Leaving a front-end contract early.

[CatToTheFuture]

Why is nothing said about players leaving front-end contracts the year before their pay drops. Surely, this a cheeky move and one that clubs should hold them to, especially if they're moving to another club for a pay rise as well. What is the rule on that and what protections do clubs have?

I think clubs will just price that into their pick demands for a contracted player.

Geelong caved on Marshall and offered what saints initially asked for and they still didn't trade him. So I think it's a factor.

 

[Hamingja]

Another problem that is easily solved if you remove the minimum cap requirements.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Another problem that is easily solved if you remove the minimum cap requirements.

100 % but the aflpa wont allow it.

 

[fishardansin]

100 % but the aflpa wont allow it.

If the Salary cap was "over 5 years", then the players would still get paid. It is a bit like the taxation system!

The other thing I was thinking about out loud on the bomber's board, looking at Draper and Merrett being unrestricted free agents at the end of their contracts, is a "U-shaped" contract. That is both front-loaded and back-ended! So bring a chunk of it forward now, but have the middle years as the lowest paid in their contract with it ramping up towards the end. This would allow you to trade for a very good player (and front end their contract) in the middle years of that contract. As far as the player goes, they get that cash up front that they could invest with, and know that their club would happily trade them at the back end of their contract if things weren't going well. From the clubs point of view, they still have the whip hand when it is Free Agency time!

 

[Jeremias]

Is the issue that there are players looking to leave front-ended contracts early, or that clubs are largely too soft to enforce these contracts?

The simple solution is that clubs should have the balls to stand up to player managers.

 

[Tasmanian saint]

It's not a great look but I also don't like clubs like Collingwood punting out the likes of Treloar because they couldn't manage their cap properly, or the Saints trying to shift on Steele because they don't want to pay an aging star 7 figures.

It's a two way street.

Both treloar and Steele could have stayed if they really wanted to you can’t force a contracted player out

 

[VinnieB]

Why is nothing said about players leaving front-end contracts the year before their pay drops. Surely, this a cheeky move and one that clubs should hold them to, especially if they're moving to another club for a pay rise as well. What is the rule on that and what protections do clubs have?

Isn't it the club that pushes the front end deal to manage their salary cap?

 

[freo_leo29]

what protections do clubs have?

They have a contract where the player cannot play for another club without being traded


That is literally the protection, the simple answer is to not trade them, like North did with Simpkin and Saints did with Marshall.

If a club chooses to do the trade then they will require something that makes it worth it to them, another example, Freo held Lobb to his front ended contract in 2021 and then by the end of 2022 we were bringing in Jackson who would be playing the exact position that Lobb played, so we were fine to let him go that year.

Clubs can and do choose not to trade these players, the protection is the contract.

 

[eastfreo75]

Is the issue that there are players looking to leave front-ended contracts early, or that clubs are largely too soft to enforce these contracts?

The simple solution is that clubs should have the balls to stand up to player managers.

I really loved what the Saints did with Marshall.

Clubs need to hold players to contracts. Players can’t have it both ways. If you want security with a long contract then you lose flexibility. If you want flexibility you lose security.

 

[Tonythetiger]

I don't think it's actually a big deal, it's more lack of transparency that makes it seem a bit dodgy to us fans. Like it's a grub move to get to the lower paid years and then try to get out, but the club has to decide whether it's worth taking. Offer a high enough pick and it's worth it. It makes sense why Saints wanted to keep Marshall if he's on a low wage because they couldn't bring as good a player in for the same wage. Players should want the front end rather than the back end deal as it's more likely they will find themselves traded like a Grundy or a Treloar.

 

[Dogflogger]

How about GC offering pick 7 to Geelong to take Bowes? Did Geelong get to restructure that deal or did they have to take that salary hit for those conracted years?

 

[Jeremias]

I really loved what the Saints did with Marshall.

Yes, and despite the uproar I like what Essendon did re: Merrett.

Clubs need to hold players to contracts. Players can’t have it both ways. If you want security with a long contract then you lose flexibility. If you want flexibility you lose security.

They don’t need to, if it’s in the best interests of the club then they should trade the player regardless of the contract.

But they absolutely should hold players to contracts if it suits them to do so.

 

[Fud#3]

I really loved what the Saints did with Marshall.

Clubs need to hold players to contracts. Players can’t have it both ways. If you want security with a long contract then you lose flexibility. If you want flexibility you lose security.

And if players/managers come out and say the player isn't going back to the club, there's a penalty in place

 

[Tonythetiger]

How about GC offering pick 7 to Geelong to take Bowes? Did Geelong get to restructure that deal or did they have to take that salary hit for those conracted years?

That deal 100% was bullshit. Total corruption.

 

[Lore]

They should introduce forced averaging over the length of the contract and write ratchet clauses into the standard playing contract. The AFLPA might agree to the former if it’s negotiated against the introduction of the latter.

 

[eastfreo75]

And if players/managers come out and say the player isn't going back to the club, there's a penalty in place

Don't pay their salary and let them sit.

Sure, if there are family reasons to go home but the player and his manager need to pick a side that can organize a win win trade.

Time for clubs to hold their ground and not be screwed in a trade when wants to move.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

How about GC offering pick 7 to Geelong to take Bowes? Did Geelong get to restructure that deal or did they have to take that salary hit for those conracted years?

Like with all non-free agency contracts, as long as both the club and player agree then a contract can be restructured.

 

[Falchoon]

I really loved what the Saints did with Marshall.

Clubs need to hold players to contracts. Players can’t have it both ways. If you want security with a long contract then you lose flexibility. If you want flexibility you lose security.

TBH I don't think we did that much.

A 'reasonable' offer earlier in the trade period probably gets Marshall done.

 

[Freomaniac]

Another problem that is easily solved if you remove the minimum cap requirements.

True....

Said this many times before. Minimum playing salary cap is 95 percent. I understand equalization and all that.

But there is so little wriggle room. Knock it down to 90 percent or 92.5 percent.

If the playing salary cap is 20 million. That means 95 percent of that is 19 million.

90 percent of that is 18 million. 92.5 percent of that is 18.5 million

 

[emblurr]

Can clubs put a clause in the contract that the player must pay back the money if they get trade?

Example player x has a contract worth $4m over 4 years. Years 1 and 2 are $1.5m and years 3 and 4 $0.5m. The player gets traded in year 3 and pay the club $1m back.

We have a similar clause to this at my workplace. We can do certifications/exams and get a $1000 bonus. But if we resign from the company within 12 months of getting the bonus, we have to pay it back.

 

[RUNVS]

Another problem that is easily solved if you remove the minimum cap requirements.

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.

 

[Rob R]

They have a contract where the player cannot play for another club without being traded


That is literally the protection, the simple answer is to not trade them, like North did with Simpkin and Saints did with Marshall.

If a club chooses to do the trade then they will require something that makes it worth it to them, another example, Freo held Lobb to his front ended contract in 2021 and then by the end of 2022 we were bringing in Jackson who would be playing the exact position that Lobb played, so we were fine to let him go that year.

Clubs can and do choose not to trade these players, the protection is the contract.

IIRC, Lobbe had the same manager as Hill and came out with the same story about needing to move to be with family as soon as the front ended part of his contract ended. Well done by freo at the time and hopefully clubs noted that managers behaviour.

 

[eastfreo75]

IIRC, Lobbe had the same manager as Hill and came out with the same story about needing to move to be with family as soon as the front ended part of his contract ended. Well done by freo at the time and hopefully clubs noted that managers behaviour.

Colin Young is pretty dirty in his dealings and personally I really hoped that Fremantle would black ban this grub.

 

[ScrappyDo]

It goes both ways, So you don’t see a problem with a player getting paid extra money over a couple of seasons and then when it comes time to be getting the smaller amounts decides to go somewhere else on more money double dipping

It literally benefited your club - Marshall can request a trade if he wants, that is the risk you took front loading his deal so you could offer other guys more money towards the end of his contract.

Clubs sign off on these deals as well, I think there is plenty of fair criticism for AFL players these days but both parties (Club and player) are agreeing to this.

Case in point. The club held the whip hand and said no when the deal wasn't satisfactory.

 

[ScrappyDo]

Can clubs put a clause in the contract that the player must pay back the money if they get trade?

Example player x has a contract worth $4m over 4 years. Years 1 and 2 are $1.5m and years 3 and 4 $0.5m. The player gets traded in year 3 and pay the club $1m back.

Nice idea but front or back loading is done at the instigation and for the benefit of the club, not the player so you can't dump the player with the liability for it.

In the end when a player moves they have a singular value which is their cost/benefit ratio. The better the ratio the higher the trade price.
Salary dumps represent the opposite end of the scale and no one is really complaining about that because it benefits the club to offload an overpriced player.
Also, the player's contracts are with the AFL and not the clubs so it becomes more difficult.
In all cases it's part of the new free market for player movement and you can't have it both ways. It's still the payments outside the cap that are the problem.