2020 Non-Crows AFL Discussion

[Southerntakeover]

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

I don't need to wear you down to win Kane, you've never been up.

 

[Southerntakeover]

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

The site won't let me use the more appropriate words for an anti union whiner.

 

[Southerntakeover]

He and the Chicken Man are very similar.

Flattery will get you no where.

 

[1970crow]

Here we go......

So you agree to a CBA that dictates a portion of revenue. Said revenue is gone fot the year, and you still want 50% of your salary. I'm sorry, but that doesn't wash well.

The bottom 15% of players on 100K or less, sure leave them alone. No one should have any issues with that. The rest, the ones claiming they know the real world, theyre pleading poverty.

If you have a problem with what I'm saying, how about trying to articulate it in an adult fashion rather than your usual childish manner.

The current CBA doesn’t dictate a portion of revenue though, the AFL didn’t agree to that mechanism.

 

[hey shorty]

The current CBA doesn’t dictate a portion of revenue though, the AFL didn’t agree to that mechanism.

Their pay is based on revenue. If the TV deal and membership members were as low as they were 20 years ago, they'd be paid as such.

 

[Southerntakeover]

The current CBA doesn’t dictate a portion of revenue though, the AFL didn’t agree to that mechanism.

That was pointed out to him pages ago. He literally omitted it from his quote, so he could whine about being attacked instead.

 

[1970crow]

Their pay is based on revenue. If the TV deal and membership members were as low as they were 20 years ago, they'd be paid as such.

Perhaps loosely, but the players were demanding a fixed % of revenue generated. The AFL refused this method and instead opted for continued negotiation as agreements expire. Had the AFL agreed to their demands, the AFLPA would have no option but to accept the fixed % of total revenue as agreed. But the AFL didn’t choose to go down that path. There is no mandated relationship between game revenue and agreed TPP. You do understand this, surely.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Perhaps loosely, but the players were demanding a fixed % of revenue generated. The AFL refused this method and instead opted for continued negotiation as agreements expire. Had the AFL agreed to their demands, the AFLPA would have no option but to accept the fixed % of total revenue as agreed. But the AFL didn’t choose to go down that path. There is no mandated relationship between game revenue and agreed TPP. You do understand this, surely.

And the AFL in so doing decided to bear all of the risk if revenue fell. They made a cold calculated decision to do so, because they thought that they would benefit from the additionally created revenue during the life of the agreement.

To turn around and assert that they then have a moral right to have others voluntarily adopt the consequences of that risk beggars belief really.

 

[hey shorty]

Perhaps loosely, but the players were demanding a fixed % of revenue generated. The AFL refused this method and instead opted for continued negotiation as agreements expire. Had the AFL agreed to their demands, the AFLPA would have no option but to accept the fixed % of total revenue as agreed. But the AFL didn’t choose to go down that path. There is no mandated relationship between game revenue and agreed TPP. You do understand this, surely.

Of course.

And the fixed % would have left the players with no money, and that would have been a disaster for both players and league.

I was in the "sliding scale" camp which would have seen the Lynch, Franklin, NicNat of the world take more of the brunt than the O'Connors of the world.

 

[1970crow]

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.

Do you really believe the product is better? The grounds are better, but it’s a difficult argument to suggest that the spectacle is better, apart from the lack of mud.

 

[1970crow]

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.

they own marvel and will be looking to squeeze every dollar they can get their hands on.

 

[hey shorty]

Do you really believe the product is better? The grounds are better, but it’s a difficult argument to suggest that the spectacle is better, apart from the lack of mud.

I think the spectacle is better as a whole. Member numbers support that.

The game itself was better 20 years ago.

 

[Sanders]

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

hold on. You’re happy with your credibility, but that YOU DIDN’T DECIDE THAT YOURSELF?

who did?

I mean you’re a well known “below par-er”, so are you happy with this, or are you on the mushrooms again?

Get more sense out of Little Graham

 

[Sanders]

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.

why would someone of such low achievement be anti-union?

that doesn’t make sense.

 

[Sanders]

He and the Chicken Man are very similar.

Much brighter than both of you?

 

[Sanders]

Their pay is based on revenue. If the TV deal and membership members were as low as they were 20 years ago, they'd be paid as such.

Genuine Lols

 

[Elite Crow]

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

Money. AFL own it and won’t have any ground costs they would at other venues and no cricket conflict.

 

[hey shorty]

why would someone of such low achievement be anti-union?

that doesn’t make sense.

Low achievement ?? Im sorry do you know what I do ??

Theres a fair chance I contribute more to society than yourself, but really I should be aiming higher than you.

 

[hey shorty]

hold on. You’re happy with your credibility, but that YOU DIDN’T DECIDE THAT YOURSELF?

who did?

I mean you’re a well known “below par-er”, so are you happy with this, or are you on the mushrooms again?

Get more sense out of Little Graham

You needed a few hours to formulate a response, as per usual.

You're a legend of your own lunch time.

 

[Truck25]

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

It's the perfect opportunity to even up the comp, If any teams go they need to be Vic. I would even prefer Gold coast surviving over a Vic club just for competition balance. Trim the heard, get to 14 teams reasonably financially health (not stupid amounts of debt), 26 games plus finals. 1 home 1 away against all teams, But Gill has stated all 18 teams will survive. lip service or does he believe it?

 

[hey shorty]

It's the perfect opportunity to even up the comp, If any teams go they need to be Vic. I would even prefer Gold coast surviving over a Vic club just for competition balance. Trim the heard, get to 14 teams reasonably financially health (not stupid amounts of debt), 26 games plus finals. 1 home 1 away against all teams, But Gill has stated all 18 teams will survive. lip service or does he believe it?

I think he wants the 18 teams, but the players cap and soft cap are going to be slashed.

So it's either keep the 18 teams but pull all spending back, or cull to 14-15 and leave budgets as untouched as possible.

Id say they'll leave it at 18, the revenue lost this year will be recouped soon enough.

 

[cleanhands]

I think he wants the 18 teams, but the players cap and soft cap are going to be slashed.

So it's either keep the 18 teams but pull all spending back, or cull to 14-15 and leave budgets as untouched as possible.

Id say they'll leave it at 18, the revenue lost this year will be recouped soon enough.

Possible the size of the loan the banks are prepared to go

 

[1970crow]

I think the spectacle is better as a whole. Member numbers support that.

The game itself was better 20 years ago.

member (season ticket holder) numbers support the rationalisation of grounds, improvement in stadiums and movement away from every game starting at 2pm on a Saturday. Access is the key driver there IMO. We’d have had 50k members 30 years ago if they could all be guaranteed a ticket at footy park. I think it’s got very little to do with the 18 v 18 on the oval at any given time. Except the lack of mud.

 

[hey shorty]

member (season ticket holder) numbers support the rationalisation of grounds, improvement in stadiums and movement away from every game starting at 2pm on a Saturday. Access is the key driver there IMO. We’d have had 50k members 30 years ago if they could all be guaranteed a ticket at footy park. I think it’s got very little to do with the 18 v 18 on the oval at any given time. Except the lack of mud.

Yeah I'd agree with that.

 

[treeman]

Good come back!