Should players who break their contracts cop a financial penalty? Has St Kilda’s reputation taken a hit after the Leek Aleer backflip?

Let’s get to this week’s AFL overreactions, where we judge a few major takeaways as legitimate or irrational.

Players that break contracts MUST be financially penalised

We hear it all the time. A player signs a contract, grows unhappy with their situation for one of a thousand reasons, and then demands to be moved on to greener pastures. Despite being contracted, the clubs then feel somewhat hamstrung, not wanting to keep a disgruntled player on their list against their will, while also wary of fracturing relationships with the very few player managers making these deals happen.

As a result, more often than not new homes are found for the wantaway player, making the contracts that had previously been signed totally meaningless to the club.

Verdict: Not an overreaction

Nobody begrudges players for seeking the job security of long-term contracts — heck, we all do it in every industry — but, just like the rest of us, they need to be responsible for seeing them through until the end. You can’t be walking out on the club that has financially committed to you when the going gets tough or greater opportunities present themselves. After all, the club can’t — and shouldn’t be able to — abandon a contracted player or trade them against their will.

Editor’s Picks

1 Related

Look at Charlie Curnow and Zach Merrett. Both players are contracted to their respective clubs. Both players are bone fide stars of the game. Why should the Blues and Bombers feel forced to move on from them because their player is all of a sudden reportedly unhappy with their situation? Remember, contracts don’t guarantee situations, only time and money. Well, at least they should.

I liken it to signing a lease agreement. If you sign one and break it early, regardless of the reason, you’re financially liable to your landlord. I’ve long been convinced a similar type of penalty is required in the AFL to tip the balance of power back to neutral and avoid these laughable contracts that, in an era empowering player movement, have become increasingly meaningless. They simply aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.

The real question is what’s fair. How about this? If a player wants out and is willing to break their contract to facilitate a move to another club, their original club receives a percentage of their new contract, and any subsequent contracts offered from the new club. Those funds obviously wouldn’t then be available in the original team’s salary cap, but rather added to the club’s bottom line, so to speak. Upgrade your facilities. Give it to your members. Do whatever you want with it!

Of course, situations where the club and player are in agreement that the partnership should cease would bear no such penalty, but having some financial penalty in place for players who turn their back on the commitment they made would act as both a deterrent for those considering leaving early and a silver lining for clubs if one of theirs goes through with it. — Jake Michaels

St Kilda have embarrassed themselves this trade period

St Kilda has been one of the busiest and boldest clubs of this trade period, but the way they’ve handled the Leek Aleer situation has left them completely red-faced.

Verdict: Not an overreaction

The Saints’ aggressive approach to list building in recent weeks has, on the whole, actually been quite impressive. They’ve splashed their cap space to land multiple ready-made players and topped up with genuine talent such as Tom De Koning, Jack Silvagni, Sam Flanders, and Liam Ryan. It’s positioned them to at least push for finals — and perhaps even more — in 2026. That’s their expectation. That’s our expectation. And it’s where ambitious clubs perennially see themselves.

That ambition should be applauded, because no club should want to stand still. But the Aleer backflip has somewhat overshadowed it, even if only slightly.

— AFL trade tracker: Every completed deal

To court the 24-year-old for two years, sell him the dream of joining the Saints, have him request a trade to their club, and then abruptly pull out is an absolute shocker. The whole situation has left a player stranded in limbo just days before the deadline and, frankly, it’s not fair on the individual.

You can’t just dangle a carrot, and then snatch it away. So yes, overall their trade period has been strong. But in this one situation, the Saints have absolutely embarrassed themselves.

“Leek is shattered. He’s incredibly disappointed,” Giants football boss Jason McCartney told Trade Radio about Aleer’s reaction to the Saints abandoning their interest in him. “He was in tears at the exit interview.”

And what did Aleer’s manager Dylan Smith have to say?

“They’ve been whining and dining for him for two years,” he said on Channel 9. “They loved where he was at and finally turned his head. They got him in, had the meetings and convinced him that the Saints was where he should be. It was a good fit. It was a career move and a four-year (deal) playing alongside Jack Silvagni and others.

“They backflipped because they don’t have the picks for him. It’s disappointing. They should be prepared for this after two years.”

And that really is the point — it wasn’t a last-minute attempt. St Kilda had been in Aleer’s ear for 24 months, convincing him to pack up and move his life for what they framed as the perfect fit. But when other opportunities presented themselves, the Saints couldn’t balance their books or manage their priorities well enough to keep that promise. That’s poor list management, plain and simple.

So for all their bullish intent this trade period — which is actually good to see — this situation exposes a lack of foresight and the way they executed their otherwise lucrative recruiting spree. — Jarryd Barca