Giving big contracts have kill us

[Free Agent]

Over the last few years we have giving Gov Gaff Sheed Darling Barrass Yeo Kelly Allen and more long term contracts. Goes on and on the amount we have given over the years.

All given 5 year contracts. It's just too long in today's game. We should never give out contracts of more then 3 years.

Issue is with this players get complacent. Players get lazy and players don't play for the club. They play for themselves knowing they are not going anywhere for a long The effort isn't there and often they go on holidays. You see a lot in them last few years. We are a bottom 4 club yet these players are on huge contracts living it up and not giving two stuffs about results.

We are managed by a bunch of idiots. Our football depart has a lot to answer for.


Sent from my CPH2025 using Tapatalk

 

[Jootube]

I don't totally disagree with what you're saying, but you have to offer some kind of job security and reward to players who have been great servants for the club. Plenty of the blokes you've mentioned have been exactly that.
With that being said, we 100% should have let Gaff walk when we had the chance.

 

[Free Agent]

I don't totally disagree with what you're saying, but you have to offer some kind of job security and reward to players who have been great servants for the club. Plenty of the blokes you've mentioned have been exactly that.
With that being said, we 100% should have let Gaff walk when we had the chance.

Not in AFL. Job security at the top level is by what they produce. If they know they are performing then will get rewarded with another 3 years contract. If they expect more then that they are dreaming. You don't do that in this game. Just absolutely stupid of the club to be giving out long 5 year contracts. The lessons will be well and truely learnt when we stay shit for the next 5 years stuck with players in the mud and on the downhill. Never want the Eagles to give out anymore 5 years contract ever again as the game changes from year to year. What was once a good player one year becomes a fringe players the next. It's to brutal of a comp for us to give out long contracts anymore.

Sent from my CPH2025 using Tapatalk

 

[Tyberious Funk]

Over the last few years we have giving Gov Gaff Sheed Darling Barrass Yeo Kelly Allen and more long term contracts. Goes on and on the amount we have given over the years.

All given 5 year contracts. It's just too long in today's game. We should never give out contracts of more then 3 years.

Issue is with this players get complacent. Players get lazy and players don't play for the club. They play for themselves knowing they are not going anywhere for a long The effort isn't there and often they go on holidays. You see a lot in them last few years. We are a bottom 4 club yet these players are on huge contracts living it up and not giving two stuffs about results.

We are managed by a bunch of idiots. Our football depart has a lot to answer for.


Sent from my CPH2025 using Tapatalk

Jeremy McGovern was reportedly given a five year deal after courting offers from other clubs for six year deals. That was midway through 2018. At that stage he already had two All Australians. Later in the season, he collected another AA and won a premiership, including playing a pivotal role in the game despite carrying a significant injury. He went on the pick up another AA in 2019.

It's easy to look back in hindsight and say he had a pretty poor 2020 and 2021. But if we didn't offer him a significant deal in 2018, he would have definitely left and we would have looked like a laughing stock giving up one of the best defenders in the game who was in the middle a hotstreak of good form and who subsequently won us a Grand Final.

 

[daddy_4_eyes]

All given 5 year contracts. It's just too long in today's game. We should never give out contracts of more then 3 years.

That was correct 10 years ago, where 2 year contracts were standard and superstars were rewarded with 3 years.

Today stars are getting 5-6 year contracts.

 

[Seadog]

I recognise all the words in the thread title but my brain freezes when I try and read them in that sequence.

 

[HoneyBadger35]

Unfortunately, from the clubs’ perspective, there’s a fair bit of player power here.

“I just made my second All Aus. He made two All Aus and got a five year deal”
“Well we only ever give out max three year deals”
“No worries. I’ll find a club that will.”

Wouldn’t be a situation unique to us, very hard to keep your top line players without paying them a competitive offer, and the contract market is heading in the direction of four/five year deals being relatively common.

 

[Ochre]

In hindsight we should've just signed them all to 2 year contracts at the league minimum. Would've put us in a much better position.

 

[KERRPOW]

The league should just mandate maximum contract terms.

 

[DickDunn]

Very naive to think that clubs could just offer three year contracts to their top-line players and there won't be any consequences. Even if they did stick around, there would no doubt be disgruntlement which would have an effect on the club's performance.

Contract security is a top priority for the players, who essentially hold the whip hand in negotiations with the AFL given how much the broadcast deal has grown in recent years. And you can't blame them, considering a) it's an industry that routinely chews up and spits out players, b) players have a limited career span and would want to maximise their earning potential and c) concussions and other injuries could cut their career short any time they run on the field.

 

[Flarn Rarn]

The league should just mandate maximum contract terms.

Ah yes, the old 'piss off the entire workforce with a policy that doesn't even have any benefits for HQ' manoeuvre.

 

[Andyy]

Don't have much choice when other clubs are offering your boys more or longer.

We signed up both Lynch and Dusty on long term deals and tbh I think both will bite us in the ass by the end.

Heck look at Prestia, he's contracted until end 2024 and will probably manage 1 season worth of games by then.

 

[The Passenger]

The alternate is to let them walk and we are left with a bunch of spuds whom we have to overpay anyway to hit the 95% minimum.

The players have a hell of a lot more power with free agency.

I don't think we are doing anything completely egregious in comparison to other teams in the competition.

Western Bulldogs and the Tom Boyd contract is head and shoulders above everyone else when it comes to a shocking contract offer and they still won a flag with that on their books.

 

[Bender_]

 

[shooshka]

Over the last few years we have giving Gov Gaff Sheed Darling Barrass Yeo Kelly Allen and more long term contracts. Goes on and on the amount we have given over the years.

All given 5 year contracts. It's just too long in today's game. We should never give out contracts of more then 3 years.

Issue is with this players get complacent. Players get lazy and players don't play for the club. They play for themselves knowing they are not going anywhere for a long The effort isn't there and often they go on holidays. You see a lot in them last few years. We are a bottom 4 club yet these players are on huge contracts living it up and not giving two stuffs about results.

We are managed by a bunch of idiots. Our football depart has a lot to answer for.


Sent from my CPH2025 using Tapatalk

I have no issues with 5 year contracts (it's more often the extra 1 year for fringe players that hurts us).

What I would like to see is more performance based clauses. B&F finishing position, team making finals, prelim, GF & Premiership payments. When they are not paid we bank towards future cap space (or bring some payments forward).



On SM-G986B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[dinnaz]

I of the opinion a 3 yr contract maximum should be the norm. If you load up McGovern for instance then every year a few others will be OOC and provide greater cap flexibility.
If you lose a FA to another club you are rewarded with a compo pick which is based on contract $$$ amongst other things. So if a good player leaves for a bigger contract then the pick will be juicier. The alternative is a trade out which will result in a a net result of picks.

The only negative I can think of is if a player wants to leave, they will have greater opportunity. This is currently minimal at West Coast and would be interesting to see if players are loyal or just here for the $$$.

 

[The Passenger]

What I would like to see is more performance based clauses. B&F finishing position, team making finals, prelim, GF & Premiership payments. When they are not paid we bank towards future cap space (or bring some payments forward).

Bonuses for making finals, preliminary finals, GF's and winning the competition should come in the form of prizemoney from the AFL and be external to the salary cap.

The 95% salary cap floor is insane. It boggles the mind that North's playing list gets paid almost the same as Melbourne's. At least prizemoney would end that farcical situation.

But if this did come about, what would likely happen is a huge push from the AFLPA to absorb those payments into the main salary cap (which would mean a sharp increase in the salary cap) whilst retaining the 95% cap and we are back to were we are now.

-----------

The one thing I expected from free agency that doesn't seem to happen* very often is clubs in the lower rung tell their fringe players who try and take advantage of the above situation to get stuffed and then use that money to target some better players through free agency. Based on the speculative numbers you see in the media, clubs at the bottom seem to end up caving to players in this region knowing they are required to hit the salary floor. If you are at the bottom you have to be paying overs somewhere on your list - it's simple maths.

With the advent of FA I definitely expected to see more players moving from top clubs to bottom clubs to take advantage of their salary cap space. I've never crunched the numbers and I don't know if anyone has, but it doesn't seem that would be the case. Very counter-intuitive.

* Maybe it does, we aren't privvy to the inner workings of the actual contract negotiations that occur.

 

[dinnaz]

For the moneys they have

• Base salary
• Match Payments (for each game played)
• B & F finish bonus
• I assume other KPI would be added to specific players contracts

List managers can ask players to front end their contract or vice versa too. So that's how I assume Richmond can win a flag and then buy Tom Lynch. All the best players have gone to competing teams. Tha AFL stats say it has been fairly even distribution but includes a bunch of fringe players in that data./

 

[The Passenger]

List managers can ask players to front end their contract or vice versa too. So that's how I assume Richmond can win a flag and then buy Tom Lynch. All the best players have gone to competing teams. Tha AFL stats say it has been fairly even distribution but includes a bunch of fringe players in that data./

As long as the club is running at a profit (or not a significant loss) I assume every club brings forward payments to get to bang on 100% of that years salary cap to give them maximum space for the next year.

If you can afford the payments, it doesn't make any sense to leave yourself with less cap space for next year? At least that is the assumption I've always worked under.