AFL were employing 795 staff!

[projectv]

This thread is strange.

Why does it matter how many folks the AFL employed? Why is it a bad thing if they had that many staff?

<800 is actually fairly lean for an organisation of their size, if you consider their revenue is ~$800mil (in a non covid year).

That's like 1mil revenue per employee.

Start your own business and then tell me that's not an amazing revenue figure for their size.

 

[PrinceCharles]

Its not a commercial business. If it were? Fine. Grow them job positions however you see fit. The game belongs to Australians. Not Gil and his buddies at the polo club.

What are you even on about? You've just replied to me asking if you'd prefer less jobs and more for Gill saying more jobs means more for Gill...

Who do you think is being employed and what do you think they're tasked with?

What would you like to see happen?

 

[PrinceCharles]

This thread is strange.

Why does it matter how many folks the AFL employed? Why is it a bad thing if they had that many staff?

<800 is actually fairly lean for an organisation of their size, if you consider their revenue is ~$800mil (in a non covid year).

That's like 1mil revenue per employee.

Start your own business and then tell me that's not an amazing revenue figure for their size.

Exactly, NBN for instance has 6000+ employees and a revenue of 2.5 billion. Not a great example of an efficient organisation, but the first one that came to mind.

 

[Brutalitops]

What are you even on about? You've just replied to me asking if you'd prefer less jobs and more for Gill saying more jobs means more for Gill...

Who do you think is being employed and what do you think they're tasked with?

What would you like to see happen?

You really seem to struggle with concept of not for profit. The CEO doesn't earn more money just because there are higher profits. Any excess money should be going into a trust or into development and sustainability of lower leagues.

Its not a capitalist enterprise. Take the TAC for example. They make profits. The size of their trust would stagger you. Now they still collect a fair chunk of your rego. Do you think their CEO gets paid at a higher grade than say the CEO of less profitable agency like say the Department of Premier and Cabinet? Guarantee you they dont.

Some organisations have a broader scope than simply profits. That is what a not for profit organisation is. If the AFL is expanding its employment then there needs to be reason behind it.

 

[NoobPie]

You really seem to struggle with concept of not for profit. The CEO doesn't earn more money just because there are higher profits. Any excess money should be going into a trust or into development and sustainability of lower leagues.

Its not a capitalist enterprise. Take the TAC for example. They make profits. The size of their trust would stagger you. Now they still collect a fair chunk of your rego. Do you think their CEO gets paid at a higher grade than say the CEO of less profitable agency like say the Department of Premier and Cabinet? Guarantee you they dont.

Some organisations have a broader scope than simply profits. That is what a not for profit organisation is. If the AFL is expanding its employment then there needs to be reason behind it.

Noone is struggling more than you here pal

 

[PrinceCharles]

You really seem to struggle with concept of not for profit. The CEO doesn't earn more money just because there are higher profits. Any excess money should be going into a trust or into development and sustainability of lower leagues.

Its not a capitalist enterprise. Take the TAC for example. They make profits. The size of their trust would stagger you. Now they still collect a fair chunk of your rego. Do you think their CEO gets paid at a higher grade than say the CEO of less profitable agency like say the Department of Premier and Cabinet? Guarantee you they dont.

Some organisations have a broader scope than simply profits. That is what a not for profit organisation is. If the AFL is expanding its employment then there needs to be reason behind it.

I work for one, so I do understand. You're the one saying this is good for 'Gill and his polo club buddies'. What is your actual point in all of this? As I asked before, what would you want to happen? Would you say to develop lower leagues and more diverse leagues that more staff would be required?

 

[Brutalitops]

Noone is struggling more than you here pal

Got that source mate? Id be interested to see it

 

[Bungeye]

Maybe, the Afl need to splurge more money on specialist kicking coaches instead. How this skill is ignored in junior levels makes a mockery of the game.

 

[Brutalitops]

I work for one, so I do understand. You're the one saying this is good for 'Gill and his polo club buddies'. What is your actual point in all of this? As I asked before, what would you want to happen? Would you say to develop lower leagues and more diverse leagues that more staff would be required?

Im staggered by this post. Do you think the AFL is employing people in the EDFL? Do you understand that the lower leagues are in essence separate entities?

My whole point is around governance. You may well work for a NFP, but you dont know much at all when it comes to running one or what goes on behind the scenes.

 

[PrinceCharles]

Im staggered by this post. Do you think the AFL is employing people in the EDFL? Do you understand that the lower leagues are in essence separate entities?

My whole point is around governance. You may well work for a NFP, but you dont know much at all when it comes to running one or what goes on behind the scenes.

What would you like to see happen?

You have still made zero points.

 

[Farang83150]

Because it's a not-for-profit. It is pretty *ingg simple really

The people who work there pay tax.....or did you not know this?

I know less than FA about not for profit organisations, just seems weird an organisation that been making massive profits for year's gets called NFP!

 

[PrinceCharles]

I know less than FA about not for profit organisations, just seems weird an organisation that been making massive profits for year's gets called NFP!

It's about where the profits go, not that there are none.

 

[gingernuts]

This thread is strange.

Why does it matter how many folks the AFL employed? Why is it a bad thing if they had that many staff?

<800 is actually fairly lean for an organisation of their size, if you consider their revenue is ~$800mil (in a non covid year).

That's like 1mil revenue per employee.

Start your own business and then tell me that's not an amazing revenue figure for their size.

Because they claim financial damage because of Covid and expect the club members to stump up to keep clubs afloat

 

[Teen Wolf]

just seems weird an organisation that been making massive profits for year's gets called NFP!

Here's something weirder: a not-for-profit organisation hires more people, thereby reducing its profit, and is then criticised for not making enough profit!

 

[GCS in 11]

Im staggered by this post. Do you think the AFL is employing people in the EDFL? Do you understand that the lower leagues are in essence separate entities?

My whole point is around governance. You may well work for a NFP, but you dont know much at all when it comes to running one or what goes on behind the scenes.

The AFL do run lower leagues, they run AFL QLD and AFL NSW which employs close to 100 people each. The only states they don’t have people involved in grassroots football are WA and SA (both run by the WAFL/SANFL).

Sure they can cut down on jobs and as we’ve seen there’ll definitely be a reduction, but the idea that they should cut jobs to spend more on grassroots is dumb because this is them spending more on grassroots football over the last 20 years already.

 

[NoobPie]

Im staggered by this post. Do you think the AFL is employing people in the EDFL? Do you understand that the lower leagues are in essence separate entities?

My whole point is around governance. You may well work for a NFP, but you dont know much at all when it comes to running one or what goes on behind the scenes.

The AFL should be employing less development officers to subsidise the wages of suburban footballers.....Derpy de derp

 

[Brutalitops]

The AFL should be employing less development officers to subsidise the wages of suburban footballers.....Derpy de derp

You got that source for the AFL being the only NFP organisation in Australia where its employees are ineligible for salary packaging and novated leasing? Really keen to hear from you mate.

 

[projectv]

Because they claim financial damage because of Covid and expect the club members to stump up to keep clubs afloat

What part of that claim is untrue? Do you think they've not suffered financial damage?

 

[Monkey King]

Too many ...

 

[Brutalitops]

What would you like to see happen?

You have still made zero points.

Ive stated very clearly my points. You think the AFL should be run like a corporate business and have zero understanding of the governance behind NFPs.

 

[Brutalitops]

The AFL do run lower leagues, they run AFL QLD and AFL NSW which employs close to 100 people each. The only states they don’t have people involved in grassroots football are WA and SA (both run by the WAFL/SANFL).

Sure they can cut down on jobs and as we’ve seen there’ll definitely be a reduction, but the idea that they should cut jobs to spend more on grassroots is dumb because this is them spending more on grassroots football over the last 20 years already.

They stood down nearly 80% of their workforce and have them now on jobkeeper. How important were these 636 positions? What were they doing?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

This thread is useless until we know what those staff were doing. I'm sure many of those jobs did benefit the game as a whole (regional development officers, player welfare and mental health, etc). If the media team was bloated that's another thing.

 

[gingernuts]

What part of that claim is untrue? Do you think they've not suffered financial damage?

lots have, so that's ok get the poor bastards on the street to prop the clubs up

 

[PrinceCharles]

Ive stated very clearly my points. You think the AFL should be run like a corporate business and have zero understanding of the governance behind NFPs.

That's not what I think at all, where did you get that from? I'm responding to the outrage that the AFL have increased their workforce over the last 20 years.

 

[Brutalitops]

This thread is useless until we know what those staff were doing. I'm sure many of those jobs did benefit the game as a whole (regional development officers, player welfare and mental health, etc). If the media team was bloated that's another thing.

You would think though, given the current landscape, that anything welfare or mental health related would not have been one of 636 people stood down. Further to this though, doesn't that generally fall onto the clubs?