Axe Man
19-10-2022, 09:57 AM
Deep dive into long-term contracts (https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-2022-deep-dive-into-longterm-contracts/news-story/94620c046feaa6a492860c6bef5e65d6)
The Lance Franklin deal which shocked the AFL is fast becoming the norm in AFL — we examine why clubs are desperate to lock their big guns in for the long-term despite the risks.
Uncertainty about when and if a Tasmanian team enters the AFL is an “elephant in the room” contributing to the trend of long-term contracts, according to a prominent player agent.
More than 55 footballers across the men’s competition are believed to be on deals of at least five years, as players seek extra security and clubs look to tie down their stars.
Twenty-three – Harry McKay, Clayton Oliver (2030), Charlie Curnow, Jacob Hopper, Luke Jackson, Callum Mills, Tim Taranto (2029), Angus Brayshaw, Josh Dunkley, Isaac Heeney, Jason Horne-Francis, Darcy Moore, Tom Papley (2028), Heath Chapman, Bailey Dale, Jordan De Goey, Dan Houston, Jack Macrae, Rowan Marshall, Tom McCartin, Daniel Rioli, Jayden Short and James Sicily (2027) – inked lengthy extensions in 2022.
Football figures and player managers contacted by News Corp outlined a variety of factors for the shift towards longer deals, including:
■ Clubs “trying to protect their stock” ahead of free agency;
■ Teams wanting more power at the trade table;
■ Being able to trade contracted players more easily ensures less risk for clubs;
■ Clubs seeing it as a way to lure players;
■ Stars preferring financial assurity over shorter deals on more money and;
■ More cash coming into clubs’ disposal because of the new TV rights deal
One agent said the opportunity for a potential Tasmanian side to attract quality players also loomed.
A decision on whether the island state receives a 19th licence is expected in coming months.
“It’s the elephant in the room that clubs are uncertain about,” the agent told News Corp.
“Clearly if there’s a Tasmanian team that comes in, they’ll come in with an open chequebook and will be able to build their list.
“Clubs don’t want to rebuild through that time and they want to have their players locked into contracts to know with certainty they’ve got them at their disposal.”
Long-term deals are not new – Lance Franklin’s nine-year and Alastair Lynch’s 10-season one are famous – but increased player movement has made them more prevalent.
The introduction of free agency at the end of 2012 was significant in that.
A decade on, the agent believed some teams were now doing long-term deals to get better currency at the trade table.
He said that was one of the reasons why players did not have as much power as clubs or the media suggested.
“People look at it and go ‘the player gets all the incentive’ but a lot of the time the long-term deals are for your best-and-fairest, All-Australian type players,” he said.
“So yes, players understand they have security, but clubs understand they’ve got players where they can manipulate money, whether it’s front or back-ended … and they eliminate the risk of losing a player.
“I genuinely feel as though some clubs offer a bit longer term of a contract to a player, knowing in two years they might want to push them out.
“Clubs are quite smart and realise trading a player with two or three years on their head gives them a lot more trade value than one who’s out of contract or a free agent.
“I’ve experienced it where there was a three or four-year deal signed by a player with the money back-ended and after two years, when they’re about to get paid (well), in their third and fourth year, the club tells them they’re no longer required or it’s their best option to … survey the market.
“Yes, the players get great security (from long-term deals) in that they know what they’re going to be paid, what they don’t know is where they’re going to be paid that money from and what club they’re going to be at.”
The agent said “contracts have probably never meant less in terms of security and where you’re going to be”.
“The length of the deal isn’t necessarily the issue, it’s how the money’s distributed in that,” he said.
“A club might pay you a lot right now because they think they’re going to contend in three or four years, then the back three or four years you’re on a fair bit less because they want to free up money to pay other good players or free agents.
“Where it gets tricky, like with (Jack) Bowes, is where clubs push the money back, push it back, push it back, then push a player out – that’s what I don’t like.”
Bowes signed a five-year contract extension with Gold Coast in 2019, only for the club to be so keen to offload him during the trade period that it attached the seventh pick in next month’s draft in a lopsided deal with Geelong.
A senior club figure told News Corp the balance of power was definitely with players, saying if they wanted long-term contracts it was very hard to turn them down, particularly if they were unsigned.
“Because you know the market will find him a home,” he said.
But he said the Bowes salary dump showed there was less risk now for teams who signed players to long-term contracts.
“A club’s willingness to do it is commensurate with the fact it seems we can get out of them a bit quicker or easier,” he said.
“The risk for clubs is a player who doesn’t deliver for the money that they’re on.
“But the way the AFL is allowing things, you can also get out of them quicker.
“There’s additional ways of fixing that mistake if it happens.
“The Bowes situation is a perfect one.
“I feel a little sorry for him, he’s back-ended money and the club comes to him and says ‘you’re on $800,000 over the next two years’, but then he could say ‘I wouldn’t have been if you hadn’t moved money over the time’.”
Longer deals were also being used as a way for clubs to lure players.
Richmond offered Hopper and Taranto seven-year contracts, which helped secure them from GWS when other clubs were interested.
The club figure said it was also a negotiating tool for players ahead of their free agencies.
“It might be – ‘I’m going to go next year, you can either get more for me now or wait for next year’,” he said.
“But if we’re going to commit to that period of time, there has to be some flexibility from the player as to how that’s paid.”
The agent disagreed, saying pre-agency driving longer deals was a little overstated.
“We don’t have clubs coming in saying ‘who are your free agents next year, let’s try to extract them now’ and … ‘you’ve got a player coming into free agency, we’d prefer to push them out (past it) now’,” he said.
He said some agents remained reluctant to sign huge, long-term deals because situations and clubs change very quickly, whether it be in a player’s life or with a new coach coming in.
“I think you need to do it with the right personality,” he said.
“Someone who’s focused, not on the money but on being the best player and helping their team win.”
The agent described Grundy and North Melbourne’s Jared Polec as outliers.
Collingwood signed Grundy to a seven-year deal in January 2020 then traded him to Melbourne last week because the Magpies wanted to free up salary cap space.
Polec joined the Kangaroos on a five-year deal from Port Adelaide in 2018.
“Most are premium midfielders … then your power forwards,” the agent said.
Usually, a club initiates a long-term deal by going to an agent.
The player manager then typically tries to increase the duration as far as they can without going overboard.
“If a club says ‘we’d look at a four or five-year deal’, as a manager, if you speak to your player and they’re happy, dedicated, motivated, their life is good, form is good and there’s little risk to injury, you could say ‘let’s make him a player for life at this football club, let’s do a seven-year deal’,” the agent said.
“Throw it out there and see what reception you get.
“In that circumstance, the player normally has most of the power.”
The club figure said this year’s long-term contracts all had their own circumstances behind them but teams were generally more willing these days to sign players to longer deals.
He also felt players were more inclined to forego say $300,000 or $400,000 over a six or seven-year deal in order to be guaranteed to get that money over that period.
Although some will underperform during the length of the contract, extra money coming into the game via the new TV rights deal – a $4.5b agreement from 2025-31 – means clubs will also get rewarded by locking up others.
“If they put a player on $800,000 now, but in four or five years, their value (in the market) might be $1.2m so they’ve actually made a smart investment,” the agent said.
The agent said some back-ended, long-term contracts could come back to hurt clubs, pointing to Carlton’s risk in extending McKay for seven years given his injury history.
Richmond list manager Blair Hartley said his club carefully considered handing out long-term deals and believed they would become more common, particularly because of the coming change to the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
“It just gives the clubs that flexibility and it also gives the players security,” Hartley said.
The Lance Franklin deal which shocked the AFL is fast becoming the norm in AFL — we examine why clubs are desperate to lock their big guns in for the long-term despite the risks.
Uncertainty about when and if a Tasmanian team enters the AFL is an “elephant in the room” contributing to the trend of long-term contracts, according to a prominent player agent.
More than 55 footballers across the men’s competition are believed to be on deals of at least five years, as players seek extra security and clubs look to tie down their stars.
Twenty-three – Harry McKay, Clayton Oliver (2030), Charlie Curnow, Jacob Hopper, Luke Jackson, Callum Mills, Tim Taranto (2029), Angus Brayshaw, Josh Dunkley, Isaac Heeney, Jason Horne-Francis, Darcy Moore, Tom Papley (2028), Heath Chapman, Bailey Dale, Jordan De Goey, Dan Houston, Jack Macrae, Rowan Marshall, Tom McCartin, Daniel Rioli, Jayden Short and James Sicily (2027) – inked lengthy extensions in 2022.
Football figures and player managers contacted by News Corp outlined a variety of factors for the shift towards longer deals, including:
■ Clubs “trying to protect their stock” ahead of free agency;
■ Teams wanting more power at the trade table;
■ Being able to trade contracted players more easily ensures less risk for clubs;
■ Clubs seeing it as a way to lure players;
■ Stars preferring financial assurity over shorter deals on more money and;
■ More cash coming into clubs’ disposal because of the new TV rights deal
One agent said the opportunity for a potential Tasmanian side to attract quality players also loomed.
A decision on whether the island state receives a 19th licence is expected in coming months.
“It’s the elephant in the room that clubs are uncertain about,” the agent told News Corp.
“Clearly if there’s a Tasmanian team that comes in, they’ll come in with an open chequebook and will be able to build their list.
“Clubs don’t want to rebuild through that time and they want to have their players locked into contracts to know with certainty they’ve got them at their disposal.”
Long-term deals are not new – Lance Franklin’s nine-year and Alastair Lynch’s 10-season one are famous – but increased player movement has made them more prevalent.
The introduction of free agency at the end of 2012 was significant in that.
A decade on, the agent believed some teams were now doing long-term deals to get better currency at the trade table.
He said that was one of the reasons why players did not have as much power as clubs or the media suggested.
“People look at it and go ‘the player gets all the incentive’ but a lot of the time the long-term deals are for your best-and-fairest, All-Australian type players,” he said.
“So yes, players understand they have security, but clubs understand they’ve got players where they can manipulate money, whether it’s front or back-ended … and they eliminate the risk of losing a player.
“I genuinely feel as though some clubs offer a bit longer term of a contract to a player, knowing in two years they might want to push them out.
“Clubs are quite smart and realise trading a player with two or three years on their head gives them a lot more trade value than one who’s out of contract or a free agent.
“I’ve experienced it where there was a three or four-year deal signed by a player with the money back-ended and after two years, when they’re about to get paid (well), in their third and fourth year, the club tells them they’re no longer required or it’s their best option to … survey the market.
“Yes, the players get great security (from long-term deals) in that they know what they’re going to be paid, what they don’t know is where they’re going to be paid that money from and what club they’re going to be at.”
The agent said “contracts have probably never meant less in terms of security and where you’re going to be”.
“The length of the deal isn’t necessarily the issue, it’s how the money’s distributed in that,” he said.
“A club might pay you a lot right now because they think they’re going to contend in three or four years, then the back three or four years you’re on a fair bit less because they want to free up money to pay other good players or free agents.
“Where it gets tricky, like with (Jack) Bowes, is where clubs push the money back, push it back, push it back, then push a player out – that’s what I don’t like.”
Bowes signed a five-year contract extension with Gold Coast in 2019, only for the club to be so keen to offload him during the trade period that it attached the seventh pick in next month’s draft in a lopsided deal with Geelong.
A senior club figure told News Corp the balance of power was definitely with players, saying if they wanted long-term contracts it was very hard to turn them down, particularly if they were unsigned.
“Because you know the market will find him a home,” he said.
But he said the Bowes salary dump showed there was less risk now for teams who signed players to long-term contracts.
“A club’s willingness to do it is commensurate with the fact it seems we can get out of them a bit quicker or easier,” he said.
“The risk for clubs is a player who doesn’t deliver for the money that they’re on.
“But the way the AFL is allowing things, you can also get out of them quicker.
“There’s additional ways of fixing that mistake if it happens.
“The Bowes situation is a perfect one.
“I feel a little sorry for him, he’s back-ended money and the club comes to him and says ‘you’re on $800,000 over the next two years’, but then he could say ‘I wouldn’t have been if you hadn’t moved money over the time’.”
Longer deals were also being used as a way for clubs to lure players.
Richmond offered Hopper and Taranto seven-year contracts, which helped secure them from GWS when other clubs were interested.
The club figure said it was also a negotiating tool for players ahead of their free agencies.
“It might be – ‘I’m going to go next year, you can either get more for me now or wait for next year’,” he said.
“But if we’re going to commit to that period of time, there has to be some flexibility from the player as to how that’s paid.”
The agent disagreed, saying pre-agency driving longer deals was a little overstated.
“We don’t have clubs coming in saying ‘who are your free agents next year, let’s try to extract them now’ and … ‘you’ve got a player coming into free agency, we’d prefer to push them out (past it) now’,” he said.
He said some agents remained reluctant to sign huge, long-term deals because situations and clubs change very quickly, whether it be in a player’s life or with a new coach coming in.
“I think you need to do it with the right personality,” he said.
“Someone who’s focused, not on the money but on being the best player and helping their team win.”
The agent described Grundy and North Melbourne’s Jared Polec as outliers.
Collingwood signed Grundy to a seven-year deal in January 2020 then traded him to Melbourne last week because the Magpies wanted to free up salary cap space.
Polec joined the Kangaroos on a five-year deal from Port Adelaide in 2018.
“Most are premium midfielders … then your power forwards,” the agent said.
Usually, a club initiates a long-term deal by going to an agent.
The player manager then typically tries to increase the duration as far as they can without going overboard.
“If a club says ‘we’d look at a four or five-year deal’, as a manager, if you speak to your player and they’re happy, dedicated, motivated, their life is good, form is good and there’s little risk to injury, you could say ‘let’s make him a player for life at this football club, let’s do a seven-year deal’,” the agent said.
“Throw it out there and see what reception you get.
“In that circumstance, the player normally has most of the power.”
The club figure said this year’s long-term contracts all had their own circumstances behind them but teams were generally more willing these days to sign players to longer deals.
He also felt players were more inclined to forego say $300,000 or $400,000 over a six or seven-year deal in order to be guaranteed to get that money over that period.
Although some will underperform during the length of the contract, extra money coming into the game via the new TV rights deal – a $4.5b agreement from 2025-31 – means clubs will also get rewarded by locking up others.
“If they put a player on $800,000 now, but in four or five years, their value (in the market) might be $1.2m so they’ve actually made a smart investment,” the agent said.
The agent said some back-ended, long-term contracts could come back to hurt clubs, pointing to Carlton’s risk in extending McKay for seven years given his injury history.
Richmond list manager Blair Hartley said his club carefully considered handing out long-term deals and believed they would become more common, particularly because of the coming change to the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
“It just gives the clubs that flexibility and it also gives the players security,” Hartley said.