Are long contracts still king?

[Go_Dogs]

It’s fascinating watching the game change over time. Player movement is significant now. Players (largely) hold the keys to their destiny and most often can find a way through goodwill or manipulation to the home of their choosing.

For clubs, there are a few key options / considerations:

1. Secure talent on long term, big $ contracts.

2. Offer beat in market $ over punchier terms.

The first option gives clubs a great negotiation platform if a player decides they want to leave. We’ve got a big $ and multi-year - put the farm up and we’ll talk. It does carry risk - if a player falls off a cliff, has a serious long term injury or 3, or turns into Marra, it’s a much harder proposition to to move them on.

The shorter option is the inverse.

How do we balance this and what does good list management look like in 2026 and beyond?

[GVGjr]

It's a mess at the moment.
I initially thought it was too heavily weighted in favor of the players but more information has become evident that poorly run clubs are trying to force players out after recently giving them a long term deal.

I don't know what the fix might be but perhaps there needs to be some rules about contracts not exceeding 5 years and a rule that says players need to complete their contracts or financial compensation needs to be made to the club that holds the contract.

[Hotdog60]

In the light of Marra's situation (a precedent may have been set) there could be a health clauses written into long term contracts where a player can't perform to the level required due to MH the club can have the option to pay out the rest of the contract at 50% of the remaining sum and the player cannot play for another club for a 2-year period. This is more in case there is some underhanded manipulation going on in the background. You can't have players excepting long term contracts and then see the grass is greener elsewhere halfway through. It should also go the other way if the club tells the player to look elsewhere because they need to dump some cash, they can get a payout which is not part of the movement agreement.

[Hotdog60]

It's a mess at the moment.
I initially thought it was too heavily weighted in favor of the players but more information has become evident that poorly run clubs are trying to force players out after recently giving them a long term deal.

I don't know what the fix might be but perhaps there needs to be some rules about contracts not exceeding 5 years and a rule that says players need to complete their contracts or financial compensation needs to be made to the club that holds the contract.

I think limiting the length might be a good idea.

[Bornadog]

Funny how Gubby Allen stuffed up both GWS and Pies List management by giving big money and long contracts and now he is stuffing up the Saints.

I think 5 years is long enough and reasonable but longer is a real risk. We gave Naughton, what 8 plus years (I think) and to me that is a risk. In the end seems a contract is not really worth the paper it is written on.

[GVGjr]

I'd be placing some limited on front and back loaded contracts. This is forcing players into bad positions. This will get rid of some manipulative deals.

[GVGjr]

They need to find a better balance

[Grantysghost]

I've always thought they were madness. The Oliver and Petracca ones have backfired massively.

I think the agents are pushing for them but I honestly think the way Bont goes about it is right. 4 years at a time. Something like that. If they don't want that then I wouldn't be bending over to offer them more.

[Go_Dogs]

I find the NBA an interesting example. Once a contract is booked, it’s locked in. Teams can elect to trade a player (and contract) to another team for consideration.

The system is very complex - there are all sorts of rules relating to maximum contracts, ability to offer more money / term at the current club vs if a player leaves etc.

While I don’t favour the complexity of their system, it does give clubs some power back, which seems a bit lost at the moment.

It’s definitely a complicated issue.

For us, it seems like 4-5 year deals are
sensible ones and you wear the risk, with perhaps longer term for “marquee” players where appropriate.

I wonder what player managers are advising now too? Security is great for their clients particularly when clubs are increasingly challenged to hold players who want to leave to existing contracts.

[WBFC4FFC]

I find the NBA an interesting example. Once a contract is booked, it’s locked in. Teams can elect to trade a player (and contract) to another team for consideration.

The system is very complex - there are all sorts of rules relating to maximum contracts, ability to offer more money / term at the current club vs if a player leaves etc.

While I don’t favour the complexity of their system, it does give clubs some power back, which seems a bit lost at the moment.

It’s definitely a complicated issue.

For us, it seems like 4-5 year deals are
sensible ones and you wear the risk, with perhaps longer term for “marquee” players where appropriate.

I wonder what player managers are advising now too? Security is great for their clients particularly when clubs are increasingly challenged to hold players who want to leave to existing contracts.

Agree with the NBA style contracts, even the No-Trade Clause the player may have but it has to work both ways!

[jeemak]

I feel clubs need to be given some protection for players who have been highly paid over time coming out of contract, and nominating wherever they want to go, because under the current system the only lever they have to pull is tenure which results in what we're seeing with Oliver and Petracca.

However, what I will say is that Melbourne must have been a horrible place to be over the last few years and they should be getting soooooo much more shit for losing their best two midfielders in one trade period than they presently are. When you add them needing to move on May, and Lever apparently being open to moving prior to the end of the season, losing Spargo who isn't a gun but should see a future there, it doesn't paint a pretty picture given they sacked a premiership coach within the last six months.

Can you imagine this happening at the Bulldogs and the pile on that would follow it? Perhaps my online algorithm ensures I avoid the nastiness being directed at Melbourne right now, but I can't see it and it's genuinely deserved if it's actually happening.

[GVGjr]

I listened to James Gallagher the CEO of the PA and it's clear he's happy with the chaos with contracts, the freedom for players to go where they want and even with the AFL drug code.
This issue with player contracts isn't going away.

[Aidan7557]

I listened to James Gallagher the CEO of the PA and it's clear he's happy with the chaos with contracts, the freedom for players to go where they want and even with the AFL drug code.
This issue with player contracts isn't going away.

System is broken. Clubs should have power over players not the other way round. Player managers are also a big issue because there are not many of them and the big guns have so many clients. AFL is too scared to do anything about it.

[Bornadog]

The system is broken. Clubs should have power over players not the other way round. Player managers are also a big issue because there are not many of them and the big guns have so many clients. AFL is too scared to do anything about it.

I have no evidence of this, but I feel that player managers are always on the hunt to get a trade to another club with more dollars so they can boost their commission. I don't think they give a real stuff about the players. I bet they are shopping around all the time throughout the year.

[Axe Man]

I listened to James Gallagher the CEO of the PA and it's clear he's happy with the chaos with contracts, the freedom for players to go where they want and even with the AFL drug code.
This issue with player contracts isn't going away.

The AFL's players union is against any limitations on the length of player contracts, while also expressing reservations about clubs being able to trade players without their consent.

Some of the major players in this year's trade period, including Zach Merrett, Charlie Curnow and Christian Petracca, are looking to be traded while in contract.

The monster contract extensions for the likes of Kysaiah Pickett (until 2034) and Hayden Young (2033) has led to calls for the length of contracts to be capped.

But AFL Players' Association CEO James Gallagher says he would be opposed to any such restriction.

"Long term deals work well both ways. You don't have concerns from Collingwood about Nick Daicos, who is on a long one, or North having Harry Sheezel," Gallagher said on SEN.

"There are benefits to them.

"Occasionally they don't work out but that's not enough to bring in restrictions. Clubs need to have the ability to set up their lists in the right way. For some clubs that's long-term deals and others haven't gone there.

"Any restrictions we would be loath to dive into."

Gallagher also said a push by clubs to be able to trade players without their consent would not have the support of the AFLPA.

"In the current environment it's unlikely. We want an environment where it's flexible for players." he said.

"Dictating where they go and play is a real challenge. There's a fair bit of balance both ways in this.

"We will see how today plays out, but I suspect some players will go where they want and others won't." - Martin Smith