Performance based contracts

[Rosy]

There's been a common theory that players pick up form in the last couple of months of a contract season and I'm wondering if performance based contracts might be the answer.

There are players you wouldn't want to lose and they'd be given proper contracts but I wonder how players like Krak and Pettifer and Tivva etc would perform if the pressure was kept on them.

We've had so many high paid players underperform year after year after year. In fact we've been at the top of the salary cap and the bottom of results. The players get their massive pay each week whether they get a kick or not and I wonder if some have less passion because of that.

It's a reason I'm not a fan of long contracts for fringe players too.

Can anyone think of the pros and cons of performance based contracts and would we have many players on them already?

 

[BrisTiger24]

The cons are you might have salary cap issues if you have a lot of players on these contracts and win a premiership.

 

[Tango]

it can also start to affect your selection policy if your tight for dollars

 

[Dean3]

I might be wrong (though I can't recall that happening ;D ) but I'd say just about every player on the list would have some performance based elements in their contract.

I think they're fine as long as the maximum a player can earn is understood by both parties, agreed upon and budgeted for.

Keep in mind that teams that win flags are given extra space in their salary cap to accommodate all those clauses in performance-based contracts.

 

[Tango]

yes but it would silly to work out your max for 22 players - if they didnt reach that potential you have wasted the opportunity to pay someone else more money
there are many variances that make up salary caps, things like injury, consecutive games, promoted players, increase or decrease in performance against permormance based salaries, who wins the B&F, brownlow votes, AA selection etc etc
and some players on plain old base salary + team bonuses
you need a smart mix, the ability to squeeze out the max without going over and not paying enough - not a simple exercise

 

[craig]

Imagine how much we would have saved having Hilton, Tivendale Chaffey Hall ect on performance based contracts hahahahahahahaaha think Tiva woulda got about $50 a week :hihi

 

[GoodOne]

The cons are you might have salary cap issues if you have a lot of players on these contracts and win a premiership.

On that basis we'd be the richest club in Australia on the performance of the last 20 years.

Cheers

 

[Skills]

Imagine how much we would have saved having Hilton, Tivendale Chaffey Hall ect on performance based contracts hahahahahahahaaha think Tiva woulda got about $50 a week  :hihi

Does this mean you were happy with *smile*'s performance last year?

 

[tigericho]

Imagine how much we would have saved having Hilton, Tivendale Chaffey Hall ect on performance based contracts hahahahahahahaaha think Tiva woulda got about $50 a week :hihi

Taking this to the next logical step, John Howard could become involved in our Work Place Agreements.

RFC Should send Invoices to certain players who have not performed to basic contract criteria. We could finally turn a profit. > > > :spin > > > :rofl > > >

 

[TigerMasochist]

Think the biggest problem is that the minimum cap is set way to high and doesn't leave a lot of room for negotiating performance clauses and worst of all it forces clubs that either have a poor list or a list with a huge percentage of development players to pay over the odds to players for potential and these players/managers then expect pay rises on top of previous earning if they do happen to reach their potential.
Minimum cap should be about 80 to 85% not 92.5% this would leave room for neotiating performance incentives for developing players and clubs with a more mature or seasoned list would be paying their players near the top of the cap because most of their list would already have shown a consistent standard of performance.

 

[geoffryprettyboy]

A Pro of a performance based contract is to let's say sign up a player on a 2 yr PBC, hope that he has a an above average year and use them as part of a trade package for them to play year 2 elsewhere. :thinking

 

[Tigermad2005]

Nice ideabut just do not work for the big name player as they will blow the budget or just take their ball and go play for for the club willing to give them the most money.

 

[dcstar]

Think the biggest problem is that the minimum cap is set way to high and doesn't leave a lot of room for negotiating performance clauses and worst of all it forces clubs that either have a poor list or a list with a huge percentage of development players to pay over the odds to players for potential and these players/managers then expect pay rises on top of previous earning if they do happen to reach their potential.
Minimum cap should be about 80 to 85% not 92.5% this would leave room for negotiating performance incentives for developing players and clubs with a more mature or seasoned list would be paying their players near the top of the cap because most of their list would already have shown a consistent standard of performance.

An AFL club is essentially required to only pay it's players ~50% of the Salary Cap each year (this is done by paying each lsited player the minimum base salary and then the minimum senior match payments).

If a club doesn't meet the 92.5% minimum, I believe that have to pay the AFL the difference - so in fact a club could pay its players just 50% of the Salary Cap, but it would still cost them 92.5% to do it........