5 year contract cap suggested

[Palace Dees 2,264]

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2024/10/13/lions-footy-boss-open-to-cap-on-six-year-plus-mega-deals/

I have finally found something that I agree with Corn on. I'm not sure of the legalities of it, but implementing a 5 year max on contracts makes a lot of sense to me.

More players than ever before are retiring on medical grounds (eg. concussion). The AFL currently may help with annually decreasing Salary Cap relief, but we, for example, need to factor in Gus' wage for years to come. 

Other health and attitudinal changes can also come into play and hurt a club for years. It will largely curtail the more ridiculous carrots being dangled to players from other clubs and bring a sanity back into player transfer and recruitment. 

Thoughts?

[No. 31 1,167]

Yeah Nah ... Jacob Weitering just signed and extension to stay a Blue until the end of 2031.

Honestly, I think it depends on the player. Some I feel comfortable signing long-term, most I don't.

Medical retirements are another issue that needs some type of specific regime created.

[Fritta and Turner 4,286]

Medical retirements needs some extra clauses in the contract.

[Palace Dees 2,264]

1 hour ago, Fritta and Turner said:

Medical retirements needs some extra clauses in the contract.

Not sure the AFLPA will come at that. In a combative, high injury risk sport, I just believe clubs need to be protected from themselves. The salary cap is designed to produce a (supposedly) level playing field, so the only bargaining tool clubs have is to offer a longer contract than their competition. 

The AFL don't like long contracts, so won't offer protection past the first couple of years. A retirement invoking injury to a long contracted player will harm a club for many years. It's bound to happen.

[Queanbeyan Demon 6,797]

1 hour ago, Palace Dees said:

Not sure the AFLPA will come at that. In a combative, high injury risk sport, I just believe clubs need to be protected from themselves. The salary cap is designed to produce a (supposedly) level playing field, so the only bargaining tool clubs have is to offer a longer contract than their competition. 

The AFL don't like long contracts, so won't offer protection past the first couple of years. A retirement invoking injury to a long contracted player will harm a club for many years. It's bound to happen.

Not sure anyone is asking them to come at it.

[Dee*ceiving 1,662]

The long term contracts are fine. 

Where the AFL is amateur hour is that clubs can't forcibly trade a player in a long term contract to a desitination of their choice but a player can hold their club to ransom by demanding a trade somewhere of their choosing....

and worse still the media actively support the players wishes as opposed to the club who is paying said player $50-$100k per month! 

[Dee*ceiving 1,662]

Also, the league/clubs/players should be insuring themselves suitably to minimise the financial risk of early retirement.

Angus should continue to get paid whatever his contract was until it concludes, outside of any salary caps and not from MFC's bottom line because:

1. His injury occurred in the field of play 
2. Was not borne of his own error 
3. The contact from the other involved party was avoidable and of severe and unneccesary force 

[BLWNBA 923]

16 hours ago, Palace Dees said:

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2024/10/13/lions-footy-boss-open-to-cap-on-six-year-plus-mega-deals/

I have finally found something that I agree with Corn on. I'm not sure of the legalities of it, but implementing a 5 year max on contracts makes a lot of sense to me.

More players than ever before are retiring on medical grounds (eg. concussion). The AFL currently may help with annually decreasing Salary Cap relief, but we, for example, need to factor in Gus' wage for years to come. 

Other health and attitudinal changes can also come into play and hurt a club for years. It will largely curtail the more ridiculous carrots being dangled to players from other clubs and bring a sanity back into player transfer and recruitment. 

Thoughts?

Disagree with the cap, autonomy should remain with the clubs. 

[deelusions from afar 1,768]

I'm coming round on this.  When we signed Petracca and Oliver to long term deals they had both been extremely durable.  In some respects the long contracts have saved us in keeping them.

But to get the long contracts, you are paying them big coin which - if they continue to play at the high level - is worth it.  But some players are not going to stay as hungry when they have that security.  I'm not saying that applies to Trac and Oliver - I'm backing them to have big years next year.  

But they've both had significant injuries / trauma / battles to deal with in recent times - if they don't deliver then we won't be able to trade them (without paying a bulk of their salary).

At the same time - they would've looked a fairly safe bet when we signed them (on output to date) and probably had rival offers that forced our hand.  

[monoccular 17,408]

Surely if the AFL mandate a retirement eg Gus, then there must be some generous relief of salary cap, even if the club still needs to pay out the full salary.   The salary cap is "artificial", and invention of the governing body, so mandated retirements retaining cap payments just makes no sense.

I have zero doubt that had Buddy Franklin had a career ending injury in the first year of his mega deal at $ydney they would have tweaked the rules.

[Cranky Franky 2,011]

5 year cap is a great idea. 2 player maximum.

More & more players are going on long term deals with potential to bankrupt Clubs.

[DeeSpencer 25,365]

2 hours ago, monoccular said:

Surely if the AFL mandate a retirement eg Gus, then there must be some generous relief of salary cap, even if the club still needs to pay out the full salary.   The salary cap is "artificial", and invention of the governing body, so mandated retirements retaining cap payments just makes no sense.

I have zero doubt that had Buddy Franklin had a career ending injury in the first year of his mega deal at $ydney they would have tweaked the rules.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/1153880/clubs-to-get-cap-relief-for-medically-retired-players

They have. But for 3 years after retirement. So the AFL are sending the message be careful with guys on longer than 4 year deals.

The AFL are also struggling to find income insurance for concussed players. Which is linked to the above. They don't want players trying to claim huge sums of money in lost earnings.

[DeeSpencer 25,365]

I'm all for a 5 year cap because the AFL have created these mega deals with free agency.

When you have to trade for a player you have to give up valuable picks, so offering 7, 8, 9 year deals on top of that is a mammoth cost.

Free agency meant clubs got players for free which is why they felt they could risk the mega deals. Then of course to stave off players leaving clubs started to give those deals to their own players too.

I think a simple solution is your draft deal goes for 3 years (with the last year or two team options for later picks), after which you can negotiate an extension for up to another 3 years.

Free agency comes in at 24. You can sign for max 5 years and after each season you can tack on an additional year if you and the club agree. At 30 you can sign for max 4 years again. At 31 you can sign for 3 years max.

The AFLPA (and especially managers) won't like it but the trade off is you're giving players free agency at 24. The prime aged players will make the most money which is what the league should want

[Frosticles 70]

Just make it so that years 6, 7 or more are pro-rated against year 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in terms of how the AFL monitors the salary cap -- so you can still do a 6+ year deal, but all of that deal is treated as years 1-5 in the cap -- prevents lawsuits about "restraint of trade" and so on -- but perhaps that might introduce distortions in years 6+ so ... maybe ... dunno ... LOL

[Diamond_Jim 12,504]

10 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

I'm all for a 5 year cap because the AFL have created these mega deals with free agency.

Yep the Free Agency has been a bust but we are now seeing long term deals for relatively young players.

Eagles would give Harley R a ten year deal in a heartbeat and McAndrew just signed a five year extension making it a six year deal at age 20. (Ironic given that the Suns only exist on AFL handouts).

Insurance could be the answer but I suspect rates are through the roof these days. 

Surprisingly professional sports people often fall outside Workers compensation schemes.

https://www.smartcompany.com.au/people-human-resources/injured-sports-stars-not-entitled-workers-compensation/

[DeeSpencer 25,365]

9 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Yep the Free Agency has been a bust but we are now seeing long term deals for relatively young players.

Eagles would give Harley R a ten year deal in a heartbeat and McAndrew just signed a five year extension making it a six year deal at age 20. (Ironic given that the Suns only exist on AFL handouts).

Insurance could be the answer but I suspect rates are through the roof these days. 

Surprisingly professional sports people often fall outside Workers compensation schemes.

https://www.smartcompany.com.au/people-human-resources/injured-sports-stars-not-entitled-workers-compensation/

Mac’s deal apparently has language for retirement due to concussion. 

And yeah it’s 5 years until he’s a free agent with another 4 as an option post that.

If free agency came at 24 he’d sign until he was 24 then do 5+ years from there. And I’d be happy to restrict that to 5.

Actually refining the system what I’d suggest is free agents can only be offered 5 years. But teams can resign their own players the year before they hit free agency.

So a 23 year old can sign with their current team for what is effectively 6. But once they’re 24 it’s 5 years.

Really what I want to see is clubs encouraged to have their best players signed from 24-29 and massive deals for young players <23 who haven’t earned them or super long deals for 26 year olds that go until guys are well over 30 are discouraged.