Remove this Banner Ad

Trading a player on a heavily front end loaded contract?

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

The onus is on the trading club to pay the remaining contract
For example, if a team traded a player on 600k, but the team he's traded to will only pay him 400k, the old club pays the remainder

Clubs will often pay the bulk of the contract in good will though, as the new club will generally be more generous at the trade table
 
I've thought the same thing - if a player signs a front loaded contract they hold all the cards because they can hold the club to ransom after year 1 or 2 demanding a trade to a new club for a higher contract. Only reason it hasn't happened yet is the players/managers haven't figured it out yet. Clubs will wise up and start building in contingencies otherwise they'll get burned big time.
 
With the proliferation of trading within contract and players demanding trades to leave mid-contract the AFL needs to enact a rule where the new contract received has no increased value on what the exisiting contract was worth.
In this case if players truly wants out and wants to go home or leave for better opportunities to play, we know these reasons are legitimate and not a cash grab.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Still don't like how players get to decide when they want to leave. What's the point of contracts? If it's front loaded they can play 1 year then screw the club by 'requesting a trade home', if it's back loaded then the club can't do the equivalent.
Do they have to pay delisted players?

Otherwise Buddy could get $1 million over 8 years then be delisted and the Swan save other $9 million.
 
Paddy "I'll claim it's due to the drugs saga but it was really because i was a naughty boy and my missus runs the show" Ryder did that to Essendon. Not one mention was made of this by the mainstream media of course.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Trading a player on a heavily front end loaded contract?

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top