Generous contract lengths | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Generous contract lengths

Tigers of Old

Tigers of Old

30.09.2017
Jul 26, 2004
83,978
57,119
www.redbubble.com
Why is it at Richmond that we seem to almost always sign unproven players to contracts over the odds?

This year alone that I can think of we've had:

Polak signed for 3 years - Despite being an unestablished player at Fremantle

Tambling signed for 3 years - Despite not establishing himself at Richmond.

Casserley signed mid season for two years - Despite not even playing a senior game.

Hughes signed mid season for two years - Despite showing very little during the year.


Previously we've had:

Troy Simmonds signed for 5 years - Which is an extraordinary length for a ruckman.

Jay Schulz signed for 3 years - Two would have seemed appropriate.

Andrew Krakouer for three years - Thank goodness that's ended.

Andrew Raines for three years - On the back of one decent season. Again two would have been wise.

Now I'm no way suggesting annual deals but the only contracts that I have seen from the club over the past few seasons that appear outwardly sensible have been Meyer, Kingsley & McGuane on 1 year contracts.

Otherwise many of our contracts for players seem to be more than generous and our players regularly overrated.
To the club's credit it does seem to be gradually tightening up but for a chronically underachieving team there's still some room for improvement.

Another thing I'd like to see the club adopt is a yearly contract for all players over the age of thirty.
Much like has been adopted by Hawthorn and Adelaide. It's a common sense approach IMO.
 
If you were a player, would you choose to come to Richmond? Only if you were offered a long contract like Simmo and Polly.

As for long contracts for players like Krak, Hughes and Schulz... :don't know
 
Pat Bowden isn't on a 5 year deal...so therefore I say there's NOT enough generous contract deals :spin

Look, everyone knows that Richmond overrates its players. All our fans are experts and would do a heaps better job if they were in charge. Yadda yadda yadda...

It's probably the same at other clubs, you know, with questionable players given contracts of which they don't deserve. Without knowing other clubs, though, I can hardly say we're on our lonesome with these deals...but I'd be surprised if we were.

It's probably an attraction for players like Simmonds and Polak to come here, if they're offered contracts of the length of what they have been. Also, imagine if Simmonds had been given a 2 year deal when he first came, had the brilliant year he had in 2006, renegotiated his contract for something obscenely high, then had the same year he's had this year? Richmond would be the loser.

Besides, all this contract means is that people on sites like this can't call for every single dud (in their eyes) to be delisted. And is that such a bad thing? Perhaps it is for the stress levels of those people...

While I don't have COMPLETE faith that the Richmond brains trust knows what its doing, they're a lot more experienced and knowledgeable than I am. So I trust their decisions with regard to contracts.
 
A lot of it has to do with:
- front loadung contracts because we've got so many kids,
- staggering when they come off contract to aid future list management,
- "informal' agreed standards such as , so many games by age 21 equates to a "n' year deal at "y" dollars, and
- Formal contract clauses. I'e. So many brownlow votes and so many games in one season and an "x" year extension is provided.
 
The positives:

- Players have a sense of "Richmond is my home and will be for a long time" and are less likely to ponder leaving.

- Sense of security and confidence among the players that they get the chance to mature as a group. I remember two years ago Geelong said "we will not be trading any of our players because we want them to stay together" and look how close they are now.

- Develops a frame of mind where money is not a yearly thing to worry about and contracts are treated like a distant memory instead of a constant process. A constant process of negotiations every year would increase a decision to pursue a better contract elsewhere.

- Kids like Raines and Bling can feel comfortable that the higher powers have placed confidence in them, this allows them to concentrate on their footy easier.



Negatives:

- Can't delist players whenever you want.

- Players tend to get paid on potential more often than with short term contracts.



Basically IMO they are a greater risk to the club in a name to increase comraderie among players. Worth persisting with.
 
Tigers of Old said:
Why is it at Richmond that we seem to almost always sign unproven players to contracts over the odds?

This year alone that I can think of we've had:

Polak signed for 3 years - Despite being an unestablished player at Fremantle

Tambling signed for 3 years - Despite not establishing himself at Richmond.

Casserley signed mid season for two years - Despite not even playing a senior game.

Hughes signed mid season for two years - Despite showing very little during the year.
Click to expand...

What's long term about the contracts of Casserly and Hughes?
 
As appealing as it sounds to turn Richmond into a 19th century sweatshop with every player on week by week contracts that can be terminated after every bad game that isn’t actually feasible in a competitive labour market like the AFL.

If we keep offering one year contracts the players will get the idea pretty quickly that commitment is not a strong feature about the club and will return the favour and head off to other clubs.

The longest contracts, Polack and Simmo, were necessary precisely to make Richmond a attractive destination.
 
We need to stop giving out all these silly contracts. Ties up spots on the list and cap space.
 
simmo was great last year but this year showed why 5 years for a ruckman is laughable, has ankle problems and with his sickness who knows whether he can get back to good footy

schulz and krakouer deals were pathetic, raines and tambling not as bad but still not smart

hughes and patto with 2 years was good, should be the standard across the board

deledio the exception
 
Not our fault, he would have been re-signed last year for another 3 years on the back of his form last year anyway.
 
Col.W.Kurtz said:
As appealing as it sounds to turn Richmond into a 19th century sweatshop with every player on week by week contracts that can be terminated after every bad game that isn’t actually feasible in a competitive labour market like the AFL.

If we keep offering one year contracts the players will get the idea pretty quickly that commitment is not a strong feature about the club and will return the favour and head off to other clubs.

The longest contracts, Polack and Simmo, were necessary precisely to make Richmond a attractive destination.
Click to expand...

Enjoy your work dark-hearted one. One fact conveniently forgotten during these contract/dollar worth arguments is that all clubs must pay 92% of the salary cap every year. In other words, clubs are forced to spend a certain amount on player payments which explains the vast majority of player contracts in terms of length and girth, if you don't mind me saying.
 
I'm glad some of the people here are a mile away from RFC list management. For X's sake get real. Only read duds will sign up for one year, and unproven (or old) players for two... These guys risk their health and future to go and play. Simmo got injured for the team; we wear the cost. Simple.

And no 5 year deal for Simmo, no Simmo. Simple as that really. Ditto with Polak and his 3 year deal. Good, sensible decisions IMO. As are almost all the contracts for the younger players.

There are no guarantees in footy; and most teams will end up paying $$ for one or two players who fail to deliver. That's how it works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
< Chick given the flick. | Mad Monday >
Top Bottom