AFL contracts

[GVGjr]

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.

[bornadog]

I don't believe any contracts have been broken. In the end clubs and players have agreed to terminate contracts early.

I know what you are saying, it seems if a player or coach/Administrator wants to leave, it is easy, as all they do is just say they don't want to be with that club any more.

Will there be a day where a club just refuses to budge? then what.

[GVGjr]

Richardson had a contract with Port as the GM of Football and wanted to leave to leave to take the senior coaching position at the Saints. He didn't have an escape clause within his contract.

Eade has a similar position with the Pies, tells all and sundry what a great position it is and yet wants out with two years to run on it.
Had the Pies tried to terminate his contract we would all expect for Eade to be compensated in line with the terms of the contract wouldn't we? Why is there a double standard?

[Twodogs]

It's an interesting legal world the AFL inhabits isn't it? Restrictive work practices, contracts that are almost never enforced, forced repatriation if you want to play. I wonder how any of it would stand up on a court of law?

[GVGjr]

It's an interesting legal world the AFL inhabits isn't it? Restrictive work practices, contracts that are almost never enforced, forced repatriation if you want to play. I wonder how any of it would stand up on a court of law?

I think Eade should be required to give 3 months notice given it's a senior position he is holding within the club. Failing that if he is earning 400K a year and the Lions want him to start straight away then 400K divided by 4 means they need to cough up 100K to secure his release.

Contracts need to be better than what they appear to be by covering escape clauses that cover and protect the clubs better.

If administrators want strong long term contracts so they plan their future and are prepared to hold clubs to that then there has to be something that also protects the clubs.

[Sedat]

Richardson had a contract with Port as the GM of Football and wanted to leave to leave to take the senior coaching position at the Saints. He didn't have an escape clause within his contract.

Eade has a similar position with the Pies, tells all and sundry what a great position it is and yet wants out with two years to run on it.
Had the Pies tried to terminate his contract we would all expect for Eade to be compensated in line with the terms of the contract wouldn't we? Why is there a double standard?

Collingwood's hardline stance is hypocritical - they lured Malthouse away from West Coke when he still had a year to run on his contract. They also did likewise with Geoff Walsh a few years ago. This is grandstanding by Eddie.

[GVGjr]

Collingwood's hardline stance is hypocritical - they lured Malthouse away from West Coke when he still had a year to run on his contract. They also did likewise with Geoff Walsh a few years ago. This is grandstanding by Eddie.

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?

[jeemak]

I think we'll see more escape clauses written into contracts as an industry standard, which suit the club and the employee equally.

We terminated the McCartney contract two years from expiration, and were able to do so given we were smart enough to insert a clause allowing us to terminate without a significant penalty.

[boydogs]

It's an interesting legal world the AFL inhabits isn't it? Restrictive work practices, contracts that are almost never enforced, forced repatriation if you want to play. I wonder how any of it would stand up on a court of law?

The times where it has been tested show it wouldn't hold up very well at all.

Contracts can have termination clauses written in, the issue is in the AFL keeping someone who wants to go is seen as toxic regardless of whether they are contracted or not.

[westdog54]

I think Eade should be required to give 3 months notice given it's a senior position he is holding within the club. Failing that if he is earning 400K a year and the Lions want him to start straight away then 400K divided by 4 means they need to cough up 100K to secure his release.

Contracts need to be better than what they appear to be by covering escape clauses that cover and protect the clubs better.

If administrators want strong long term contracts so they plan their future and are prepared to hold clubs to that then there has to be something that also protects the clubs.

If the contract didn't require that then I fail to see why he should.

Agree that Collingwood have been put out by this and should be compensate but as Sedat has said Eddie can't claim the moral high-ground on this one.

I was particularly amused by this line from Eddie:

We're doing enough subsidising at Collingwood. We subsidised Brisbane with the equalisation money and they use it to go after our gun players.

*!*!*!*!ing spare me. Its not like they suddenly get a bonus in their salary cap to pinch Beams. Nor did they cause Beams' dad to become sick to make him want to head home to Queensland.

And its not like Collingwood had any issue chasing after Nick Riewoldt and Bob Murphy in recent years.

I sometimes wonder if he listens back to himself and shakes his head at just how stupid he tends to sound when he talks about his club.

[GVGjr]

If the contract didn't require that then I fail to see why he should.

Agree that Collingwood have been put out by this and should be compensate but as Sedat has said Eddie can't claim the moral high-ground on this one.

I was particularly amused by this line from Eddie:



*!*!*!*!ing spare me. Its not like they suddenly get a bonus in their salary cap to pinch Beams. Nor did they cause Beams' dad to become sick to make him want to head home to Queensland.

And its not like Collingwood had any issue chasing after Nick Riewoldt and Bob Murphy in recent years.

I sometimes wonder if he listens back to himself and shakes his head at just how stupid he tends to sound when he talks about his club.

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.

Obviously the AFL is a very different industry but the principles of protecting both parties could still be achieved.

In the AFL though the onus seems to fall directly on the club. They have to offer long contracts to attract the best candidates but now appear to have limited protection if the administrator wants to take a senior coaches position.

If I was offering a senior GM of football type role like what Eade had I'd try and structure it like:
- It pays 400k a year and its for x number of years.
- If your want to break it then you need to give 3 months notice. We will do the same if it's demonstrated you haven't met the required performance.
- If you don't want to give 3 months notice because you want the flexibility to explore other opportunities and react quickly to them then it's 350K per year but a good bonus if you actually complete your contract duration.

I think this gives the club some protection and an incentive for administrators to sign up for the terms they have agreed.
At the moment, smart operators are just playing the clubs on a break.

[Twodogs]

I sometimes wonder if he listens back to himself and shakes his head at just how stupid he tends to sound when he talks about his club.

Of course he would but Eddie would take great comfort from the fact we've spent the afternoon taking about him.

[bulldogtragic]

I think it's got to be seen in totality, whilst contract law is relevant it doesn't take in the whole circumstance. In one sense they can refuse to release players and others. Then clubs can deal with that by pissing people off. But then managers would not sign a player or administrator beyond one year deals as a straight retaliation. With players specifically, with free agency the better of two evils is to sign better players for as long as the risk dictates.

With regard to off field stuff, there should be more formal codes about leaving a contract early. Such as letting them out if the job is a promotion, but not on a whim.

People take fixed term contracts in the real world and break them too, the main issue is restraints of trade would be more relied upon outside this level. The issue despite what's in the contract is superior courts are quite retisant to enforce restraints of trade. The issue mainly referred to is that a restraint cannot unreasonably stop the employee from earning a living. Being that there is a finite number of jobs in the AFL at the level of senior coach, it would be a brave court. The evolution of restraints of trade have come to be that they cascade in industry, location and time length to allow maximum flexibility to a court. Some win, some lose, but it's not straight forward. But it's a harder area to enforce as the common law is involved not simply contract law.

I think the industry as a whole needs to look at the issue of contracts moving forward. There should be formal structures around this which the AFL and the various unions ought to be doing. I wouldn't be penalising the person, charge the new club a transfer fee as determined by an independent panel if certain prerequisites are met that allow a transfer that is incongruent with the contract. Maybe Eddie and others should demand industry best practices and leadership from stakeholders. Eddie seems more reactionary of late, why not stop issues from occurring at any club, just not complaining when it's your club.

[Twodogs]

But Eddie doesn't have a Conflict Of Interest. I know because I've heard him say it so often.

[GVGjr]

Can I ask for people to look past the personalities involved but focus more at the issue of contracts being broken and how this can impact a club.