AFL wants 3 Year Contracts for Draftees

[Demonland 73,161]

 

[Jaded No More 68,974]

Very good. I support this. For clubs to invest a first round pick is a big deal. Players should not be allowed to just up and leave because they didn’t get to the club they wanted. It makes a mockery of the draft. 
Should only be allowed to move on compassionate grounds in the first 3 years. 

[loges 6,767]

1 minute ago, Jaded No More said:

Very good. I support this. For clubs to invest a first round pick is a big deal. Players should not be allowed to just up and leave because they didn’t get to the club they wanted. It makes a mockery of the draft. 
Should only be allowed to move on compassionate grounds in the first 3 years. 

This is why a certain Port player is getting booed 

[Fritta and Turner 4,540]

Having players not wanting to be there for 3 years instead of 2.....thinking thinking....

[In Harmes Way 7,823]

I’m not sure how the contract duration fixes the current issue of players under contract “demanding” a trade and clubs effectively trying to get trade capital while they can. 

[Jaded No More 68,974]

1 minute ago, In Harmes Way said:

I’m not sure how the contract duration fixes the current issue of players under contract “demanding” a trade and clubs effectively trying to get trade capital while they can. 

At least when under contract it gives clubs the power to negotiate a better deal for themselves. See JHF vs Jackson trade. 

[Fritta and Turner 4,540]

3 minutes ago, loges said:

This is why a certain Port player is getting booed 

He was at Norf for 1 season; if he had been on a 3 yr contract he would still have been at Norf for 1 season.

[The heart beats true 18,145]

This is only a ‘major boost’ to the Northern clubs because some of them simply don’t have football club cultures, and so forcing 18 year olds to stay longer is the only way to keep them there.

It doesn’t solve anything.

[Macca 17,034]

3 years instead of 2 can work as it essentially ties the player to the club for at least 2 years

A well run club should be able to add at least 1 more year to the 3 years by the end of the first contract year

Where as 2 years only is a bit skinny.  I reckon it's a good idea but am interested to see what the 3 year contract is going to be worth

And a player like Nick Daicos probably won't be heading elsewhere but why wouldn't you pay him extra in his 2nd year as a jesture of goodwill and as a lure to a contract extension

[In Harmes Way 7,823]

2 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

At least when under contract it gives clubs the power to negotiate a better deal for themselves. See JHF vs Jackson trade. 

IIRC, wasn’t Jackson out of contract vs JHF having another year to run on his? We got trade capital on Jackson because Freo didn’t want to lose him to the draft and WCE.

[Jaded No More 68,974]

Just now, In Harmes Way said:

IIRC, wasn’t Jackson out of contract vs JHF having another year to run on his? We got trade capital on Jackson because Freo didn’t want to lose him to the draft and WCE.

Correct. We got less for Jackson than Norf did for JHF because he was out of contract. We only got lucky that Freo are hot garbage this year. If they weren’t we could have ended up getting 2 crappy picks for him. 

[Bystander 903]

This always troubles me...it seems all of us can sell our services to the highest bidder...except AFL draftees..who are not only told where they must play, but what their pay is...even if they could get more at a preferred destination in an open market. It may suit the AFL and clubs, but why do these young men have those restrictions. The facts that it isn't compulsory to play and they do relatively well isn't the point.

[Return to Glory 8,448]

2 hours ago, loges said:

This is why a certain Port player is getting booed 

Yeah, it's unfathomable that he didn't want the guidance of mentor Tarryn Thomas.

[ElDiablo14 5,002]

25 minutes ago, Bystander said:

This always troubles me...it seems all of us can sell our services to the highest bidder...except AFL draftees..who are not only told where they must play, but what their pay is...even if they could get more at a preferred destination in an open market. It may suit the AFL and clubs, but why do these young men have those restrictions. The facts that it isn't compulsory to play and they do relatively well isn't the point.

They get guaranteed money regardless of their on-field performance? It's an equalisation system?

Would you prefer all the young guns to go to few teams and leave the rest with "scraps"?

Let's not pretend that all high draft picks become star players.

[Diamond_Jim 12,628]

most  top 60 draftees get offered a 2/3 year extension at the end of year 1.

They take it because they get a pay rise.

Kozzie and Rivers signed for 3. Jackson for 2.

This is an over reaction

[Bystander 903]

7 minutes ago, ElDiablo14 said:

They get guaranteed money regardless of their on-field performance? It's an equalisation system?

Would you prefer all the young guns to go to few teams and leave the rest with "scraps"?

Let's not pretend that all high draft picks become star players.

You miss the point...it may suit the industry..but these draftees are deprived of what every other employee in Australia has, to suit others. You could just as easily adjust the rights of senior players...won't happen.

[loges 6,767]

3 hours ago, Jontee said:

He was at Norf for 1 season; if he had been on a 3 yr contract he would still have been at Norf for 1 season.

You miss the point, his original contract was for 2 years which he then immediately tried to get out of.

[DeeZee 7,445]

Might stop players getting booed for leaving too early

[layzie 34,013]

Yeah probably not a bad idea, at least have a 3rd year option like NFL.

Edited April 30, 2023 by layzie

[Stiff Arm 4,419]

How about 4 years for top 10 picks, but with UFA after year 4. Gives both player and club certainty

If a bottom club cannot improve and keep a player after 4 years, he should be permitted to leave to the club of his choice, with compo going back

Edited April 30, 2023 by Stiff Arm

[ManDee 7,222]

On 4/30/2023 at 5:02 PM, Bystander said:

You miss the point...it may suit the industry..but these draftees are deprived of what every other employee in Australia has, to suit others. You could just as easily adjust the rights of senior players...won't happen.

How exactly are they deprived? Can they leave and become a fireman or choose to play in a lower league? Can they change profession? 

An enormous amount is spent on a draftee. If they can't commit to 3 years then the club must be reimbursed at least original draft pick plus development cost $

[old dee 23,872]

On 4/30/2023 at 1:54 PM, The heart beats true said:

This is only a ‘major boost’ to the Northern clubs because some of them simply don’t have football club cultures, and so forcing 18 year olds to stay longer is the only way to keep them there.

It doesn’t solve anything.

I think it is more likely aimed at the Tassie team. what WA or Qld kid would want to be sent there. Before 3 years is up they would experiencing " mental problems" 

[Diamond_Jim 12,628]

I know that a player is not allowed to say anymore that he won't play for X club lest it be considered draft tampering but I wonder how many hints are given by parents, managers friends of friends etc.

Would it be considered draft tampering for a player to say for example ... yes you may draft me but at the first opportunity I will try to return to XYZ State. If this was said publicly it would be a courageous decision to draft that player even for three years

[daisycutter 29,743]

On 4/30/2023 at 4:24 PM, Bystander said:

This always troubles me...it seems all of us can sell our services to the highest bidder...except AFL draftees..who are not only told where they must play, but what their pay is...even if they could get more at a preferred destination in an open market. It may suit the AFL and clubs, but why do these young men have those restrictions. The facts that it isn't compulsory to play and they do relatively well isn't the point.

because it's good for the game and therefore the money rolls in which they share in

no draft, full free agency would create a lopsided uncompetitive competition, be unattractive to many punters and the revenue would drop

 

[daisycutter 29,743]

2 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

I know that a player is not allowed to say anymore that he won't play for X club lest it be considered draft tampering but I wonder how many hints are given by parents, managers friends of friends etc.

Would it be considered draft tampering for a player to say for example ... yes you may draft me but at the first opportunity I will try to return to XYZ State. If this was said publicly it would be a courageous decision to draft that player even for three years

didn't a young nathan buckley do just that? i can't remember all the details