2020 Non-Crows AFL Discussion

[Southerntakeover]

I wouldn't have minded the players getting their contracts paid out in full this year, the AFL going broke and no more AFL.

A new comp then starts with 2 teams from each state on reduced wages and the players of today known for their greed

Why would a new league be able to force reduced wages?

If the AFL collapsed the players would be the only game in town- they would have all of the power. Hell, the AFLPA could just about set up their own league.

 

[GROTTO]

I wouldn't have minded the players getting their contracts paid out in full this year, the AFL going broke and no more AFL.

A new comp then starts with 2 teams from each state on reduced wages and the players of today known for their greed

Future posters of Bigfooty in 20 years time would refer to this year as the year where the AFL competition finally became fair and even playing field for every Club across Australia.

I will still be posting on Bigfooty too.

 

[mistylake]

No disrespect, but that's a ridiculously dumb comment.

These aren't new drugs. We understand what they do to the body. We don't know what they do to the virus.

And never has there been an illness met with such a simultaneous international show of resources. They're not going to get tied up in incessant bureaucracy.

Seems odd that they haven’t had a crack at the other 6 corona viruses with all these potential therapies, now they have 20 potential cures for this and presumably the common cold.

 

[Mego Red]

On a $60k salary with no student debt you'd be taking home over $900 a week. And why would you rent a $500 p/wk property on that sort of salary? That's financially irresponsible regardless of a virus situation

$500 a week is an apartment within half an hour of the centre of Melbourne. You're being naive to think things are less expensive than that - $400 gets you a shithole.

So, I guess they get a housemate.

Wow, these crazy rich bastards! With all their housemates in their apartments in Box Hill. Such snobs!

 

[Mego Red]

Who's suggesting incessant bureaucracy?

I'm saying they will do all the relevant safety testing before going to full scale immunisation.

Do you disagree?

Sure. But I have a shiny dollar coin I'm willing to bet that it won't be full FDA timing. It will get approved in one first world country and the rest of world, where there are more stringent and time consuming processes, will fall into line.

That's forgetting the scale of what can be achieved with testing when the entire resources of the planet are put to task.

 

[Mego Red]

I wouldn't have minded the players getting their contracts paid out in full this year, the AFL going broke and no more AFL.

A new comp then starts with 2 teams from each state on reduced wages and the players of today known for their greed

It's a funny old world when workers wanting their basic contracts honoured are known for their greed.

 

[hey shorty]

I tend to agree with Sanders comment that the AFL should/should’ve been transparent with AFLPA and explained their financial position and plan going forward.

Clearly not the entire player group, however a few select members who could report back and allow an informed decision on their stance to be made.

The appearance via the media was that a strategy to try and shame the players into submission commenced. That was pretty s**t

Hard to feel sorry for most of the players, it really is.

 

[hey shorty]

$500 a week is an apartment within half an hour of the centre of Melbourne. You're being naive to think things are less expensive than that - $400 gets you a shithole.

So, I guess they get a housemate.

Wow, these crazy rich bastards! With all their housemates in their apartments in Box Hill. Such snobs!

No first year draftee would be living by himself, that's naive.

 

[hey shorty]

It's a funny old world when workers wanting their basic contracts honoured are known for their greed.

When their basic contracts are tied to the revenue their employers make, then they want more..... It's greed.

 

[Scorpus]

$500 a week is an apartment within half an hour of the centre of Melbourne. You're being naive to think things are less expensive than that - $400 gets you a shithole.

So, I guess they get a housemate.

Wow, these crazy rich bastards! With all their housemates in their apartments in Box Hill. Such snobs!

I live in Melbourne and this just isn't true at all. $400 p/wk can easily get you a nice 2 bedroom townhouse or apartment with a 30 minute commute.

I recently paid $500 p/wk for a massive new 4 bedroom house in the west that was 40 mins by train into the city. It wasn't a premium location like Box Hill in the east but it was great value

$400 for a 2 bedroom place split two ways is $200 p/wk and that's very affordable on a $900 weekly income

 

[hey shorty]

I live in Melbourne and this just isn't true at all. $400 p/wk can easily get you a nice 2 bedroom townhouse or apartment with a 30 minute commute.

I recently paid $500 p/wk for a massive new 4 bedroom house in the west that was 40 mins by train into the city.

$400 for a 2 bedroom place split two ways is $200 p/wk and that's very affordable on a $900 weekly income

Home run.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

The AFL will be wishing they agreed to the % of revenue now

 

[1970crow]

The AFL will be wishing they agreed to the % of revenue now

Players were probably right. Cut the footy dept budgets, the massive admin salaries and does anyone believe the spectacle will be less, less TV rights and less bums on seats? The players were generating the money that allowed a massive upsurge in valueless leeches on the finances that they earned the league. But like any bureaucracy, there’s reward for anyone that builds an empire beneath them, regardless of its real value to the organisation at large. This is what the AFL became on the back of the players earning capacity. That Gill’s opening offer was a 20% pay cut speaks to the culture of entitlement that has grown with the administrative ranks. These people have grown to believe that only they can do their jobs, just as Triggy did and Chappo does.

 

[Mego Red]

I live in Melbourne and this just isn't true at all. $400 p/wk can easily get you a nice 2 bedroom townhouse or apartment with a 30 minute commute.

I recently paid $500 p/wk for a massive new 4 bedroom house in the west that was 40 mins by train into the city. It wasn't a premium location like Box Hill in the east but it was great value

$400 for a 2 bedroom place split two ways is $200 p/wk and that's very affordable on a $900 weekly income

Sure.

So - we think these guys who have to have a flatmate to pay the bills are all greedy pricks, do we?

I just think we're quick to attack the players who have never said they weren't willing to sacrifice some of their guarantee (considering they're also obviously losing their match payments). There are a lot of AFL players who AREN'T making $350k+.

I think they absolutely should take a salary cut for the ongoing viability of their employer - but let's not vilify them because they signed a contract and that still means something. They shouldn't be sacrificing thousands of dollars without knowing from the bosses what the situation really is

(BTW - 40 mins by train is, what - an hour by car? That sounds like the outer western suburbs - Sunshine? Further? Not sure expecting someone to do an hour commute a day is a fair comparison either, even if it is great value)

 

[Scorpus]

Sure.

So - we think these guys who have to have a flatmate to pay the bills are all greedy pricks, do we?

I just think we're quick to attack the players who have never said they weren't willing to sacrifice some of their guarantee (considering they're also obviously losing their match payments). There are a lot of AFL players who AREN'T making $350k+.

I think they absolutely should take a salary cut for the ongoing viability of their employer - but let's not vilify them because they signed a contract and that still means something. They shouldn't be sacrificing thousands of dollars without knowing from the bosses what the situation really is

I have no problem with rookie players wanting to be paid as per their contract.

The problem I have is with players getting paid $600k thinking more than a 50% pay cut (to below $300k) is unfair because they have investment properties, or because rent in Melbourne is supposedly super expensive. They should be able to live off an AFL base salary which is $110k, or less, quite comfortably for a short time.

I'm amazed the AFLPA didn't advocate harder for the rookie and low paid players. A 50% cut to a 75k salary is pretty brutal. But the same can't be said of that cut to a high paid player. Surely a significant number of the AFLPA's members are lower paid players given half the players in the AFL aren't best 22. The AFLPA just shafted them to save the high rollers

 

[Sanders]

When their basic contracts are tied to the revenue their employers make, then they want more..... It's greed.

Contracts are not tied to revenue, the league refused that option

stop being such a whiny little so and so

 

[hey shorty]

stop being such a whiny little so and so

Here we go......

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

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

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

 

[Southerntakeover]

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

It's a bit difficult to take that stance with any credibility when you selectively edited his post to remove the substance.

 

[GreyCrow]

I'm amazed the AFLPA didn't advocate harder for the rookie and low paid players. A 50% cut to a 75k salary is pretty brutal. But the same can't be said of that cut to a high paid player. Surely a significant number of the AFLPA's members are lower paid players given half the players in the AFL aren't best 22. The AFLPA just shafted them to save the high rollers

I would have thought a cap/no cut agreement for those under ( lets pick a figure) $125,000 would have been the better option

Yes people will say ''all in or nobody in'' but there is such a disparity there needs to be a line

 

[FR0GGY]

I would have thought a cap/no cut agreement for those under ( lets pick a figure) $125,000 would have been the better option

Yes people will say ''all in or nobody in'' but there is such a disparity there needs to be a line

Then you get those on 126k who go nooooooo

 

[hey shorty]

It's a bit difficult to take that stance with any credibility when you selectively edited his post to remove the substance.

How so ?? I didn't edit anything.

As for credibility, I'm more than comfortable where I sit. But feel free to join him in needless chatter.

 

[hey shorty]

Then you get those on 126k who go nooooooo

And thats a fair point, but the line had to be drawn somewhere.

Maybe 150K was the option, but you'd think with 80% of staff around all clubs and the AFL being stood down the players would have a bit more sympathy.

 

[FAITH]

imagine the crows doing this:

Club sacks players who refused virus pay cut

Swiss side FC Sion sacked nine first-team players on Wednesday after they refused to take a pay cut due to the coronavirus outbreak.

www.espn.com.au

 

[hey shorty]

imagine the crows doing this:

Club sacks players who refused virus pay cut

Swiss side FC Sion sacked nine first-team players on Wednesday after they refused to take a pay cut due to the coronavirus outbreak.

www.espn.com.au

Ruthless.

 

[FAITH]

Ruthless.

deservedly so?