2016 Non Crows AFL Discussion thread Part 2

[Don Muraco]

Lol, reckon you have found a more suitable job for Gil.

His name should be Lucky Gil. We all know going to the right school "helps" you along and I think he might be the perfect example

 

[mistylake]

The players dont have a strong case at all and Thomas shows he is as dumb as he looks. Gil is on less money than high powered execs from around the world. If the public demand the execs are paid less then it will be run by Monkeys and be run likely by even more amateurish fan boys than it is now. The problem is if you want the best, you have to offer the best $$$$. The players should take the 10% and run imo. Thats above CPI increases and still acceptable in the real world. Whats to say that if the AFL caves into the 20% demand that in 5 years when the next rights deal is up the players dont demand 30%. Whats been allowed to come into the sport is the Americanisation of thinking around a players worth. Its all good when their is several $Billion in revenue generated by not just the clubs but by the league itself in TV rights. Local sport is struggling and needs cash injections. Players should be taught to invest their earnings rather then the sports cars and the huge house on the beach. Oh right, they are AFL players, they deserve to waste their money.

Ben Cousins likes this.

 

[Sanders]

Surely the AFL and the Commission have shown they are no where near the best. Couldn't make a decision to save their life, hand ball decision making at every opportunity.

If these under-performers can negotiate huge TV rights deals what does that say.

IMO the game sells itself.

They're are a lot of people, including inside the commission, who agree with you

 

[Sanders]

We may disagree with the AFL and rubbish a lot of their decisions, but one thing we cannot fault is they keep hitting their KPI's and Executives are judged on KPI's not public opinions.

Public opinion is a KPI for a customer facing business

 

[mistylake]

Adding another one to the list - Allowed Port to choose teal.





Teal. Think about that.

Such a maligned colour like puce and falu.

 

[cmndstab]

Lets extend this argument ......players are putting on the show are they? .....ok consider this:

1. The AFL was built up over a couple of decades, well b4 these guys were born ......yet they want the fruits of past players efforts

2. Supporters follow clubs .....Dangerfield leaves the Crows, membership grows, and a new cult hero replaces him .....on that basis why is Dangerfield deserve a 20% increase if his departure has no effect commercially ?

3. Essendon lose 12 of their best players for season 2016 ......IIRC the team still played, and was supported ......supporters follow clubs, and that will be more evident as more and more players seek trades & move clubs

4. If players put on the show ......just ask supporters if they're prepared to pay an increase premium of 20% on their memberships, so the Dangerfields of this world can get paid $1.2M rather than the paltry $800K he's paid now ......how he survives amazes me

Well, okay. Let's have this debate.

1) It's easy to say the AFL was built up over a couple of decades, but the fact remains that the massive influx of cash from the latest TV deal etc isn't something from two decades ago. It's something from the here and now. You mentioned Dangerfield a fair bit. In the time since Dangerfield's career started the revenue from TV broadcasting rights alone has tripled, and more than that from radio broadcasting rights. In less than a decade. Yes, the players of past generations paved the way, but it's not like the current crop of players has simply inherited the AFL. They've grown it as well and deserve to share in the profits generated.

2) It makes no sense to look at player payments on an individual player or individual club basis. The playing group is a big group, you can make plenty of arguments for and against individual players, but that's not the point. In any event, if you think Dangerfield's departure has had no effect commercially, you're kidding yourself. He's become one of the game's most prominent figureheads.

3) Similarly, if you think Essendon losing 12 players had no commercial effect, you're kidding yourself too. Yes, the team still played and was supported, but not nearly to the same degree as they would have been if those players were still there.

4) You see, this is exactly where you're missing the point. Supporters don't need to pay an extra 20% on their memberships. The AFL has TRIPLED it's revenue from TV rights since Dangerfield started. In that time they have gone from bringing in $150M per year to $450M per year. That's not from memberships, that's not from drink sales, that's not from sponsorship. That's purely from TV broadcasting rights. Where is that extra $300M going? Why shouldn't some portion of it go to the players? Why is it unreasonable in the slightest for the players to expect to be paid some percentage of what the AFL earns?

Yes, players can be replaced, and so on. But the reality is, the game is bringing in oodles of cash right now, on the back of the spectacle that, like it or not, the players are a major factor in producing. Why shouldn't they share in the spoils?

And as for your comment about Dangerfield having enough already, again, what is the alternative? Do we pad out Gil's salary a bit more? Do we just burn all that extra cash in a big pile because we don't feel the players deserve it?

I'm perfectly happy to have a discussion about what percentage should go to the players. I'm quite happy to see the AFL's profits divided up between a number of sensible causes, including grass roots footy, advertisement in new markets, support of struggling clubs, investment in the game abroad, etc. But the players also deserve to be on that list, and the AFL refuses to even consider the possibility of aligning the TPP with revenue. And I think that's wrong.

 

[feenix67]

Well, okay. Let's have this debate.

1) It's easy to say the AFL was built up over a couple of decades, but the fact remains that the massive influx of cash from the latest TV deal etc isn't something from two decades ago. It's something from the here and now. You mentioned Dangerfield a fair bit. In the time since Dangerfield's career started the revenue from TV broadcasting rights alone has tripled, and more than that from radio broadcasting rights. In less than a decade. Yes, the players of past generations paved the way, but it's not like the current crop of players has simply inherited the AFL. They've grown it as well and deserve to share in the profits generated.

2) It makes no sense to look at player payments on an individual player or individual club basis. The playing group is a big group, you can make plenty of arguments for and against individual players, but that's not the point. In any event, if you think Dangerfield's departure has had no effect commercially, you're kidding yourself. He's become one of the game's most prominent figureheads.

3) Similarly, if you think Essendon losing 12 players had no commercial effect, you're kidding yourself too. Yes, the team still played and was supported, but not nearly to the same degree as they would have been if those players were still there.

4) You see, this is exactly where you're missing the point. Supporters don't need to pay an extra 20% on their memberships. The AFL has TRIPLED it's revenue from TV rights since Dangerfield started. In that time they have gone from bringing in $150M per year to $450M per year. That's not from memberships, that's not from drink sales, that's not from sponsorship. That's purely from TV broadcasting rights. Where is that extra $300M going? Why shouldn't some portion of it go to the players? Why is it unreasonable in the slightest for the players to expect to be paid some percentage of what the AFL earns?

Yes, players can be replaced, and so on. But the reality is, the game is bringing in oodles of cash right now, on the back of the spectacle that, like it or not, the players are a major factor in producing. Why shouldn't they share in the spoils?

And as for your comment about Dangerfield having enough already, again, what is the alternative? Do we pad out Gil's salary a bit more? Do we just burn all that extra cash in a big pile because we don't feel the players deserve it?

I'm perfectly happy to have a discussion about what percentage should go to the players. I'm quite happy to see the AFL's profits divided up between a number of sensible causes, including grass roots footy, advertisement in new markets, support of struggling clubs, investment in the game abroad, etc. But the players also deserve to be on that list, and the AFL refuses to even consider the possibility of aligning the TPP with revenue. And I think that's wrong.

There's no rational argument for a player payment model of TPP alignment to revenue.

Whether you think the players are responsible for revenue or not (by the way, they're not), it makes absolutely no sense from a business perspective to reward them on the basis of a percentage of total revenue. The players point to other revenue sharing competitions such as the NBA, but they forget that, in comparison, the NBA is underpinned by a talent machine entrenched in the US education system, and it's franchises are privately owned. The AFL does not have that same foundation - indeed it's grassroots pathways are eroding - and the clubs are responsible for self funding, with AFL support.

In a competition where two thirds of the clubs are struggling to break even, in an environment of economic downturn, the AFL can't afford it. The clubs are the AFL's asset - not the players.

 

[Jars458]

Public opinion is a KPI for a customer facing business

True, but only if it impacts revenues? Long term it may effect participation rates etc but that's a difficult correlation to draw.

 

[jenny61_99]

Well, okay. Let's have this debate.

1) It's easy to say the AFL was built up over a couple of decades, but the fact remains that the massive influx of cash from the latest TV deal etc isn't something from two decades ago. It's something from the here and now. You mentioned Dangerfield a fair bit. In the time since Dangerfield's career started the revenue from TV broadcasting rights alone has tripled, and more than that from radio broadcasting rights. In less than a decade. Yes, the players of past generations paved the way, but it's not like the current crop of players has simply inherited the AFL. They've grown it as well and deserve to share in the profits generated.

2) It makes no sense to look at player payments on an individual player or individual club basis. The playing group is a big group, you can make plenty of arguments for and against individual players, but that's not the point. In any event, if you think Dangerfield's departure has had no effect commercially, you're kidding yourself. He's become one of the game's most prominent figureheads.

3) Similarly, if you think Essendon losing 12 players had no commercial effect, you're kidding yourself too. Yes, the team still played and was supported, but not nearly to the same degree as they would have been if those players were still there.

4) You see, this is exactly where you're missing the point. Supporters don't need to pay an extra 20% on their memberships. The AFL has TRIPLED it's revenue from TV rights since Dangerfield started. In that time they have gone from bringing in $150M per year to $450M per year. That's not from memberships, that's not from drink sales, that's not from sponsorship. That's purely from TV broadcasting rights. Where is that extra $300M going? Why shouldn't some portion of it go to the players? Why is it unreasonable in the slightest for the players to expect to be paid some percentage of what the AFL earns?

Yes, players can be replaced, and so on. But the reality is, the game is bringing in oodles of cash right now, on the back of the spectacle that, like it or not, the players are a major factor in producing. Why shouldn't they share in the spoils?

And as for your comment about Dangerfield having enough already, again, what is the alternative? Do we pad out Gil's salary a bit more? Do we just burn all that extra cash in a big pile because we don't feel the players deserve it?

I'm perfectly happy to have a discussion about what percentage should go to the players. I'm quite happy to see the AFL's profits divided up between a number of sensible causes, including grass roots footy, advertisement in new markets, support of struggling clubs, investment in the game abroad, etc. But the players also deserve to be on that list, and the AFL refuses to even consider the possibility of aligning the TPP with revenue. And I think that's wrong.

I have always believed that professional sports people are paid entirely too much - obscene amounts even. However, your argument is logical to the point it can't be argued against. There is something very wrong with a system where the administrators are earning more than the athletes.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

Public opinion is a KPI for a customer facing business

How are you measuring this?

 

[subaru]

Did i hear Thomas the other day on SEN1116 radio say, Port is paying a $1M towards the China experiment out of their own pocket & over and above the AFL's contribution

What's more, that figure will increase this year as they get the stadium AFL ready

You can't buy gems like this !
They're priceless !
Great get by Avatarp

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/an-open-letter-from-shanghai.1154973/

It's real ....

http://m.portadelaidefc.com.au/news/2016-12-20/an-open-letter-from-shanghai

Did those media idiots over there even read this !!!

One of the twenty paragraphs of complete hilarity !

"To Gavin Wanganeen and Peter – Gavin I have loved watching you play from back in the Essendon days and cheered loud for your 1993 Brownlow. Getting to meet you in person made me wet my pants a little."

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Well, okay. Let's have this debate.

1) It's easy to say the AFL was built up over a couple of decades, but the fact remains that the massive influx of cash from the latest TV deal etc isn't something from two decades ago. It's something from the here and now. You mentioned Dangerfield a fair bit. In the time since Dangerfield's career started the revenue from TV broadcasting rights alone has tripled, and more than that from radio broadcasting rights. In less than a decade. Yes, the players of past generations paved the way, but it's not like the current crop of players has simply inherited the AFL. They've grown it as well and deserve to share in the profits generated.

You're misinterpreting why the $$rights have grown, and therefore players require a share? ........game has same number of star players as a decade ago, the game hasn't changed that much as a spectacle & enjoyment factor for fans over decades, so why the explosion in the $$$ the game is getting from TV rights?

1. The advent of the national game, the introduction of teams in most states, giving broadcasters and advertisers a national audience

2. Night-time games, again in peak broadcasting hours

3. Creative scheduling by the AFL commission ......no more simply Saturday arvo games, now we have Thursday, Friday, Saturday & Sunday games

4. The advent of Pay TV, where their success is based purely on 2 platforms .......pr0n & sport. The introduction of Netflix, Stan & Co, plus freeview channels has Foxtel under enormous pressure ......they simply cannot do without Football and Soccer ...demand increases $$ rights value

Here's the cruncher ....take the same players today, transport them back to 1990 with the same training conditions as 1990, and you'll get no different result to the $$$ revenue incurred then ......the players are simply the beneficiaries of the games development, not their efforts

2) It makes no sense to look at player payments on an individual player or individual club basis. The playing group is a big group, you can make plenty of arguments for and against individual players, but that's not the point. In any event, if you think Dangerfield's departure has had no effect commercially, you're kidding yourself. He's become one of the game's most prominent figureheads.

Ok then ....give me the evidence that the Crows were hurt commercially by Dangerfields departure .....at the same time provide similar for Buddy Franklins departures impact on Hawthorn

3) Similarly, if you think Essendon losing 12 players had no commercial effect, you're kidding yourself too. Yes, the team still played and was supported, but not nearly to the same degree as they would have been if those players were still there.

Only from the perspective of not being competitive .....now take the top 12 players out of every side & it's an even playing field again, correct ? .....would the game support suffer, no!

Tex Walker and Fyfe with season ending injuries as an example ......did those players not playing have a negative commercial impact .....in Freo's case it was a team slump, but the answer is no

4) You see, this is exactly where you're missing the point. Supporters don't need to pay an extra 20% on their memberships. The AFL has TRIPLED it's revenue from TV rights since Dangerfield started. In that time they have gone from bringing in $150M per year to $450M per year. That's not from memberships, that's not from drink sales, that's not from sponsorship. That's purely from TV broadcasting rights. Where is that extra $300M going? Why shouldn't some portion of it go to the players? Why is it unreasonable in the slightest for the players to expect to be paid some percentage of what the AFL earns?

Yes, but the point is .....for all those that argue that the players are the show ......the reality is those same people would not be prepared to put their own hands in their pockets to pay the players more



The only concession i'll make is that players today, with Managers and improved self marketing should have a control of their own image / brand and commercially benefit from that .....do they now? .....yes, but to what degree is that limited?

 

[Elite Crow]

You can't buy gems like this !
They're priceless !
Great get by Avatarp

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/an-open-letter-from-shanghai.1154973/

It's real ....

http://m.portadelaidefc.com.au/news/2016-12-20/an-open-letter-from-shanghai

Did those media idiots over there even read this !!!

One of the twenty paragraphs of complete hilarity !

"To Gavin Wanganeen and Peter – Gavin I have loved watching you play from back in the Essendon days and cheered loud for your 1993 Brownlow. Getting to meet you in person made me wet my pants a little."

Yeah saw that and thought what the?

As for the kid, what 2 year old would have thought or said all of that? What a load of crap.

I have my suspicions Janus is Tintin.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

I have always believed that professional sports people are paid entirely too much - obscene amounts even. However, your argument is logical to the point it can't be argued against. There is something very wrong with a system where the administrators are earning more than the athletes.

Because it's the AFL commissions decisions that are generating the increased $$$ ......transport players back two decades and those same players would generate mo more money for the game, than the players back then did !

 

[crowsup]

Does anyone know what the average pay for the players was 15 years ago, compared to today?
If the TV rights revenue has tripled in the last 15 years, what has happened to the average income of players?

 

[diligaf473]

You can't buy gems like this !
They're priceless !
Great get by Avatarp

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/an-open-letter-from-shanghai.1154973/

It's real ....

http://m.portadelaidefc.com.au/news/2016-12-20/an-open-letter-from-shanghai

Did those media idiots over there even read this !!!

One of the twenty paragraphs of complete hilarity !

"To Gavin Wanganeen and Peter – Gavin I have loved watching you play from back in the Essendon days and cheered loud for your 1993 Brownlow. Getting to meet you in person made me wet my pants a little."

Oh dear. Somehow I don't think the puffers will be coming onto our board to defend that.

"kick high high" - Ollie taking on Kane Cornes' nickname?

 

[Bay62]

You can't buy gems like this !
They're priceless !
Great get by Avatarp

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/an-open-letter-from-shanghai.1154973/

It's real ....

http://m.portadelaidefc.com.au/news/2016-12-20/an-open-letter-from-shanghai

Did those media idiots over there even read this !!!

One of the twenty paragraphs of complete hilarity !

"To Gavin Wanganeen and Peter – Gavin I have loved watching you play from back in the Essendon days and cheered loud for your 1993 Brownlow. Getting to meet you in person made me wet my pants a little."

And yep, I think that Port admin had NO input into this bit:

"Port is a professional football team and on field performance is important. Port is a business and the financials are important."

Yep they wrote those key messages all by themselves

 

[subaru]

Yeah saw that and thought what the?

As for the kid, what 2 year old would have thought or said all of that? What a load of crap.

I have my suspicions Janus is Tintin.

The "wetting of the pants" seems to fit " One Half of what used to be a great Club "

 

[Sanders]

True, but only if it impacts revenues? Long term it may effect participation rates etc but that's a difficult correlation to draw.

Memberships
Attendance
TV viewing

Are all pretty directly correlated and fairly immediate to revenue

 

[Sanders]

How are you measuring this?

How would you like to?

Surveys
Membership
Attendance
Merchandising
Tv viewing
Web clicks

Take your pick

 

[Sanders]

You're misinterpreting why the $$rights have grown, and therefore players require a share? ........game has same number of star players as a decade ago, the game hasn't changed that much as a spectacle & enjoyment factor for fans over decades, so why the explosion in the $$$ the game is getting from TV rights?

1. The advent of the national game, the introduction of teams in most states, giving broadcasters and advertisers a national audience

2. Night-time games, again in peak broadcasting hours

3. Creative scheduling by the AFL commission ......no more simply Saturday arvo games, now we have Thursday, Friday, Saturday & Sunday games

4. The advent of Pay TV, where their success is based purely on 2 platforms .......pr0n & sport. The introduction of Netflix, Stan & Co, plus freeview channels has Foxtel under enormous pressure ......they simply cannot do without Football and Soccer ...demand increases $$ rights value

Here's the cruncher ....take the same players today, transport them back to 1990 with the same training conditions as 1990, and you'll get no different result to the $$$ revenue incurred then ......the players are simply the beneficiaries of the games development, not their efforts



Ok then ....give me the evidence that the Crows were hurt commercially by Dangerfields departure .....at the same time provide similar for Buddy Franklins departures impact on Hawthorn


Only from the perspective of not being competitive .....now take the top 12 players out of every side & it's an even playing field again, correct ? .....would the game support suffer, no!

Tex Walker and Fyfe with season ending injuries as an example ......did those players not playing have a negative commercial impact .....in Freo's case it was a team slump, but the answer is no



Yes, but the point is .....for all those that argue that the players are the show ......the reality is those same people would not be prepared to put their own hands in their pockets to pay the players more



The only concession i'll make is that players today, with Managers and improved self marketing should have a control of their own image / brand and commercially benefit from that .....do they now? .....yes, but to what degree is that limited?

I don't think you're the high powered marketing and brand exec that you claim

 

[Sanders]

Does anyone know what the average pay for the players was 15 years ago, compared to today?
If the TV rights revenue has tripled in the last 15 years, what has happened to the average income of players?

Wayne Carey was on a million dollars a year 20 years ago

 

[Rotayjay]

1. Players get paid more in consideration of the tripling of the game's revenue
2. Gill, his fellow jesters and GWS get paid less
3. The cost for Rotayjay to go and watch the Crows increases no faster than inflation, instead of 10-20% per year

K thanks

 

[GreyCrow]

The AFL does not have that same foundation - indeed it's grassroots pathways are eroding - and the clubs are responsible for self funding, with AFL support.

This is the part of the AFLs spending program that concerns me the most. I am opposed to the players receiving a % of income on the grounds I want the AFL to build the base structure. Without junior clubs or country clubs you don't have your pathway into the AFL.

I am not opposed to the salary cap being lifted.

I would also prefer to see the gap between the rookie and the star narrow not widen. I wonder how loud players would yell if they were only allowed a certain % of salary cap?

 

[Geoffa32]

I personally think the game ie the core product being elite Aussie Rules peaked in the 1995-2004 era. Players were becoming fitter and stronger and the game was still Aussie Rules as we know it. Not just in appearance but the skills of the average player were better.

The game has evolved into a less skillfull game and coaches have countered this by creating congestion and of course zoning as the art of one on one play has diminished somewhat.

The players have not grown the game.


What has grown the game is the media hype and advent of the 365 day AFL cycle. During footy season it reaches saturation point

Twenty years ago we would be debating the cricket not footy.

The draft was barely mentioned on the radio. And we certainly knew little about preseason training other than maybe weekly paragraph in the Advertiser.

And now, even though nothing is happening we still come here each day to debate stuff. The clubs and AFL use Twitter and Facebook to communicate with us in December on a daily basis. Plus we have Fox footy to watch old games to keep us interested in the sport even though there are no games being played . And it is still about 95 days till the season starts.

The machine grew the game and the players are cogs in that machine.

Sent from my HTC_0P6B6 using Tapatalk