Should clubs enforce the AFL Player Contract?

Football Discussion Trade week Duursma head in
1

Every year the industry prepares a list of contracted / soon to be uncontracted players which we use as the basis of speculation about list changes .

Why bother ?

It is now established practice that if a contracted player requests a trade it will be done. Why? because that request supposedly represents a repudiation of the club, the playing group, and should that player stay at the club it will cause a break down of the “esprit de corps” that has long been part of the fabric of footy club land.

But its pretty clear that out of control player movement between clubs will reduce loyalty within a playing group anyway , since from one year to the next even a “core player” that “bleeds” what ever color you club might have, might leave and the player you might have been loyal to one year is gone the next: it degrades the fabric of clubland.

Right now the playing contract has become a farce and it looks like it will only get worse, now players start to realise player contracts are effectively not binding on them and players can walk out / be pushed out even when the ink is barely dry.

So, is it time now for clubs to enforce the contracts that players sign, and say to them, “You are a professional player and we expect you to behave like a professional and complete your contract, we will not release you” ?

2

100%

3

You’d end up with more Cam McCarthy’s.

4

From an ethical point of view I personally don’t like it at all when a player breaks a contract.
However, the clubs are active participants and are benefitting from the situation. It would be a very small percentage of players who ask to be released from a contract without having contact from a destination club.

There are two other options

  1. AFL enforced sanctions for any club and manager encouraging a player to break a contract. This would be easily gamed and unworkable to enforce.
  2. Clubs having the power to trade a contracted player to destination of the clubs choosing. The player would have the monetary terms of his contract guaranteed but no say at all on his destination. There are pros and cons of this but I’d think the AFL would have a very hard time getting the AFLPA to agree to it.
5
From an ethical point of view I personally don't like it at all when a player breaks a contract. However, the clubs are active participants and are benefitting from the situation. It would be a very small percentage of players who ask to be released from a contract without having contact from a destination club.

There are two other options

  1. AFL enforced sanctions for any club and manager encouraging a player to break a contract. This would be easily gamed and unworkable to enforce.
  2. Clubs having the power to trade a contracted player to destination of the clubs choosing. The player would have the monetary terms of his contract guaranteed but no say at all on his destination. There are pros and cons of this but I’d think the AFL would have a very hard time getting the AFLPA to agree to it.

How are they benefiting when they say I want to play for club XYZ only? McCarthy could have played for West Coast, Polec could have played for Adelaide and O’Meara has over 6 clubs to choose from in Victoria, but instead they bend their current club over by refusing to allow them the chance to get the best deal.

Adelaide offered their 1st pick for Polec… but Brisbane got bent over and had to accept a 2nd rounder or he walked.

6

There are times when contracts need to be broken. But this should not mean there isn’t a penalty. It’s pretty simple in my mind. No, you are not a slave to a footy club, but you need to understand that a contract is a legal promise - and you will keep that promise, or make amends for not doing so - just like getting out of your rental contract early, or some such.

Player has 4 year contract @ $500k p.a.
Wants to leave for whatever reason halfway through, against club wishes.
This will have many negative repercussions to the club and they should be compensated - by the player, not the AFL. It’s not the fault or problem of the rest of the 16 teams that a particular player wants to change jobs - they shouldn’t have to pay for it.
So as an example - the entry club must pay a % of the salary back to the exit team. Let’s say - 10% of the new contract * years.
So new club offers player 5 year contract at $600kp.a, will need to figure in $60k*5 years to the exit club. That should come out of the player’s wage.

Conversely, the reverse should happen. You sign someone on for 4 years - you pay them the contract. The same formula can be used - 10% of new contract *years. If the player is delisted, then the remainder of the contract must be paid in full.

To be clear - I’ve pulled ‘10%’ out of my behind, so don’t get stuck on it.

Compensation for Unrestricted Free Agents should be wiped. It’s pointless. Clubs know the status of their lists and contract terms - plan for it.

Restricted Free Agents - stupid system - get rid of it. Negotiate a new UFA term if needed.

No more shuffling farkin picks in the draft.

Now here’s a slight digression, and a bit controversial - Parent/Child system.
I’m sentimental, and reckon the popularity of the game hinges quite a bit on the romance of footy families. So I would make it easier for kids to play at their parents’ club. Separate and pre-draft, if a club and player agree, club selects them and adds to their list as usual. If they aren’t selected, they move into the draft like everyone else. Sometimes this will favour a club greatly over others - but it will even out over time. Most players have kids. No farkin shuffling draft picks.

No rookies. 50 players on a list. Develop at will.
No ‘Rookie B’ put them on your farkin list, you scabs.
3 year contract for draftees, with 2 year mandatory, last year subject to first formula.

No hidden arbitrary formulas. Stop farkin childishly trying to hide players’ salary.
Everyone knows what everyone gets anyway.
Carlton to be delisted
Tassie Roos
Hawking Demons
bleh

7
From an ethical point of view I personally don't like it at all when a player breaks a contract. However, the clubs are active participants and are benefitting from the situation. It would be a very small percentage of players who ask to be released from a contract without having contact from a destination club.

There are two other options

  1. AFL enforced sanctions for any club and manager encouraging a player to break a contract. This would be easily gamed and unworkable to enforce.
  2. Clubs having the power to trade a contracted player to destination of the clubs choosing. The player would have the monetary terms of his contract guaranteed but no say at all on his destination. There are pros and cons of this but I’d think the AFL would have a very hard time getting the AFLPA to agree to it.

How are they benefiting when they say I want to play for club XYZ only? McCarthy could have played for West Coast, Polec could have played for Adelaide and O’Meara has over 6 clubs to choose from in Victoria, but instead they bend their current club over by refusing to allow them the chance to get the best deal.

Adelaide offered their 1st pick for Polec… but Brisbane got bent over and had to accept a 2nd rounder or he walked.

Fremantle are benefitting from McCarthy, Port from Polec, and Hawthorn from O’Meara. Not all the clubs are benefitting, only the ones doing the poaching, but over time you’d expect all the clubs would be involved in the poaching.

8

If they want to leave and the club they want to go to is not providing their current club a favorable deal back they either stay or get shipped off to the highest bidder wherever that may be.

Forces clubs if they are going to go after contracted player to put up or ■■■■ off. Ensures players understand if they want to try and leave mid contract it could back fire on them.

At the moment almost getting to a point where you’d nearly not bother drafting in players from interstate to cancel out the go home factor, that is unless they barracked for the club as a kid and their family are rabid supporters.

Also why these academy kids so valuable to the start up teams.

9

Clubs are just as bad…If the contract no longer suits them, then they ‘convince’ the player to move on. Look at Mitchell at Hawthorn, do you really believe the ‘better opportunities to coach at West Coast’ bull? If he wanted to coach in 2018 and he was truly a good candidate, he would get a job. Clarko had a whisper in his ear, told him if he didn’t go, he would spend most of the season kicking dew in the reserves, and there was no chance of a coaching job at the Hawks, and there you go.

10
Clubs are just as bad.....If the contract no longer suits them, then they 'convince' the player to move on. Look at Mitchell at Hawthorn, do you really believe the 'better opportunities to coach at West Coast' bull? If he wanted to coach in 2018 and he was truly a good candidate, he would get a job. Clarko had a whisper in his ear, told him if he didn't go, he would spend most of the season kicking dew in the reserves, and there was no chance of a coaching job at the Hawks, and there you go.

If Mitchell wanted to leave and Hawthorn told him to ■■■■ off and he refused to play, the club would have had to pay his contract and got nothing out of him. If the club told Mitchell they wanted him to leave and he told them to ■■■■ off and refused to play, the club would have had to pay his contract and got nothing out of him.

Clubs are definitely as bad as players, for example Geelong convincing everyone to take less pay on the understanding they’d get a couple of bonanza yearrs when the successful years were past then just unceremoniously dumping them.The issue is that once there’s a contract, it binds the clubs more than it binds the players.

As for the highest bidder thing, that wouldn’t really change anything. The reason that clubs almost always cave when a contraced player wants out is because nobody wants a guy on their list who doesn’t want to be there (especially when he might just straight up refuse to play). If a player wants to move to Victoria and says “Hawks or bust”, how high is the highest trade bid going to be? Which club is going to put up first round picks for a guy who says he’ll just refuse to play?

11
From an ethical point of view I personally don't like it at all when a player breaks a contract. However, the clubs are active participants and are benefitting from the situation. It would be a very small percentage of players who ask to be released from a contract without having contact from a destination club.

There are two other options

  1. AFL enforced sanctions for any club and manager encouraging a player to break a contract. This would be easily gamed and unworkable to enforce.
  2. Clubs having the power to trade a contracted player to destination of the clubs choosing. The player would have the monetary terms of his contract guaranteed but no say at all on his destination. There are pros and cons of this but I’d think the AFL would have a very hard time getting the AFLPA to agree to it.

How are they benefiting when they say I want to play for club XYZ only? McCarthy could have played for West Coast, Polec could have played for Adelaide and O’Meara has over 6 clubs to choose from in Victoria, but instead they bend their current club over by refusing to allow them the chance to get the best deal.

Adelaide offered their 1st pick for Polec… but Brisbane got bent over and had to accept a 2nd rounder or he walked.

Fremantle are benefitting from McCarthy, Port from Polec, and Hawthorn from O’Meara. Not all the clubs are benefitting, only the ones doing the poaching, but over time you’d expect all the clubs would be involved in the poaching.

Thats what I was saying. How do their current/Previous club benefit?
Brisbane got bent over with the 5 players demanding trades home all demanded to go to one club.

GWS didn’t benefit from McCarthy’s sook last year and this year sitting out. Atm they are clear winners thanks to plethora of picks and academy kids.

We barely scraped by with Ryder wanting Port.

Good on Carlton standing firm on Gibbs.
Will be interesting to see how GC negotiate JOM. But he has screwed them by demanding Hawthorn or draft. Now they are locked into Hawks who hold the cards.

Good on Adams too not nominating a club. Just saying home to WA… happy to play for either if not go back next year once his contract is up.

12
From an ethical point of view I personally don't like it at all when a player breaks a contract. However, the clubs are active participants and are benefitting from the situation. It would be a very small percentage of players who ask to be released from a contract without having contact from a destination club.

There are two other options

  1. AFL enforced sanctions for any club and manager encouraging a player to break a contract. This would be easily gamed and unworkable to enforce.
  2. Clubs having the power to trade a contracted player to destination of the clubs choosing. The player would have the monetary terms of his contract guaranteed but no say at all on his destination. There are pros and cons of this but I’d think the AFL would have a very hard time getting the AFLPA to agree to it.

How are they benefiting when they say I want to play for club XYZ only? McCarthy could have played for West Coast, Polec could have played for Adelaide and O’Meara has over 6 clubs to choose from in Victoria, but instead they bend their current club over by refusing to allow them the chance to get the best deal.

Adelaide offered their 1st pick for Polec… but Brisbane got bent over and had to accept a 2nd rounder or he walked.

Fremantle are benefitting from McCarthy, Port from Polec, and Hawthorn from O’Meara. Not all the clubs are benefitting, only the ones doing the poaching, but over time you’d expect all the clubs would be involved in the poaching.

Thats what I was saying. How do their current/Previous club benefit?
Brisbane got bent over with the 5 players demanding trades home all demanded to go to one club.

GWS didn’t benefit from McCarthy’s sook last year and this year sitting out. Atm they are clear winners thanks to plethora of picks and academy kids.

We barely scraped by with Ryder wanting Port.

Good on Carlton standing firm on Gibbs.
Will be interesting to see how GC negotiate JOM. But he has screwed them by demanding Hawthorn or draft. Now they are locked into Hawks who hold the cards.

Good on Adams too not nominating a club. Just saying home to WA… happy to play for either if not go back next year once his contract is up.

The current clubs don’t benefit. I assumed Uncle Chris was saying that part of the problem is that clubs don’t really want the problem fixed because they get such a large benefit when they can poach a player. And if Brisbane gets screwed 5 times by 5 different clubs, then that’s 5-1 not wanting to change the system.

13
If they want to leave and the club they want to go to is not providing their current club a favorable deal back they either stay or get shipped off to the highest bidder wherever that may be.

That’s it for me.

1 Like
14

A player can put a price on their hand before a draft (PSD only?). If they do that but also name a team, it’s draft tampering and one day the AFL will enforce their own rules*. What’s the difference?

  • something something something governance.
15
There are times when contracts need to be broken. But this should not mean there isn't a penalty. It's pretty simple in my mind. No, you are not a slave to a footy club, but you need to understand that a contract is a legal promise - and you will keep that promise, or make amends for not doing so - just like getting out of your rental contract early, or some such.

Player has 4 year contract @ $500k p.a.
Wants to leave for whatever reason halfway through, against club wishes.
This will have many negative repercussions to the club and they should be compensated - by the player, not the AFL. It’s not the fault or problem of the rest of the 16 teams that a particular player wants to change jobs - they shouldn’t have to pay for it.
So as an example - the entry club must pay a % of the salary back to the exit team. Let’s say - 10% of the new contract * years.
So new club offers player 5 year contract at $600kp.a, will need to figure in $60k*5 years to the exit club. That should come out of the player’s wage.

Conversely, the reverse should happen. You sign someone on for 4 years - you pay them the contract. The same formula can be used - 10% of new contract *years. If the player is delisted, then the remainder of the contract must be paid in full.

To be clear - I’ve pulled ‘10%’ out of my behind, so don’t get stuck on it.

Compensation for Unrestricted Free Agents should be wiped. It’s pointless. Clubs know the status of their lists and contract terms - plan for it.

Restricted Free Agents - stupid system - get rid of it. Negotiate a new UFA term if needed.

No more shuffling farkin picks in the draft.

Now here’s a slight digression, and a bit controversial - Parent/Child system.
I’m sentimental, and reckon the popularity of the game hinges quite a bit on the romance of footy families. So I would make it easier for kids to play at their parents’ club. Separate and pre-draft, if a club and player agree, club selects them and adds to their list as usual. If they aren’t selected, they move into the draft like everyone else. Sometimes this will favour a club greatly over others - but it will even out over time. Most players have kids. No farkin shuffling draft picks.

No rookies. 50 players on a list. Develop at will.
No ‘Rookie B’ put them on your farkin list, you scabs.
3 year contract for draftees, with 2 year mandatory, last year subject to first formula.

No hidden arbitrary formulas. Stop farkin childishly trying to hide players’ salary.
Everyone knows what everyone gets anyway.
Carlton to be delisted
Tassie Roos
Hawking Demons
bleh

I agree its not usually the fault of the original club that a player wants to leave for more money. There are also clauses in the contract covering negligence by the club, governance , compensation right to mediation etc etc which are supposed to provide remedy in the event of genuine grievance but it seems that if the club has a grievance its just too bad.

The issue I am raising is mostly about the poaching of contracted players, when clubs think they have a right to seduce a player they would like at their club and so arrange for the player to break their contract with the original club.

Poaching contracted players is quite contrary to the AFL goal of equalisation, because the top clubs are the ones that are able to attract the best players. The AFL controls the whole shooting match. If they wanted to stop poaching they would. They would just make up another rule. I think it may yet come to that.

16

1 year contracts, throw every available player into the draft every year, no trades, $$$ based on pick you were drafted with
Women’s AFL/T20 style (or more accurately NBA jam 99)

17

Rant time! Free agency compensation picks are the most illogical… The AFL works out the pick equivalent to the contract, but they don’t make the acquiring team pay that, they make the other 16 uninvolved teams pay it by shuffling them down the draft. Indefensible!!! Take the equivalent points off the acquiring team like academy bidding!!!

PS. Salary cap is the only true leveller these days.

18
PS. Salary cap is the only true leveller these days.

Except that with the current set up, Brisbane’s list is worth at least 95% of the Dogs.
Don’t mind a cap, but minimum spending is crap

19

eh, buy out clauses will soon enter contracts.
hopefully clubs are smart enough to make the players pay the out clause, instead of other clubs.

20
There are times when contracts need to be broken. But this should not mean there isn't a penalty. It's pretty simple in my mind. No, you are not a slave to a footy club, but you need to understand that a contract is a legal promise - and you will keep that promise, or make amends for not doing so - just like getting out of your rental contract early, or some such.

Player has 4 year contract @ $500k p.a.
Wants to leave for whatever reason halfway through, against club wishes.
This will have many negative repercussions to the club and they should be compensated - by the player, not the AFL. It’s not the fault or problem of the rest of the 16 teams that a particular player wants to change jobs - they shouldn’t have to pay for it.
So as an example - the entry club must pay a % of the salary back to the exit team. Let’s say - 10% of the new contract * years.
So new club offers player 5 year contract at $600kp.a, will need to figure in $60k*5 years to the exit club. That should come out of the player’s wage.

Conversely, the reverse should happen. You sign someone on for 4 years - you pay them the contract. The same formula can be used - 10% of new contract *years. If the player is delisted, then the remainder of the contract must be paid in full.

To be clear - I’ve pulled ‘10%’ out of my behind, so don’t get stuck on it.

Compensation for Unrestricted Free Agents should be wiped. It’s pointless. Clubs know the status of their lists and contract terms - plan for it.

Restricted Free Agents - stupid system - get rid of it. Negotiate a new UFA term if needed.

No more shuffling farkin picks in the draft.

Now here’s a slight digression, and a bit controversial - Parent/Child system.
I’m sentimental, and reckon the popularity of the game hinges quite a bit on the romance of footy families. So I would make it easier for kids to play at their parents’ club. Separate and pre-draft, if a club and player agree, club selects them and adds to their list as usual. If they aren’t selected, they move into the draft like everyone else. Sometimes this will favour a club greatly over others - but it will even out over time. Most players have kids. No farkin shuffling draft picks.

No rookies. 50 players on a list. Develop at will.
No ‘Rookie B’ put them on your farkin list, you scabs.
3 year contract for draftees, with 2 year mandatory, last year subject to first formula.

No hidden arbitrary formulas. Stop farkin childishly trying to hide players’ salary.
Everyone knows what everyone gets anyway.
Carlton to be delisted
Tassie Roos
Hawking Demons
bleh

I agree its not usually the fault of the original club that a player wants to leave for more money. There are also clauses in the contract covering negligence by the club, governance , compensation right to mediation etc etc which are supposed to provide remedy in the event of genuine grievance but it seems that if the club has a grievance its just too bad.

The issue I am raising is mostly about the poaching of contracted players, when clubs think they have a right to seduce a player they would like at their club and so arrange for the player to break their contract with the original club.

Poaching contracted players is quite contrary to the AFL goal of equalisation, because the top clubs are the ones that are able to attract the best players. The AFL controls the whole shooting match. If they wanted to stop poaching they would. They would just make up another rule. I think it may yet come to that.

You may have misunderstood, and I failed to explain properly.
I said (and meant) - it’s not the OTHER 16 clubs fault/problem. Therefore, it IS the issue of the exit/receiving clubs.