List Mgmt. The Long Term Deal

[Enviable Tradition]

The ideal situation for us is one where player movement if free and player salaries and extra payments are more strictly enforced.

We have a competitive advantage in attracting players but we can't match the $$ of offer elsewhere

On SM-G960F using
BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[JohnHinckleyJr]

MG

 

[Jonts]

My ideal system what I think is still achievable with the way things currently are


Draft contracts are 2+2

After that 4 years you're a Free agent, either RFA or UFA.

Although once those 4 years are up and you're under contract you can be traded against your will

 

[El_Scorcho]

I'd be frustrated if we gave any player a 7 year deal worth millions unless we had reliable information that the salary cap was increasing significantly over the life of the deal.

My ideal system what I think is still achievable with the way things currently are


Draft contracts are 2+2

After that 4 years you're a Free agent, either RFA or UFA.

Although once those 4 years are up and you're under contract you can be traded against your will

I like this. I think it's going to be hard to convince the players too go with non-agreed trading, but hopefully bringing the FA delay down to 4 years will help that. The AFL really needed to bring in non-agreed trading as they brought in FA.

 

[SteppingTiger]

problem for me with players being forced to go to another club is when it comes to moving, there is significant cost and upheaval involved. I know if happens in other sports (NBA, NFL, EPL etc) however, the salaries are also much much higher, so the moving cost is not as much of the income.

I would also make it that any player looking to go/return to Vic can't nominate a club if there is 0 or 1 year left on the contract. Too much power there at the moment. Club signs you or 5 years and then wants to trade you at 2 years in.....the player has more flexibilty.

also like the 2+2 for draftees......

Oh and long term deal to Mitch, but really don't like anything more than 4 years tbh

 

[Enviable Tradition]

I like players being able to leave the Crows after 2 years

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Andre]

problem for me with players being forced to go to another club is when it comes to moving, there is significant cost and upheaval involved. I know if happens in other sports (NBA, NFL, EPL etc) however, the salaries are also much much higher, so the moving cost is not as much of the income.

I would also make it that any player looking to go/return to Vic can't nominate a club if there is 0 or 1 year left on the contract. Too much power there at the moment. Club signs you or 5 years and then wants to trade you at 2 years in.....the player has more flexibilty.

also like the 2+2 for draftees......

Oh and long term deal to Mitch, but really don't like anything more than 4 years tbh

The AFL could pay a once off moving allowance (outside caps) for players traded against their will, to help with moving costs. I'd even give the players some limited agency on where they'd get traded to. Clubs would have to provide players a choice of 3 clubs they could be traded to, with the player able to select which one to go to.

 

[Igavemyloveachicken]

I give the club credit for the environment they've created at Port Adelaide. Very rarely does the club lose players that they want to retain including interstate recruites, we also attract interstate players to the club. To the players such as Travis Boak and Jackson Trengrove who signed up when the club was on its knees I can't help but feel forever grateful.

 

[backtozero]

What would your ideal system be?

Right now I think there is too much player power. To me, it is absurd that a player can be drafted and then 1 year later request a trade back to their home state, and 9/10 times they're granted that request.

You have to back yourself in to keep players by making an environment that they want to be in, like Port has done. This scenario you've thrown up hasn't happened to us once yet.