Performance contracts

[MalenyTiger]

If I performed in my work like most Richmond players I would not win contracts for work or get paid. I would soon be out of work as no-one would would want my services. Can clubs put players on performance based contracts that enable the club to withhold payments if the necessary tasks are not carried out? Most of our players should not have taken a pay cheque for most games this year. How do they get away with it??

 

[Tiger74]

If I performed in my work like most Richmond players I would not win contracts for work or get paid. I would soon be out of work as no-one would would want my services. Can clubs put players on performance based contracts that enable the club to withhold payments if the necessary tasks are not carried out? Most of our players should not have taken a pay cheque for most games this year. How do they get away with it??

no - you can have performance incentives, but you cannot have base payments on a performance requirement

under the agreement between the AFLPA and the AFL, players are granted certain contractual minimums

 

[doherz]

no - you can have performance incentives, but you cannot have base payments on a performance requirement

under the agreement between the AFLPA and the AFL, players are granted certain contractual minimums

Surely the club has the right to negotiate with the player a base and on target earnings (OTE) component? If not, its a kid of reverse monopoly. If a club cannot come to a player and negotiate a contract of 100K retainer and 250K OTE for meeting certain performance metrics and KPI's then the club is held to ransom.

If that is the case, the AFLPA is basically saying that once the player hasw attained a skill level high enough to be drafted, there is no reason for that player to further enhance their careers as the club needs to pay them a set amount regadless of performance.

If i worked that way, i would be unemployed within a week, regardless of what was in my contract.

 

[Tiger74]

Surely the club has the right to negotiate with the player a base and on target earnings (OTE) component? If not, its a kid of reverse monopoly. If a club cannot come to a player and negotiate a contract of 100K retainer and 250K OTE for meeting certain performance metrics and KPI's then the club is held to ransom.

If that is the case, the AFLPA is basically saying that once the player hasw attained a skill level high enough to be drafted, there is no reason for that player to further enhance their careers as the club needs to pay them a set amount regadless of performance.

If i worked that way, i would be unemployed within a week, regardless of what was in my contract.

there are minimums you have to pay a player. to say "play well or get nothing" is not an option. You must meet the minimums under the AFLPA agreement

 

[GoodOne]

If i worked that way, i would be unemployed within a week, regardless of what was in my contract.

If you sign a contract time-based agreement then the company is obliged to pay you out if they sack you regardless of the reason (unless there are specific clauses). So you are incorrect in saying you would be unemployed within a week regardless of what was in your contract.

 

[seven]

there are minimums you have to pay a player. to say "play well or get nothing" is not an option. You must meet the minimums under the AFLPA agreement

Actually Richmond had a certain argement back in the late 80's - early 90's in reagrds of no win no pay.
AFL since then steppped in and stamped that out.
Very unfair and a terrible way to intice players to come or stay at the club

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Actually Richmond had a certain argement back in the late 80's - early 90's in reagrds of no win no pay.

:shakehead

They must've been the lowest-paid players in the modern era.

 

[mopsy fraser]

Actually Richmond had a certain argement back in the late 80's - early 90's in reagrds of no win no pay.
AFL since then steppped in and stamped that out.
Very unfair and a terrible way to intice players to come or stay at the club

i doubt that very much.

 

[seven]

i doubt that very much.

True. A few players, in there 1st and 2nd year at the club were payed around $6,000 for the season (think it was 89). Despite playing over 10 games that year in the seniors.

 

[seven]

True. A few players, in there 1st and 2nd year at the club were payed around $6,000 for the season (think it was 89). Despite playing over 10 games that year in the seniors.

Mind you it was better then fitzroy.
If anyone remembers when Richmond picked up Gale, Dundas and Broadrick in the draft and someone asked the trio what was the difference between the two clubs. Dundas replied, you know you get payed each week at Richmond.

 

[1eyedtiger]

This subject got me thinking a while back. Given that the minimum requirement is for a club to pay 92.5% (correct me if I'm wrong) of the salary cap, I wonder if a system where that 92.5% is divided by the number of rounds in a season, each player paid the minimum match payment each week, and the remainder distributed using a performance based system would work. The Lids of the world would then naturally be paid more than the McMuffins of the world, and rightfully so.

The only sticking point for me would be that if the team made the finals, would the extra rounds push payments above the salary cap. But having said that, I wonder what others think of the fact that if two clubs paid their players an identical amount, one team made the finals and the other didn't, then as a group, the players that made the finals would effectively not be paid for playing in the finals whilst the other team would be on holiday having earned the same money for the year.