Gil will earn more than entire Women's League

Remove this Banner Ad

While I have to pay $600 a year to sit on the bench in vafa d4 reserves just because I am a man.

624.gif
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Can't believe people think Gill is overpaid. Not sure they know what would actually be required from the CEO of the AFL and the hours and stress associated with the role.

The pay Gil gets is fine by me, BUT the job he is doing leaves me cold - cant sort out the Docklands deal for the tenant clubs for season 2017, he cant be fair dinkum.
As for the ongoing player pay deal, Gil is bringing the game into disrepute when Pendles comes out making the sort of silly comment about a 'sit down', not the full quid IMHO.
The AFL admin is a joke.
 
The pay Gil gets is fine by me, BUT the job he is doing leaves me cold - cant sort out the Docklands deal for the tenant clubs for season 2017, he cant be fair dinkum.
As for the ongoing player pay deal, Gil is bringing the game into disrepute when Pendles comes out making the sort of silly comment about a 'sit down', not the full quid IMHO.
The AFL admin is a joke.

Not an unexpected response.

The league will have barely recieved the paperwork regarding the deals currently in play - they only got the stadium in November, and what with Christmas and new year and everything else. They've still got a deal to work out with the state government. They'll have to do financial modelling and a range of other things before they can even offer a deal to the clubs. Hence mid year at best - which is what was reported in December.

As for the ongoing player deal, it was already reported that the AFLs chief legal and financial people attended a meeting with the AFLPA before christmas, but the AFLPA got their knickers in a twist because the league CEO himself wasnt there. The AFL isnt ignorning them.
 
OP is right, women's league pay is sexist. They should be able to earn the same as the men for the same job. And by that I mean nothing.

I have watched the women's league and can confirm that I am a much better footballer than most of them. Yet they get a televised comp with decent pay for 8 games work. While I have to pay $600 a year to sit on the bench in vafa d4 reserves just because I am a man.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

You get paid based on demand for your skills, not the skills themselves. If you are sitting on the bench in D4 amateurs, it's because no one wants your skills. You are getting what you are worth

The AFL wants a women's national comp, and needs female footballer's. They are in demand, and therefore of value.

Comparing their skills to male skills is an utter red herring.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk
 
Ugh this argument again. Not reading thread as I'm sure my opinion has already been said but football is not a charity. It's the first season and I doubt the revenue projections are through the roof. Gotta bring in money to make money, let's just see how popular this is before we start paying millions to players (as a collective) that will only bring in a fraction of that. In time who knows where the figures will be, but right now it's where is has to be to last for a long time.

Big costs = quick cut of losses if it's not an instant hit.
Small costs = opportunity to grow.
 
Well, apparently Foxtel ponied up more cash for the AFL adding an extra game each week. At the moment they get the AFLW for free.

I cant imagine a time when the winning bidder ever pays extra for the AFLW. It will always been the BOGOF.

Would you expect AFLW to get any/many new subscribers for Foxtel?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

You get paid based on demand for your skills, not the skills themselves. If you are sitting on the bench in D4 amateurs, it's because no one wants your skills. You are getting what you are worth

The AFL wants a women's national comp, and needs female footballer's. They are in demand, and therefore of value.

Comparing their skills to male skills is an utter red herring.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk
That's ONE reason for pay, not the only. Div 4 ammos doesn't pay because ammos aren't allowed (higher levels find a way around), he's most likely not getting what he's worth (I know blokes in div 4 ammos who are now being paid since they left). Most other bottom leagues pay
It's a multitude of reasons people are paid, with minimal revenue at the moment saying they deserve more is inaccurate.
 
Not an unexpected response.

The league will have barely recieved the paperwork regarding the deals currently in play - they only got the stadium in November, and what with Christmas and new year and everything else. They've still got a deal to work out with the state government. They'll have to do financial modelling and a range of other things before they can even offer a deal to the clubs. Hence mid year at best - which is what was reported in December.

As for the ongoing player deal, it was already reported that the AFLs chief legal and financial people attended a meeting with the AFLPA before christmas, but the AFLPA got their knickers in a twist because the league CEO himself wasnt there. The AFL isnt ignorning them.

Its an opinion forum. Both balls are in the AFL court ... at least Gary Pert has stood up to fill the void on the Pendles comments.
 
What tough decisions has he made? He is easily the weakest one we've had in that position
How do you rape something without making a decision? Accidental rape? He fell over and raped it?

It's not for me to prove he hasn't raped it, that would be proving a negative
Can you provide evidence of him raping the game
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top