Thanks Thanks:  3
Likes Likes:  33
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 53 of 53
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Doglands
    Posts
    39,479
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Trade Period

    There are some significant gaps between our professional footballers and those professional athletes in many other sports.
    The AFL has somehow allowed our players to get the security of contracts from clubs and yet when the players wants to move for better deals it seems that many clubs are almost powerless to stop them.
    In many other competitions players can be traded like a commodity often without the right of refusal and while I don't agree to that in our competition the player can't be so specific with their requests for trades.

    I'm suggesting that if a contracted player requests a trade to a club then the contract that is in place needs to be honored by his new club. The player and the new club need to contribute 10% of the existing contract to the club that is losing the player. The money that the new club has to pay also comes off their salary cap.

    For example the player has 1 year to go on his contract but wants to head home. He is on a $300K deal for that year.
    The player then has to pay 10% of the value of his existing contract (30K) to his club to break that contract with them.
    The new club also has to pay a 10% premium (30K) to buy out the contract to the club losing the player and this comes off their salary cap.

    The player plays the following season for $270K and this new club has $330K coming of their salary cap. The club that has lost the contracted player receives an extra $60K they can use on their salary cap or bank it.

    The level of players wanting the security of contracts but also wanting to break them to secure better deals is a lot higher than it should be and this just isn't fair and there needs to be a fairer set-up that protects the clubs who have often drafted, developed and provided security to the player.

    I'd be interested in your thoughts?
    Western Bulldogs Football Club "Where it's cool to drool"

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    10,588
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Trade Period

    Quote Originally Posted by GVGjr View Post
    There are some significant gaps between our professional footballers and those professional athletes in many other sports.
    The AFL has somehow allowed our players to get the security of contracts from clubs and yet when the players wants to move for better deals it seems that many clubs are almost powerless to stop them.
    In many other competitions players can be traded like a commodity often without the right of refusal and while I don't agree to that in our competition the player can't be so specific with their requests for trades.

    I'm suggesting that if a contracted player requests a trade to a club then the contract that is in place needs to be honored by his new club. The player and the new club need to contribute 10% of the existing contract to the club that is losing the player. The money that the new club has to pay also comes off their salary cap.

    For example the player has 1 year to go on his contract but wants to head home. He is on a $300K deal for that year.
    The player then has to pay 10% of the value of his existing contract (30K) to his club to break that contract with them.
    The new club also has to pay a 10% premium (30K) to buy out the contract to the club losing the player and this comes off their salary cap.

    The player plays the following season for $270K and this new club has $330K coming of their salary cap. The club that has lost the contracted player receives an extra $60K they can use on their salary cap or bank it.

    The level of players wanting the security of contracts but also wanting to break them to secure better deals is a lot higher than it should be and this just isn't fair and there needs to be a fairer set-up that protects the clubs who have often drafted, developed and provided security to the player.

    I'd be interested in your thoughts?
    My first reaction is that it's a good idea. My next reaction is that it gives more incentive for clubs to use free agency and/or to wait until players are in the last year of their contract making it harder for clubs to find a trade for players. If this happens it's going to be even harder to get proper compensation for losing a player (unless free agency is used and the compo is not taken away in which case it tends to work out OKish most of the time)

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    5,048
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Trade Period

    Quote Originally Posted by GVGjr View Post
    ....
    I'm suggesting that if a contracted player requests a trade to a club then the contract that is in place needs to be honored by his new club. The player and the new club need to contribute 10% of the existing contract to the club that is losing the player. The money that the new club has to pay also comes off their salary cap.

    For example the player has 1 year to go on his contract but wants to head home. He is on a $300K deal for that year.
    The player then has to pay 10% of the value of his existing contract (30K) to his club to break that contract with them.
    The new club also has to pay a 10% premium (30K) to buy out the contract to the club losing the player and this comes off their salary cap.

    The player plays the following season for $270K and this new club has $330K coming of their salary cap. The club that has lost the contracted player receives an extra $60K they can use on their salary cap or bank it.

    The level of players wanting the security of contracts but also wanting to break them to secure better deals is a lot higher than it should be and this just isn't fair and there needs to be a fairer set-up that protects the clubs who have often drafted, developed and provided security to the player.

    I'd be interested in your thoughts?
    I really like your thoughts on this.

    The player leaving does not get an advantage for breaking his contract and the club that has encouraged him contributes salary cap relief to the club losing the player.

    I don`t imagine Hawthorn would have obtained Wingard under that arrangement. It does not stop uncontracted players moving, but there probably needs to be some sort of transparent arrangement for those moves when players are yet to be eligible for free agency.

    At the moment we are getting to almost a default free agency for everyone.
    Life is to be Enjoyed not Endured

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Doglands
    Posts
    39,479
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Trade Period

    Quote Originally Posted by Bulldog Joe View Post
    I really like your thoughts on this.

    The player leaving does not get an advantage for breaking his contract and the club that has encouraged him contributes salary cap relief to the club losing the player.

    I don`t imagine Hawthorn would have obtained Wingard under that arrangement. It does not stop uncontracted players moving, but there probably needs to be some sort of transparent arrangement for those moves when players are yet to be eligible for free agency.

    At the moment we are getting to almost a default free agency for everyone.
    Hopefully it stops players leaving with 2 years to go on a deal because another club has just offered them overs.
    This whole homesick issue the players and their managers are playing ironically tends to be backed by a superior deal. At least in this case the player takes a bit of a hit for breaking a contract and so does the club poaching the player.

    I wonder if the % I've suggested is sufficient? Perhaps 10% for the player and 15% for the club might be a better position
    Western Bulldogs Football Club "Where it's cool to drool"

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    5,048
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Trade Period

    Quote Originally Posted by GVGjr View Post
    Hopefully it stops players leaving with 2 years to go on a deal because another club has just offered them overs.
    This whole homesick issue the players and their managers are playing ironically tends to be backed by a superior deal. At least in this case the player takes a bit of a hit for breaking a contract and so does the club poaching the player.

    I wonder if the % I've suggested is sufficient? Perhaps 10% for the player and 15% for the club might be a better position
    I think it is sufficient if the player simply is kept on the original contract, but the club losing a player gets a 20% salary cap relief paid by the club poaching the player for the remainder of the contract.
    Life is to be Enjoyed not Endured

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    5,229
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Trade Period

    I also think that if a contracted player wants to break that contract to go to their home state they forfeit the right to nominate a club and the club with the player can negotiate the best deal from all the clubs in that state.
    Don't piss off old people
    The older we get the less "LIFE IN PRISON" is a deterrent...

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,574
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Trade Period

    Would this make it harder for smaller clubs like ours to attract players? Take Wingard as an example. Both us and Hawthorn can only offer him the same pay for year one, how do we compete with that? We can't offer him more money or a longer deal until that initial contract expires. So potentially, you get a one year rental and/or continually miss out by virtue of not being able to trump a "bigger" clubs offer financially.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Doglands
    Posts
    39,479
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Trade Period

    Quote Originally Posted by Go_Dogs View Post
    Would this make it harder for smaller clubs like ours to attract players? Take Wingard as an example. Both us and Hawthorn can only offer him the same pay for year one, how do we compete with that? We can't offer him more money or a longer deal until that initial contract expires. So potentially, you get a one year rental and/or continually miss out by virtue of not being able to trump a "bigger" clubs offer financially.
    You can offer them any deal you like but that deal doesn't start until the existing contract has been completed.

    I suspect it will stop the flood levels we are now seeing of contracted players looking to leaver earlier.
    Western Bulldogs Football Club "Where it's cool to drool"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •