Idea: Player Retention Contracts

[Crow Chick]

I was thinking of the aspect of players wanting to move back to their home states and came up with an idea that I think could work for all clubs.

• Player X from SA gets drafted to a VIC club
• Signs an initial 2 year playing contract
• Signs a 5 year retention contract

• After 2 year playing contract expires he can:
  a) sign a new playing contract with VIC club
  b) leave VIC club to return to SA, however can't play AFL until his retention contract expires
  c) leave VIC club to return to SA, however trade is worked out by an independent AFL trade panel or the club that is losing the player receives a draft pick (maybe the same pick they picked him up in + a pick at the beginning of the 4th round e.g for Watts that would have been 14 + 49 )and the playing returning to VIC goes in the national draft and can be picked up.
  
• If they choose option b they can return to AFL after 5 year rention contract is up. By choosing this option they are basically saying that moving home is more important than playing AFL
• Option c ensures that the VIC club isn't ripped off by a player demanding to be traded home and going into the PSD.
• If the player stay at the VIC club for 5 years (length of his retention contract) he is free to be traded without AFL intervention

I think it could work. For most players and clubs it would be a non issue, but for some clubs it would be good. Say with Watts and Adelaide, after 2 years Watts decides he wants back to VIC. Adelaide say we don't want you to leave, but you can go back and play out your rention contract in the VFL. Watts then has to decided what's more important, staying in Adelaide and playing AFL or moving back home. If they still want to play AFL an independent panel works out a fair trade for the club they are leaving, however, they are still thrown into the draft and whatever club wants them the most has to give up a draft pick for them.

 

[-VC-]

Hmmm, I'm not sure about the specifics that you came up with but the principle of a player retention contract is very interesting. In cases like Fergus Watts or dare I say, John Meesen it will have given us more time to develop the player and increase their trade value.

Guys like Kane Johnson and Tyson Stenglein left on good terms with the Crows because we got a lot out of them and we got a fair trade deal in return.

My thoughts on a player retention scheme would be more along the lines of restricted free agency in US sports. The team that is chasing the young player has to give up a predetermined draft pick (we don't have free agency here, but at the end of the day that is a trade in my books) to break the rights to that player.

In a lot of cases the predetermined pick would be too much to pay (the idea is that it makes it hard for players to return to their home state in their first five years) so the player ends up seeing out his five years at the club. Obviously at any stage the club would have the right to waive the retention clause to send the player back home, and also it wouldn't apply if the player wasn't moving back to his home state eg. Cameron Wood.

Interesting idea CC (how many CC's do we have on the Crows forum!) and I'm not sure that the AFL would be willing to give it a go, or if it could even be worked out to be fair and practical but I like it all the same. The problem is all the bullshit restraint of trade claims the AFLPA goes on about.

 

[relapse]

I think the proposed free agency rules cover this also as the drafting club has first option on the players contract for their first five seasons where they have the ability to retain the player provided they can match the offer.

 

[Stiffy_18]

I could see AFLPA kicking up a real stink about the bit where players sits out until the retention contract expires!

 

[J-Ro-20]

ill give you full points for creativity there...

 

[Crow Chick]

ill give you full points for creativity there...

Just an idea, pretty rough I know but I think the AFL needs to be a bit more proactive in a lot of their policies.

As well as helping clubs out I actually think that it would be to the benefit of young players as well. Being tied to one club for 5 years, would prevent pressures from family and friends to move back home and would prevent all those negative thoughts about what could have been (instead of positive thoughts of I'm lucky to have been given a shot in the AFL). 5 years is a pretty good time to get settled and establish yourself. In 5 years have the chance to build your body up to AFL standard and even if 18 months are wiped out by injury you still have enough time to 'get an opportunity'.

 

[Crow-mo]

if it's not against both the AFL collective bargaining rules, and general labour principles of the country, why would anyone sign it?

you'd have to be a bit soft in the head to even think about signing one.

 

[boffo]

The only change I would make is that uncontracted players (such as Meesen and Hudson) have to go in the national draft and not the PSD (which should only be for delisted players i.e. rejects). Then clubs such as Melbourne or WB would have to do a fair trade or trust their luck in the ND, and they surely wouldn't want to have to use too high a draft pick on these recycled players. This would force them into a fair trade of players/draft picks.


The current system is not too bad though - we lost out this year but it will all even up in the long run....wait until a top young former SA player wants to return home - we (or Port) be the beneficiaries then.

 

[johnnypanther]

its so obvious to all that the PSD is a flawed process but Vlad & Anderson close their eyes - now i'm not sure if its because the PSD process benefits the Victorian based clubs or whether its just a continuation of their lack of professionalism - either way i cant see anything changing unless the non-Vic clubs really make a big issue out of it and i'm surprised they dont.

Crows Chick your lateral thinking is a bit above the minds of those who run the AFL unfortunately. And i agree with Vic Crow - this restraint of trade threat is a load of crap - geez if the players dont want to play footy under the rules of the competition then let them go work in a factory or wherever.

 

[boffo]

On second thoughts, why have a PSD at all?

Why don't all uncontracted players just go in the one national draft:

• delisted players
• players who haven't re-signed with their clubs
• new players (i.e. those who mostly make up the national draft)

 

[Crow-mo]

Crows Chick your lateral thinking is a bit above the minds of those who run the AFL unfortunately. And i agree with Vic Crow - this restraint of trade threat is a load of crap - geez if the players dont want to play footy under the rules of the competition then let them go work in a factory or wherever.

That might be your opinion, but it's completely at odds, in fact wrong, as a point of law.

 

[Port_GW]

The Draft goes against the laws of the land, and i for one cant wait until its challenged. It nearly happend about 15 years ago with Brett Cooke from Norwood, but he never followed through with it. Lets hope someone has the courage to take the AFL to court, but given the financial might of the AFL it would be very daunting. If the Kangaroos move to Qld happens and they get the draft pick allowances as speculated, this could be enough for Eddie to go to court, and who knows maybe even the whole system could be challenged and thrown out.

 

[Mong]

On second thoughts, why have a PSD at all?

Why don't all uncontracted players just go in the one national draft:

• delisted players
• players who haven't re-signed with their clubs
• new players (i.e. those who mostly make up the national draft)

That's the way to go. It means teams have to choose how they value an uncontracted player compared to a rookie. It just makes sense.

 

[Mong]

An idea that I think has a bit more merit would be to reduce the salary cap, but allow teams to go over the salary cap a certain amount with players already on your list. The reduction of the cap would be designed to keep overall player payments at the same level.

The system would be similar to the veterans list I suppose where they can have 50% of their salary outside the cap. Perhaps 20% over the cap for re-signing players would make it easier for clubs to retain players.

 

[Crow-mo]

best thing they can do is introduce limited free agency AND drop the players right to veto a trade.

essentially bring things much closer in line with the true rights and obligations of a contract. you do what we say when under contract, and when out, then you can determine your future.

 

[relapse]

best thing they can do is introduce limited free agency AND drop the players right to veto a trade.

essentially bring things much closer in line with the true rights and obligations of a contract. you do what we say when under contract, and when out, then you can determine your future.

I agree with that idea. If players gain free agency then they should lose the right of refusal when traded.