2016 Non Crows AFL Discussion thread Part 2

[jo172]

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.

Agree, for what it's worth Craigy's 05-06 era Crowbots essentially started the current cycle.

 

[Geoffa32]

Agree, for what it's worth Craigy's 05-06 era Crowbots essentially started the current cycle.

And Roos, Woosha and then Eade Lyon etc.

Malthouse overcame the lack of skills,but better athletes with the use of interchange

Sent from my HTC_0P6B6 using Tapatalk

 

[Geoffa32]

Matthews and Choco were the last true old school coach who values skills over athletiscm and team structure to win Premierships.

Hence they struggled once players had to devote more time to fitness and learning game plans and less to skills.



Sent from my HTC_0P6B6 using Tapatalk

 

[crowsup]

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

Money in brown paper bags is not to be counted. He must have hated playing for only 200k-300k for us, then.
I was under the impression that he was on less than $800K when he had to resign from the Roos. But I could be wrong.

 

[footy4ever]

Such a maligned colour like puce and falu.

And rightly so.

 

[cmndstab]

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

I'm not trying to claim that the players are solely responsible for the improved revenue streams of the AFL. But the game doesn't exist without players, and it's not like there isn't much competition to get there. The players who are there at the moment are there because they're the best in a highly competitive field. It's disingenuous to say "well any other players would have achieved the same if they were in the same position" or "put the same players back twenty years ago and they wouldn't have moved the dial".

It's like trying to claim the Beatles were just lucky to be in the right place at the right time. Sure, if they'd come along twenty years later or twenty years earlier, they'd most likely have been much less successful. But that doesn't, nor should it, detract from the fact that they earned their success. If it were that easy to do, someone else would have done it first.

The facts are, the current crop of players have overseen a massive increase in revenue for the AFL. Nobody handed them their position, every one of them earned it.

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

As I said already, we're not talking about individual clubs here. We're not saying the Crows should cough up an extra 20% of match payments. We're saying that the extra money being taken in by the AFL should go to the players. It makes no sense to look at this from the perspective of individual clubs. The Crows didn't triple the TV broadcasting revenue, the AFL did.

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!

I guarantee you it would, but even so, that's not the point. The point is, the AFL puts on a show which relies on the players. The show brings in enormous volumes of cash. The players should be paid accordingly. From there, it's up to the AFL to ensure the players who will bring in the most cash are playing.

The problem is, you're looking at this from the point of view of "why does Dangerfield deserve extra cash?" which is not the right way of viewing it. You should be asking, "how much is it worth to the AFL to have a club full of quality players in their competition". After that's been worked out, then the clubs will pick the players with the money allotted. Hell, if you're right that sacking 12 players from every club would see no decrease in revenue, then I'd argue the new players should get paid as much as the old ones - apparently they're worth just as much to the AFL. Again, it's not about individuals. It's about the playing group as a whole.

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

What kind of an argument is this? Do you volunteer to pay extra for everything you think is valuable? You're being silly now. I think public school teachers should be paid more too but I'm not going to volunteer my pay packet to cover the costs, does that make my opinion invalid? And in this analogy, the government has already raised the extra money to cover the pay increase from other sources.

Again, the AFL has already raised the extra money. Nobody is arguing that supporters should fork out more to cover an increase in player's salaries. All that is being argued is that some portion of the extra revenue the AFL has brought in should go to the players that helped them to bring it in. Or, at the very least, if it's not going to happen, I would like to know where it IS going. To help develop junior footy across the country? Great, I'm all for that, even if it comes at the expense of the players. To increase the stock options of the game's administrators? Not so much.

All of your side arguments about commercial interests and individual player injuries are irrelevant here. It is not in question that the game has grown commercially.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

How would you like to?

Surveys
Membership
Attendance
Merchandising
Tv viewing
Web clicks

Take your pick

They'd get ticks on all of those, except maybe Surveys. So it's a big win in Public Opinion for the AFL exec team.

 

[arrowman]

Whether they are doing a good job is another argument and probably depends on what you consider a "god job" as the average fan probably has a different set of criteria to what the AFL commission would have.

But I have no problem with the pay of the execs being much higher than that of an average footballer, they should be.

Compare how many years of experience and education it has taken those execs to get to where they are vs the average footballer.

The price the AFL pays when an average footballer is out of his depth is not huge, the price the AFL pays when an exec is out of his depth is massive. You need to pay high to get the best people to do the job. The AFL is in competition with the millions of large companies around the world to keep their executive staff, if they are good enough they could go elsewhere and earn the same wages and then some.

The average footballer is pretty much in the best position he could possibly be as far as pay goes with the skill set they have.

Yes. The fact that people might have a poor view of the performance of AFL executives is not an argument against their salary levels. If think they're not up to it, that doesn't mean they're aid too much, it means you've got the wrong people.

(And god knows, if you go by skills / quality, Australia is full of overpaid executives.)

Same goes for politicians. Politicians are not - IMO - overpaid, it's a demanding and responsible job.
- It's just that the ones we've got are overpaid, and the selection process sucks.

But anyway - the pay of AFL executives is in the reasonable band, and is irrelevant to the issue of how much players should be paid.

 

[ad victoriam]

How would you like to?

Surveys
Membership
Attendance
Merchandising
Tv viewing
Web clicks

Take your pick

If that was how they measured KPI's for public satisfaction/ Public opinion, then the AFL is recording some very good numbers.
They Have increased in all areas barring some surveys. Need to remember that don't only deal in 1 year KPI's
We need to remember we are talking about executive level, and what others at the same level regard as successful.
We the supporters may not agree with what they are doing or how they are doing it. But when judging them purely at an executive level they are earning their pay, they have grown the brand. while making the brand more stable.
Liking what they do or don't do is secondary these days, the AFL is an Industry and unfortunately, their executives are in the same mould. What makes the matter worse is we the supporters are very easy to manipulate, And we are forgiving and soon forget the bad times, And the media not much better.

Let us all be honest I bet you can almost predict the outcome of these AFLPA vs AFL talks will be. and it will be the AFL favour. but to most, it will seem it's a win for the players. EBA's don't you just love them funny how everyone comes away as the biggest winner, but little joe down the back only gets a small pay rise.

 

[arrowman]

This is quite unprecedented in global pro sports.

Why do you assume that it must be fair and proper when it is so unusual?

In most "global pro sports" the players get stratospheric amounts of money. Of course the executives aren't going to be paid like Messi or Ronaldo.

The AFL is not in that league when it comes to size, revenue, marketing income etc - and neither are its players.
The analogy of the AFL as a company with employees, some of whom get paid almost as much as the top executives, is quite appropriate I think.

 

[MarcusP2]

This is quite unprecedented in global pro sports.

Why do you assume that it must be fair and proper when it is so unusual?

Roger Goodell (president of the NFL) has earned more than every NFL player for years. The explosion in pay for quarterbacks in particular and him not meeting bonus payments means he is now on par with the 3 highest paid players (though that was a 1 year thing, his average salary is much higher than theirs).

 

[Scorpus]

Lumumba has retired due to concussion

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2016-12-21/lumumba-retires-from-the-afl

 

[Geoffa32]

Lumumba has retired due to concussion

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2016-12-21/lumumba-retires-from-the-afl

Can't wait to read his book...

"Offended - The Hertier Lumumba story"

Sent from my HTC_0P6B6 using Tapatalk

 

[Pdub]

In most "global pro sports" the players get stratospheric amounts of money. Of course the executives aren't going to be paid like Messi or Ronaldo.

I'd bet Sepp Blatter did as good if not better than those guys after you count all the bribes.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

Okay, okay, in the interest of fairness, let the players wages be linked to 27% of the AFL revenue (or whatever the number is). After all, without the players, the AFL wouldn't be able to earn that revenue.

Also, in the interest of fairness, the players should have 27% all of their revenue from marketing, sponsorships, media contracts, licensing, investment opportunities, speaking engagements, etc paid over to the AFL.

After all, if they didn't play in the AFL, they wouldn't have been given an opportunity to earn that revenue.

Also, any contractual arrangements with competitors of AFL supporters must cease. It is a bit obscene for Rory Sloane to earn money direct from Channel 9 when they are in competition with Channel 7, and his team mates earn a slice of revenue from Channel 7.

 

[Moonwatcher]

Can't wait to read his book...

"Offended - The Hertier Lumumba story"

Sent from my HTC_0P6B6 using Tapatalk

"Triggered -At gunpoint"

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

Also, I wish our players would shut up about the pay dispute. In the last week I've heard Rories Atkins and Sloane make comments.

They pay a handsome sum of money to the AFLPA. I assume that Pavlich, Dangerfield and co are paid a sum for their involvement in the exec.

Let them be the ones to tarnish their name in their amateurish pursuit of "fairness". I know media will bring it up, just pad it away. That's what you pay your union for.

They are being used by their AFLPA.

 

[GreyCrow]

Can't wait to read his book...

"Offended - The Hertier Lumumba story"

Sent from my HTC_0P6B6 using Tapatalk

''Oh Oh O'Brien- Time for Concussion Screens''

 

[GameofSloanes]

Also, I wish our players would shut up about the pay dispute. In the last week I've heard Rories Atkins and Sloane make comments.

They pay a handsome sum of money to the AFLPA. I assume that Pavlich, Dangerfield and co are paid a sum for their involvement in the exec.

Let them be the ones to tarnish their name in their amateurish pursuit of "fairness". I know media will bring it up, just pad it away. That's what you pay your union for.

They are being used by their AFLPA.

Sloane is on the AFLPA Board
Players from just abut every club are commenting, we just only hear about the Crows & Port ones here.

 

[cm_perfect]

"Triggered -At gunpoint"

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

Thinking - On a chair

 

[feenix67]

I'm not trying to claim that the players are solely responsible for the improved revenue streams of the AFL. But the game doesn't exist without players, and it's not like there isn't much competition to get there. The players who are there at the moment are there because they're the best in a highly competitive field. It's disingenuous to say "well any other players would have achieved the same if they were in the same position" or "put the same players back twenty years ago and they wouldn't have moved the dial".

It's like trying to claim the Beatles were just lucky to be in the right place at the right time. Sure, if they'd come along twenty years later or twenty years earlier, they'd most likely have been much less successful. But that doesn't, nor should it, detract from the fact that they earned their success. If it were that easy to do, someone else would have done it first.

The facts are, the current crop of players have overseen a massive increase in revenue for the AFL. Nobody handed them their position, every one of them earned it.



As I said already, we're not talking about individual clubs here. We're not saying the Crows should cough up an extra 20% of match payments. We're saying that the extra money being taken in by the AFL should go to the players. It makes no sense to look at this from the perspective of individual clubs. The Crows didn't triple the TV broadcasting revenue, the AFL did.



I guarantee you it would, but even so, that's not the point. The point is, the AFL puts on a show which relies on the players. The show brings in enormous volumes of cash. The players should be paid accordingly. From there, it's up to the AFL to ensure the players who will bring in the most cash are playing.

The problem is, you're looking at this from the point of view of "why does Dangerfield deserve extra cash?" which is not the right way of viewing it. You should be asking, "how much is it worth to the AFL to have a club full of quality players in their competition". After that's been worked out, then the clubs will pick the players with the money allotted. Hell, if you're right that sacking 12 players from every club would see no decrease in revenue, then I'd argue the new players should get paid as much as the old ones - apparently they're worth just as much to the AFL. Again, it's not about individuals. It's about the playing group as a whole.



What kind of an argument is this? Do you volunteer to pay extra for everything you think is valuable? You're being silly now. I think public school teachers should be paid more too but I'm not going to volunteer my pay packet to cover the costs, does that make my opinion invalid? And in this analogy, the government has already raised the extra money to cover the pay increase from other sources.

Again, the AFL has already raised the extra money. Nobody is arguing that supporters should fork out more to cover an increase in player's salaries. All that is being argued is that some portion of the extra revenue the AFL has brought in should go to the players that helped them to bring it in. Or, at the very least, if it's not going to happen, I would like to know where it IS going. To help develop junior footy across the country? Great, I'm all for that, even if it comes at the expense of the players. To increase the stock options of the game's administrators? Not so much.

All of your side arguments about commercial interests and individual player injuries are irrelevant here. It is not in question that the game has grown commercially.

Dude, you have it back to front. The AFL exists because of the clubs, and 100+ years of competition. The players arent responsible for growth - the players benefit from 100 years of growth and the simple coincidence that they play during a period of high commercialism.

The players already get compensated more than adequately, whilst many clubs are in deep shit financially and grass roots footy pathways are under more pressure than at any other time in the sports history.

Who do you barrack for - Rory Sloane or the Adelaide Crows?

I rest my case.

 

[footy4ever]

Look who these Chinese kids already barrack for, all decked out in the good colours. ROFLMAO-tse-tung

 

[GreyCrow]

View attachment 321493


Look who this Chinese kids already barrack for, all decked out in the good colours. ROFLMAO-tse-tung

POTY contender

 

[subaru]

View attachment 321493


Look who this Chinese kids already barrack for, all decked out in the good colours. ROFLMAO-tse-tung

tse-tung - I see what you did there !!!
Ahahahahaha

Propoganda fail right there !

 

[WaynesWorld19]

All of your side arguments about commercial interests and individual player injuries are irrelevant here. It is not in question that the game has grown commercially.

Correct .....but it's incorrect that the players are responsible for that growth as individuals ....same players in different era's with different commercial revenue streams ......these players have added no more to the game than any other player from any other era

They deserve a very good salary, for all the reasons that anyone can outline ......but they are not bigger than the game ....cannot leach off the game .....or can they canibalise the games expenses at the expense of the games future