- Jul 9, 2010
- 24,163
- 26,536
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Or just fold them.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The issue with clubs keeping players isn’t contract length, it’s the state of the club.
Length of contracts in footy these days means sweet FA, so no difference how long the initial contract is anyway.
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?
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.
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.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.
Not necessarily.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.
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.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
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.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.