Jump to content

AFL wants 3 Year Contracts for Draftees

Demonland
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

 

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. 

  • Quote
    • Like 6
    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 

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Sad 1
     

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

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    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. 

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1

    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. 

  • Quote
    • Like 5
    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 5
    • Shocked 1
    • Sad 2

    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
     

    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

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    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. 

  • Quote
    • Like 4

    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 2

    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

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 2

    Might stop players getting booed for leaving too early

  • Quote
    • Like 1

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

    Edited by layzie

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    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 by Stiff Arm

  • Quote
    • Haha 1

    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 $

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    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" 

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Sad 1

    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

  • Quote
    • Like 1
     
    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

     

  • Quote
    • Thanks 1
    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

  • Quote
    • Thanks 1

    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
    Reply to this topic...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • WHAT’S NEXT? by The Oracle

      What’s next for a beleagured Melbourne Football Club down in form and confidence, facing  intense criticism and disapproval over some underwhelming recent performances and in the midst of a four game losing streak? Why, it’s Adelaide which boasts the best percentage in the AFL and has won six of its last seven games. The Crows are hot and not only that, the game is at the Adelaide Oval; yet another away fixture and the third in a row at a venue outside of Victoria. One of the problems the Demons have these days is that they rarely have the luxury of true home ground advantage, something they have enjoyed just once since mid April. 

      • 2 replies
      Demonland

    • REPORT: Gold Coast

      From the start, Melbourne’s performance against the Gold Coast Suns at Peoples First Stadium was nothing short of a massive botch up and it came down in the first instance to poor preparation. Rather than adequately preparing the team for battle against an opponent potentially on the skids after suffering three consecutive losses, the Demons looking anything but sharp and ready to play in the opening minutes of the game. By way of contrast, the Suns demonstrated a clear sense of purpose and will to win. From the very first bounce of the ball they were back to where they left off earlier in the season in Round Three when the teams met at the MCG. They ran rings around the Demons and finished the game off with a dominant six goal final term. This time, they produced another dominant quarter to start the game, restricting Melbourne to a solitary point to lead by six goals at the first break, by which time, the game was all but over.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Gold Coast

      Coming off four consecutive victories and with a team filled with 17 AFL listed players, the Casey Demons took to their early morning encounter with the lowly Gold Coast Suns at People First Stadium with the swagger of a team that thought a win was inevitable. They were smashing it for the first twenty minutes of the game after Tom Fullarton booted the first two goals but they then descended into an abyss of frustrating poor form and lackadaisical effort that saw the swagger and the early arrogance disappear by quarter time when their lead was overtaken by a more intense and committed opponent. The Suns continued to apply the pressure in the second quarter and got out to a three goal lead in mid term before the Demons fought back. A late goal to the home side before the half time bell saw them ten points up at the break and another surge in the third quarter saw them comfortably up with a 23 point lead at the final break.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Rd 17 vs Adelaide

      With their season all over bar the shouting the Demons head back on the road for the third week in a row as they return to Adelaide to take on the Crows. Who comes in and who goes out?

      • 178 replies
      Demonland

    • POSTGAME: Rd 16 vs Gold Coast

      The Demons did not come to play from the opening bounce and let the Gold Coast kick the first 5 goals of the match. They then outscored the Suns for the next 3 quarters but it was too little too late and their season is now effectively over.

        • Like
      • 231 replies
      Demonland

    • VOTES: Rd 16 vs Gold Coast

      Max Gawn has a massive lead in the Demonland Player of the Year award ahead of Jake Bowey, Christian Petracca, Clayton Oliver and Kysaiah Pickett. Your votes please. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1.

        • Thanks
      • 41 replies
      Demonland
    View All