Analysis Alternative to longer draftee deals

[Superstar swan]

Long winded but I think we should adopt an nba type pay scale .

We need to incentivise draftees and players to stay at their own clubs and give all clubs the best opportunity to retain their players.

All players and clubs work under the same structure and there is no afl secret herbs and spices formulas at work. Clearly defined milestones must be reached in order to reach full pay.

There will be a Max amount that can be offered to a player at a designated point in their careers and for the first extension of a players career , any poaching team can only offer a nominal to be decided amount under what the "home" team can offer.

For example I'll use nick daicos as an example who under this policy has triggered a Max extension on his first deal by winning rising star and aa squad nomination.

I'm going to use simplified approx numbers but I've chose the Max salary increase approx 300k and the amount an away team can offer is 150k less.

For example

Daicos at pies

Year1 200k (including match payments)
Year 2 200 k
Year 3 (triggered Max extension ) 500k
Year 4 500k
Year 5 500k

Daicos being recruited by opposing team

Year 1 200k
Year 2 200k
Year 3 350k
Year 4 350k
Year 5 350k

Obviously the numbers are just initial ideas and can obviously be moved around to suit but the premise stays the same . If someone like daicos " gets homesick" he can leave however it will cost him 450k less over his second deal to leave. It won't eradicate home sickness but it gives teams a fighting chance. Plus it prevents teams like sun's and giants having to offer ludicrous contracts to players who havnt earned them just to say. And prevents situations like bowes where a team is getting this ridiculous deal.


The appropriate triggers and milestones need to be negotiated and should count best and fairest finish, aa noms, rising star noms ans finish. Whatever they choose , it has to be black and white and non negotiable.

After a players first 5 years then they can essentially go to open market , but I feel 5 years is enough to time to try root the player in the team/city/state. It's an alternative to longer deals for draftees that the aflpa will never agree on.

Just my silly idea

 

[Freomaniac]

Long winded but I think we should adopt an nba type pay scale .

We need to incentivise draftees and players to stay at their own clubs and give all clubs the best opportunity to retain their players.

All players and clubs work under the same structure and there is no afl secret herbs and spices formulas at work. Clearly defined milestones must be reached in order to reach full pay.

There will be a Max amount that can be offered to a player at a designated point in their careers and for the first extension of a players career , any poaching team can only offer a nominal to be decided amount under what the "home" team can offer.

For example I'll use nick daicos as an example who under this policy has triggered a Max extension on his first deal by winning rising star and aa squad nomination.

I'm going to use simplified approx numbers but I've chose the Max salary increase approx 300k and the amount an away team can offer is 150k less.

For example

Daicos at pies

Year1 200k (including match payments)
Year 2 200 k
Year 3 (triggered Max extension ) 500k
Year 4 500k
Year 5 500k

Daicos being recruited by opposing team

Year 1 200k
Year 2 200k
Year 3 350k
Year 4 350k
Year 5 350k

Obviously the numbers are just initial ideas and can obviously be moved around to suit but the premise stays the same . If someone like daicos " gets homesick" he can leave however it will cost him 450k less over his second deal to leave. It won't eradicate home sickness but it gives teams a fighting chance. Plus it prevents teams like sun's and giants having to offer ludicrous contracts to players who havnt earned them just to say. And prevents situations like bowes where a team is getting this ridiculous deal.


The appropriate triggers and milestones need to be negotiated and should count best and fairest finish, aa noms, rising star noms ans finish. Whatever they choose , it has to be black and white and non negotiable.

After a players first 5 years then they can essentially go to open market , but I feel 5 years is enough to time to try root the player in the team/city/state. It's an alternative to longer deals for draftees that the aflpa will never agree on.

Just my silly idea

Crazy to think that pick 60 in the NBA draft only gets $500,000 a year for 2 years.

If the NBA club they drafted him picks him, they can automatically give that bloke a 2 year deal at 3 million a year.

 

[master bate]

Great post. No doubt the details could be tweaked but I absolutely agree.

Give teams an incentive to keep players for something between the first 4-6 years.

Stop young players getting poached on crazy money.

Teams can still trade for genuine home sick players but the team that has the player will be trading from a position of strength.

Then open it up after that and stop this nonsense of out of contract players getting traded.

 

[MisterMarcus]

Long winded but I think we should adopt an nba type pay scale .

We need to incentivise draftees and players to stay at their own clubs and give all clubs the best opportunity to retain their players.

All players and clubs work under the same structure and there is no afl secret herbs and spices formulas at work. Clearly defined milestones must be reached in order to reach full pay.

There will be a Max amount that can be offered to a player at a designated point in their careers and for the first extension of a players career , any poaching team can only offer a nominal to be decided amount under what the "home" team can offer.

For example I'll use nick daicos as an example who under this policy has triggered a Max extension on his first deal by winning rising star and aa squad nomination.

I'm going to use simplified approx numbers but I've chose the Max salary increase approx 300k and the amount an away team can offer is 150k less.

For example

Daicos at pies

Year1 200k (including match payments)
Year 2 200 k
Year 3 (triggered Max extension ) 500k
Year 4 500k
Year 5 500k

Daicos being recruited by opposing team

Year 1 200k
Year 2 200k
Year 3 350k
Year 4 350k
Year 5 350k

Obviously the numbers are just initial ideas and can obviously be moved around to suit but the premise stays the same . If someone like daicos " gets homesick" he can leave however it will cost him 450k less over his second deal to leave. It won't eradicate home sickness but it gives teams a fighting chance. Plus it prevents teams like sun's and giants having to offer ludicrous contracts to players who havnt earned them just to say. And prevents situations like bowes where a team is getting this ridiculous deal.


The appropriate triggers and milestones need to be negotiated and should count best and fairest finish, aa noms, rising star noms ans finish. Whatever they choose , it has to be black and white and non negotiable.

After a players first 5 years then they can essentially go to open market , but I feel 5 years is enough to time to try root the player in the team/city/state. It's an alternative to longer deals for draftees that the aflpa will never agree on.

Just my silly idea

IMHO this would actually hurt 'weaker' teams and benefit 'stronger' ones.

1) We've seen that players will take less money to play in a successful team. So your idea wouldn't necessarily stop that. Maybe it would limit it somewhat, but not every player values money over flags/finals.

2) Offering more money is one key way to attract players to 'weaker' clubs. Your idea would remove that ability.

3) Consider a pretty-good player in a strong team who can't get a consistent game, or is forced to play out of position, etc. If they want more game time, they'd essentially be punished for it by being forced to accept less money. All because they want to get more opportunities?

 

[Superstar swan]

IMHO this would actually hurt 'weaker' teams and benefit 'stronger' ones.

1) We've seen that players will take less money to play in a successful team. So your idea wouldn't necessarily stop that. Maybe it would limit it somewhat, but not every player values money over flags/finals.

2) Offering more money is one key way to attract players to 'weaker' clubs. Your idea would remove that ability.

3) Consider a pretty-good player in a strong team who can't get a consistent game, or is forced to play out of position, etc. If they want more game time, they'd essentially be punished for it by being forced to accept less money. All because they want to get more opportunities?

Agree its not a fool proof concept. Everything will always have drawbacks. Theoretically the best kids will be at at the worst teams. Incentivise them to really perform. The triggers can be made easier to reach aswell. Could be something like 20 games over first 2 seasons means they reach the max extension

Like I said it's not perfect but it gives the clubs a chance and prevents sill contracts being handed out

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Another non-full proof idea is an afl-paid bonus to any kids who move interstate from being drafted. Up to the age of say 22 or 23 they get a loading paid as a % of base outside the cap.

Everyone who moves home loses money unless they're past the point of establishing themselves. Clubs with a lot of developing kids from interstate effectively have a higher salary cap that can only be used specifically to settle kids from interstate. They're adding money not taking away so the AFLPA will rubber stamp.

 

[Yoda_]

Pretty easy solution to this;

1st round draft picks - 4 year deals (most seem to extend anyways)
2nd round draft picks - 3 year deals
3rd round draft picks - 2 year deals
4th round onwards - 1 year deals (this does include SSP, rookies and mid season draftee's).


If a club wishes to renegotiate with said player, so be it. If said player doesn't get his wish and requests a trade, owning club still has leverage in negotiations.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Pretty easy solution to this;

1st round draft picks - 4 year deals (most seem to extend anyways)
2nd round draft picks - 3 year deals
3rd round draft picks - 2 year deals
4th round onwards - 1 year deals (this does include SSP, rookies and mid season draftee's).


If a club wishes to renegotiate with said player, so be it. If said player doesn't get his wish and requests a trade, owning club still has leverage in negotiations.

There's a reasonable chance a late first round pick is a dud a s a good chance a 2nd rounder is a dud so you're locking bad sides to a fair few list cloggers with that.

Also, you'll either need extra list spots to carry all the extra players you can't delist or you'll have a shorter draft that ends up being 1st/2nd round only because sides won't have list spots.

 

[Nat Fyfe]

Another non-full proof idea is an afl-paid bonus to any kids who move interstate from being drafted. Up to the age of say 22 or 23 they get a loading paid as a % of base outside the cap.

Everyone who moves home loses money unless they're past the point of establishing themselves. Clubs with a lot of developing kids from interstate effectively have a higher salary cap that can only be used specifically to settle kids from interstate. They're adding money not taking away so the AFLPA will rubber stamp.

Decent idea on the surface, however this really hurts Saints, North and Bulldogs given most draftees are Victorian, and these 3 clubs are competing with larger Victorian clubs who they'd usually have to outbid

 

[Yoda_]

There's a reasonable chance a late first round pick is a dud a s a good chance a 2nd rounder is a dud so you're locking bad sides to a fair few list cloggers with that.

Also, you'll either need extra list spots to carry all the extra players you can't delist or you'll have a shorter draft that ends up being 1st/2nd round only because sides won't have list spots.

yep, that's the chance clubs take (re first round picks), if said player won't 'make it', delist, run the risk of opposition club picking him up or simply trade for very little.

It's probably the time to remove the 'lists' the AFL has in place, furthermore the 3 list changes an off season should be total (main list + rookie list).

 

[Yeti]

There has to be give and take with the AFLPA on something like this. My basic idea:

-Initial 2 year deal @ 200k PA for picks 1-10

• Player option for year 3 & 4 @ up to 200k more than allowed by opposition club
• Team option for year 5 & 6 @ up to 300k more than allowed by opposition club
• All players become FA after 6 years with no compensation for clubs that lose them
• Allow teams to pay players with 10 years service a certain amount outside the salary cap
• If a player opts out within the first 6 years they are limited in their earning capacity compared to those who stay with their initial team
• If they are delisted by their team they become FA

You want to incentivise the players to stay during tough times and hopefully once they are through the rebuild phase they stay on.

Just some initial thoughts, I reckon it can be fleshed out a bit.

 

[The buff]

Another non-full proof idea is an afl-paid bonus to any kids who move interstate from being drafted. Up to the age of say 22 or 23 they get a loading paid as a % of base outside the cap.

Everyone who moves home loses money unless they're past the point of establishing themselves. Clubs with a lot of developing kids from interstate effectively have a higher salary cap that can only be used specifically to settle kids from interstate. They're adding money not taking away so the AFLPA will

Decent idea on the surface, however this really hurts Saints, North and Bulldogs given most draftees are Victorian, and these 3 clubs are competing with larger Victorian clubs who they'd usually have to outbi

Another non-full proof idea is an afl-paid bonus to any kids who move interstate from being drafted. Up to the age of say 22 or 23 they get a loading paid as a % of base outside the cap.

Everyone who moves home loses money unless they're past the point of establishing themselves. Clubs with a lot of developing kids from interstate effectively have a higher salary cap that can only be used specifically to settle kids from interstate. They're adding money not taking away so the AFLPA will rubber stamp.

Maybe an afl paid signing bonus for each consecutive contract the draftee signs with their original club would be the go. So a 5% bonus at first contract extension, 10% bonus at second extension and maybe a 15% bonus at the third extension which would take them through to free agency.

 

[eastfreo75]

Devil is in the details but the principle that the AFL should have incentives for players to sign with their the club drafted should be supported.

 

[sdfc]

zones.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Decent idea on the surface, however this really hurts Saints, North and Bulldogs given most draftees are Victorian, and these 3 clubs are competing with larger Victorian clubs who they'd usually have to outbid

Yeah it's not perfect but it solves part of the problem

 

[Wooshaaaa]

Great in theory, but if the kids any good, the money he doesn't make as a bonus for moving interstate will be made up with the 5yr deal he gets next.

On Pixel 6 Pro using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Wooshaaaa]

Long winded but I think we should adopt an nba type pay scale .

We need to incentivise draftees and players to stay at their own clubs and give all clubs the best opportunity to retain their players.

All players and clubs work under the same structure and there is no afl secret herbs and spices formulas at work. Clearly defined milestones must be reached in order to reach full pay.

There will be a Max amount that can be offered to a player at a designated point in their careers and for the first extension of a players career , any poaching team can only offer a nominal to be decided amount under what the "home" team can offer.

For example I'll use nick daicos as an example who under this policy has triggered a Max extension on his first deal by winning rising star and aa squad nomination.

I'm going to use simplified approx numbers but I've chose the Max salary increase approx 300k and the amount an away team can offer is 150k less.

For example

Daicos at pies

Year1 200k (including match payments)
Year 2 200 k
Year 3 (triggered Max extension ) 500k
Year 4 500k
Year 5 500k

Daicos being recruited by opposing team

Year 1 200k
Year 2 200k
Year 3 350k
Year 4 350k
Year 5 350k

Obviously the numbers are just initial ideas and can obviously be moved around to suit but the premise stays the same . If someone like daicos " gets homesick" he can leave however it will cost him 450k less over his second deal to leave. It won't eradicate home sickness but it gives teams a fighting chance. Plus it prevents teams like sun's and giants having to offer ludicrous contracts to players who havnt earned them just to say. And prevents situations like bowes where a team is getting this ridiculous deal.


The appropriate triggers and milestones need to be negotiated and should count best and fairest finish, aa noms, rising star noms ans finish. Whatever they choose , it has to be black and white and non negotiable.

After a players first 5 years then they can essentially go to open market , but I feel 5 years is enough to time to try root the player in the team/city/state. It's an alternative to longer deals for draftees that the aflpa will never agree on.

Just my silly idea

Amazing idea.

They should also introduce a draft lottery like the NBA does for the teams who don't make playoffs/finals. Then the players vying for the draft won't know what picks each team has. This would stop the players being able to flag there preference.


As per the NBA CBA

ROOKIE SCALE CONTRACT
A Rookie Scale Contract is the initial Uniform Player Contract between a team and its first round draft pick. The contract must be for 2 years, with a team option for both the 3rd and 4th years. A player’s compensation under a Rookie Scale Contract is determined by the rookie salary scale.

The team option for the player’s 3rd and 4th years can be exercised from the day after the applicable season ends through the next October 31.

Extensions of Rookie Scale Contracts are discussed below.

On Pixel 6 Pro using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[footyfan1978]

There's a reasonable chance a late first round pick is a dud a s a good chance a 2nd rounder is a dud so you're locking bad sides to a fair few list cloggers with that.

Also, you'll either need extra list spots to carry all the extra players you can't delist or you'll have a shorter draft that ends up being 1st/2nd round only because sides won't have list spots.

Yep, needs much bigger lists for such a thing.

 

[The 747]

zones.

Sounds good to me but are you sure you want that?

 

[masai tu]

zones.

Mouth watering.

 

[masai tu]

Sounds good to me but are you sure you want that?

Give us East Fremantle and the Black Ducks, I’ll be a very happy chappy.

 

[The 747]

Give us East Fremantle and the Black Ducks, I’ll be a very happy chappy.

Sweet, we shall have our local area and both clubs will be happy.

 

[sdfc]

Sounds good to me but are you sure you want that?

Yep. Definitely favourable to the WA and SA clubs. not that I care about the other three.

 

[Saab NLAW]

Great idea to protect the clubs however it's the clubs themselves who are creating the problem in the first place

There wouldn't be as many young guys desperate to leave so quickly if there weren't clubs falling over themselves to poach them as soon as they can. There is zero chance of the clubs allowing anything like this to be introduced

 

[Obeanie1]

A strict rule that clubs do not approach a draftee or their manager wth big $ offers to move under contract. Penalty is losing your 1st round pick.

Make all new draftees salaries outside the cap for all teams. That provides incentive for teams to draft kids instead of poaching them.