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.

[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 h (http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/collingwood-launches-aflside-talks-on-contracts-after-broking-deal-with-gold-coast-for-rodney-eade/story-e6frf3e3-1227107575184)ere

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 h (http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/collingwood-launches-aflside-talks-on-contracts-after-broking-deal-with-gold-coast-for-rodney-eade/story-e6frf3e3-1227107575184)ere

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.