NewsBite

Advertisement

This was published 5 years ago

Martin names terms for long-term deal to get him to Blues

By Michael Gleeson

Jack Martin's demand for a five-year $3 million contract from any club that takes him in the pre-season draft has not scared off his own club, Gold Coast, from following through on their threat to re-draft the player.

The out-of-contract Gold Coast player has nominated terms for a five-year deal – on more than $1 million next year – from any club that is to select him in the draft. A source indicated the total terms are in excess of $3 million for the five years averaging out at more slightly than $600,000 a year.

Jack Martin has laid out his contract terms for next season.

Jack Martin has laid out his contract terms for next season.Credit: AAP

Martin lodged the contract terms on Monday morning with the AFL – the last day he had to delist himself fromGold Coast and nominate for the draft with any contract requirements.

It was open to Martin to nominate for the national draft but he has only put himself in for the pre-season draft.

The terms are large for next year but despite being five years in duration the contract is not so big as to be a knockout blow to Gold Coast who have pick one in the pre-season draft, or to Melbourne who have pick two.

Martin was on about $600,000 this year at the Suns and so while they would have to shuffle money to fit in his terms for $1 million next year, essentially across the life of the contract he would only earn slightly more than he was on this year.

"Certainly the list management group and the coaches will have a very serious look at it," Suns Chairman Tony Cochrane said.

He added the club had always been serious in its threat to consider re-drafting Martin after trade talks failed and said nothing in the nominated contract terms had changed that position.

Loading
Advertisement

Next year Gold Coast has Jack Lukocious, Izaak Rankine and Ben King still on fixed contract terms as second-year players so they have the scope to juggle things to accommodate the high first year after which he is only on an average of $500,000 per year.

The question then is do Gold Coast really want to sign a player for five years who has actively tried to leave the club?

The Demons have said they are not interested in recruiting a player that does not want to be at the club but they are eager to get in front of Martin and put a case to him. They have made several unsuccessful attempts to speak with him so far.

It would be doubtful they could select a player without meeting with them, notwithstanding the fact former teammate Steven May would be able to brief the club on Martin.

Melbourne would have to shift money around to fit Martin into the salary cap for next year but they could do it. With outside pace and good ball use Martin is the type of player the Demons have been chasing.

The Demons would still debate whether he was worth $3 million over five years and whether or not they would be able to secure a significantly cheaper player to play a similar role in this year's draft where they presently have two top-10 draft picks.

Martin sought a trade to Carlton at the end of the season, but a deal was unable to be secured during the trade period.

Unlike matching a restricted free agent's contract terms, where a club only has to pay the averaged out amount of the total contract each year, a club taking a player with nominated terms in the pre-season draft must pay the nominated figures in each of the years of the contract. This means that clubs must pay the $1 million-plus amount next year then the specific lower amounts in years two to five.

Carlton will now face an anxious wait until the pre-season draft on November 28.

By November 22 clubs have to lodge paperwork with the AFL with their salary cap forecasts for next year to prove they have the scope under the salary cap to secure players selected in the draft. Gold Coast and the Demons have until then to shuffle other contracts around to make room for Martin if they want him.

Most Viewed in Sport

Loading

Original URL: https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/link/follow-20170101-p539f8