Leaving a front-end contract early.

[C4[2]Yo`DooR]

Also known as the Justin Reid/Bryce Gibbs strategy - serve out the front-loaded portion of your contract, then reconnect with your former manager (now a list manager at a rival club) who’s already familiar with your contract details, and make a move for another pay bump.

 

[sydney_gws]

Also known as the Justin Reid/Bryce Gibbs strategy - serve out the front-loaded portion of your contract, then reconnect with your former manager (now a list manager at a rival club) who’s already familiar with your contract details, and make a move for another pay bump.

If somebody can get a list of players to have done this, I think an interesting observation could be made, but if you made it the comment would be deleted by moderators.

 

[Purple Suit]

I would remove minimum cap requirements and also make front loading and back loading contracts illegal. If you are playing a player $5 million over 5 years you can't use any sort of accounting tricks, you must pay them $1 million each year of their contract.

This would be bad for all clubs and filter onto the players, at least some of them. You can structure your payments but you need some flexibility since Charlie Curnow is now available and you need to be able to squeeze him into your cap. Swans traded out some players but they probably didn't cover Charlie's wage so a tweak between the pay/years of his contracts or a few others in required. The alternative is to keep delisting or trading players for the whole wage which is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I think the AFL should allow trading of cap with players, specifically for front ended deals back the other way. Currently clubs can do it for backend deals or over paid players like Clarry but there doesn't seem to be a mechanism when you have an underpaid player due to a back ended contract. Making up numbers but maybe Marshal could have gone to Geelong and they send back 200K a season for 2 years which would have covered his front ended deal. Clubs usually just offer more draft capital instead to cover the wage but that isn't always possible.

 

[RUNVS]

This would be bad for all clubs and filter onto the players, at least some of them. You can structure your payments but you need some flexibility since Charlie Curnow is now available and you need to be able to squeeze him into your cap. Swans traded out some players but they probably didn't cover Charlie's wage so a tweak between the pay/years of his contracts or a few others in required. The alternative is to keep delisting or trading players for the whole wage which is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I think the AFL should allow trading of cap with players, specifically for front ended deals back the other way. Currently clubs can do it for backend deals or over paid players like Clarry but there doesn't seem to be a mechanism when you have an underpaid player due to a back ended contract. Making up numbers but maybe Marshal could have gone to Geelong and they send back 200K a season for 2 years which would have covered his front ended deal. Clubs usually just offer more draft capital instead to cover the wage but that isn't always possible.

I actually think the opposite as I think a lot of top clubs need to create weird contracts in order to fit in their players and without being able to have different payment levels for a player per year they would not be able to keep that player, so as a result I think it would be good for equalisation as the top clubs would not be able to keep all their stars and some will as a result end up going to clubs that are further down the table and can afford that players salary in their cap.

 

[2notepockets]

There is always the Collingwood way, back end and trade em out against their will before they get paid... even paying for some of the contract at the new club you have pushed out wages and effectively cheated the cap and the player by knowingly underpaying, then refusing to honour the remainder...

 

[Purple Suit]

There is always the Collingwood way, back end and trade em out against their will before they get paid... even paying for some of the contract at the new club you have pushed out wages and effectively cheated the cap and the player by knowingly underpaying, then refusing to honour the remainder...

Good in theory except the player still has to agree & the Pies have to honor the contract if they don’t. I don’t think the player ever misses out on money in these scenarios, it’s more the case of potentially playing in the twos or move.

 

[Golumless]

The player is contracted, and there is nothing that forces the club to trade them, so I have absolutely no issue.

Clubs are gambling with front-loading, and occasionally they're going to get burnt.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I think it’s just part of the game. It’s a contract, the club can hold them if they wish.

 

[LordLucifer]

Afl should have a rule that means players cant get new contract when move clubs. Conditions of contract need to stay the same even if only 1 year left on contract. That's the risk clubs take trading in players. Its not like that many players are traded anyway

Correct.

Look at that Jack Bowes deal, Cats were given a first-rounder & Bowes so the Suns could have some salary cap relief only to restructure Bowes deal from two-years to four-years with no change on the total payments made.

That is past being farcical, its bloody scandalous.

If you trade a player in, you should inherit whatever is left on their current contract, the club can add years on etc but they can't change what is already in place.

Some players are using this tactic as a near scam, they get a lot of their contract money upfront and when the pittance years kick in, they trade out to another club who give themn the big money again.

 

[THE_GUN]

Correct.

Look at that Jack Bowes deal, Cats were given a first-rounder & Bowes so the Suns could have some salary cap relief only to restructure Bowes deal from two-years to four-years with no change on the total payments made.

That is past being farcical, its bloody scandalous.

If you trade a player in, you should inherit whatever is left on their current contract, the club can add years on etc but they can't change what is already in place.

Some players are using this tactic as a near scam, they get a lot of their contract money upfront and when the pittance years kick in, they trade out to another club who give themn the big money again.

But that deal is exclusive only to geelong and no other club is allowed to do that type of deal

 

[Vindicater]

Correct.

Look at that Jack Bowes deal, Cats were given a first-rounder & Bowes so the Suns could have some salary cap relief only to restructure Bowes deal from two-years to four-years with no change on the total payments made.

That is past being farcical, its bloody scandalous.

If you trade a player in, you should inherit whatever is left on their current contract, the club can add years on etc but they can't change what is already in place.

Some players are using this tactic as a near scam, they get a lot of their contract money upfront and when the pittance years kick in, they trade out to another club who give themn the big money again.

Agreed. It was partly what Merrett was trying to do this year. Had got most of his contract with us as we front loaded it. Then he would have gotten to Hawthorn and suddenly been on a lot more money.