Play Nice 2019-2022 CBA Discussion

[threenewpadlocks]

Players like Pearce and Phillips are in their 30s. When they say the comp needs to expand slowly to make sure it remains strong, they are basically walking away from ever playing in a full AFLW comp, so that future players can. What selfish bitches.

Strange opinion. Of course they're going to try and publicly justify their positon, to not appear self-serving, as that's "what's best in the league" as what they officially state. It's just basic spin/PR.

But I'm surprised at what I believe should be relatively straightforward analysis of these players' livelihoods. Pearce will soon retire so knock-on effects of the how the competiton is structured in years' time from this year onward will have no effect on her. But the position she takes now, as reflected in her current Channel 7 employment will be impacted - her employability in the industry long term is impacted if she fights the industry. Channel 7 clearly work with the AFL to keep it as a Feb-March competition. Pearce is a current employee. I don't understand how more people aren't seeing this, and how I have to spell it out.

 

[NoobPie]

I see different groups.
10% committed feminists for whom the success of AFLW is less important than using it as a battleground for the gender wars.
20% who are impressionable and from the same clubs as the 10%, and who have had the 10% in their ear for months.
35% who are prepared to sacrifice what they would like to have now, for a better future for the AFLW.
35% that just want to play footy.

I base this on the 10% publicly revealing they had hired lawyers days before the players were due to vote. If that isn't disrespecting and pressuring the process, I don't know what is.

Players like Pearce and Phillips are in their 30s. When they say the comp needs to expand slowly to make sure it remains strong, they are basically walking away from ever playing in a full AFLW comp, so that future players can. What selfish bitches.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

The reality is I am sure 99% are committed feminists but sadly 1 in 10 of them are as you say or at least have been misguided by others of the same ilk

 

[Clems Knee]

Strange opinion. Of course they're going to try and publicly justify their positon, to not appear self-serving, as that's "what's best in the league" as what they officially state. It's just basic spin/PR.

But I'm surprised at what I believe should be relatively straightforward analysis of these players' livelihoods. Pearce will soon retire so knock-on effects of the how the competiton is structured in years' time from this year onward will have no effect on her. But the position she takes now, as reflected in her current Channel 7 employment will be impacted - her employability in the industry long term is impacted if she fights the industry. Channel 7 clearly work with the AFL to keep it as a Feb-March competition. Pearce is a current employee. I don't understand how more people aren't seeing this, and how I have to spell it out.

So someone who disagrees with you is compromised? Is it time to drain the swamp?

What’s your angle? Are you employed by a sporting organisation that is a competitor to the AFLW?
Are you a lawyer whose intent is to make as much money out of this situation as possible?

How will you benefit from the failure of women’s footy in Australia? Because that is what you are advocating.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

How about reading Sharni layton's article....one of the ones you explicitly identified as being selfishly motivated ?

I have. It's a strange article that I can't really disagree with but it's also at the same time not really addressing the issue - ie it's not actually the points that people are making.

As in the dispute from the 30% stems from various interpretations of, and capabilities of implementing,fthe AFL's stated non profit mission to provide professional competiton and be a custodian of the game.

She wrote in a comparison with Netball, which I don't find relevant as it's existing in a completely different ecosystem.

 

[NoobPie]

Strange opinion. Of course they're going to try and publicly justify their positon, to not appear self-serving, as that's "what's best in the league" as what they officially state. It's just basic spin/PR.

But I'm surprised at what I believe should be relatively straightforward analysis of these players' livelihoods. Pearce will soon retire so knock-on effects of the how the competiton is structured in years' time from this year onward will have no effect on her. But the position she takes now, as reflected in her current Channel 7 employment will be impacted - her employability in the industry long term is impacted if she fights the industry. Channel 7 clearly work with the AFL to keep it as a Feb-March competition. Pearce is a current employee. I don't understand how more people aren't seeing this, and how I have to spell it out.

No we can all see what how you are trying to make sense of this without questioning your biases

We just think you are being a monumental jerk

 

[threenewpadlocks]

So someone who disagrees with you is compromised? Is it time to drain the swamp?

What’s your angle? Are you employed by a sporting organisation that is a competitor to the AFLW?
Are you a lawyer whose intent is to make as much money out of this situation as possible?

How will you benefit from the failure of women’s footy in Australia? Because that is what you are advocating.

It's funny. I'm a fan who is frustrated at the conference system, the fact that the competiton isn't "proper" winter footy, and frustrated that the economic structures set up by the league led to our best player and captain making a (entirely understandable) financial decision to jump ship as a result. It's not really that sinister.

Of course I don't want the season not to be played, but I also think that the likelihood of any season being delayed/cancelled is a lot lower than what others are saying. They'll work it out.

 

[Taylor]

in a completely different ecosystem.

It very much is. There isn't a highly profitable male competition attached to fund it.

It has to stand on it's own feet. The AFLW could be it's own organisation but it would be holding out it's hand for millions to keep the doors open.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

It very much is. There isn't a highly profitable male competition attached to fund it.

It has to stand on it's own feet. The AFLW could be it's own organisation but it would be holding out it's hand for millions to keep the doors open.

Doesn't that principally apply to the entire concepts of the GWS and GC football clubs? Both are being continued to be run at a loss with knowledge that they would be as they were introduced.

 

[Taylor]

Doesn't that principally apply to the entire concepts of the GWS and GC football clubs? Both are being continued to be run at a loss with knowledge that they would be as they were introduced.

Up until last year GWS had been bringing in more money than it was spending, for three years in a row I believe. I think expectations of the AFLW to perform significantly better than other women's competitions, ratings wise, is expecting too much.

That puts a ceiling on the value of the competition and we don't have a national team to justify the lower levels feeding players into the national team.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

No we can all see what how you are trying to make sense of this without questioning your biases

We just think you are being a monumental jerk

I'm fully aware of them though and I do address them. I'll fully admit that I have my own interpretation of what the AFL's job as a non-profit is here.

I clearly don't believe that the current time frame and structure of the competiton, and more broadly how the AFL is inherently good for women's footy that others are taking as a given in this thread - so I will reflect that as a biased view.

 

[Clems Knee]

It's funny. I'm a fan who is frustrated at the conference system, the fact that the competiton isn't "proper" winter footy, and frustrated that the economic structures set up by the league led to our best player and captain making a (entirely understandable) financial decision to jump ship as a result. It's not really that sinister.

Of course I don't want the season not to be played, but I also think that the likelihood of any season being delayed/cancelled is a lot lower than what others are saying. They'll work it out.

Think it through.
Having a longer season is a goal. But there isn’t enough money it yet. There may never be, but it needs to get close enough for it to be feasible for the season to be televised.

If AFLW is played concurrently with the WAFLW or VFLW, the best players will not play in the lower leagues. The state leagues will collapse if the best players are taken out of them. There are still not enough players to have a second tier competition without AFLW players competing in them. If the state leagues collapse then women’s football is doomed. This won’t be the case forever. As participation rates rise, and the depth becomes greater, the need for many of the top players to return in the winter months and lead the next generation will diminish.

Yes it seems wrong that women play footy in the summer. But for now, it is there for good reasons. There is no competition with AFL, the resources of the clubs can be shared between men’s and women’s teams (eg physios, boxing trainers), there is clean air for sports viewers generally, and the established women’s comps can continue as before.

The expansion of the clubs led to Brennan jumping ship, along with possible internal reasons. Perhaps they have gone too fast with the expansion. We will see. But that’s an inevitable consequence of having all the benefits of two teams in the football club, for both teams. The other clubs saw the success and want in, too.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Think it through.
Having a longer season is a goal. But there isn’t enough money it yet. There may never be, but it needs to get close enough for it to be feasible for the season to be televised.

If AFLW is played concurrently with the WAFLW or VFLW, the best players will not play in the lower leagues. The state leagues will collapse if the best players are taken out of them. There are still not enough players to have a second tier competition without AFLW players competing in them. If the state leagues collapse then women’s football is doomed. This won’t be the case forever. As participation rates rise, and the depth becomes greater, the need for many of the top players to return in the winter months and lead the next generation will diminish.

Yes it seems wrong that women play footy in the summer. But for now, it is there for good reasons. There is no competition with AFL, the resources of the clubs can be shared between men’s and women’s teams (eg physios, boxing trainers), there is clean air for sports viewers generally, and the established women’s comps can continue as before.

The expansion of the clubs led to Brennan jumping ship, along with possible internal reasons. Perhaps they have gone too fast with the expansion. We will see. But that’s an inevitable consequence of having all the benefits of two teams in the football club, for both teams. The other clubs saw the success and want in, too.

I'm not disagreeing with any of that how it plays out in reality (and Brennan jumped ship because of her relationship with Puma, something that we may have been able to compete with in a different structure).

What I suppose I'm getting at is that everyone here's acting as if it's a given that the structure and future of the competition is predicated on the viability/success/economics of the competition, whereas I'm of the view it isn't as significant as people are making out. Ie my (biased as others are saying) view is that the AFLW competition should exist as part of why the AFL as an institution exists.

Put it this way - the AFL exists is a non-profit organisation that exists out of thin air to a) help organise professional national competitions and b) be a custodian of the game.

Through my views on equality (or feminism as others might put it), and given that the AFL has the financial capability to absorb it, the AFL should, to achieve the reason for its existence, provide a more aggressive timeline for professionalism of its players and a more thorough competition. The fact that this costs more money is entirely the purpose of the fact that the AFL aims to otherwise raise more revenue, and there's absolutely no issue with the men's competition subsidising the women's competition more than they currently are as that's just an interpreation of why the AFL exists at all. So whilst all the impact on women's footy will happen the way it does as you say, that's just what the AFL should absorb as how it operates.

I'm not an idiot - of course I understand the need for the competition to be sustainable, generate its own revenue etc. I just think that's not as relatively important, or it's a given that that's the focus here, that everyone's making it out to be and people are acting like it's just the assumed common sense position.

But at the same time the footy community seems to accept similar investments and costs at the same time. We compromise competition for the custodianship of the game (ie the existance of the father-son rule). We put money into GC and GWS to help further the game's agenda. My interpreatation is that giving AFL games and academies and other ways in which investment is presented to the people of GC and Western Sydney and spending money doing so is not really that different to giving better pay and more games to female players and spending money in doing so.

 

[NoobPie]

Up until last year GWS had been bringing in more money than it was spending, for three years in a row I believe. I think expectations of the AFLW to perform significantly better than other women's competitions, ratings wise, is expecting too much.

That puts a ceiling on the value of the competition and we don't have a national team to justify the lower levels feeding players into the national team.

I know this a digression but I just thought I'd give an alternative view to some of this

In terms of ratings / tv value I reckon there is enormous scope to the aflw in terms of rights value / ratings. The game has some massive advantages over pretty much every other pro sport anywhere to make it happen (in combination: intense regional domination, club tribalism, constrained pro men's playing window, nfp ownership)

In terms of lack of national team, surely that just hastens the rate the aflw will professionalise? The AFL can't get away with just providing a national squad pro contracts and keeping the domestic club comp permenantly semi pro

 

[Clems Knee]

I'm not disagreeing with any of that how it plays out in reality (and Brennan jumped ship because of her relationship with Puma, something that we may have been able to compete with in a different structure).

What I suppose I'm getting at is that everyone here's acting as if it's a given that the structure and future of the competition is predicated on the viability/success/economics of the competition, whereas I'm of the view it isn't as significant as people are making out. Ie my (biased as others are saying) view is that the AFLW competition should exist as part of why the AFL as an institution exists.

Put it this way - the AFL exists is a non-profit organisation that exists out of thin air to a) help organise professional national competitions and b) be a custodian of the game.

Through my views on equality (or feminism as others might put it), and given that the AFL has the financial capability to absorb it, the AFL should, to achieve the reason for its existence, provide a more aggressive timeline for professionalism of its players and a more thorough competition. The fact that this costs more money is entirely the purpose of the fact that the AFL aims to otherwise raise more revenue, and there's absolutely no issue with the men's competition subsidising the women's competition more than they currently are as that's just an interpreation of why the AFL exists at all. So whilst all the impact on women's footy will happen the way it does as you say, that's just what the AFL should absorb as how it operates.

I'm not an idiot - of course I understand the need for the competition to be sustainable, generate its own revenue etc. I just think that's not as relatively important, or it's a given that that's the focus here, that everyone's making it out to be and people are acting like it's just the assumed common sense position.

But at the same time the footy community seems to accept similar investments and costs at the same time. We compromise competition for the custodianship of the game (ie the existance of the father-son rule). We put money into GC and GWS to help further the game's agenda. My interpreatation is that giving AFL games and academies and other ways in which investment is presented to the people of GC and Western Sydney and spending money doing so is not really that different to giving better pay and more games to female players and spending money in doing so.

I think Gil and the AFL should be commended for how far they have brought the competition in a short time. It’s not just women’s footy that has benefitted, Women’s sport as a whole has improved their pay and structures as a result of the threat posed by the new competition.

They are delivering on the charter that you have proposed; promoting huge growth in the women’s game: the number of women competing at the elite level, and the number of female players generally.
They are doing this because popularity of the whole sport benefits as a result of this growth. They are not doing more (yet) because they need to finance and maintain the game. There is a balance required between looking after grass-roots boys, girls, men’s and women’s footy and increasing the pay scales of the elite players. This has always been the case. The reason the AFL has been able to grow and teams have become financially stable is because it’s a great game and attracts many spectators, viewers and sponsorship. The AFL men’s is the cash cow that feeds all of the AFLs activities. It is immense but not infinite.

It seems that the ultimate goal you are aiming for is equal pay for female footballers and male footballers. Unless all footballers become amateurs, that is probably not going to happen. And it probably shouldn’t, because in football unlike other areas of life, the difference between male and female bodies produce measurable differences in quality of product. The AFLW is already getting better, but the gap in speed and strength will never completely close. Should the AFL ignore these differences when setting the professionalism of the players? No. You might as well claim that all athletes in all sports should receive equal pay as footballers, and that all footballers should be paid as much as Nathan Fyfe, or Lionel Messi.
However, if the AFLW becomes as popular as AFL, with crowds filling stadiums every week, then that would be different. And wonderful. And maybe possible, with good management by Gil and his successors. That needs to grow, and that takes time.

You’ve talked about GWS and GC and the money spent on them as an argument for increasing the money spent on AFLW. I think that’s a red herring. Both those teams add to the product of the AFL as a national competition. If anything, they are subsidising the smaller Victorian teams such as your own.

 

[BringBackTorps]

I want to raise an issue re the AFLW "rebel minority" that I haven't seen raised on BF, or in the MSM.

A long-cherished & proclaimed principle of Unionism is that the majority view prevails AFTER the vote is taken. "Unity Is Strength" has been a Union rallying cry, & deeply held view, since the 1850's by unionists. If a minority feels aggrieved about a particular decision of the elected Union Officials, or a majority vote of other fellow unionists, it can agitate up to the next election to get those Officials voted out; and/or campaign for a different Union policy until that time. The minority, however, should respect the vote of the majority until that time.

(I exclude here the very small no. of union officials or members who have been accused of using violence/threats/intimidation to influence others)

The reason why Unions (& the vast majority of their members) realise they cant have minority factions trying to dictate to the majority AFTER the vote (and/or get their own advocates or lawyers to run a separate campaign) is that it vastly weakens the Union, & its leadership. Employers/capital are in a FAR stronger position if they have a Union which is strongly weakened by disunity- or is, basically, dysfunctional due to internal turmoil/"distractions".

One of the biggest insults a Union member could say to another Union member or worker (apart from "scab" = strike breaker) is to call the minority rebel a "splitter".
The "rebel 30%" are splitters, if they continue to weaken their Union AFTER the majority (ie 70%) have clearly, through a secret vote, voted to accept the AFL offer.

70% is a very big majority- it is extreme arrogance & selfishness for the 30% to attempt, post the vote, to overturn it.
And risks an enormous public backlash against the AFLW competition, & reversing the significant progress female GR AF has made- not to mention absolutely poisoning working relationships with team mates, who are in the 70%.

 

[NoobPie]

I want to raise an issue re the AFLW "rebel minority" that I haven't seen raised on BF, or in the MSM.

A long-cherished & proclaimed principle of Unionism is that the majority view prevails AFTER the vote is taken. "Unity Is Strength" has been a Union rallying cry, & deeply held view, since the 1850's by unionists. If a minority feels aggrieved about a particular decision of the elected Union Officials, or a majority vote of other fellow unionists, it can agitate up to the next election to get those Officials voted out; and/or campaign for a different Union policy until that time. The minority, however, should respect the vote of the majority until that time.

(I exclude here the very small no. of union officials or members who have been accused of using violence/threats/intimidation to influence others)

The reason why Unions (& the vast majority of their members) realise they cant have minority factions trying to dictate to the majority AFTER the vote (and/or get their own advocates or lawyers to run a separate campaign) is that it vastly weakens the Union, & its leadership. Employers/capital are in a FAR stronger position if they have a Union which is strongly weakened by disunity- or is, basically, dysfunctional due to internal turmoil/"distractions".

One of the biggest insults a Union member could say to another Union member or worker (apart from "scab" = strike breaker) is to call the minority rebel a "splitter".
The "rebel 30%" are splitters, if they continue to weaken their Union AFTER the majority (ie 70%) have clearly, through a secret vote, voted to accept the AFL offer.

70% is a very big majority- it is extreme arrogance & selfishness for the 30% to attempt, post the vote, to overturn it.
And risks an enormous public backlash against the AFLW competition, & reversing the significant progress female GR AF has made- not to mention absolutely poisoning working relationships with team mates, who are in the 70%.

Bang on the money BBT

Basically what we can be pretty sure happened

-the AFLPA took an offer to the AFLW players in early september which the voted down about 2 to 1
-players went to lawyers seeking advice after that as mentioned by chloe molly here https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/aflw-stars-downplay-cba-dispute-20190918-p52sj4.html
-a new CBA was presented to the AFLW players sometime before the vote last week...presumably to delegates in the first instance who, it is now clear, a vast majority were now happy to sign the deal
-some minority have then decided to engage lawyers and blatant media campaign of discrediting and undermining the union was launched (literally calling for the players to split) largely prosecuted by outsiders to the deal but furnished by the leaking of communications between the union and the players
-the vote ended up with a 70-30 majority yes vote which affirmed the above

I suspect there will be another vote that will pass in the short term. If a good thing comes of this is that this kind of shyt subversive behaviour won't happen in future....it has been flushed out there will be a better understanding developed of what the whole point of unionism is and the importance (as per Sharni Layton's article today) in pro sport of a focus on sustainability and long term growth.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I think Gil and the AFL should be commended for how far they have brought the competition in a short time. It’s not just women’s footy that has benefitted, Women’s sport as a whole has improved their pay and structures as a result of the threat posed by the new competition.

They are delivering on the charter that you have proposed; promoting huge growth in the women’s game: the number of women competing at the elite level, and the number of female players generally.

Fair points although it's worth noting that this hasn't happened because it was always inevitable that it would happen, it happened because people pressing for it advocating arguments of equality etc, e.g. the voice of Sam Mostyn on the commission influencing the decision of others.

They are doing this because popularity of the whole sport benefits as a result of this growth. They are not doing more (yet) because they need to finance and maintain the game. There is a balance required between looking after grass-roots boys, girls, men’s and women’s footy and increasing the pay scales of the elite players. This has always been the case. The reason the AFL has been able to grow and teams have become financially stable is because it’s a great game and attracts many spectators, viewers and sponsorship. The AFL men’s is the cash cow that feeds all of the AFLs activities.

Fair points. That's why I'm saying I'm not an idiot, I understand the balancing act that the AFLW has to play with how it influences the health of the code overall, I'm not dismissive of that.

It is immense but not infinite.

Of course it isn't infinite, but you're admitting that it isn't it is immense (while the overall costs of the AFLW isn't) - this is what many people aren't understanding - so I'll point that out.

Club costs to operate a team - ~$2 million largely covered by sponosrship, and specific AFLW membership/corporate packages
AFL payment of player salaries are about $5 million, the logistics of the competition worn by the AFL are about $15 million, and the $20 million is offset by the couple of million they're getting for TV and a couple million in direct sponsorship.

Whereas AFL is continuing to provide around $5-10 million more for GC/GWS per year (e.g. GWS still "only" made around $18 million revenue of its own accord from tickets, memberships, sponsorships, corporate sales and merchandise as its proportion of its $43 million revenue last year).

AFLX cost over $300k in extra player payments alone other than every other cost involved in it.

AFL had the capability to purchase Docklands stadium, etc.

In this vein, I don't think it's particularly financially crippling, or would inhibit the sustainability of the AFL to operate, to spend a few million more on more games and increased player payments. This is an organisation that is now generating 2/3 of a billion dollars a year.

It seems that the ultimate goal you are aiming for is equal pay for female footballers and male footballers.

This is where you're wrong. I've never said anything like this so far.

I'm advocating for a more aggressive path to professionalism (ie every player on an AFLW list is earning enough money that it can constitute their full-time job), but that as a minimum. How much all the players should get paid is logically nowhere near the amount men should for the reasons you outline.

You’ve talked about GWS and GC and the money spent on them as an argument for increasing the money spent on AFLW. I think that’s a red herring. Both those teams add to the product of the AFL as a national competition.

It's not really - it's just a point made about direct revenue comparison, or analysing things through indirect analysis. Currently the ability for GC and GWS as it stands do not generate revenue to be able to exist in the AFL. They are subsidied for two reasons - one to operate at a loss now to be profitable as a future as there's potential in large population areas to have large support in future generations, and two, to act as a supporting act in the AFL's grassroots efforts in those areas (acadamies etc.). But they don't generate the crowds and sponosrship, currently, without extra AFL directed money, to be able to compete with the rest of the league in terms of being able to have enough money to spend on a football department. That's just a factual statement in comparisons of current direct revenue. It's also very similar to what people are saying about the AFL running the AFLW at a loss, which is the point I'm making.

Once you start using terms like "adding to the product", "contribution to overall footprint and TV deal", etc. that are applied to GWS/GC (that I happen to agree with) - can't that also be used to argue the overall value of the AFLW is in the tens of millions beyond the direct revenue it generates (ie the value to the increased participation rate, engagement with segments of population that it would cost them millions to attempt to engage without the AFLW, etc.)

If anything, they are subsidising the smaller Victorian teams such as your own.

The subsidisation of smaller teams is probably that of the bigger Victorian teams as the AFL pools away more shared revenue in Melbourne (AFL Memershipasand signage/pourage, and finals revenue of which it controls the ticketing) than it does in other cities. One could argue that's a counterbalance to the inequities found in fixturing over the years, both in profile timeslots and stadiium deals to the detriment of the smaller AFL clubs. I wouldn't say that the current additional value of those two teams goes beyond the $5-$10 million shortfall that they have without a large supporter base that they have anually to be competitive in the AFL landscape.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Bang on the money BBT

Basically what we can be pretty sure happened

-the AFLPA took an offer to the AFLW players in early september which the voted down about 2 to 1
-players went to lawyers seeking advice after that as mentioned by chloe molly here https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/aflw-stars-downplay-cba-dispute-20190918-p52sj4.html
-a new CBA was presented to the AFLW players sometime before the vote last week...presumably to delegates in the first instance who, it is now clear, a vast majority were now happy to sign the deal
-some minority have then decided to engage lawyers and blatant media campaign of discrediting and undermining the union was launched (literally calling for the players to split) largely prosecuted by outsiders to the deal but furnished by the leaking of communications between the union and the players
-the vote ended up with a 70-30 majority yes vote which affirmed the above

I suspect there will be another vote that will pass in the short term. If a good thing comes of this is that this kind of shyt subversive behaviour won't happen in future....it has been flushed out there will be a better understanding developed of what the whole point of unionism is and the importance (as per Sharni Layton's article today) in pro sport of a focus on sustainability and long term growth.

This is what I'm confused by.

If it's a given that the 70% majority, or any concept of a majority, should have been enough to push through an acceptance, why have the 75% in the first place?

Clearly they put in the 75% in the first place because they thought the tipping point number was that if 26% of players were forced to play in a CBA they didn't agree with that was more important than the 74% of players who voted yes in terms of overall health of the union and the league, but not 24% and 76%.

 

[jatz14]

This is what I'm confused by.

If it's a given that the 70% majority, or any concept of a majority, should have been enough to push through an acceptance, why have the 75% in the first place?

Clearly they put in the 75% in the first place because they thought the tipping point number was that if 26% of players were forced to play in a CBA they didn't agree with that was more important than the 74% of players who voted yes in terms of overall health of the union and the league, but not 24% and 76%.

They put in 75% because it was a nice big number, and they didn't anticipate this situation. They have now screwed themselves, because if 75% is the standard, and the playing group is heavily split, it may be almost impossible to get a 75% majority. What then?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

They put in 75% because it was a nice big number, and they didn't anticipate this situation. They have now screwed themselves, because if 75% is the standard, and the playing group is heavily split, it may be almost impossible to get a 75% majority. What then?

So if they either thought that they were going to get a vote close to 100% or below 50%, why isn't the criticism not on the players "causing" the split but those who allowed the 75% number?

 

[jatz14]

So if they either thought that they were going to get a vote close to 100% or below 50%, why isn't the criticism not on the players "causing" the split but those who allowed the 75% number?

They didn't even need to have a vote at all. However can you imagine the stink if there was no vote? Its pretty clear the reason they got lawyers prior to the vote was to try to overturn the process if they didn't get their way, so if there had been no vote at all, I think it would have ended in injunctions and law suits, so it would have ended up here anyway.

 

[NoobPie]

This is what I'm confused by.

If it's a given that the 70% majority, or any concept of a majority, should have been enough to push through an acceptance, why have the 75% in the first place?

Clearly they put in the 75% in the first place because they thought the tipping point number was that if 26% of players were forced to play in a CBA they didn't agree with that was more important than the 74% of players who voted yes in terms of overall health of the union and the league, but not 24% and 76%.

Haha, you've started the comment "confused" by the 75% rule and you ended up "clearly" knowing the reason for it!

Going off Paul marsh's email he introduced the 75% requirement (for males and females) when he started. The point is to ensure consensus.

As jatz said, I don't think he would have thought it likely that this would happen. As it is i'd be shocked if at least 1/6th of the women that voted no didn't switch their vote the next time

 

[zucchini]

Bzzzzzzz. Wrong answer.

Before the AFLW began, the VFLW Grand Final of 2016 between Darebin and Melbourne Uni drew 4,000 paying customers (at $10 a head).

Last 2 VFLW Grand Finals roughly avg 7000 paying customers (at $20 a head).

Public will pay. In fact, most are surprised the AFL aren't at least doing gold coin donations for charitable causes.

So why when the game can't get within a million miles of supporting themselves would they be giving money to charity?

Do you realise how ridiculous this is?

 

[FRUMPY]

So why when the game can't get within a million miles of supporting themselves would they be giving money to charity?

Do you realise how ridiculous this is?

SO then AFLW fans can pat themselves on the back

 

[Teen Wolf]

A three-quarter approval requirement does recall the phrase "labour of Hercules" for me, might be too generous since this latest vote easily passed double majority criteria however. Worth doing to give the minority a voice though, which is why claims by members of the 30% that they're "not getting the opportunity to be heard" don't hold up.

So why when the game can't get within a million miles of supporting themselves would they be giving money to charity?

Do you realise how ridiculous this is?

Really, a million miles? Just one of little old North Melbourne's AFLW sponsorships was worth more than their 2019 salary cap. I wonder why that fact doesn't get repeated ad nauseam like the "but dey don't charge fa tickits" mantra.

Btw whenever the WBBL (which isn't self-sustaining) charges for entry, the money goes to charity. Small mind, meet big picture.