List Mgmt. Contracts/Trade/Draft Thread - 2025 Edition

[Keys]

Quick links

• Player contract status
• Draft prospect video highlights (thanks to noobermensch)

Players out of Contract 2025 (12)

Spoiler

• Oscar Allen (19/3/99) - Signed a 3 year extension (2023-25) on an existing contract due to expire 2022 in May 2021
• Campbell Chesser (27/4/03) - Signed a 2 year extension (2024-25) on an existing contract due to expire 2023 in May 2022
• Tom Cole (28/5/97) - Signed a 3 year extension (2023-25) in May 2022
• Rhett Bazzo (17/10/03) - Signed a 2 year extension (2024-25) on an existing contract due to expire 2023 in September 2022
• Jayden Hunt (3/4/95) - Signed a 3 year contract (2023-25) in October 2022
• Callum Jamieson (31/7/00) - Signed a 2 year extension (2024-25) in March 2023
• Jamie Cripps (23/4/92) - Signed a 2 year extension (2024-25) in August 2023
• Jack Petruccelle (12/4/99) - Signed a 2 year extension (2024-25) in August 2023
• (R) Loch Rawlinson (1/6/05) - Signed a 1 year extension (2025) in September 2024
• (R-B) Coen Livingstone (25/5/05) - Signed a 1 year extension (2025) in September 2024
• (R-B) Malakai Champion (17/5/06) - Automatic 1 year contract (2025) when added as a Cat B Rookie in November 2024
• (R) Jacob Newton (20/3/06/) - Automatic 6 month contract (2025) when drafted in May 2025

Provisional 2025 Draft order

Spoiler

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

How are players being restrained from moving and plying their trade elsewhere?

They are free to change employers or even change competitions.

Realistically, no they’re not. There’s one full professional elite Australian rules football league in the world. If they changed competitions then their earning capacity would be a tiny fraction of what they’re getting.

And they can’t freely change employers within the AFL, for the most part, even after their contract has expired. Unless they qualify for unrestricted free agency they have to rely on their old employer and prospective new employer reaching a deal, or they have to put themselves in a pool. That doesn’t happen in other fields. If you don’t like your accounting firm you can quit and go apply to as many other accounting firms as you like and any of them can hire you if they like.

Employers agreeing to fix wages etc isn't restraint of trade from my non legal background and limitedunderstanding after 5 min on Google.

From my non non legal background it is. There’s articles on this, I don’t know how many are easily and publicly available but I can have a dig if you really, really want.

The rugby league draft case you mentioned does give a pretty good explanation, from memory. It’s called Adamson and it’s from 1991, I’m sure it’s on austlii.

 

[Mop]

Realistically, no they’re not. There’s one full professional elite Australian rules football league in the world. If they changed competitions then their earning capacity would be a tiny fraction of what they’re getting.

And they can’t freely change employers within the AFL, for the most part, even after their contract has expired. Unless they qualify for unrestricted free agency they have to rely on their old employer and prospective new employer reaching a deal, or they have to put themselves in a pool. That doesn’t happen in other fields. If you don’t like your accounting firm you can quit and go apply to as many other accounting firms as you like and any of them can hire you if they like.




From my non non legal background it is. There’s articles on this, I don’t know how many are easily and publicly available but I can have a dig if you really, really want.

The rugby league draft case you mentioned does give a pretty good explanation, from memory. It’s called Adamson and it’s from 1991, I’m sure it’s on austlii.

Dig, brother Fivey, dig!

 

[Big_Birdy]

Maybe it does and maybe it doesn’t. Because of the nature of elite sport they’re allowed to have restraints that are reasonable to maintain an even competition.

Whether or not the draft is a reasonable restraint of trade would make an interesting court case.

Certainly would. Important to note that was the standard set in the Federal Court, not High Court. From memory I remember thinking when reading the Adamson case (the NRL one, not the West Perth one) they have gone a bit rogue with that standard and it isn't reflected in the Act but that's just my opinion.

I should re-read it probably before making such strong statements.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Certainly would. Important to note that was the standard set in the Federal Court, not High Court. From memory I remember thinking when reading the Adamson case (the NRL one, not the West Perth one) they have gone a bit rogue with that standard and it isn't reflected in the Act but that's just my opinion.

I should re-read it probably before making such strong statements.

There’s no Act, it’s a common law principle.

 

[Big_Birdy]

There’s no Act, it’s a common law principle.

There’s both.

Trade Practices Act 1974 s 45 relates to restraint of trade in contracts.

The players made both statutory and common law claims. Failed on statutory, succeeded on common law (yes I had to look it up). So yeah I may have got some wires crossed, need to re-read it.

 

[Big_Birdy]

There’s both.

Trade Practices Act 1974 s 45 relates to restraint of trade in contracts.

The players made both statutory and common law claims. Failed on statutory, succeeded on common law (yes I had to look it up). So yeah I may have got some wires crossed, need to re-read it.

Miguel Sanchez actually that act got repealed didn’t it? It’s now the consumer and competition act or something?

Actually don’t know if section 45 got transferred over.

 

[Boohemian]

Dig, brother Fivey, dig!

I hear chopping, but I don't hear digging!

Edit - D'oh. It's the other way around.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

There’s both.

Trade Practices Act 1974 s 45 relates to restraint of trade in contracts.

The players made both statutory and common law claims. Failed on statutory, succeeded on common law (yes I had to look it up). So yeah I may have got some wires crossed, need to re-read it.

Miguel Sanchez actually that act got repealed didn’t it? It’s now the consumer and competition act or something?

Actually don’t know if section 45 got transferred over.

Ah ok, the TPA was found not to apply in Adamson because it was a contract for service that was the subject of the action, but there’s some debate over whether it (or its successor) would apply in other circumstances e.g. if a club was to challenge the salary cap.

Yeah it’s now the Australian Consumer Law but I’ve never got out of the habit of calling it the TPA.

 

[Smotie2]

Exactly half of the 2018 premiership side joined the club after Worsfold left,
- Ryan, Rioli, Barrass, Cole, Venables, Duggan, Vardy, Sheed, Yeo, Redden, Jetta.

6 of 1 half a dozen of the other.

 

[eaglevision]

Can one of you legal boffins clarify if it’s legal to overtake another vehicle by passing underneath it whilst it’s in motion?

 

[WCE777]

Just saw McCarthy has been announced to debut this weekend.
Bit of old dodge the question from McQaulter today, in he hasn't trained with our main squad enough, need to set him up for best success!

 

[DanWCE]

Just saw McCarthy has been announced to debut this weekend.
Bit of old dodge the question from McQaulter today, in he hasn't trained with our main squad enough, need to set him up for best success!

Mini working the media like a seasoned pro. But also his comments were extrapolated by the media that McCarthy was unlikely. That's not how I took it listening along.

 

[Scotland]

Realistically, no they’re not. There’s one full professional elite Australian rules football league in the world. If they changed competitions then their earning capacity would be a tiny fraction of what they’re getting.

And they can’t freely change employers within the AFL, for the most part, even after their contract has expired. Unless they qualify for unrestricted free agency they have to rely on their old employer and prospective new employer reaching a deal, or they have to put themselves in a pool. That doesn’t happen in other fields. If you don’t like your accounting firm you can quit and go apply to as many other accounting firms as you like and any of them can hire you if they like.

Love a good restraint of trade chat.

That there is only one AFL is kinda secondary to the point. You can play professionally anywhere, it's just that there's only one competition financially viable enough to pay players a professional wage. If there was a Super League situation or an EPL situation where the first division clubs "quit" the football league that would be another matter. You can enter the NBA draft, be drafted then decide to not sign and go play overseas - but you can't then just come back and decide you feel like playing for the Lakers. That's not how it works.

As I understand it player contracts are tripartite between the player, league and club. You can't really expect to sign a contract that says "I will abide by the AFL CBA" then try and challenge it. I don't know what would happen if you tried to test the draft, out of contract status etc. in the legal system but by the same token under Fair Work you can't employ someone on a fixed term contract longer than 2 years yet here we are. Every time the topic comes up it's because players aren't getting what they want. If players want to be treated like Joe Citizen then how about everyone just goes on two year fixed term contracts or standard employment contracts or is paid under an award? I'm clubs would love to be able to make players redundant and pay a month or two of salary rather than be stuck with a contract for 2-3 years.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Love a good restraint of trade chat.

That there is only one AFL is kinda secondary to the point. You can play professionally anywhere, it's just that there's only one competition financially viable enough to pay players a professional wage. If there was a Super League situation or an EPL situation where the first division clubs "quit" the football league that would be another matter. You can enter the NBA draft, be drafted then decide to not sign and go play overseas - but you can't then just come back and decide you feel like playing for the Lakers. That's not how it works.

As I understand it player contracts are tripartite between the player, league and club. You can't really expect to sign a contract that says "I will abide by the AFL CBA" then try and challenge it. I don't know what would happen if you tried to test the draft, out of contract status etc. in the legal system but by the same token under Fair Work you can't employ someone on a fixed term contract longer than 2 years yet here we are. Every time the topic comes up it's because players aren't getting what they want. If players want to be treated like Joe Citizen then how about everyone just goes on two year fixed term contracts or standard employment contracts or is paid under an award? I'm clubs would love to be able to make players redundant and pay a month or two of salary rather than be stuck with a contract for 2-3 years.

The two-year limit on fixed term contracts doesn’t apply to employees earning more than $175k per year, which I imagine is the case for anyone who signs a three year deal.

It can also be overruled in an award, not sure whether the CBA counts as an award.

 

[Dom sheed pocket]

Love a good restraint of trade chat.

That there is only one AFL is kinda secondary to the point. You can play professionally anywhere, it's just that there's only one competition financially viable enough to pay players a professional wage. If there was a Super League situation or an EPL situation where the first division clubs "quit" the football league that would be another matter. You can enter the NBA draft, be drafted then decide to not sign and go play overseas - but you can't then just come back and decide you feel like playing for the Lakers. That's not how it works.

As I understand it player contracts are tripartite between the player, league and club. You can't really expect to sign a contract that says "I will abide by the AFL CBA" then try and challenge it. I don't know what would happen if you tried to test the draft, out of contract status etc. in the legal system but by the same token under Fair Work you can't employ someone on a fixed term contract longer than 2 years yet here we are. Every time the topic comes up it's because players aren't getting what they want. If players want to be treated like Joe Citizen then how about everyone just goes on two year fixed term contracts or standard employment contracts or is paid under an award? I'm clubs would love to be able to make players redundant and pay a month or two of salary rather than be stuck with a contract for 2-3 years.

Employers can't contract away their legal obligations. It's why waivers for concussion would never be legally binding.

Restraint of trade is generally unlawful, unless the employer (in this case the AFL) can prove that the restraint is reasonable, necessary and justified in the circumstances.. The supposed legal basis for the AFL restraining earning potential of AFL players by the existence of the salary is that the cap is necessary for equalisation, and equalisation is reasonable and justified in the circumstances as equalisation in the best interests of the competition, the AFL and players as a whole.

I can't see a similar legal argument for a hard cap on contract length. In saying that, the AFL already does certain things to disincentivise long-term contracts. Eg: They offer points towards FA compensation for contract length up til 5 years where it maxes out, and also recent developments on AFL salary cap relief for concussion related retirements where the amount outside the cap for payouts decreases beyond 3 years out.

Something such as reducing distributions and dividends for contracts 5+ years would be in the bucket of soft measures to disincentivise long contracts, primarily because the AFL isn't legally mandated to a certain funding formula, and some clubs could still offer long term contracts based on their own income streams, as long as it was under the cap.

In terms of fixed term contracts and how they apply to the AFL, it's not entirely clear what the status of AFL players is. There are arguments that they are employees, other arguments that are contractors who offer their services.

Not a lawyer, just a fan.

 

[eaglespremiers]

Can one of you legal boffins clarify if it’s legal to overtake another vehicle by passing underneath it whilst it’s in motion?

Have you been to see the new Mission Impossible film by chance?

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

In terms of fixed term contracts and how they apply to the AFL, it's not entirely clear what the status of AFL players is. There are arguments that they are employees, other arguments that are contractors who offer their services.

They’re employees of the clubs. That’s their status. There’s no possible basis to argue they’re contractors.

 

[Jootube]

Looking at the 2025 Draft, we might end up being very lucky to avoid the glut of Academy-associated players.

It appears that Duursma and CDT are the top two prospects, and assuming we lose Oscar and get R1 Compo - we should take both without blinking.

Then let Richmond/North deal with the next 4 picks being matched by the Suns/Lions/Swans.

Thoughts?

 

[Ruben Grubarb]

Looking at the 2025 Draft, we might end up being very lucky to avoid the glut of Academy-associated players.

It appears that Duursma and CDT are the top two prospects, and assuming we lose Oscar and get R1 Compo - we should take both without blinking.

Then let Richmond/North deal with the next 4 picks being matched by the Suns/Lions/Swans.

Thoughts?

1. Hardly anyone here wants him. Maybe 3 people. If you go to the Ricmond board, it's about the same. Exceot they are scathing. They are so not into him.

It's interesting that appropriately 97% of supporters from two clubs don't want him

2. The phantom drafts are questionable. After Sharp and Fred dominated, they went backwards.

I'm not convinced he'll top 2.

 

[maverick001]

The other question is what is a ‘contract’ anyway? It used to mean something watertight and binding.

The way it is these days, it is binding in the sense the club is obliged to pay the player, but it's not binding in the sense the the player is obliged to stay at the club.
So to a degree, its the worst of both worlds for the club. Only real benefit to them is it gives them bargaining leverage at trade table if the player wants to leave when under contract.

 

[06Premiers]

Looking at the 2025 Draft, we might end up being very lucky to avoid the glut of Academy-associated players.

It appears that Duursma and CDT are the top two prospects, and assuming we lose Oscar and get R1 Compo - we should take both without blinking.

Then let Richmond/North deal with the next 4 picks being matched by the Suns/Lions/Swans.

Thoughts?

The academy players make literally no impact to who we can pick from, just the pick number.
It's shit that our top picks won't necessarily be the best players in the pool, but it is what it is.

If we have 1 & 2, we should use pick 1 on who we rate highest (so the player gets the cash bonus & prestige of being #1), and then bid on every top end academy prospect to force those clubs to match at the highest price.

 

[Obeanie1]

Realistically, no they’re not. There’s one full professional elite Australian rules football league in the world. If they changed competitions then their earning capacity would be a tiny fraction of what they’re getting.

And they can’t freely change employers within the AFL, for the most part, even after their contract has expired. Unless they qualify for unrestricted free agency they have to rely on their old employer and prospective new employer reaching a deal, or they have to put themselves in a pool. That doesn’t happen in other fields. If you don’t like your accounting firm you can quit and go apply to as many other accounting firms as you like and any of them can hire you if they like.




From my non non legal background it is. There’s articles on this, I don’t know how many are easily and publicly available but I can have a dig if you really, really want.

The rugby league draft case you mentioned does give a pretty good explanation, from memory. It’s called Adamson and it’s from 1991, I’m sure it’s on austlii.

Did a bit more reading.

Price fixing is one form of restraint of trade.

There are guidelines where an employer can restrain someone from moving or participating in industry or areas.

Price fixing is one form of .restraint.

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

Can one of you legal boffins clarify if it’s legal to overtake another vehicle by passing underneath it whilst it’s in motion?

 

[Obeanie1]

The academy players make literally no impact to who we can pick from, just the pick number.
It's shit that our top picks won't necessarily be the best players in the pool, but it is what it is.

If we have 1 & 2, we should use pick 1 on who we rate highest (so the player gets the cash bonus & prestige of being #1), and then bid on every top end academy prospect to force those clubs to match at the highest price.

Or we benefit in pick trading with those clubs and dont bid.

Not convinced on CDT.

Use 1 on Duursma and split 2 with whoever is in love with CDT.

Then land two other 1sts or just take Sharp with pick 2.

 

[ziad]

Did a bit more reading.

Price fixing is one form of restraint of trade.

There are guidelines where an employer can restrain someone from moving or participating in industry or areas.

Price fixing is one form of .restraint.

I certainly have been exposed to this.