20 years of age or more.