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

    • REPORT: Port Adelaide

      Of course, it’s not the backline, you might argue and you would probably be right. It’s the boot studder (do they still have them?), the midfield, the recruiting staff, the forward line, the kicking coach, the Board, the interchange bench, the supporters, the folk at Casey, the head coach and the club psychologist  It’s all of them and all of us for having expectations that were sufficiently high to have believed three weeks ago that a restoration of the Melbourne team to a position where we might still be in contention for a finals berth when the time for the midseason bye arrived. Now let’s look at what happened over the period of time since Melbourne overwhelmed the Sydney Swans at the MCG in late May when it kicked 8.2 to 5.3 in the final quarter (and that was after scoring 3.8 to two straight goals in the second term). 

      • 2 replies
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Essendon

      Casey’s unbeaten run was extended for at least another fortnight after the Demons overran a persistent Essendon line up by 29 points at ETU Stadium in Port Melbourne last night. After conceding the first goal of the evening, Casey went on a scoring spree from about ten minutes in, with five unanswered majors with its fleet of midsized runners headed by the much improved Paddy Cross who kicked two in quick succession and livewire Ricky Mentha who also kicked an early goal. Leading the charge was recruit of the year, Riley Bonner while Bailey Laurie continued his impressive vein of form. With Tom Campbell missing from the lineup, Will Verrall stepped up to the plate demonstrating his improvement under the veteran ruckman’s tutelage. The Demons were looking comfortable for much of the second quarter and held a 25-point lead until the Bombers struck back with two goals in the shadows of half time. On the other side of the main break their revival continued with first three goals of the half. Harry Sharp, who had been quiet scrambled in the Demons’ first score of the third term to bring the margin back to a single point at the 17 minute mark and the game became an arm-wrestle for the remainder of the quarter and into the final moments of the last.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Gold Coast

      The Demons have the Bye next week but then are on the road once again when they come up against the Gold Coast Suns on the Gold Coast in what could be a last ditch effort to salvage their season. Who comes in and who comes out?

        • Haha
        • Like
      • 79 replies
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: Port Adelaide

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 16th June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we dissect the Dees disappointing loss to the Power.
      Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
      Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

        • Thanks
      • 31 replies
      Demonland

    • POSTGAME: Port Adelaide

      The Demons simply did not take their opportunities when they presented themselves and ultimately when down by 25 points effectively ending their finals chances. Goal kicking practice during the Bye?

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 252 replies
      Demonland

    • VOTES: Port Adelaide

      Max Gawn has an insurmountable lead in the Demonland Player of the Year ahead of Jake Bowey, Christian Petracca, Clayton Oliver and Kozzy Pickett. Your votes please; 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1.

        • Like
      • 31 replies
      Demonland
    View All