NORTH Melbourne wasn't so much the architect as it was the agitator in a contract innovation that, largely thanks to Port Adelaide, has suddenly been thrust back into the spotlight within the AFL industry.

The revival of 'player-option' contract clauses, placed into the deals presented by the Power to both Zak Butters and Miles Bergman recently, could be ushering in a comeback of the once-forgotten practice.

As revealed by AFL.com.au, Port Adelaide has offered Butters a two-year deal ahead of his free agency season next year with a 'player-option' to extend that contract by a further six years at any point during the duration of his tenure.

This week, AFL.com.au's Gettable also revealed the Power had put forward similar options to the uncontracted Bergman including a two-year contract to his free agency campaign in 2027, with an option to extend long-term beyond that.

The pair of offers, if accepted, would become the first notable 'player-option' contracts that have been signed in the AFL since Andrew Gaff at West Coast back in 2018 and Josh Kelly at Greater Western Sydney in 2019.

Both players – clients of Connors Sports Management – had been courted heavily by North Melbourne, as the Kangas hunted a series of rival players with lucrative long-term deals, before staying at their original clubs.

Gaff signed a '2+4' deal in his free agency year – similar to the situation now faced by Butters – that saw him sign through until unrestricted free agency in his 10th year, before having the option to opt in longer-term beyond that.

Kelly signed a '2+8' contract during his sixth season – a situation that now mirrors Bergman's – that saw him sign through until free agency in his eighth year, before having the option to extend for much longer.

Both the Eagles and the Giants had hoped to sign their star players through to the full length of their contracts anyway – Gaff for six years, Kelly for 10 – ensuring there was no danger in presenting such deals.

It also provided the players – both with one eye on the prospect of a potential return home to a Victorian club – with more freedom in their decision-making. Both short-term flexibility and long-term security would be on the table.

While the deals were met with some criticism, notably that it left the clubs with no control over their players' long-term future, the counter was that such control had never existed anyway. The alternative was to lose the player right there and then.

Instead, the creative contract mechanism provided the player with an increased sense of surety over their future. Sign short-term, meaning options remained on the table. Then, if it worked out, opt in for the longer-term offer.

The clubs involved, meanwhile, kept the player they wanted to retain. Rather than a long-term-deal-or-nothing arrangement, the alternative of a 'player-option' contract had increased their chances of negotiating a successful outcome.

'Player-option' contracts will often have pre-agreed timeframes built into the offer, affording the parent club valuable planning time if the option isn't triggered by a certain date, adding another security mechanism for the team involved.

Since the nature of Port Adelaide's moves to keep Butters and Bergman was revealed by AFL.com.au, the prospect of yet more 'player-option' deals has been presented in ongoing negotiations across the competition as a creative alternative to unlock contract disputes.

Clubs have even speculated whether 'player-option' deals, like a '1+2' or '1+4' alternatives, could be the solution to unlocking stalemates in negotiations around a trio of Tasmanian players at their original clubs.

North Melbourne's Colby McKercher, the Western Bulldogs' Ryley Sanders and Greater Western Sydney's James Leake are yet to extend beyond their initial three-year contracts that take them through until 2026.

With Tasmania set to be able to poach players throughout 2027, the trio of local prospects are likely to hold out for one-year extensions to provide maximum leverage ahead of the new side's entry into AFL competition a year later.

All three clubs would, obviously, like to lock away their Tasmanian talents longer-term beyond the new expansion side's arrival. So, could 'player-option' deals be the best way to provide an alternative option that suits both parties?

It certainly would continue the shift towards this new way of thinking about contracts.