Club first, player second?

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Just interested in people's thoughts on how we manage our player contracts. We seem to make very sensible, pragmatic decisions that look after the club's best interests but aren't necessarily in the best interests of the individual player. Is this the best approach? Does it create any tension between player and club or do players understand the 'dance' so to speak?

Many contracts seem to be short term with no 30+ year old being given anything longer than a one year deal and I saw this week that Hentschel has been offered a one year deal. Now, on face value, this would seem a sensible option. There are no guarantees with Trent's future and no one is sure whether he will be able to return to anything like his best. And father time can creep up very quickly on a 30+ year old.

But put yourself in the player's shoes. Essentially you are 12 months away from being out of a job and on the scrap heap. NC and the club seem to put a tremendous amount of faith in the players and the leadership group but how does this apparent lack of faith from the club effect the relationship between club and player? And do performance based contracts force players to play for themselves? Do players feel that they are basically working on commission?

Would we be better served by putting the welfare of the players first who, in turn, will reward the club for our faith or are we right to make these tough, uncompromising decisions on our player's futures? What is the benefit (or cost) of job security for the players and certainty regarding their future?

I understand it can severely hurt your club if you place a player on a long term contract and they are unable to deliver. You will be paying for that decision for a long time ie Redbacks with their top dollar, three year Elliott-Blewett-Lehmann combo.

Anyway, enough rambling. Would be interested to hear some opinions.

 

[GlaCial]

Are we different to any other club?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Are we different to any other club?

That's one of the reasons I'm asking these questions. We've already seen this week that the Bulldogs are prepared to offer Hudson a three year deal whereas we steadfastly stuck to our initial two year offer. Are we more cautious than other clubs?

 

[Stiffy_18]

That's one of the reasons I'm asking these questions. We've already seen this week that the Bulldogs are prepared to offer Hudson a three year deal whereas we steadfastly stuck to our initial two year offer. Are we more cautious than other clubs?

I think it needs to be a bit of give and take between the 2 parties. For example, AFC started out with a 2 year deal. Hudson wants 3. AFC then revises its offer to Hudson by offering him a 2 year deal with an option for the 3rd year if he plays certain number of games in the 2nd year of his deal. In other words, his 3rd year is fully guaranteed if he plays a certain number of games in year 2.

Now I think thats a reasonable stance from a club to take and if club could give in from 2 year deal into a 2+1 why couldn't Hudson budge from a 3 year deal to a 2+1.

Just like in any other realationship you need to have a bit of give and take. If one party is only giving and the other only taking its not going to work out. Hudson got his knickers in a knot over a number of things, threw his skirt over his head and started screaming "I want out". Hardly the actions of someone who is supposed to be a reasonable adult.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Would Hudson have had the impression that the Bulldogs wanted him more than the Crows?

 

[Stiffy_18]

Would Hudson have had the impression that the Bulldogs wanted him more than the Crows?

Not sure but I don't think he could question club wanting him. We plucked him out of nowhere when NO ONE else would give him a look. We took him into our club and got his fitness up to the required level, played him and stood by him when he did his knee only for him to turn his back on the club.

If the club's actions over Hudson's career didn't show him club's loyalty to him, I am not sure what would. Money was not the issue here. Hudson had more reasons for going that simply a 3 year deal.

 

[BunjiMac]

I'm ready to move on without Hudson, I now look forward to seeing Maric, Griffen and Tippet blossom into A grade footballers. It was unfortunate for Biglands to suffer such an injury at that age but I would love to see Maric and co play so well next year that it is Biglands trying to break into the side (I know its not very realistic).

 

[GlaCial]

My guess is that Hudson thinks that in 2 years time the chances that Adelaide will offer him a contract for 2010 are next to nothing. By that time he will be on the Adelaide scrap heap, as Maric and Griffen or someone else will be favored.

So why not leave now for a 3 year deal?

 

[Stiffy_18]

My guess is that Hudson thinks that in 2 years time the chances that Adelaide will offer him a contract for 2010 are next to nothing. By that time he will be on the Adelaide scrap heap, as Maric and Griffen or someone else will be favored.

So why not leave now for a 3 year deal?

But the contract offered by AFC had a clause in it that guaranteed Hudson 3rd year of his contract if he played a certain number of games in 2009 (2nd year of the deal). That clause was included in the contract, a legally binding document that guarantees him that year at a set price if he met the requirements in year 2.

I don't think thats unreasonable!

 

[macca23]

The 3 year contract is only part of the whole thing.

IMO Huddo asked for a 3 year deal because he knew the club wouldn't give it, which gave him a public reason to look around elsewhere.

Apparently he really threw his skirt over his head over the whole curfew issue and that plays a part in his decision as well.

Poor form and a lack of gratitude by Huddo IMO.

 

[GlaCial]

But the contract offered by AFC had a clause in it that guaranteed Hudson 3rd year of his contract if he played a certain number of games in 2009 (2nd year of the deal). That clause was included in the contract, a legally binding document that guarantees him that year at a set price if he met the requirements in year 2.

I don't think thats unreasonable!

The 3rd year clause doesn't guarantee a 3rd year. What if Maric, Griffen or someone else get the nod ahead of Hudson, or he gets injured and doesn't play the required number in of games 2009?

 

[Crow-mo]

I think it needs to be a bit of give and take between the 2 parties. For example, AFC started out with a 2 year deal. Hudson wants 3. AFC then revises its offer to Hudson by offering him a 2 year deal with an option for the 3rd year if he plays certain number of games in the 2nd year of his deal. In other words, his 3rd year is fully guaranteed if he plays a certain number of games in year 2.

Now I think thats a reasonable stance from a club to take and if club could give in from 2 year deal into a 2+1 why couldn't Hudson budge from a 3 year deal to a 2+1.

Just like in any other realationship you need to have a bit of give and take. If one party is only giving and the other only taking its not going to work out. Hudson got his knickers in a knot over a number of things, threw his skirt over his head and started screaming "I want out". Hardly the actions of someone who is supposed to be a reasonable adult.

why should he? it's not like he's in control of the selection policy in the second year. who was the bulldogs player not played just to avoid a payout if he played x many games? that was about 2 or 3 years ago.

if he didn't have a better contract offer, what would our position have been? if we cared about him, we'd have been a bit more forthcoming.

and lastly, this policy is ridiculous. we seem to forget that it is only an arbitrary policy, and not a solid gold roadmap to success. such slavish dedication to random policy making belongs in the public service, not here.

 

[jenny61_99]

The 3rd year clause doesn't guarantee a 3rd year. What if Maric, Griffen or someone else get the nod ahead of Hudson, or he gets injured and doesn't play the required number in of games 2009?

There are no guarantees in life, period. When Joe Bloggs goes to his workplace on Monday, there's no guarantee he'll still have that job in 3 years time is there?

The policy for 30+ year olds is absolutely spot on - and let's face it the Club is a business - not a feel-good charity. Goody and Macca and Edwards all have to operate within it. Why shouldn't Huddo (and he's not HALF the player they are)?

 

[- PC -]

Both the club and player should make the decision that best suits their circumstances

The club is a business and as such should offer what they feel is reasonable..... ( it doesnt matter if the player feels it is unreasonable that is another topic)

The player should seek what the market will offer...in this case the market ( Bulldogs) offered 3 years.

As to who has the power? I think the player has the most power ... form dictates everything.... if the player is good enough the market will increase for his services.

Personally I would be happy to sign for 2 years at a time. If form goes up then you can maximise your potential.... didnt A Lynch sign a 10 year deal...good security but bad economics. ( I do understand that contract was adjusted)

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Both the club and player should make the decision that best suits their circumstances

The club is a business and as such should offer what they feel is reasonable..... ( it doesnt matter if the player feels it is unreasonable that is another topic)

That's the point I'm driving towards. When decisions are made at the top end that have the best interests of the business at heart - saving money, trimming budgets, pooling resources, greater profits etc - what is the effect on the employee(s)?

Dissatisfaction? Looking elsewhere for better opportunities? Reduced passion to work hard for the organisation? Decrease in employee morale? I'm sure many of us have experienced this in the workplace and it is very hard to measure whereas salaries or length of contracts are very easy to measure.

In essence I'm asking what is the net effect for the organisation after these pragmatic, top end decisions are made?

 

[- PC -]

Now read your post again but keeping in mind this line

The player is a business

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Of course a player is going to be making their own 'pragmatic' life decisions in their own interests. But I see it more that the player is an asset of the organisation that they have invested time, money and resources into. And the organisation must maximise their return on this investment.

Look at St Kilda when they lost Jamie Shanahan and Joel Smith both for nothing. They were two members of their best 18. Their club was instantly 11% worse off and it took along time to recover.

 

[- PC -]

Of course a player is going to be making their own 'pragmatic' life decisions in their own interests. But I see it more that the player is an asset of the organisation that they have invested time, money and resources into. And the organisation must maximise their return on this investment.

Look at St Kilda when they lost Jamie Shanahan and Joel Smith both for nothing. They were two members of their best 18. Their club was instantly 11% worse off and it took along time to recover.

So the player has the power then? The ''business'' invested time in those 2 players and they still walked...shouldnt the business be compensated?

I can understand where you are coming from...but the days of ''club football'' are gone.... kids know from 13-16 they are going into a business. The clever ones maximise this by being robotic like

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I think the player does hold a fair bit of power. With various real estate deals and seeking out investments opportunities, clubs seem to be doing everything in their power to keep their (best) players happy. The last thing clubs want is to turn contract negotiations into a club vs player situation. Because the club will lose if the player is any good and wanted by other clubs.

 

[Stiffy_18]

why should he? it's not like he's in control of the selection policy in the second year. who was the bulldogs player not played just to avoid a payout if he played x many games? that was about 2 or 3 years ago.

if he didn't have a better contract offer, what would our position have been? if we cared about him, we'd have been a bit more forthcoming.

and lastly, this policy is ridiculous. we seem to forget that it is only an arbitrary policy, and not a solid gold roadmap to success. such slavish dedication to random policy making belongs in the public service, not here.

Sorry are you trying to compare the professionalism of the AFC to the Bulldogs of a few years ago when they pulled that stunt on one of their own players?!

Wow!!!

I am speechless!

And you say why should Hudson budge, well why should the club for a player thats been nothing but a troublemaker in recent times?!

 

[Crow-mo]

Sorry are you trying to compare the professionalism of the AFC to the Bulldogs of a few years ago when they pulled that stunt on one of their own players?!

Wow!!!

I am speechless!

And you say why should Hudson budge, well why should the club for a player thats been nothing but a troublemaker in recent times?!

it's irrelevant who it is, if you can't control it - it's a risk. why should you take a risk unnecessarily?

I'd be absolutely shocked if we pulled the same stunt, but we are talking about handing over control of a situation whose best interests do not necessarily coincide with yours.

and as for the last part, lets just say I am far from swayed by recent characteristisations of him as a troublemaker. all very convenient that this comes out when he wants to leave.

 

[Crow-mo]

There are no guarantees in life, period. When Joe Bloggs goes to his workplace on Monday, there's no guarantee he'll still have that job in 3 years time is there?

there is a guarantee for joe bloggs if he has a 3 year contract

The policy for 30+ year olds is absolutely spot on - and let's face it the Club is a business - not a feel-good charity. Goody and Macca and Edwards all have to operate within it. Why shouldn't Huddo (and he's not HALF the player they are)?

that is what I am saying, and what I think Carl is alluding to. if the club wants to run itself as business (as it should) then it should expect the players to treat it as such in all negotiations (as they should).

it's a business, and both parties are treating as such.

 

[Crow-mo]

Of course a player is going to be making their own 'pragmatic' life decisions in their own interests. But I see it more that the player is an asset of the organisation that they have invested time, money and resources into. And the organisation must maximise their return on this investment.

Look at St Kilda when they lost Jamie Shanahan and Joel Smith both for nothing. They were two members of their best 18. Their club was instantly 11% worse off and it took along time to recover.

personally, I agree with you entirely.

depending on how you cut this cake, the club in attempting to serve it's own interests may actually be achieving quite the opposite.

what is more likely to be damaging for the club - losing hudson, or giving him the 3rd year that the market dictates he deserves? If the club is pretty confident that he won't be much use in the 3rd year (age, injury, attitude, better young players coming through), then it should not object to him seeking greener pastures. if it is not so sure, then it is acting against it's own interests, to take such a confrontation and destructive approaches to one of it's most valuable players. jeez the doggies must be laughing.

This "it's policy" thing does my head in. policy is another word for decision. we decided to do this. fine. but it's no more than that. it's not law, regulation, it's not even ethics, it's just a decision.

and all decisions can be scrutinised as to whether they are good or bad.

 

[Crow-mo]

So the player has the power then? The ''business'' invested time in those 2 players and they still walked...shouldnt the business be compensated?

you need to get out more

that's true of all business's. if they don't invest in people, they can't attract or retain talent. some go, some stay, but long term it's a cost of doing business.

 

[CrowMagnum]

The 3 year contract is only part of the whole thing.

IMO Huddo asked for a 3 year deal because he knew the club wouldn't give it, which gave him a public reason to look around elsewhere.

Apparently he really threw his skirt over his head over the whole curfew issue and that plays a part in his decision as well.

Poor form and a lack of gratitude by Huddo IMO.

I'm sure you're right, he's spat the dummy over the curfew. As petulant and childish an overreaction that is, suspending a player for breaking curfew for an hour was in itself an overreaction that has had long term as well as short term consequences on the team.

Yes I know the club's bigger than the player and all that, but the bottom line is we lose our best ruckman, ungrateful as he is, when a significant but more moderate penalty could have been applied and still been effective.