The AFL has asked the players to accept a new rule that would see top-20 draft picks contracted for a guaranteed three years on specified amounts, in what would be a major boost to the northern market clubs.
In a proposal that the league has put to the players, the top 20 picks would shift from two-year to three-year guaranteed contracts, and they could not have their mandated deals extended until the end of the second season.
Top bracket: Last year’s AFL draft first round draftees.Credit: Getty Images
Under the proposed rule, confirmed by AFL and AFL Players’ Association sources, players drafted in positions 1-20 would be subject to three year guaranteed contracts – meaning the club would have the chance to hold them on a contract until their fourth year, long the wish of Greater Western Sydney and Gold Coast.
But the players drafted between picks 21 and 50 would be subject to just two-year guaranteed contracts, and then players drafted from 51 onwards would get only a guarantee of one season on an AFL list.
If accepted by the AFLPA, the proposed rule would have the effect of helping expansion teams Gold Coast and GWS to hold on to youngsters and for those clubs – and any club at risk of losing a high pick – to retain top-end talent without having to pay a huge premium in their third season, as those clubs routinely have – paying in excess of $400,000-$450,000 for youngsters who are unproven at AFL level, simply to prevent them from moving to their home state.
But the AFL will also explore an exception for the third year contracts of elite youngsters – those who excel early in their careers like Collingwood’s Nick Daicos, Carlton’s Sam Walsh and Lion Will Ashcroft – in which they could be paid above the mandated maximum, if they reach certain benchmarks.
Raw talent: Will Ashcroft’s goal-of-the-year contender.Credit: Fox Footy / Twitter
The amounts of money paid in the third year would be higher for picks one to 10 than those drafted from 11 to 20, under the proposal, which the AFLPA is willing to discuss but with the proviso that they are concerned about further restrictions on player freedom. The players are in discussions with the AFL over a new collective bargaining agreement that sets out what players will get paid and the rules around mandatory and minimum payments.
GWS, Gold Coast and the Brisbane Lions have pushed for mandatory three-year deals for first round draftees in the past, with the Suns having put a detailed proposal to the AFL recently. The Suns and Giants have had issues in paying what they think are excessive third year contracts to first round picks.
Today’s (national draft) players are paid specific amounts, with a base amount (which varies according to draft position and number of games played) plus prescribed match payments of about $5000 for first and second year players. They are tied to a club for two years only, while rookie list players are guaranteed only one season.
The proposal will be supported by some clubs and opposed by others. It would have the issue of restricting the amount that a future Nick Daicos or Chris Judd-level player could earn in his third season and may meet opposition from player agents. The rule would not apply to any current player, only to future draftees.
Nick Daicos and Walsh were rewarded with sizeable contracts for their third and fourth years when they were in their first seasons en route to the Rising Star award; if this proposal was accepted, future elite kids – prospective No 1 draft pick Harley Reid might be an example this year – would not be able to negotiate a fourth year boost in pay until the end of their second season.
If accepted, the rule would also have the effect of forcing clubs to stick with young players for a third year, even if the clubs wanted to delist them; while this is rare for top 20 picks, there are players who get discarded after two seasons from that contingent.
AFLPA chief executive Paul Marsh said that the players would look at rules that improved competitive balance between clubs and were sympathetic to the northern market teams, but had concerns about restrictions on players.
“As a general rule we think the players are restricted enough,” said Marsh. “But we are willing for a review of competitive balance and there’s a number of factors that factor into that.”
Marsh said the AFLPA was willing to discuss the proposal, but added, “we don’t want to keep restricting the players.”
It is possible that the rule could be a bargaining chip or trade-off for other objectives that the players are seeking in their new deal with the AFL.
