AFLPA again threaten to strike

[DemonTim]

DemonTim Fwiw ive asked a lot of qs to rfc over the years, and ive generally gotten polite and informative replies (with clear advice on what they can and cannot publicly say)

Id agree with wookie and ask the question direct to the afl. Often the staff dont have a misinformation agenda, and are happy to help clarify where possible

Often info isnt released just because they assume noone cares, so you might be surprised what they are willing to tell you

The thread wasn't about trying to get action mate, was in response to someone saying the AFL doesn't open their books. I was agreeing/elaborating (since someone said the information is all there). What the AFL does is pretty on par with most major companies

 

[Kwality]

What CA is saying makes a lot more sense (and doesn't relate to footy)
Cricketers are pissing off for large chunks of the year to get paid by other comps around the world, and are not promoting the local game.

What is relevant is the fixed % of revenue.

 

[Kwality]

And it is now looking more likely. I kind of hope they do. The fun and games would be more interesting than the pre-season.

And the AFL Commission and executive need to be brought down a few pegs. They have completely forgotten what their purpose is.

I'm no fan, but I'd like to see more transparency, the Chairman subjecting himself to an interview once a year & the CEO also once a year - interviewers to be serious journos, not AFL hacks, say Whately, Smith, and Rucci or Neil Cordy to provide a non Melbourne flavour.

 

[The_Wookie]

Players shouldnt get ANYTHING from Etihad Stadium earnings IMO

 

[Garlic muncher]

Players shouldnt get ANYTHING from Etihad Stadium earnings IMO

Huge offer by the players!, i wonder if they are speaking retrospectively as well, for the thousands of former players, officials, volunteers, members and fans who over a journey of 150 years plus payed for etihad.

Don't know about anyone else, but i find this ludicrous, will the former SANFL players players seek recompense from the sale of football park

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Players shouldnt get ANYTHING from Etihad Stadium earnings IMO

It's a very "generous" offer, what's the AFLPA view on the proceeds of club chook raffles?

 

[Rob]

It's a very "generous" offer, what's the AFLPA view on the proceeds of club chook raffles?

Well they have apparently abandoned any direct claim over supporter bequests.

How generous of them.

 

[Garlic muncher]

Well they have apparently abandoned any direct claim over supporter bequests.

How generous of them.

You can't be serious - they seem to be playing this very amateurishly at best.

Either that or the AFL are just playing them.

 

[The_Wookie]

AFL players have offered to exclude all money made by the league at Etihad Stadium until 2023 as a key plank in their pay demands.

It emerged on Monday that the game’s 800 players had removed all AFL-generated revenues at Etihad Stadium from their contentious pitch for a fixed percentage of industry revenues.

Pokies riches, supporter bequests and government grants were also excluded from the six-year pay proposal presented to the league by the AFLPA at the start of November.

The AFL paid $200 million to secure early ownership of Etihad Stadium in October.

It plans to pay off the stadium debt quickly, and the players say they will not claim any monies used to extinguish the loan.

The players’ Docklands concession does not include revenues or gate takings made by the AFL’s tenant clubs at Etihad Stadium — St Kilda, Carlton, Essendon, North Melbourne and the Western Bulldogs.

But money generated from rock concerts, like last weekend’s Coldplay shows, and other sporting events like Big Bash cricket matches will be excluded.

Club bosses believe the gap between the players’ six-year demands and the league’s counter-offer is more than $150 million.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...s/news-story/bfe3ac09711103718d43e43945bfd719

 

[Ice-Wolf]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...s/news-story/bfe3ac09711103718d43e43945bfd719

How noble of them, hope the greedy little shits do strike.

 

[PrideOf]

For all the talk of "without the players, there is no game", the players don't seem to get that without the game, almost all of them are 20-something under-skilled nobodies looking for a job in a tough employment market.

 

[GreyCrow]

Players shouldnt get ANYTHING from Etihad Stadium earnings IMO

I agree. I understand Etihad will be bought by the AFL. I wonder if this has anything to do with the players not wanting a share just yet. ie if you put your hand out for a profit you must also put your hand out to buy it

Is 2023 significant in the sale of Etihad? I know that there is a time line where the AFL can buy it for $1 , but if they choose to buy it now it will cost $xx.

 

[The_Wookie]

I agree. I understand Etihad will be bought by the AFL. I wonder if this has anything to do with the players not wanting a share just yet. ie if you put your hand out for a profit you must also put your hand out to buy it

Is 2023 significant in the sale of Etihad? I know that there is a time line where the AFL can buy it for $1 , but if they choose to buy it now it will cost $xx.

the league has already bought it.

 

[nobbyiscool]

Having a look through the jobs on the AFLs website tonight made me think about the previous conversation about where the AFLs money goes.

The fact that they're offering 50 pounds a week to an AFL Europe intern in London certainly makes me question where the money goes. For an organisation that makes over $2b from it's tv rights, it's an abject ******* disgrace that they're so obviously taking advantage of people desperate to get a start in the sport industry.

 

[Gigantor]

^ it's a low amount of money, for sure, but there are many situations where interns are paid nothing

 

[telsor]

Having a look through the jobs on the AFLs website tonight made me think about the previous conversation about where the AFLs money goes.

The fact that they're offering 50 pounds a week to an AFL Europe intern in London certainly makes me question where the money goes. For an organisation that makes over $2b from it's tv rights, it's an abject ******* disgrace that they're so obviously taking advantage of people desperate to get a start in the sport industry.

So you think the AFL should pay low level employees far above market rates?

 

[NoobPie]

Having a look through the jobs on the AFLs website tonight made me think about the previous conversation about where the AFLs money goes.

The fact that they're offering 50 pounds a week to an AFL Europe intern in London certainly makes me question where the money goes. For an organisation that makes over $2b from it's tv rights, it's an abject ******* disgrace that they're so obviously taking advantage of people desperate to get a start in the sport industry.

Afl Europe is an "affiliate" body that had a turnover of £160,000 in 2014. It no doubt runs of the smell of an oily rag dependent on massive volunteerism.

http://www.afleurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/AFL-Europe_2014-Annual-Report_FINAL-1.pdf

Certainly a case for the AFL to invest more heavily in other countries but not sure that some amateur Australian football body in Europe can be accused of taking advantage of people.

 

[nobbyiscool]

So you think the AFL should pay low level employees far above market rates?

You think 50 pounds a week is a market rate?

Afl Europe is an "affiliate" body that had a turnover of £160,000 in 2014. It no doubt runs of the smell of an oily rag dependent on massive volunteerism.

http://www.afleurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/AFL-Europe_2014-Annual-Report_FINAL-1.pdf

Certainly a case for the AFL to invest more heavily in other countries but not sure that some amateur Australian football body in Europe can be accused of taking advantage of people.

That might be true - but while it's carrying the "AFL" name, it clearly needs to do better in my view, because it can and should absolutely be construed as the competition taking advantage of people.

 

[NoobPie]

You think 50 pounds a week is a market rate?

That might be true - but while it's carrying the "AFL" name, it clearly needs to do better in my view, because it can and should absolutely be construed as the competition taking advantage of people.

50 pounds was to cover costs. Internships are commonly unpaid in the U.K. Including for large and highly profitable companies

...So here we have a small ameuteur sporting association offering two day a week cost reimbursement internships...and It probably gets a token assistance from the peak body in exchange for incorporating its brand

...Seriously, there is no cause for moral outrage here

 

[telsor]

You think 50 pounds a week is a market rate?

I suppose the answer to that would be if they got decent applicants while advertising at that rate.

If yes, then it clearly is.

 

[The_Wookie]

From the AFR
http://www.afr.com/business/sport/why-there-could-be-a-strike-in-sport-next-year-20161208-gt73rv

Why there could be a strike in sport next year

by John Stensholt

Forget talk of wickets, goals, tackles and tries or rucks and mauls.

When it comes to many Australian sports, the phrase "fixed percentage model" is fast becoming part of the vernacular of athletes across our biggest codes.

The issue is at the forefront of collective bargaining negotiations that are starting to dominate proceedings across four sports – Australian rules football, cricket, rugby league and rugby union – and which could even lead to work stoppages in a major league in this country for just about the first time.

Players in the AFL and NRL look on in great admiration to their peers in cricket especially, and rugby union to an extent, both of which have managed to negotiate that a fixed share of revenue goes directly to the athletes as part of their pay deals.

That deal has in particular ensured cricketers, who receive about 25-26 per cent of Cricket Australia's annual revenue, have became the highest-paid Australian-based athletes across all sports on an individual basis – even if the Test team has been mostly losing of late. In fact, before the recent changes to the team and blooding of several youngsters for the winning third Test against South Africa just about all the side earned more than $1 million annually each.

So with the AFL about to start its $2.50 billion six-year broadcast deal next season, its players want a bigger slice of the pie. The AFL Players Association has even employed Paul Marsh as their chief executive, who had previously filled the same role at the Australian Cricketers' Association and kept the cricketers' pay model intact.

Marsh has just about staked his job on convincing the AFL to adopt a similar model for its players, and Australian captain Cameron Smith said recently regarding the Rugby League Players Association's upcoming pay talks: "I am not going to lie, in our CBA negotiations we're after a set percentage of revenue".

But there are stumbling blocks. The AFL is refusing to meet the AFLPA's demands and even Cricket Australia is said to be set to dig in and refuse to continue the revenue percentage model in its next Memorandum of Understanding with the ACA that is due for renewal in 2017.

The NRL is said to be considering a similar model, but still has the vexed issue of finalising a funding agreement with its clubs first – a problem that has 14 NRL clubs on the brink of removing chairman John Grant from his role. And the Rugby Union Players Association, which gets about 29 per cent of the game's revenue, could face a fight to stave off the closure of the Western Force Super Rugby franchise and the loss of jobs that would cause.

All of which is why at least some of the players are talking about walking off the job in 2017.

Last week alone saw members of the AFL Players Association, including Geelong's Brownlow medallist Patrick Dangerfield, say that its members are prepared to strike if necessary, with the caveat that it would be their last resort. But there is definite talk that the players are more determined than ever before to force the issue with the AFL. "We've spoken about numerous scenarios … and obviously industrial action is at the very end of that scale," Dangerfield warned last week.

It is a similar story with NRL players and cricketers as well. The latter are absolutely determined not to lose the pay model they currently enjoy.

But the competition set for the perhaps the biggest stoush is the AFL. The league, in particular its CEO Gillon McLachlan, has frustrated the AFLPA by refusing to even contemplate the set percentage idea. McLachlan has also frustrated the players by not turning up to meetings.

The AFL argues there is a big question about what formula is used in the calculation of a deal – one offer was for a percentage of income excluding items such as government grants and gambling income – and the lack of flexibility the league would have to make strategic decisions if it was locked in to having to pay the players a defined slice of revenue every year.

For example, the AFL believes it would have not necessarily have pursued strategic plays such as spending big money on placing expansion clubs in western Sydney and on the Gold Coast in recent years, or the recent move to spend up to $200 million to purchase Etihad Stadium in Melbourne, if it is wedded to paying players a set percentage of income.

The players counter by saying the league always ends up generating more revenue that it forecasts every five years, a figure estimated at about $246 million since 2011, and that players now only get 21 per cent of revenue – meaning that a decent pay rise is affordable for what is the richest code in the country.

Even the cricketers say they miss out on a cut of some revenue, arguing that income from digital sources was not included the last time a MOU was struck in 2012.

They're also talking strike action again, having first threatened it back in 1997 when the percentage share deal was first agreed to. Rugby league players have also used similar language, though the NRL balance sheet is not exactly in the greatest shape and the league wants to spend big on grassroots programs and a digital media business as well.

At a time when union influence across Australian workplaces is waning, sport is different given most athletes are members of their respective unions.

But over the past couple of decades, despite threats, it has never quite got to the stage of players downing tools.

We might be closer to industrial action than ever before though. And if that happens, the players could also be fighting their administrators and also be battling to win a public relations battle with the general public that would probably just want them to keep playing.

That could be an even more difficult fight to win.

 

[LeverPuller]

The issue here is less about the set percentage of revenue and more about other conditions.

The AFLPA flat-out refused trade without consent, despite the clubs, admin and a majority of fans wanting it as a pushback for clubs against FA. Instead, they also want to reduce FA eligibility timelines and remove compensation - both of which further hurt clubs and fans. Oh, and by the way, the players haven't addressed what happens if revenue goes down - will they take a paycut or will they strike?

Right now it's not a negotiation, the AFLPA has drawn a strict acceptance line and are refusing to move. It's all on the players.

The more I watch it unfold, the more I think that Marsh played checkers with CA while the AFL is playing 3D Chess.

 

[DemonTim]

The issue here is less about the set percentage of revenue and more about other conditions.

The AFLPA flat-out refused trade without consent, despite the clubs, admin and a majority of fans wanting it as a pushback for clubs against FA. Instead, they also want to reduce FA eligibility timelines and remove compensation - both of which further hurt clubs and fans. Oh, and by the way, the players haven't addressed what happens if revenue goes down - will they take a paycut or will they strike?

Right now it's not a negotiation, the AFLPA has drawn a strict acceptance line and are refusing to move. It's all on the players.

The more I watch it unfold, the more I think that Marsh played checkers with CA while the AFL is playing 3D Chess.

By definition a % of revenue will always lessen in value if revenue decreases

 

[LeverPuller]

By definition a % of revenue will always lessen in value if revenue decreases

I agree, but how the players react to that decrease is the problem. I doubt they just take it on the chin.

 

[DemonTim]

I agree, but how the players react to that decrease is the problem. I doubt they just take it on the chin.

Well that's being annoyed at them based on a hypothetical assumption

I doubt they'd cry if revenue decreased and therefore their value decreased. It's in addition to their contract not instead of.