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.
Contracts can be renegotiated for the third year - And players make money up during their career - You don’t want any more Boyd cases where a first year player agrees to accept a Million Dollar contract for year 3.
what's wrong with boyd case? GWS have Cameron and Patton. Got gifted multiple first round draft picks over a series of years. drafted an unbalanced amount tall forward talent. Dogs needed a tall forward and couldn't get at a good one coz GWS takes them all for years and GC took them all before that.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.
Contracts can be renegotiated for the third year - And players make money up during their career - You don’t want any more Boyd cases where a first year player agrees to accept a Million Dollar contract for year 3.
Just as an opinion on the 3year contract deal. There’s no loophole to get out of the fact that money influences how systems function.
2 year contracts didn’t make it fair. The end of capitalism would still see players preferring certain teams for other reasons.
And really I don’t think it’s much of a “problem” anyway. It seems unfair in isolation but broken down to it’s base principals one team having a couple faster players than their opponent is an inequity. The sport is not about everyone on an equal paying field resource and ability wise, it’s about everyone on a level playing field rule wise (or should be), and having more money, power and desirability is a way the clubs compete as much as the players compete by being stronger or more skilled than their opponents. Getting a kid that wants to leave to play for their childhood team is as much luck and reward for earlier club successes as it is unfair.
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.Clubs can offer more than two year deals - A few draftees sign 3 year contracts - JD signed a five year contract.
That’s not technically true (although it is effectively true). The salary for first and second year players is set by the CBA. Draftees can sign contract extensions once they sign their first contract, but they only come into effect after the preset first two years.
I'm against it.Mandatory 3 yr contracts would make clubs even more conservative & risk averse in their drafting than they already are (if such a thing is possible)
You’d see even less indigenous, didadvantaged, short but talented, and otherwise marginal kids get picked while every club would double down on upper middle class whitebread private schoolkids.
And as we’ve seen with judas, it’s not as if length of contract actually means anything when a player decides they want out, after all.
Clubs can extend the initial contracts by 12 months after the draft if player & clubs come to terms.
1 year deals would give clubs more of a reason to pick high risk/reward players. and may create quicker list turnover.
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.
Technically they are employed by the AFL so they have chosen their employer. What they do not get to choose is which office they work in.
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.
Technically they are employed by the AFL so they have chosen their employer. What they do not get to choose is which office they work in.
Or we could just lose the analogies and say they’re young elite sportsmen who don’t get to choose what state they live in being asked to extend their tenure, possibly at the risk of their own professional development, because a franchise is going through a bad patch.
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.Clubs can offer more than two year deals - A few draftees sign 3 year contracts - JD signed a five year contract.
That’s not technically true (although it is effectively true). The salary for first and second year players is set by the CBA. Draftees can sign contract extensions once they sign their first contract, but they only come into effect after the preset first two years.
Yes - But obviously the contract for a third or fourth or fifth year will be commensurate with the players potential and performance.
From memory, Polec signed a three year contract when he was drafted by Brisbane.
Why dont the AFL just grow a set of balls and actually step in to make sure that the clubs get adequate deals on these types of scenarios where contracted young players are getting too much of a say.
For example: If Aish decides to leave and nominates a club and that club offers a 2nd round junk pick plus a fringe player, than the AFL should step in and say that isn’t fair as Aish was a top 10 pick and proven quality.
the AFLPA are allowing clubs to get bent over. They now want to allow the FA length to be lowered to 6 years for unrestriction… why not just say we want all players to have the Larry Bird rule of being contracted for 3 years before they can become unrestricted… oh wait they already get that after one… the Tom Boyd rule
Like I’ve stated every time this comes up. Yes kids will have to move interstate… happens in most teams sports around the world. But What’s different is in this generation that’s coming through is a sense of spoilt selfish ‘all about me’ mentality where just because they make it to the top of their profession, they can dictate a contract and hold a club to ransom.
Keep in mind, I’m not saying all players are like this, but in recent years we are seeing more of it. This will hurt lower clubs as they are putting in hard earned time and money to train and nurture these players and for what? To lose them and have to start over. Brisbane, Melbourne, GWS and Gold Coast will cop it for years and to make it worse, they don’t get market value. No way was Polec worth a second round pick.
The AFL need to allow clubs to have more power. Only in AFL do the AFLPA have so much control on the AFL. In the NBA they haveva shorter FA period of 3 years, but they cant trade the player anytime to anyone. You dont hear players sook it up because they know that’s how it is. If they are good enough, their club will pay fair value. MLB are the same.