2020 Non-Crows AFL Discussion

[hey shorty]

deservedly so?

I'm not across the Swiss league but I'm assuming they are all being asked to take a pay cut in all clubs.

Sacking is pretty harsh.

 

[radiojake]

Are you serious?

$60k is fu** all. That's clearing maybe $750 a week. Rent is probably $500 of that.

well if you actually read what I wrote instead of going off half-cocked, I said 'UNLESS' they've been on a rookie contract for two years, then any other listed AFL player should be completely comfortable to deal with their finances for the rest of the season -

and as someone else pointed out, the rookie list contracts in 2018 were $85k



You would have to be a moron to spend 66% of your income on rent

but when all is said and done, considering there will be plausibly ten of thousands of people who suddenly will struggle to pay rent next month in this country, please forgive me when I don't care a single iota about the financial plight of AFL footballers

 

[Southerntakeover]

How so ?? I didn't edit anything.

As for credibility, I'm more than comfortable where I sit. But feel free to join him in needless chatter.

You omitted the entire first sentence.

PS- people don't decide whether they themselves are credible.

 

[hey shorty]

You omitted the entire first sentence.

PS- people don't decide whether they themselves are credible.

Haven't decided that for myself, but thanks for inferring that.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Haven't decided that for myself, but thanks for inferring that.

You provided your opinion on your own credibility.

Ordinarily you would presume from that you thought that expressing that opinion had value. If your position is that you post things that you don't think have value, then so be it.

 

[hey shorty]

You provided your opinion on your own credibility.

Ordinarily you would presume from that you thought that expressing that opinion had value. If your position is that you post things that you don't think have value, then so be it.

The majority of the AFL world has had their view on tbe stance of the players, and so have the normal public. They seem to align with mine, which is logical.

No one is asking these guys to go without money for any period of time, however when they say things like "I think it's unfair to say we live in a bubble" and "Some players arent going to be able to pay their investment mortgages" they contradict themselves.

People within their own workplaces have their jobs, thats a big deal.

 

[Southerntakeover]

The majority of the AFL world has had their view on tbe stance of the players, and so have the normal public. They seem to align with mine, which is logical.

No one is asking these guys to go without money for any period of time, however when they say things like "I think it's unfair to say we live in a bubble" and "Some players arent going to be able to pay their investment mortgages" they contradict themselves.

People within their own workplaces have their jobs, thats a big deal.

Again, declaring your own views logical, or the majority view, without being able to support them is not a persuasive technique.

You're not advancing any cogent argument here- they're largely unconnected thoughts.

 

[hey shorty]

Again, declaring your own views logical, or the majority view, without being able to support them is not a persuasive technique.

You're not advancing any cogent argument here- they're largely unconnected thoughts.

The argument is they haven't done enough to support the game, and that they are unaware of life outside of their industry.

That is a view shared by players past and present.

I will agree with you in a sense though, it's a bit of a pointless discussion as the deal has been done, and since they are unlikely to be playing again before August at the VERY earliest, they'll cop another whack.

 

[Southerntakeover]

I mean, that's just a mish mash of ill conceived and unconnected complaints really.

They didnt do enough to support the game?

What is the game, as distinct from the corporate body that is the AFL?
What were the players to do for it?
Why was asking to look at the books a 'failure to support the game'?
Why does the burden fall on the players alone?

 

[hey shorty]

I mean, that's just a mish mash of ill conceived and unconnected complaints really.

They didnt do enough to support the game?

What is the game, as distinct from the corporate body that is the AFL?
What were the players to do for it?
Why was asking to look at the books a 'failure to support the game'?
Why does the burden fall on the players alone?

It shouldn't fall on the players alone, not at all. As has been mentioned at length this week, 80% of staff across the board have been stood down. Gil has also matched the players pay cut, which is quite something given what he has been dealing with. So within their clubs and the AFL corporate, they've seen the hits.

Asking to look at the books isn't an issue as such, but asking "for transparency" as Dangerfield put it, implies a distinct lack of trust between the parties. Typical union speak really.

Perhaps, if the players took a bigger burden then perhaps these community programs would be able to continue in future rather than be completely canned as they have been.

They rightly say that they put on the show, but that's a very simplistic view of things. The show is greater than the players, it's the TV money, it's the 1 million members putting in their hard earned, it's sponsor money.

Players needed to realise that if that drops away to the level that it has in the last 2 weeks then they cop that too.

A sizable portion of people around this country have lost 100% of their income, a guy like Tom Lynch loses 50% of his and it still puts him well above the average player wage in the game today let alone the average person.

 

[Eagleboy2011]

AFL to take out a $500m loan to save the clubs but meanwhile the NRL will payout $20m in salaries if the season is cancelled. Bit of a difference to AFLPA bargaining power.

 

[hey shorty]

AFL to take out a $500m loan to save the clubs but meanwhile the NRL will payout $20m in salaries if the season is cancelled. Bit of a difference to AFLPA bargaining power.

14 clubs in the NRL I think, yeah that's not much.

 

[Eagleboy2011]

14 clubs in the NRL I think, yeah that's not much.

I noticed 1 NRL player say he might need a second job. Good luck.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Then you get those on 126k who go nooooooo

Could have done a sliding scale based on salaries like the tax system
1st $200k cut 30%
$200k-$500k cut 50%
Over 500k cut 70%

 

[Southerntakeover]

It shouldn't fall on the players alone, not at all. As has been mentioned at length this week, 80% of staff across the board have been stood down. Gil has also matched the players pay cut, which is quite something given what he has been dealing with. So within their clubs and the AFL corporate, they've seen the hits.

Asking to look at the books isn't an issue as such, but asking "for transparency" as Dangerfield put it, implies a distinct lack of trust between the parties. Typical union speak really.

Perhaps, if the players took a bigger burden then perhaps these community programs would be able to continue in future rather than be completely canned as they have been.

They rightly say that they put on the show, but that's a very simplistic view of things. The show is greater than the players, it's the TV money, it's the 1 million members putting in their hard earned, it's sponsor money.

Players needed to realise that if that drops away to the level that it has in the last 2 weeks then they cop that too.

A sizable portion of people around this country have lost 100% of their income, a guy like Tom Lynch loses 50% of his and it still puts him well above the average player wage in the game today let alone the average person.

And that's what it's really about, isnt it? An ideological gripe?

What it really boils down to is that you hate that the players actually had power and leverage in the circumstance- when really they should have just known their place?

I'm not sure there's really much else to respond to otherwise. There's almost nothing cogent, despite the additional length, indeed the more you talk the further you seem to get from a decent point - for instance you now seem to think that sponsors and members are producing the product, rather than paying amounts in recognition of the value created by the product.

 

[hey shorty]

And that's what it's really about, isnt it? An ideological gripe?

What it really boils down to is that you hate that the players actually had power and leverage in the circumstance- when really they should have just known their place?

I'm not sure there's really much else to respond to otherwise. There's almost nothing cogent, despite the additional length, indeed the more you talk the further you seem to get from a decent point - for instance you now seem to think that sponsors and members are producing the product, rather than paying amounts in recognition of the value created by the product.

The money coming in allows the product yo get better. More coaches, more fitness staff, better facilities.

And yes there is an ideological difference, I'm unashamedly non-union. The players hold a lot of power, too much.

We have a difference of opinion, that's fine.

 

[Southerntakeover]

The money coming in allows the product yo get better. More coaches, more fitness staff, better facilities.

And yes there is an ideological difference, I'm unashamedly non-union. The players hold a lot of power, too much.

We have a difference of opinion, that's fine.

So you've whinged on for pages and pages and pages and all it really boils down to is that you're an anti union moron?

The sponsors provide money because of the attention they can get because people want to watch the games- the games that are played by? The sponsors are not providing the product. That's just inane.

 

[Eagleboy2011]

AFL have confirmed if AFL GF is in October it cant be at the MCG. They mentioned Marvel. WTF. It cant be interstate. Be great for our economy. The Vics still own the comp.

 

[Scorpus]

AFL have confirmed if AFL GF is in October it cant be at the MCG. They mentioned Marvel. WTF. It cant be interstate. Be great for our economy. The Vics still own the comp.

If it can't be at the MCG there is no reason they should be playing it at a fixed venue. Should be played at the home ground of the highest placed finisher

 

[hey shorty]

So you've whinged on for pages and pages and pages and all it really boils down to is that you're an anti union moron?

The sponsors provide money because of the attention they can get because people want to watch the games- the games that are played by? The sponsors are not providing the product. That's just inane.

A moron ?? Really, that's classy even from you

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

If it can't be at the MCG there is no reason they should be playing it at a fixed venue. Should be played at the home ground of the highest placed finisher

Simple solution.

Pity we are not in the premiership mix & finish 2nd to Richmond & have the grand final played at Adelaide Oval...

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

A moron ?? Really, that's classy even from you

Not sure why you bother as he will continue arguing til he wears you down, then claim victory...

 

[hey shorty]

Not sure why you bother as he will continue arguing til he wears you down, then claim victory...

He and the Chicken Man are very similar.

 

[treeman]

AFL have confirmed if AFL GF is in October it cant be at the MCG. They mentioned Marvel. WTF. It cant be interstate. Be great for our economy. The Vics still own the comp.

Afl think it's only played in Melbourne.

Sent from my MI PAD 4 using Tapatalk

 

[GreyCrow]

Honestly this is why I would rather see Melbourne clubs fold rather than Adelaide and Port