It wouldn’t matter who his management talked to. Player nominates a state, clubs from that state then try and bid for the player dealing with the club
Players not eligible for RFA, shouldn't be able to nominate a preferred club
- Thread starter Skav
- Start date
- Tagged users None
It wouldn’t matter who his management talked to. Player nominates a state, clubs from that state then try and bid for the player dealing with the club
- Oct 14, 2008
- 2,486
- 4,010
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Miami Heat
Players coming off rookie deals should be much easier to keep. Anyone who follows the NBA would most likely think their system is pretty good. First round draft picks have a mandatory four year contract, followed by a RFA process. They can either extend with their own team for whatever period and $$$ they want, or they can try and sign an offer sheet with another team, their original team than has the choice to match and keep their player. The AFL should adopt a similar rookie contract setup, makes it easier for teams to retain players, and still gives the rookies an option to try and sign elsewhere. The current system is shocking for both teams and rookies.
- Jun 21, 2010
- 8,816
- 8,703
- AFL Club
- Richmond
I think the biggest problem is that as it stands players now are moving clubs because of larger increase in contract, Lever is a third year player and is rumored to be offered an $800k contract from Melbourne, the easiest solution to this is to put a cap on contracts between certain age brackets, Lever is not worth $800k but Melbourne can offer that to pry him loose, maybe after a rookie contract is finished the AFL should cap how much a a player can earn until there 7th year?
Just to further this, player would nominate his contract terms. So the clubs willing to pay it would be bidding. Gotta give a little power to the player still
T
his isn’t a bad idea. Tom Boyd signing a $1m a year contract before his draft contract was even finished was the height of ridiculousness
kaiserchief13
Hall of Famer
- Jul 12, 2011
- 35,722
- 26,505
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Eagles, Lakers, Bayern, Trojans
Just get rid of RFA. When a player is out of contract they can do what they want.
All clubs should have equal salary caps so they lose a player they can easily replace them with another on similar pay and therefore most likely similar skill level
All clubs should have equal salary caps so they lose a player they can easily replace them with another on similar pay and therefore most likely similar skill level
kaiserchief13
Hall of Famer
- Jul 12, 2011
- 35,722
- 26,505
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Eagles, Lakers, Bayern, Trojans
If the player wants to play in the top league they have to be willing to move anywhere, otherwise the competition's evenness will be removed and the same teams will dominate year in year out.
- Sep 14, 2003
- 7,433
- 4,250
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Angels, Leafs, Rams, Chargers, Bengals
I don't have a problem with out of contract players changing clubs to go home, or for significant increases in pay.
I have a major problem with contracted players demanding to change clubs.
I believe all drafted players should be signed to 4 year contracts, with the contracts heavily incentive based so that early achievers can be adequated renumerated (eg Brownlow, MVP or club B&F = $100,000 bonus) without having to sign a new contract.
I have a major problem with contracted players demanding to change clubs.
I believe all drafted players should be signed to 4 year contracts, with the contracts heavily incentive based so that early achievers can be adequated renumerated (eg Brownlow, MVP or club B&F = $100,000 bonus) without having to sign a new contract.
- Jun 21, 2010
- 8,816
- 8,703
- AFL Club
- Richmond
A lot of ridiculous money being thrown around the past few years, I think a cap could work well as it will ensure clubs aren't stupid and throw big $ at young kids, it allows the original club who drafted the kid to be able to at least be in the ballpark of other clubs offers, so if the player leaves it won't be because one club is offering 300k and another is offering 600k, if the cap is let's say $500k for any player under a certain age bracket then it gives every club the chance to retain there young players.
Richmond had more non Victorians in their side than Adelaide had no South Australians in theirs.
Jake Lever is out of contract is he not?
What moral right does a business have to restrict the movement of an employee that's out of contract?
What moral right does a business have to restrict the movement of an employee that's out of contract?
- Jul 20, 2014
- 8,194
- 18,416
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
I think it depends on your view of what the club is.
The way I see it, the 'business' is the AFL, not the club
The clubs are much closer in reality to 18 branches of that one business, than 18 separate businesses.
He doesn't want to leave the business, he just wants to change branches.
Like any good business, you want all your branches to be performing, and you put rules in place to spread the talent around.
Blackas87
Brownlow Medallist
So a particular branch is offering the best deal for the employer to move there. Should business stop that?
so really, there should not even be a draft, just let every player decide where they want to be?
- Banned
- #115
Yes but a club should also hold some power - like being able to trade a player to another club as long as their current contract is honoured.
Players shouldn't get to dictate where they end up.
RandB
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 9, 2007
- 16,916
- 13,265
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- MUFC Norwood
I could be wrong but I thought technically a player can request to be delisted if they are OOC before any drafts. Once the contract is up its up.
I don't like the current system for the record but its only going to get more ****ed up.
The King!
Chosen One
Guess you could try academys and stuff to help interstate teams get local players, start them in SA and WA
- Thread starter
- #118
As I sorted expected this turned into an Interstate battle, rather than what intended it to a discussion around draft contracts and trading players prior to being a RFA.
While the nominate a state is great what happens if for example the following occurs:
Melbourne offer a 1st round and 800k to JL
Carlton offer Gibbs and a future first but only offer JL 600k
Obvisouly the team wants one thing and the player wants the other. As other posters point out the AFLPA has got themselves in the great position, why would they give it up. However the system does seem unfair in principle to the clubs and should be looked at by the AFL
While the nominate a state is great what happens if for example the following occurs:
Melbourne offer a 1st round and 800k to JL
Carlton offer Gibbs and a future first but only offer JL 600k
Obvisouly the team wants one thing and the player wants the other. As other posters point out the AFLPA has got themselves in the great position, why would they give it up. However the system does seem unfair in principle to the clubs and should be looked at by the AFL
Blackas87
Brownlow Medallist
Well yeah I don't think there should be draft. Salary cap and list sizes mean teams can't stockpile the talent. A team like Brisbane could offer better deals to 4 or 5 young talented players in one year that agree to join there club instead of 1 random top draft pick that doesn't want to go there.
NRL doesn't have a draft, the A league doesn't have a draft, why does the AFL need one?
Why do we need a draft?
Well, if you let every player nominate where they play, 99.9% of Vic kids will nominate a Vic club.
Imagine what would happen if footy took off in NSW, you would have 2 clubs taking the best talent from 1 state, 1 very populated state.
Why I do agree that players have far to much control these days. You have to laugh at the Non Victorian supporters who complain Vic clubs have the advantage with the go home factor. You now want a rule that swings it in your favour and will many times restrict a club to dealing only with one club when a player wants to go back to SA. Remember there are 10 teams fighting over players returning home in Victoria. When a kid wants to return the SA we are lucky if we have 2 teams interested as most often only 1 of the clubs have interest.
The teams disadvantaged are to the north of Victoria not to the west.
The teams disadvantaged are to the north of Victoria not to the west.
Blackas87
Brownlow Medallist
not if the interstate teams offer better contracts that intice the Vic players.
With Salary caps and list sizes teams can't take everyone. Teams in premiership windows will focus their money on players in their prime while rebuilding clubs can focus young players.
It gives nsw and Qld clubs insentive to develop local talent through academies if they don't think they can get Vic talent, but with decent deals I think they can.
The draft isn't working for the Qld clubs.
Blackas87
Brownlow Medallist
not if the interstate teams offer better contracts that intice the Vic players.
With Salary caps and list sizes teams can't take everyone. Teams in premiership windows will focus their money on players in their prime while rebuilding clubs can focus young players.
It gives nsw and Qld clubs insentive to develop local talent through academies if they don't think they can get Vic talent, but with decent deals I think they can.
The draft isn't working for the Qld clubs.
LOL! This isn't just kicking the footy at your local park
The job is physically and mentally demanding and it takes a massive toll on your body.. much much harder than an "actual proper job".
telsor
Hall of Famer
Presumably the clubs they talk to would need to at least match the player's contractual terms...
Rance opts to move to WA because he's homesick (AKA WCE offered him $1M/year for the last 2 years he wants to play) and WCE offer up pick 13
Freo is offers up a minimum wage, 8 year deal, but offers up pick 5.
Richmond takes pick 5 (of course), leaving Rance screwed.
Somehow I don't think the AFLPA would sign off on a deal that allowed that....
Of course, that's an extreme case, and clubs wouldn't want to upset the players coming to them by messing them around that badly, but shaving 50-100K, and/or adding/subtracting a year could certainly happen.
