Trading a player on a heavily front end loaded contract?

[DAWESOME!!]

With players, such as Gibbs and McCarthy, asking to be traded while contracted with multiple years left to run on that contract, how does it work if the contract is heavily front end loaded?

Reputedly we're seeing clubs being increasingly creative in terms of front ending some players, back ending others and generally manipulating when they pay the bulk of a player's wages rather than simply spreading it out evenly.

Say a club signs someone on a four year, $2m deal, with the first year heavily front ended to include $1m, then $333k the next three years, because that's what fits their list profile and cap needs. At the end of that first year, the player decides they need to move interstate or to a fresh start with another team.

Has the club essentially "done their money"? Would there be negotiations to adjust how much money the player walks away with?

No value judgement either way, if people are abiding by the rules good luck to them. Just curious about how it works.

 

[pazza]

You'd hate to be the first club, paying out for no return, whilst the other club is happily getting a near freebie.

Perhaps there needs to be rules in place regarding such payment arrangements.

 

[robertg22]

Happened with Paddy Ryder a couple of years ago I believe, and Essendon were seething.

 

[JayJ20]

They might as well not call it a contract anymore. Players nowadays decide when they want to leave, and to which club they want to go to, after initially signing the contract.

 

[Lensen]

The risk you take when manipulating the cap. It isn't and shouldn't be a risk free option

 

[CD__]

It's just a risk you take when you draw up the contract that way...nobody is forcing clubs to front-load contracts.

 

[Substance]

The risk you take when manipulating the cap. It isn't and shouldn't be a risk free option

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.

 

[BF Tiger]

I wondered similarly. If, for instance, Gibbs and Carlton are in this boat then I'd suggest Carlton don't budge unless they get an Adelaide player who is paid by the Crows to make up the difference somewhat.

 

[bugalugs213]

Its a rort when its any other club doing it but when its my club its fine.

 

[Lensen]

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.

They don't get to decide. If the club refuses to trade them then the player goes nowhere. Clubs are being either weak or pragmatic depending on your view so far but then all is in their court to change it

 

[markr]

You also see plenty of players with a year to run on a back-ended deal getting shopped around, and you can bet they get pressured to "be reasonable" when clubs they are being shopped to balk at the money being asked.

 

[rdhopkins2]

Clubs take the risk in front loading but end of the day the club has to agree to a suitable trade unless the player is happy to sit out a year. That said, a player that doesn't want to play will probably find a way to get traded.

 

[FastLife]

If a team gets a player on the cheap because the contract was Front Loaded at the start of the contract at his old club. Wouldn't that Player's trade value be higher?

 

[rdhopkins2]

If a team gets a player on the cheap because the contract was Front Loaded at the start of the contract at his old club. Wouldn't that Player's trade value be higher?

The club losing the player would argue so, the club recruiting would claim current market value based on recent performance. So the actual contract would probably lie somewhere in between (or the current club won't want to trade).

 

[Jade]

Happened with Paddy Ryder a couple of years ago I believe, and Essendon were seething.

I assure you that was not why we were seething.

 

[robertg22]

I assure you that was not why we were seething.

Yeah it's just part of the picture, but they weren't overly happy with it.

 

[Jade]

Yeah it's just part of the picture, but they weren't overly happy with it.

Tell you what, easily the least favourite person to have actually decided to leave Essendon.

 

[robertg22]

Tell you what, easily the least favourite person to have actually decided to leave Essendon.

I think we're definitely on the same page then! But yeah I do believe his contract was front ended which certainly didn't help the situation.

 

[Purple Suit]

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.

They don't though if they are contracted, Clubs can say no to a trade. Clubs can also try to shop around a backloaded player but the player can also say no. Swings and roundabouts, I think the power equilibrium is pretty good at the moment.

 

[McCrann]

With players, such as Gibbs and McCarthy, asking to be traded while contracted with multiple years left to run on that contract, how does it work if the contract is heavily front end loaded?

Reputedly we're seeing clubs being increasingly creative in terms of front ending some players, back ending others and generally manipulating when they pay the bulk of a player's wages rather than simply spreading it out evenly.

Say a club signs someone on a four year, $2m deal, with the first year heavily front ended to include $1m, then $333k the next three years, because that's what fits their list profile and cap needs. At the end of that first year, the player decides they need to move interstate or to a fresh start with another team.

Has the club essentially "done their money"? Would there be negotiations to adjust how much money the player walks away with?

No value judgement either way, if people are abiding by the rules good luck to them. Just curious about how it works.

If that's the case don't trade the player - back yourself in to turn him around and hold him to the contract. If he has 3 years to run he isn't going to spend that whole time sulking.

If there's a year to run on the contract - sure, it's probably worth trading him unless you think you can win a Premiership that year.

End of the day, if you're signing a long-term contract, it can be worth front-ending and back-ending at the same time. Hollow out the middle years.

I suppose you could call these 3 or 4 or 5 or longer contracts "Valley Contracts".

 

[catstorm]

This is not as bad as what happens in America.

Players value is 10 million a year signs a 5 year deal at 50 million

Year 1 - 15 million
Year 2- 15 million
Year 3 - 10 million
Year 4 - 5 million
Year 5 - 5 million

Problem is they get to year 4 and hold out saying nah I'm worth 10 million a year and I'm not playing until you pay me what I'm worth.

 

[DAWESOME!!]

Thanks for the replies. So it is essentially a risk for the club to do this, so far as we know they have no recourse via AFL rules. (I suppose you could write a contract to include clauses about what happens if a party decides to ask to be released, but good luck enforcing that if you've paid, and they've spent, the money).

To clarify, if they ask to be traded, the receiving club wouldn't be getting them at a bargain price. The old contract would get torn up and a new one negotiated. Matching the terms of the old contract only comes into play when it works in the player's favour as they are the ones who have to agree. If a player did it right and was very lucky, they could in theory negotiate a series of heavily front ended contracts, and each time walk after the peak year. Obviously clubs would cotton on and refuse to structure a deal that way with that player, but that would be the only thing stopping it.

 

[Furn2]

Teams are under no obligation to trade contracted players.

 

[Furn2]

There's nothing you can do cap wise since the money's been spent and the year has gone.

I would think if you were to do the trade you would have to to try to factor in the fact that the player is on less money now and ask for more.

Of course a prudent manager would try to get a new deal with the new club at market rates.

 

[Thats Wright]

You'd want to be careful trading in players from Carlton.

Even coaches.