IF our club is smart: 3 Year $3 million deal, with 2 year club option at $1.25 million.
So if he plays well and we are happy, he scores another $250k for 4th and 5th years. Then in the 3rd or 4th year you extend him again with a secondary club option at higher pay rate (coinciding with salary cap).
You don't offer a player 5 years or more straight up. Just results in them becomming complacent and lazy.
In an ideal world I'd like to see the NRL block anything more than 1-2 year deals. Keep the player market moving fast and players available.
The long term contracts seem to be working out OK for Manly/Cherry Evans, Cowboys/Taumalolo plus Melbourne/Slater, Smith, Cronk had extendable deals etc. I didn’t/don’t see them becoming lazy.
Making players move every 1/2 years is horrid for them and their family. Takes time to buy a house, set up a mortgage, get the kids established in in a school, build up a network of friends and family for support and then bingo, sorry no more Shire, you’re off to Toonsville. I’m sure the players wouldn’t be very happy with moving their family around every 2 years. Players on big$ would be able to afford it (moving a family isn’t cheap) but it could easily break the guys on below average contracts. Of course they don’t have to move, they can just suck it up, cop less money and stay. That’s if they actually get offered a contract, didn’t have the club buy a “superstar” above them or get squeezed out for any number of reasons.
A life time rolling contract with performance clauses works for some, but not for others where a 1 Year contract is required to motivate them. I can’t see the logic for grouping all players with the same length contract. It’s also a bit of a turn off for the fans, as if it isn’t bad enough already with their favourite players jumping ship, it would just be worse knowing that in less than 2 years they may not even be there.
Go Dogs