Minimum 3 year contracts for drafted players

Football Discussion Non Essendon Stuff
1

I know watching Footy Classified can be like going to the dentist at times, but for what it is worth, Craig Hutchison may have come up with an idea that just might work.

Anyone drafted these days gets a standard 2 year contract.

This has created a bit of a meat market, whereby clubs can chase top flight young talent and offer shitloads of money for it (i.e. Tom Boyd). With James Aish seemingly fielding offers from Carlton, Collingwood, Hawthorn and the 2 Adelaide clubs, it will be on again this year.

So Hutchy has proposed that every drafted player is given a 3 year minimum contract by the club drafting that player. Rewards the clubs for the risk they take in drafting the player and tells the player to physically and mentally develop, and gain at least 40-50 games experience, before considering their options.

2

so what about the senior blokes on two year deals.
sure theyll be thrilled.

3

I’m agin’ it.

The draft system already weighs things in the clubs favour against what might be the wishes of the player. And if they can’t sell the club in two years that’s on them.
Let kids go home after two years if they want to.

4

For the early round picks that should be mandatory, but if you’re piocking someone up past the 2nd round, it becomes a bit of a crapshoot and you wouldn’t want to carry someone on your list for a 3rd year who you’ve discovered after 2 that they’re not up to it. So I’d say first 2 round it’s a 3-year contract across the board, from the 3rd round onwards keep it at 2 years with maybe a 3rd year triggered by the middle of the 2nd season, and it is a club-based decision.

5

Personally, I think blanket three year deals would just reduce the risks teams take with recruiting even further. What I’d do is keep it at two years (actually I’d scrap the rookie list, and make fourth round and later players 1 year contracts, but that’s another topic), but give clubs the ability to enforce an extra couple of years for the players they really want to keep.

Something like a 2 year deal, with a club option on a third and fourth year, third at the AFL average salary, fourth at the average of the top 25% players or something. Give a deadline early-ish in the year that clubs have to decide whether they’re going to exercise the option, so that players know what’s going on.

That way clubs can keep a hold of young talent if they want but they don’t get to keep them for peanuts, which means the players can’t really argue that their earning capacity is being impacted etc etc. Nothing stopping teams from signing players to normal contracts after the first two years if they want to, either.

6
I know watching Footy Classified can be like going to the dentist at times, but for what it is worth, Craig Hutchison may have come up with an idea that just might work.

Did Craig Hutchison come up with this after watching Jon Brown say the exact same thing On The Couch last week?

7
I'm agin' it.

The draft system already weighs things in the clubs favour against what might be the wishes of the player. And if they can’t sell the club in two years that’s on them.
Let kids go home after two years if they want to.

I agree and disagree. You’re not wrong that two years should be long enough to sell a player on a club, but I think in a lot of chances clubs aren’t being given the chance. Players are going there with the attitude that they need to endure their two years (now just the first year if they’re emphatic enough) and then leave. If it keeps up as it is, there are going to be a lot more Wingard situations, at which point the draft is compromised to the point that it might as well be scrapped.

8

How about clubs have option to offer 2 or 3 year deals for first round players. Same as players have option to accept a 3 year deal or request 2 years, its more security for them but ultimately their choice.
Then its not mandatory.
clubs get a choice. Ie Hawks with pick 18 may not want to risk a 3 year contract on a first year player who they are questionable at drafting, and have great depth.
whereas saints would love to lock in pick 2 on 2nd best player in the land for a 3 year deal.

Imagine how ■■■■■■ hawks would be if they had 3 year contract with garlett, less chance those types picked up…also older mature age recruits less chance as well if need to risk 3 year contract.

And the AFL love creating more rules, so this one will probably be a new one.

would we offer langford and laverde 3 year deals…maybe, but i would still prefer 2 years, we can sell efc to them, and they ahve opportunity to stand out. Zach merrett is a lot better now than we he was first drafted. 2 years is a long time in footy.
Imagine Heeney after 2 years.

9
Personally, I think blanket three year deals would just reduce the risks teams take with recruiting even further. What I'd do is keep it at two years (actually I'd scrap the rookie list, and make fourth round and later players 1 year contracts, but that's another topic), but give clubs the ability to enforce an extra couple of years for the players they really want to keep.

Something like a 2 year deal, with a club option on a third and fourth year, third at the AFL average salary, fourth at the average of the top 25% players or something. Give a deadline early-ish in the year that clubs have to decide whether they’re going to exercise the option, so that players know what’s going on.

That way clubs can keep a hold of young talent if they want but they don’t get to keep them for peanuts, which means the players can’t really argue that their earning capacity is being impacted etc etc. Nothing stopping teams from signing players to normal contracts after the first two years if they want to, either.

good idea by you.
First round players 2 or 3 year deals optional club/player
second round players - 2 year deal
third round players -2 year deal
fourth round + beyond - 1 year deal. 2 year deal optional by club/player

Get rid of rookies & Rookie draft. All players drafted are eligible to play round 1.
allow delisted & mature age players to train with AFL clubs prior to national draft.
Get it all done on one day.

10
I'm agin' it.

The draft system already weighs things in the clubs favour against what might be the wishes of the player. And if they can’t sell the club in two years that’s on them.
Let kids go home after two years if they want to.

I agree and disagree. You’re not wrong that two years should be long enough to sell a player on a club, but I think in a lot of chances clubs aren’t being given the chance. Players are going there with the attitude that they need to endure their two years (now just the first year if they’re emphatic enough) and then leave. If it keeps up as it is, there are going to be a lot more Wingard situations, at which point the draft is compromised to the point that it might as well be scrapped.

I really don’t care about the club’s point of view, I’m more interested in the 18-19 year-old kid living 3,400km from his home, his family and friends.
Seems to me the same thing could be achieved by the AFL doing its friggin’ job and stamping out clubs enticing contracted players, or putting a compensation framework in place.

Or you could just extend the indentured servitude, I guess.

11
I'm agin' it.

The draft system already weighs things in the clubs favour against what might be the wishes of the player. And if they can’t sell the club in two years that’s on them.
Let kids go home after two years if they want to.

I agree and disagree. You’re not wrong that two years should be long enough to sell a player on a club, but I think in a lot of chances clubs aren’t being given the chance. Players are going there with the attitude that they need to endure their two years (now just the first year if they’re emphatic enough) and then leave. If it keeps up as it is, there are going to be a lot more Wingard situations, at which point the draft is compromised to the point that it might as well be scrapped.

I really don’t care about the club’s point of view, I’m more interested in the 18-19 year-old kid living 3,400km from his home, his family and friends.
Seems to me the same thing could be achieved by the AFL doing its friggin’ job and stamping out clubs enticing contracted players, or putting a compensation framework in place.

Or you could just extend the indentured servitude, I guess.

If that’s your take on it, then your ideal solution would be just scrap the draft, or make it state based or something? I’m not saying that’s a bad idea, just wanting to clarify.

Edit: or I guess, just get everyone to deal with the fact at draft camp some decent percentage of players are going to do a Wingard.

12
I'm agin' it.

The draft system already weighs things in the clubs favour against what might be the wishes of the player. And if they can’t sell the club in two years that’s on them.
Let kids go home after two years if they want to.

I agree and disagree. You’re not wrong that two years should be long enough to sell a player on a club, but I think in a lot of chances clubs aren’t being given the chance. Players are going there with the attitude that they need to endure their two years (now just the first year if they’re emphatic enough) and then leave. If it keeps up as it is, there are going to be a lot more Wingard situations, at which point the draft is compromised to the point that it might as well be scrapped.

I really don’t care about the club’s point of view, I’m more interested in the 18-19 year-old kid living 3,400km from his home, his family and friends.
Seems to me the same thing could be achieved by the AFL doing its friggin’ job and stamping out clubs enticing contracted players, or putting a compensation framework in place.

Or you could just extend the indentured servitude, I guess.

If that’s your take on it, then your ideal solution would be just scrap the draft, or make it state based or something? I’m not saying that’s a bad idea, just wanting to clarify.

My take on it it is that the draft is a necessary evil that gives the bottom clubs the greatest of all gifts, which is hope.
That’s fine, but it shouldn’t be forgotten that it comes at the cost of a worker being allowed to choose his employer.
I’m against skewing the balance even further from the employee, especially when there are other methods available.

Admittedly those methods rely on a non-corrupt administrating body, so you could probably file that under idealism too.

13

Leave it how it is.

If a player wants to leave then let them.

Having an unhappy player (especially a kid) who wants to leave is bound to happen and I believe all players should have a say in where they want to go or whether or not they wish to stay in a certain environment.

He is 19 years old, he probably misses home as most teenagers would, he misses his family and his friends, why should a club get preference over a persons basic rights?

I think we all get caught up in the game and often forget that players are still people. They are human beings like you and I. They aren’t just robots that are left in the change rooms after a game until next week and switched on a couple of hours before game time.

These are people with families that often live on others sides of the country, they have other interests outside of football even in some cases different careers (Winderlich, Buddy Franklin with his designer label) who are pushed to the limit every week just so we can either eat humble pie or rub someones face in it during the week at work.

It is Brisbane afterall and their culture isn’t something I would expect to lure anyone to the club. (Beams and Christensen were exceptions but I wouldn’t expect the same thing to happen anytime soon). It isn’t an appealing team and who knows what his motivations are to leave but I think he ■■■■■■ well deserves the god given right to choose where he plays football.

Some people will say: “Well that’s just tough, you know what you are in for when you make yourself eligible for the draft, he needs to suck it up.” which is just utter crap.

He is a person with emotions and feelings just like anybody else and I don’t think someone should have to stay in an environment they don’t wish to.

How would anyone here feel if they were moved to a different state from their family for work reasons and told: “You have to stay here now for 3 years, you can’t leave as it is our right as a company to do with you as we please and we want you here for that period of time.”

I think almost everyone here would struggle with that, but then imagine that you are 18 years old. You are a kid still. It would be extremely difficult.

How football clubs should get more credence over people is beyond me.

14

A well paid career where people have to move away from home to go where the jobs are, and they have a non-compete clause? So, it’s the mining industry?

And yes, I’m being deliberately inflammatory.

15

If Hutchy is concerned about employment arrangements then maybe he might start by actually paying the people that work for his company?

16

So you want to ensure that kids drafted are on small contracts for 3 years instead of two.

Think of Heppell or Judd. When they finished year two they were already on the path to being superstars. They deserved the pay rises.

17
If Hutchy is concerned about employment arrangements then maybe he might start by actually paying the people that work for his company?

Nothing but net.

18
A well paid career where people have to move away from home to go where the jobs are, and they have a non-compete clause? So, it's the mining industry?

And yes, I’m being deliberately inflammatory.

If the mining industry was exclusively staffed by under twenties, and those kids had no choice between the closest mine and Tom Price, and they were paid less, and they weren’t allowed to get ■■■■■■ and take drugs or they’d shut down the mine (actually…maybe scratch that one), and they weren’t given extensive leave…then yeah, exactly the same.

19

Why not just get rid of The Lions instead?

Address the real issue

20
I know watching Footy Classified can be like going to the dentist at times, but for what it is worth, Craig Hutchison may have come up with an idea that just might work.

Anyone drafted these days gets a standard 2 year contract.

This has created a bit of a meat market, whereby clubs can chase top flight young talent and offer shitloads of money for it (i.e. Tom Boyd). With James Aish seemingly fielding offers from Carlton, Collingwood, Hawthorn and the 2 Adelaide clubs, it will be on again this year.

So Hutchy has proposed that every drafted player is given a 3 year minimum contract by the club drafting that player. Rewards the clubs for the risk they take in drafting the player and tells the player to physically and mentally develop, and gain at least 40-50 games experience, before considering their options.


Huh? How would this help with scenarios like Boyd? Boyd had just finished his first year so still had a year to go…