- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #251
Play Nice 2019-2022 CBA Discussion
- Thread starter The_Wookie
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Teen Wolf
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jul 5, 2011
- 8,116
- 8,925
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Afghanistan women's cricket team
Yeah the Free Entry Truthers don't have a clue about much, strangely doesn't stop them from having really strong opinions though. You clearly also haven't bothered to learn about what AFLW has already contributed to the overall football landscape.
Somebody give Blind Freddy his vision back so he can read up on the problems before sharing his ingenious solutions with us next time.
- Mar 20, 2009
- 14,393
- 16,743
- AFL Club
- Tasmania
- Other Teams
- Jacksonville
- Banned
- #253
They've been around for 5 mins.
In the 8 weeks of their long and stressful season they earn more than I would in those 8 weeks.
******* relax.
Teen Wolf
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jul 5, 2011
- 8,116
- 8,925
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Afghanistan women's cricket team
10 H&A rounds by 2022 under this soon-to-be-approved CBA. I'm too excited about the bright future of women's football to relax, thanks to the AFL's commitment. But to imply the only beneficiaries of AFLW are greedy money-grubbing girls? Plain ignorant.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 36,529
- 40,723
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
So if they go on strike the AFL will save money.
Not sure what sort of bargaining power they think they have?
Gil should tell them to take the offer or leave. But probably wont. Because he wants to be seen as a hero. Despite the fact that no-one will ever think of him that way.
Not sure what sort of bargaining power they think they have?
Gil should tell them to take the offer or leave. But probably wont. Because he wants to be seen as a hero. Despite the fact that no-one will ever think of him that way.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 36,529
- 40,723
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
If the AFLPA only dealt with men the women would have zero power. They need whatever energy the AFLPA chooses to invest in their league.
The entitlement is strong in a large number of the AFLW players. They should maybe look at the history of how every club prior to GCS was formed.
Linda_Lovelace
Cancelled
Fact is they have zero power even with the men. Until they have there own revenue lines they will get the scraps. They are just lucky that there are a lot of 'woke' large corporations who want to be seen to be promoting it. Without that revenue would be pretty much zero. No gate charge, TV networks paid via contra to air it etc etc.
And you are correct, Rome was not built in a day.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 36,529
- 40,723
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Well, at least with the AFLPA they have a powerful group in their side.
Gil is the father of the AFLW going back to August 19 2015 at the Canberra Press Club when he made his first public comments that I know of on a possible National Womens comp.
He originally thought that to start in 2021/2022 was the way to go and changed his mind when the huge reaction to his comments above became apparent afterwards.
1. If the AFLs concern here was saving money, they wouldn't have started the league.
2. A strike, which is pretty much a zero% possibility, would be enormously damaging to the AFLs image, and something they would give a lot to avoid, so the women actually have an enormous amount of power. It would also be enormously damaging to the AFLW comp, which is why it will not happen.
3. The entire structure of the funding of the womens comp comes after the mens pay was finalised. So, the men did their pay deal, with the money split between the players and the AFL, the womens pay comes entirely from the AFLs cut of total revenue, so male players have not given up one cent to fund the womens comp. This is why the AFLPA has been able to sign the women on, they do not have to choose between more money for the men, or more for the women, they can go after both.
4. The dispute is largely about the future of the league. Players did not feel sufficiently assured that the AFLs vision for the comp was not limited to a short conference based league that would never grow beyond a novelty. This is why Gil got involved and met with the players leaders, and why the new negotiations will not produce a deal substantially different from the last one.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #261
The AFLs concern is also about not losing too much on it.
They would do much to avoid it indeed. But if demands were un realistic, there are other remedies before it gets to that point. Especially with 70% accepting as it was.
While mens revenues havent been cut, it can mean that revenue available to other areas of the game is lessened - this includes club distributions over the salary cap, funding to state leagues, facilites funding or future fund planning.
Players didnt start their own league. The entire competition exists because of the AFls vision for the comp. Some people lose sight of that.
No doubt that the AFL are not interested in blowing a huge wad of cash on the AFLW, but the implication that money is the sole motivator behind the AFLs decision making (A common insinuation), is disingenuous. The best way to not lose money on a womens league is not to have one, if that is your primary motivator..
That they would do much to avoid a strike is itself an indication that the women are not without power in the relationship. This doesn't mean the AFL would do ANYTHING, to avoid it. Its actually a good thing, the women want to advance the league as fast as possible, but do not want to undermine it, the AFL would prefer things go smoothly, these disputes are bad for its image, that is a tension that is likely to lead to an agreed outcome.
Losses in the AFLW can hurt the AFL in other areas, and it is definitely a trade off. What the cost of the AFLW is against what else the AFL could be doing with that money. However, in a negotiation, that is not the AFLPAs problem, its the AFLs problem. In my company I heard of an exchange during a negotiation, where a company manager stated what the union was asking for would cost jobs, to which the response was, running the company is your problem, my job is getting the best deal for members I can. The AFLPA should be going as hard as possible for pay. If they negotiate from a position where they are concerned about the AFLs ability to pay for other things, then they are going to get low balled big time. Those things need to be considered, but from within the framework of the AFLs negotiating position.
The AFL had a vision for the comp when it started, and that produced many good things. It doesn't follow that this vision is still the vision they have now, or that this vision is appropriate to drive the comp from here on out. I am not saying it isnt, but I think the players needed reassurance. A deal that did not include a lot of progress in these areas over the next 3 years may have shaken some peoples faith, and what had been explained did not restore it.
All this is speculation of course, but its how I see it playing out.
I think Gil and Hocking has spelled out in greater detail where they intend for the comp to go, and the steps to take to get there, to some key players. I also think this will be enough to get delegates that advocated against the deal to change their mind. The new deal, especially for the first year, isn't going to be substantially different imop, much less encompass unrealistic demands.
Linda_Lovelace
Cancelled
Its a very fine line. The AFL is not a listed company. As such investing in growth means they have to take money away from the pot for the men to fund the women. They can only get away with siphoning so much. If they go to far they will get push back from the men and they do have power as thereat of strike there is a real problem.
So you think employees of either a private company, a public company or a not-for-profit organisation striking because they don't like what their company invests in is a legitimate strike action under the Fair Work Act do you?
Ummm... no. Employees can take action for things such as their pay and work conditions but they have no rights whatsoever in deciding what a company does or doesn't invest in. It is not their money that is being invested, it is the company's money.
This misnomer that the men are paying for the women isn't helping the conversation. The AFL wouldn't suddenly say let's throw a few more million into the club's TPP if AFLW didn't exist. They'd find other projects that were riskier and less lucrative. This needs to be treated as exactly what it is... a long term investment with some short and medium term benefits. They aren't giving it a pass or fail based on immediate results. They are playing the long game and investing similarly to how any company would when attempting to innovate.
If you can find a current AFL player who believes they are paying for AFLW I'd love to hear from them.
Excellent
Linda_Lovelace
Cancelled
Have you heard of the AFL collective bargaining agreement re revenue share arrangement? Only so much to go round.
Always back self interest, the players would be very aware of the AFL's revenues, strike action nearly occurred last time round. If the men push for 5% more next time round where do you think its coming from? Are you by chance a Bernie Sanders supporter?
owen87
Premium Gold
- Apr 23, 2016
- 30,956
- 43,386
- AFL Club
- Essendon
A fairly nothing article, but shows how a young draftee is being driven by gender politics instead of the reality of dealing with the CBA itself.
www.foxsports.com.au
AFL Womens 2020: AFLW pay dispute, new CBA, Nell Morris-Dalton, Western Bulldogs draftee
‘I’ll go to court with them’: AFLW draftee backs players standing up in CBA fight
www.foxsports.com.au
But it doesn't matter. The amount the AFL has after the male players are dealt with, even if they get an increase, is large, and the amount the women get paid, as a proportion of that total, is relatively small. Your also assuming that the clubs and league are generating 0 income, which isnt true. It certainly isnt covering costs, but it is covering some costs. So the AFLPA will have no issue with going hard for an increase to the mens package, and then going hard for more pay for the women, its literally the primary reason they exist.
Balancing the costs of the league is the AFLs problem, not the AFLPAs problem.
Many unions cover a variety of different categories of employment in a pay negotiation, this isnt a new thing. Its the AFLPA that tied the womens pay rates to the mens base rates, so if the mens go up, then the womens will almost certainly follow
telsor
Hall of Famer
Its coming from the AFLs, its the AFLs money.
When a cook at a mining camp is paid, do the miners resent them for taking 'their' money?
Why is this a thing with football fans? Every company on the planet has staff that are directly involved in the money making part of the business, and staff that are not.
The organisation decides if these staff are necessary, or part of its plans, and pays them out of income generated by those staff directly involved in producing income.
I do not get why this is such a ******* big issue when the AFL pays the female footballers it employs, and isnt an issue any where else.
Maybe the AFLW players can cook for the AFL players as part of the deal....wait, no...
Obviously not being serious but you are taking the argument too far
There is no real commercial basis to pay the women more. That is not the same as having parts of your workforce providing services to the primarily productive parts of the workforce
There are no magic puddings so it is incorrect to say that the total payments to the women have no implication for that of the men. Or it comes out of other resources directed towards game development.....maybe the millions that have been invested in female youth development pathways?
I think most are onboard that some degree of cross subsidy is justified but I don't think there is any benefit in denying it exists.
Victim mentality very evidentA fairly nothing article, but shows how a young draftee is being driven by gender politics instead of the reality of dealing with the CBA itself.
AFL Womens 2020: AFLW pay dispute, new CBA, Nell Morris-Dalton, Western Bulldogs draftee
‘I’ll go to court with them’: AFLW draftee backs players standing up in CBA fight
Obviously, mens football is the driver of revenue for the AFL. All the expenses the AFL incurs needs to fit within that revenue, you cannot increase costs everywhere, something has to give.
However, this is constantly portrayed as the women taking money out of the mens pockets. This just isnt true, they may be the drivers of the revenue, but it isnt their money, its the AFLs money. The mens money is what the CBA with the AFL says it is. I stated that if costs got to high, something would have to give, and that something is not going to be, and will never be, the male players CBA, the AFL will slash other areas, including AFLW before they do that.
A question such as So where *IS* the money coming from?
The women aren't making it, and that leaves....
Is fishing for the answer, it comes from the men. It does not, it comes from AFL revenue, not the men. That the mens comp drives revenue does not make it their money.
This also ignore the fact that while the womens game generates no profit, it does generate revenue, so the The women aren't making it, and that leaves.... part of that question is also false.
Has it been approved yet?
They aren't going to (and couldn't if they wanted to) cut into the current CBA. That is not the point, it is the next CBA that will be affected. It's profoundly naive to suggest otherwise
Similar threads
