AFL contracts

[Topdog]

There seems to be a lot of contracts being broken of late. Players and football administrators want the security of a contract but also want to be able to break it when it suits them. If the clubs initiate a break, the player or administrator will hold the clubs to the terms of the contract and expect/demand to be compensated.

Is there a double standard in play here that is leaving the clubs exposed?
Or are clubs putting together weak contracts and not factoring in the exposure they face with departures?

I'd be interested in your thoughts.

It works both ways though. Clubs want the longer term contracts so they have a stronger negotiating stance if another club tries to poach the player / administrator.

Like all sports what happens in the AFL is vastly different to the corporate sector.

Having said that my company has just had a huge change of GM's recently, none of them had any handover.

[Go_Dogs]

Interesting topic.

I'd say in this day and age, Clubs engage solicitors to draft their contracts, however given the ever-evolving nature of the game, the contracts would also be ever evolving. The current issue, with respect to compensation is of course a product of the footy cap spend and the costs required to obtain a replacement (which presumably counts under the cap).

With respect to the first issue (breaking contracts) it's really a matter of both parties negotiating terms they are both satisfied with. I see no reason why a Club couldn't have notice periods included. Without giving it to much thought, there are a few ways clubs could draft these to give themselves greater protection, and also cover off the second issue.

For example, a contract becomes say, like a commercial lease - it's a 1+1+1. The administrator receives a base salary, let's call it $100k per season. The contract also provides that the administrator gets a resigning bonus of say, $20k at the anniversary/uptake of each option to extend.

The administrator, 3 months out from the anniversary of their contract can give notice they wish to leave and not exercise next years option, with a defined minimum notice period, maybe in AFL 2 months. If they do not take up the option, they do not get their resigning bonus whic clubs can use towards their costs of finding a replacement.

If they do extend, they get their extension bonus, but can't give their notice until the following years notice period.

Obviously other considerations, such as medical conditions etc need to be included.

If the club gave notice it must also be within the 3 month window, and with the agreed notice period. In this case the administrator gets paid out an uplift of their signing bonus. Ie if you had 3 years to run, and your signing bonus was $50k, you'd get a $150k payout.

That's my quick take on the tram anyway.

Interesting thread, given what has gone on over the last month.

[Maddog37]

I think you need to factor in the limited time frame available to many involved in the AFL and a more flexible contract environment reflects that. Chances are limited and to further restrict people's ability to improve themselves via strict contract regulation is a touch harsh.

[GVGjr]

I think you need to factor in the limited time frame available to many involved in the AFL and a more flexible contract environment reflects that. Chances are limited and to further restrict people's ability to improve themselves via strict contract regulation is a touch harsh.

In the Eade example he was half way through a lucrative 4 year deal. He has been in the system as a player, assistant coach, senior coach, media and as a GM of football for many years so I'm not sure this is the same as someone in a limited time frame window.

I would imagine when he first started to negotiate the deal with Collingwood he would have wanted a long tenure given his experience and of course he was duly rewarded with a good 4 year deal. 2 years into it, he wants to leave because he can secure a better deal from somewhere else. Now keeping in line with the notion of limited time frames and the need for people to make the most of it I can understand why he wants to leave but I don't understand why it would be a problem for his employer to seek some form of compensation.
They struck a good and fair deal, the employee was performing well and has mentioned a number of times how much he was enjoying the position but then he decides he wants to fulfill another ambition. Good luck to him.

I wouldn't want anyone to be forced to stay by the terms of their contract but had Collingwood decided to move him on for whatever reason, I think most of us would expect the employee to be protected by the terms of his contract. He shouldn't just be cut adrift.

It seems to me the clubs are the ones wearing the ambitions of their employees without a lot of protection. Maybe that is the industry but I don't think it's right.

[Sedat]

I get all double standards of Collingwood and in particular Eddie but I'd really like to hear why it's that easy to break a contract regardless of the club or the personalities involved.

In the industry where I previously worked, senior managers had 3 or 6 month exit contracts depending on how senior their position was. If the company wanted to rid themselves of one of those managers then they had to pay him/her a minimum of 3 or 6 months pay. If he/she wanted to leave then he/she couldn't go to a direct competitor for the same period. It protected both parties.

My industry has a similar notice period - in my case it is 3 months. However if I was to go to a competitor I will more than likely be walked out the door same day (much like AFL assistant coaches are when they take a senior role elsewhere).

[bornadog]

COLLINGWOOD has called for an industry-wide discussion on AFL contracts after releasing Rodney Eade for a cash payment and other sweeteners from the Gold Coast.

rest of story here

GVGjr has started another media story following on from A -League Sleeping Giant thread

[LostDoggy]

I know what you are saying but I'm not really that focused about the past more about the recent trend of people wanting to break their contracts.
I'm challenging why contracts need to be broken and it appears only the club wear the problems?

Don't you think clubs who give a football administrator or a player a long term commitment shouldn't be the only one carrying the burden?

It seems to me the clubs are the ones wearing the ambitions of their employees without a lot of protection. Maybe that is the industry but I don't think it's right.

Due to the 24-7-365 media cycle in the football industry, all the player/coach/administrator has to do is express their desire to be somewhere else. Clubs are penalised, I agree, but mostly because they have such a high reliance on loyalty. Loyalty from fans, loyalty from players, loyalty from everybody that works for them. They're not just pushing paper for profits. In other industries, a good business for example would encourage loyalty from staff, but be prepared to deal with the lack thereof.

I agree with you on the moral side: it's dishonest to my thinking.

But whilst clubs are so dependent on loyalty as a major motivation to performance, they will forever be exposed to copping it sweet merely by having their staff proclaim they want out.

It's a tough issue for clubs to contend with because to be prepared for people to leave, they need to have others in place ready to take the reins, but this causes political issues and conflict inside the club.

Better Gordon/Garlick than me, that's all I'll say. Nothing but admiration from me for the people in charge.

[GVGjr]

My basic belief is if you are going to strike a long deal via a contract but you also want the flexibility to explore other options and potentially break that contract then you need to be upfront about it and be prepared to take a little less than you might otherwise have got.

I think clubs should endeavour to structure the contracts so that if the terms of the deal are fully met then a bonus is in order. Other than that they will continue to lose people. From a clubs perspective you can't set up succession plans when people are so easily breaking contracts.

I can't imagine a club standing in the way of an assistant coach getting his chance to be the senior guy but at the same time losing administrators to other clubs isn't as easily covered.

[GVGjr]

rest of story here

GVGjr has started another media story following on from A -League Sleeping Giant thread

Not to forget the whole #Bulldogswildcard from last year

[Twodogs]

A figure believed to be $20,000 will be paid by the Suns but it is only part of a complex arrangement between the two clubs.

The first person I heard mention $20, 000 was on SEN yesterday when KB asked Jon Ralph how much the Suns should stump up for Rocket and Ralphy said "oh, I dunno, er, say 20, 000 dollars?

[jeemak]

My basic belief is if you are going to strike a long deal via a contract but you also want the flexibility to explore other options and potentially break that contract then you need to be upfront about it and be prepared to take a little less than you might otherwise have got.

I think clubs should endeavour to structure the contracts so that if the terms of the deal are fully met then a bonus is in order. Other than that they will continue to lose people. From a clubs perspective you can't set up succession plans when people are so easily breaking contracts.

I can't imagine a club standing in the way of an assistant coach getting his chance to be the senior guy but at the same time losing administrators to other clubs isn't as easily covered.

Gvgjr, wouldn't everything be easily sorted with well structured escape clauses, and shouldn't all clubs be succession planning through process anyway? The good businesses do this to minimise risk, so is the AFL once again being caught out being a bit behind best practice?

I could clearly feel the lamenting nature of the commentary when McCartney resigned (or got sacked) and we didn't have to be penalised for it because we were smart enough to write into the contract we shared with him a clause that would see us protected if we decided to let him go. If McCartney's manager was smart, he would have pushed for the same conditions on his behalf (but I doubt he would have).

The people managing contracts in the AFL need to catch up with the times and start accounting for it in contracts with conditions like you've mentioned. Just remember though, the best in the business who deal with these sorts of things are operating in a niche that they can't escape from or do better than in most cases. If the situation was opened up to the actual experts (who bill a huge amount) in this caper we wouldn't have the situation we do now.