The Future of Player Contracts - Club to take back control?

[Hot Pocket]

Hi, my name's Ian, Im a GWS supporter, and I admire creative cap control and utter bastardry.

If Frawley wants massive coin, he will *threaten* to sign a small extension with Melbourne that leaves him eligible for free agency when it expires, and then have his agent talked into him signing for $3m over 4 years (which is probably a cold million more than he's worth)

Until Hogan needs a 10 year deal, Melbourne have the actual highest amount of available cap room, and Frawley's a pretty good player. If he wants to cash in, he'll threaten to leave and stay at Melbourne.

Could definitely happen. Like I said, its hard to tell exactly how player agents will work the RFA angle. Guys like Frawley could make an absolute mint... or end up in situations they don't want to be in for a short period simply to get a bigger pay packet down the line.

Hogan is priority number one no matter what though. I can't tell you how many boners that kid has given me already, even when he was 17 years old. I could probs get arrested for posting that.

 

[Messenger]

Nope, was at Geelong, and Sydney offered him excellent personal terms.

Sorry, yes Geelong to Sydney.

 

[IanW]

Sorry, yes Geelong to Sydney.

Yep. And Geelong's alleged rights to him mattered not one bit - he was determined to move, and he did.

Bluntly, we only need one Bosman to bring the entire draft and salary cap structure crashing down, so if a player not under contract doesnt want to be at a club, they'll be allowed to move.

 

[Focal#32]

Unless I'm wrong, this isn't really comparable since with our system the player would lose FA rights when traded? For example if Hawthorn traded Franklin at the end of 2012, he would no longer be eligible for Free Agency after 2013 - a team that trades for a player 1 year out from Free Agency in the AFL isn't at risk of losing the player a year later.

This would completely avoid a Lakers-Howard situation.

Actually, you are correct.
The player has to have played eight or more years with the club to become a free agent otherwise he can only move clubs via trade or via PSD.
If Franklin were to go in the PSD and put a price on himself, I doubt anyone else would have the ca$h in their salary cap to draft him except for Sydney. So he still gets where he wants.
The team that traded for Franklin the year before gets no compensation.

 

[Superstar swan]

Most contracts are 2-3 years, so when would you start threatening them?

Free agency is here, might aswell get used to it. Every club will have their turn at signing a big name free agent. Swings and roundabouts

 

[IanW]

Most contracts are 2-3 years, so when would you start threatening them?

Free agency is here, might aswell get used to it. Every club will have their turn at signing a big name free agent. Swings and roundabouts

A major response to uncontracted players being able to effectively change clubs is for clubs to give their best players longer contracts.

Jack Martin, for example, got a five year deal from Gold Coast, before he'd played a game.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-04-27/fiveyear-deal-for-untried-sun

 

[Rob]

Lets look at the Mumford deal, where we have up, errr, stuff all.

Then lets look at the Lamb deal, where we leveraged the Mumford deal to give up, errr, nothing.

Yeah but you can only do that because you finished last. Finish mid table and the threat of players walking to the pre-season draft diminishes significantly.

 

[IanW]

Yeah but you can only do that because you finished last. Finish mid table and the threat of players walking to the pre-season draft diminishes significantly.

Fremantle and Zac Dawson is another example.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dawson-turns-back-on-saints-20111110-1n9og.html

Clubs only have power if a player is under contract.

 

[Superstar swan]

A major response to uncontracted players being able to effectively change clubs is for clubs to give their best players longer contracts.

Jack Martin, for example, got a five year deal from Gold Coast, before he'd played a game.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-04-27/fiveyear-deal-for-untried-sun

I doubt highly that clubs will be handing out 5 year deals on a whim. Massive risk for the club

 

[IanW]

I doubt highly that clubs will be handing out 5 year deals on a whim. Massive risk for the club

As compared to them walking once they go out of contract ?

 

[Rob]

Fremantle and Zac Dawson is another example.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dawson-turns-back-on-saints-20111110-1n9og.html

Clubs only have power if a player is under contract.

Quite a few clubs could have picked Dawson up if they wanted to, unless they weren't prepared to meet his terms. But in any case, he didn't have a lot of trade value anyway.
If you're prepared to pay the most, then you're right - players are essentially free agents when they're out of contract. But it's not that simple in most cases.

 

[Messenger]

Bluntly, we only need one Bosman to bring the entire draft and salary cap structure crashing down, so if a player not under contract doesnt want to be at a club, they'll be allowed to move.

The way you fix that is make the last day of the contract finish prior to trade week so they can't be included in any deal.

Where AFL players still have an advantage of many sports is they trades require consent. They may not or they may see the writing on the wall and accept an alternate trade (like Rischitelli and Bradshaw did when the Lions tried to trade them to Carlton).

 

[IanW]

Quite a few clubs could have picked Dawson up if they wanted to, unless they weren't prepared to meet his terms. But in any case, he didn't have a lot of trade value anyway.
If you're prepared to pay the most, then you're right - players are essentially free agents when they're out of contract. But it's not that simple in most cases.

Assuming the out-of-contract player is willing to play for the club prepared to offer him the most money, explain to me why a manager isnt negligent if he doesnt line up a deal with that club (remember, as a bonus, it means the acquiring club will get him for a cheap PSD pick).

Lets use another player who declined to sign as a contract as an example - Mitch Clark.

 

[Superstar swan]

As compared to them walking once they go out of contract ?

What if Geelong had offered Egan a 5 year deal, if a player breaks down with injury they are left to pay the player out

 

[Messenger]

What if Geelong had offered Egan a 5 year deal, if a player breaks down with injury they are left to pay the player out

Nick Holland board. Five year contract, played two games in his final season and 600k.

The first time a team is bitten, everyone will pull their heads in again. But it only ever takes one Syd.

 

[Rob]

Assuming the out-of-contract player is willing to play for the club prepared to offer him the most money, explain to me why a manager isnt negligent if he doesnt line up a deal with that club (remember, as a bonus, it means the acquiring club will get him for a cheap PSD pick).

Lets use another player who declined to sign as a contract as an example - Mitch Clark.

I'm not questioning that it can happen, but the fact remains it rarely does - maybe 3 or 4 players a year. And it's probably that most players generally don't want to take the best offer out there, because usually the best offer comes from the shittest teams (who are more likely to have the cap space).

Mitch Clark is a great example of why players don't always want the best offer. Rotting away in a rubbish team - is that worth $800k a year when you could be on $6-700k somewhere else and winning?

 

[Superstar swan]

Nick Holland board. Five year contract, played two games in his final season and 600k.

The first time a team is bitten, everyone will pull their heads in again. But it only ever takes one Syd.

I'm not a fan of the 9 year deal, of coarse there's a massive risk involved. But the club did what was required to secure franklin. The only way you can justify it is that buddy is a once in a lifetime player on the field and off the field. I can't see clubs being willing to throw around 5 year deals to the average player

 

[Messenger]

I can't see clubs being willing to throw around 5 year deals to the average player

Oh, it'll happen. A big season or an attempt to lock a player in before his value ramps up is all it takes.

 

[IanW]

Oh, it'll happen. A big season or an attempt to lock a player in before his value ramps up is all it takes.

It already has - Martin got signed to a 5 year deal by Gold Coast before playing a senior game.

And if GWS sign Cameron to a five year deal, I'll be mildly upset because it's too short.

 

[Baldur]

The thing that stuffs up the current rule is that the team gaining the free agent doesn't want to give anything up for him (the Dal Santo thing this year is an example of this) and the team letting players go isn't being rewarded enough (the Buddy Franklin thing).

The simple fact is Dal did not really want to go, he was only going to go if asked to do so by the Saints. North wanted him but simply did not have the goods to buy him from St Kilda. So they cooked up a deal, Dal Santo goes as a free agent, St Kilda gets the compensation pick and then North trades us Delaney for pick 77. Delaney was clearly worth more than 77.

In effect North had the rest of the AFL pay for the player they wanted. If there was no compensation pick, Dal Santo would still be at the Saints.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I don't have a problem with the free agency set up. If a player such as Franklin gets a better deal than the Hawks were able to offer, then he should have every right to accept that deal.

In the Cloke situation, he didn't want to leave Collingwood, he just wanted more money, so he held out for a better deal. That's fine. In the Ablett situation, he'd already made up his mind to leave, that's fine as well. If players can strike a better deal for themselves, then they have the freedom to do so.

Hawthorn was around long before Franklin came along, and will be around long after he's gone. That's life. I can accept him playing elsewhere.

However, the part that annoys the crap out of me is where another club can make an offer, then the existing club can either match the deal or let the player go. That in itself is okay, but when one club has advantages another club doesn't, and uses this advantage to make an offer that cannot possibly be matched under any circumstances, then the system is flawed.

What we have seen in the Franklin situation must never be repeated, the AFL must see to that.

 

[IanW]

What we have seen in the Franklin situation must never be repeated, the AFL must see to that.

The Franklin deal could have been matched by any club with

1) 500k of free cap room this year and next year, and

2) a willingness to risk crippling it's cap in 2018-2020