AFL were employing 795 staff!

[Brutalitops]

Revenue in 2003 was $171 million, which was $250 million in 2019 dollars adjusted for inflation. Revenue was $668 million in 2019. I'll let you do the math for the last part so you can play along, but I'll give you a slight hint that it's not more than 8x.

There's also no rule that an increase in revenue must be accompanied by a directly equivalent increase in bullsh*t jobs. They could always use some of that increase to allocate a larger percentage to the actual players and clubs, as outlandish and crazy as it sounds.

 

[NoobPie]

Hahaha. My friend, you need to learn about NFP salary packaging and Novated Leasing.

The AFL doesn't qualify for "NFP salary packaging" concessions. You really have no idea what you are talking about. Zilch

 

[PrinceCharles]

Revenue in 2003 was $171 million, which was $250 million in 2019 dollars adjusted for inflation. Revenue was $668 million in 2019. I'll let you do the math for the last part so you can play along, but I'll give you a slight hint that it's not more than 8x.

There's also no rule that an increase in revenue must be accompanied by a directly equivalent increase in bullsh*t jobs. They could always use some of that increase to allocate a larger percentage to the actual players and clubs, as outlandish and crazy as it sounds.

Exactly, it's not a rule. As mentioned, most organisations who grow by that much would increase staff numbers by a large amount. That's still a massive increase in revenue, we've also had two more clubs join the league. I'm sure a lot of it was the professionalisation of previously volunteer roles.

 

[Chief]

How many of those are diversity and inclusion managers? The AFL ‘integrity department’? The ‘gender action plan’?

Sah pilled, bruh.

 

[PrinceCharles]

The AFL is not Facebook or Amazon. Theres a finite scope for expansion. Theyre not a huge law firm where they can acquire new clients.

Broadcast rights back in the early 000's cost $500 million, most recent one was $2.5 billion. The change in the last 20 years has been huge, you even hear players talk about the shift in professionalism.

 

[rumply]

They employed around 100 before demetriou took over.
Amazing player to staff ratio!

View attachment 959502

disgusting waste - 795, no way that can be justified.

 

[treegreen]

I'm absolutely disgusted that a financially sustainable Australian company is employing Australians.

Sack them all RIGHT NOW.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

Exactly, it's not a rule. As mentioned, most organisations who grow by that much would increase staff numbers by a large amount. That's still a massive increase in revenue, we've also had two more clubs join the league. I'm sure a lot of it was the professionalisation of previously volunteer roles.

Nobody is arguing the blatantly obvious point that some of the increase can be accounted for by necessary new jobs, Gil.

But I have just shown you that the increase in jobs is widely disproportionate to the increase in revenue. And that is also largely irrelevant to the question of an equitable and efficient allocation of resources.

We know that AFL players and clubs get screwed in revenue percentage terms.

And some of us know the kind of roles that people pass of as actual jobs at the AFL. That the AFL is stuffed full of useless sh*t is not in any way news to anyone with even a slight understanding of the organisation.

 

[rumply]

I'm absolutely disgusted that a financially sustainable Australian company is employing Australians.

Sack them all RIGHT NOW.

'employing', lolz

 

[LordLucifer]

How can they remain a tax free organisation?

In the article it says they are "not for profit" too !!

 

[Cotchins Hair Piece]

This country is full of easily offended SJW’s and people suffering tall poppy syndrome.

 

[PrinceCharles]

Nobody is arguing the blatantly obvious point that some of the increase can be accounted for by necessary new jobs, Gil.

But I have just shown you that the increase in jobs is widely disproportionate to the increase in revenue. And that is also largely irrelevant to the question of an equitable and efficient allocation of resources.

We know that AFL players and clubs get screwed in revenue percentage terms.

And some of us know the kind of roles that people pass of as actual jobs at the AFL. That the AFL is stuffed full of useless sh*t is not in any way news to anyone with even a slight understanding of the organisation.

Obviously staff numbers is not proportional, you'd have to look at wages. Most organisations have jobs that can be cut.

 

[mightymouse75]

That's why the change the rules of the competition, match review committee, drafting, etc.
They have got nothing to do & hav3 to validate there otherwise pointless employment.

 

[PrinceCharles]

Also love the idea of jobs being a bad thing...

 

[Dangerousfield]

At a 1:1 ratio with the players, is it any wonder the ALFPA is playing hard ball with TPP and list sizes. Leave the people who actually perform the product alone and cut, no slash, the huge number of people at AFL HQ doing unnecessary stuff.

Remember AFLX, how many people worked on that debacle?

Sacked coach can't find a job? create yet another wishy washy role on good money at HQ for him

How about getting rid of the people who are constantly changing the rules for the worse?

No wonder years ago the AFL stopped reporting total staff numbers, they are embarrassed that there's as many administrators as players, and how about the eye watering salaries for people who won't get a career ending injury next Saturday?

And while we're at it, start pinging throwing the ball, it's affecting my enjoyment of the game!

 

[Brutalitops]

The AFL doesn't qualify for "NFP salary packaging" concessions. You really have no idea what you are talking about. Zilch

Source please.

 

[YouBeauty]

795 staff and can't get HTB right.

 

[Brutalitops]

Broadcast rights back in the early 000's cost $500 million, most recent one was $2.5 billion. The change in the last 20 years has been huge, you even hear players talk about the shift in professionalism.

And? Why does more money from broadcast rights translate to 700 more jobs?

 

[PrinceCharles]

And? Why does more money from broadcast rights translate to 700 more jobs?

Well yes, generally growth equals more jobs... Are you saying you'd prefer less jobs but for Gill to get paid more?

 

[Number37]

The money from profits are supposed to remain with the league for its growth not for the growth of admin staff. 100 staff to 800 staff is huge expansion. To whose benefit? What are they doing? What accountability is there?

https://www.acnc.gov.au/for-chariti...overnance-standards/self-evaluation-charities

Download the link and fill in the self assessment form to see how the AFL fares.

 

[HaroLad]

Sah pilled, bruh.

I'm not sure what that means so I have no choice but to take this as a tacit acknowledgement as to the truth in what I have said.

 

[Brutalitops]

Well yes, generally growth equals more jobs... Are you saying you'd prefer less jobs but for Gill to get paid more?

Its not a commercial business. If it were? Fine. Grow them job positions however you see fit. The game belongs to Australians. Not Gil and his buddies at the polo club.

 

[Brutalitops]

https://www.acnc.gov.au/for-chariti...overnance-standards/self-evaluation-charities

Download the link and fill in the self assessment form to see how the AFL fares.

Hmmmmmmm!

Does your charity ensure its funds and assets are
used solely for its charitable purposes and not for the
benefit of particular people?
• The board plans how to pursue its charitable purposes, for
example by approving a strategic plan.
• The charity has a policy outlining the use of funds and assets,
and this use is monitored.
• When working with partners, the charity verifies they provide
genuine services.
• Appropriate financial controls are in place.
• The governing document has been checked to ensure it
contains appropriate not-for-profit and dissolution clauses, and
to consider if any amendments are required.
• Professional advice has been obtained if required.
• Charity is not breaching the not-for-profit clause in practice by
benefiting particular peo

 

[nameless]

Well since 2003 the AFL has grown from 16 to 18 teams with the prospect of a greater expansion.
There is also a whole new league AFLW which would employ a lot of people.

Twitter / Facebook etc didn't exist in 2003 so there'll be a heap of growth in PR and social media presence.

The AFL website was rubbish 17 years ago, now you can watch games on your phone, your TV, your PC etc. etc.
Again, that's all going to cost a bit of money and require additional staff.

There's probably a few excess jobs that can be cut, but that's not too dissimilar to other businesses.

 

[gingernuts]

half of the pricks were in the hub up north. Hundreds of them Non for profit paid holiday on the piss. what a joke. If the AFL is deemed a benevolent then this country is a joke