AFLPA again threaten to strike

[HairyO]

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.

In what way have the AFL budged or changed their tune?

 

[The_Wookie]

Interesting one from the Cricket negotiations - given the AFL operates the same way in that it pays money for the players association outside the TPP. (more than $30 million in 2015)

In its memorandum of understanding submission presented to the ACA, CA says it provides $4.1 million from within the player payment pool, and "a further $4.3 million from outside the PPP, which is paid directly by CA to the ACA".

CA then adds: "Given that CA is an employer of the players and the ACA is the collective bargaining agent for the players, we question the appropriateness of CA directly funding the ACA".

The $4.3 million is spread over five years. The ACA cedes its hold on certain commercial elements, such as the rights to the players intellectual property, in exchange for that funding.

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cric...l-of-players-association-20161221-gtgb4y.html

 

[Rob]

Interesting one from the Cricket negotiations - given the AFL operates the same way in that it pays money for the players association outside the TPP. (more than $30 million in 2015)



http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cric...l-of-players-association-20161221-gtgb4y.html

It is a pretty odd way of doing it. Why not just give the money directly to the players and let them fund the players association?

 

[Gigantor]

It is a pretty odd way of doing it. Why not just give the money directly to the players and let them fund the players association?

I see this in various government funding models, where over the passage of time, it gets forgotten that the base funding from 20 years ago included the cost of specific things, and it gets included again, meaning it effectively gets paid twice over by the taxpayer.

By controlling the whole of the payment itself, the AFL always knows precisely what it's paying, and therefore there's little risk that it turns up again as part of negotiations 20 years down the track, and I guess it imposes a certain discipline on the costs of the PA, rather than making it open ended, costs going through the roof, and the PA coming back to the AFL to cover the difference, making the AFL worse off than if it had paid it directly from the start.

 

[Gypsy King]

Players threatening acts of on field defiance - like covering the AFL logo. That is check mate, they will get their pay rise. There is no way Gil would want the country to see him as the greedy man depriving players of a dollar, especially when he is making a fine dollar. Gil will cave. Deep down he needs to be liked. Gil is a flog.

 

[telsor]

It is a pretty odd way of doing it. Why not just give the money directly to the players and let them fund the players association?

I think the majority of the money goes to past player welfare programs the AFLPA runs, and the AFL funds that.

Once they're paying that, paying the rest presumably just seemed like the simplest solution, although I agree that the players should be paying for the parts that represent them, both as 'user pays' and to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest.

 

[HairyO]

And again they are meeting to discuss pay and again the AFL has said they wont pay a % of revenue.

So the AFLPA basically has the players go on strike or they bend over and get reemed again.

I hope they strike and the AFL caves.

 

[nobbyiscool]

And again they are meeting to discuss pay and again the AFL has said they wont pay a % of revenue.

So the AFLPA basically has the players go on strike or they bend over and get reemed again.

I hope they strike and the AFL caves.

They won't go straight to a strike - AFL players would be subject to the Fair Work Act the same as all of us are, and they'd be looked on pretty unfavourably by the Fair Work Commission if they didn't at least go through a process of escalating industrial action.

So with that said, I think the pre season practice matches are going to be more of a farce than they already are as players do things like cover up the AFL logo, delay the start of games, and maybe even something as extreme as not contesting the first centre bounce of a game (ie. like a "sit down" kind of thing) in the early weeks of the pre season "competition".

If they can't get movement from the AFL by the final week of the pre-season, maybe that's when they look at a strike. But even that is probably too soon IMO.

 

[HairyO]

They won't go straight to a strike - AFL players would be subject to the Fair Work Act the same as all of us are, and they'd be looked on pretty unfavourably by the Fair Work Commission if they didn't at least go through a process of escalating industrial action.

Refusing to take part in practice matches would be an example of low grade industrial action.

 

[GreyCrow]

Refusing to take part in practice matches would be an example of low grade industrial action.

It would be hard to know if they were on strike anyway.

Most coaches set up for rookies and draftees + getting fitness into some players. It defeats the purpose if Dangerfield says '' Yeah not playing Pre_season game 1 in protest''

Save it for H&A, which will end up like SOO, wont do it.

 

[telsor]

Refusing to take part in practice matches would be an example of low grade industrial action.

It would be not working according to your agreement. AKA a strike.

Covering up a logo, perhaps could get through as a low grade action (although I suppose they could be sued for lost revenue if sponsors paid the clubs less as a result, so maybe start with the AFL logo).

 

[HairyO]

It would be not working according to your agreement. AKA a strike.

Covering up a logo, perhaps could get through as a low grade action (although I suppose they could be sued for lost revenue if sponsors paid the clubs less as a result, so maybe start with the AFL logo).

Do they even have an agreement for 2017? The old agreement has expired, hasnt it?

So they could simply just say 'no' to anything they wanted.

 

[telsor]

Do they even have an agreement for 2017? The old agreement has expired, hasnt it?

So they could simply just say 'no' to anything they wanted.

Pretty sure industrial agreements continue so long as good faith efforts are being made to extend/replace them, and it would presumably be up to fair work to decree otherwise.


Also, the players would still have their own contracts, which would complicate matters.

 

[GreyCrow]

Pretty sure industrial agreements continue so long as good faith efforts are being made to extend/replace them, and it would presumably be up to fair work to decree otherwise.


Also, the players would still have their own contracts, which would complicate matters.

Correct. In any dispute or non-resolution any EBA follows on until new agreements are lodged.

 

[BringBackTorps]

I believe players should receive a wage rise, as AFL revenues have increased significantly with the new media rights deal etc. The AFL IS offering the players a rise, which is not acceptable to the AFLPA.
It is interesting, and very relevant, CA is now not agreeing to the cricketers'% model -CA says it does not want to be "hamstrung" by a model which would prevent it spending more (as a % of revenues) on game development issues.

The AFL should place a more significant cap on football department spending, and use the funds saved to help partially pay for the player wage rises. Capping more strongly football dept. expenditures would also have the benefit of allowing ALL clubs a greater chance of winning the premiership -for the last 40 years, in the VFL/AFL, the bottom quartile of poorer clubs had realistically minimal chance to win the premiership.
This policy would even up the AFL comp., make it more interesting and for longer, get better crowds & ratings - so everyone wins (Except the multitude of overpaid coaches & other support staff we have now -unbelievably, some clubs spend MORE on their football dept. than player wages! Paying a coach over $1 mill. pa is absurd, plenty of "great"coaches went to poor teams -and the poor teams didn't improve!)

The AFL, however, should NEVER agree to any % of revenue. It could greatly restrict the AFL's flexibility to respond quickly (ie more financial flexibility) to an important strategic opening/gain for the game; or, conversely, respond quickly & effectively to a strategic threat.

For football supporters and the AFL, the game/ grassroots must always come first, then the Clubs, then the players.
AFL supporters, generally, understand this -players come & go ie request a transfer/be traded/retire/quit. But the game and the Clubs will always be there, and must be vigilant to protect & enhance their futures. Australia is the most competitive sporting environment in the world, all trying to cannibalise the other. Supporters love their Clubs, and continue to do so, even after players leave/despite players poor behaviour.

Unlike soccer, RU, & cricket, if players in these Australian comps. went on strike, many of the better players could find employment overseas in a foreign league -not so Australian Football players.
The AFL is in, by far, the best negotiating position for this reason. The AFL & Clubs are totally UNITED in their rejection of the % model- not sure how much unity with the players, especially the young ones, players from AFL subsidised Clubs. on strike action. The players would be very foolish to go on strike - the AFL could decide not to re-employ them if the players don't change their % model demands.

The players could then become uber drivers, dig ditches, discover they are no longer the spoilt rockstars, feted upon since their elite junior football days. Welcome to the real word, outside the AFL bubble!
The AFL & Clubs could find players from the VFL, WAFL, SANFL and other leagues -and resume the AFL comp. The standard, obviously, would be lower in the first year, but the supporters would stick with their clubs (ala Essendon 2016, Fitzroy 1996, St Kilda 1897-1901, WW1 & WW11 reduced & lower standard VFL/VFA comps)

The players have NO chance of winning the PR war, and the AFLPA knows this (unless they are myopic narcissists).
The AFL would have a well funded public campaign (assisted by its friends in the media, terrified of a lengthy" non-season") & argue that, if it acceded to the players% model, the players would gain defacto control of the game; & other areas/grassroots/subsidised AFL Clubs/ AFLW etc would be in great jeopardy!
"We wont allow some of our clubs to die"!! Or "We are forced to increase ticket prices to accomodate the wage rises, but we don't want to do this"!!

Intellectually, the AFLPA has a very weak case. It is not suggesting, since the pie is only so big, which parts of the pie need to be cut -to accomodate the % model wage increases.
The NFL and other foreign leagues are not analagous, since they are For Profit & privately owned -with no responsibilities for game development
In other professions being paid $200,000 pa+, if this professional was" in the public eye" (either occasionally or regularly), and was exposed for being drunk, fighting, taking ilicit drugs, consorting with criminals etc, the professional would be sacked.

Morally, the AFLPA also has a weak case for a strike. No reimbursements/monies goes back DIRECTLY to the highly paid players' original junior clubs -where dozens of volunteers have donated many hundreds of hours to the professional players' junior club/ player development.
Also, if a professional is not performing adequately (apart from an AFL player), they can be dismissed, even before their contract expires.

 

[brett15]

Once again the pay talks are in limbo as the AFL and the AFLPA refuse to budge on their demands for the new pay deal.

Once again the media are ramping up the anger against the players for being greedy because "they earn enough to pay off a mortgage in a couple of years" and "they get paid to run around and keep fit" and "they are greedy because they earn way more than the average punter on struggle street".

While all of the above may be true, it deliberately glosses over the fact that those working for the AFL also earn massive amounts of money. Gil earns approximately double what the highest paid AFL player earns ($2.5m to $3m for Gil compared to around the $1.25m to $1.5m that GAJ and Buddy are on).

It also glosses over the fact that those working for the AFL earn more as the AFL makes more, while the players are not able to receive the same sorts of performance bonuses.

So which side of the fence is BF on?

As a part of the discussion, and maybe to keep this different to other threads which may have been started, how do other sports around Australia and around the world go in terms of how much the Executives earn compared to how much the top players in those sports earn?

I dare say US sports as well as European soccer the players are earning far more than the Execs running the comps...

AFL Players should worry about doing community service for charities then how much they get paid

 

[Crankyhawk]

AFLPA guy on SEN seems to have committed players to lower pay under a percentage system if AFL revenue reduces. Also that even if no new agreement struck the existing agreement continues unless one or other party walks away. Doesn't sound like there is a plan to walk away.

 

[Gigantor]

Will the percentage of revenue calc include Hawthorn's pokie riches?

 

[telsor]

Will the percentage of revenue calc include Hawthorn's pokie riches?

Only those taken from outside the leafy green eastern suburbs.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Will the percentage of revenue calc include Hawthorn's pokie riches?

I think the AFLPA rep on SEN indicated that pokies revenue would not be part of their claim.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I think the AFLPA rep on SEN indicated that pokies revenue would not be part of their claim.

Yep

As a concession they have agreed to exckude pokies, bequests from peoples wills, and non footy revenue at etihad

 

[nobbyiscool]

Yep

As a concession they have agreed to exckude pokies, bequests from peoples wills, and non footy revenue at etihad

It's good bargaining from their perspective - the players certainly don't want to be in a position where they're asking/forcing clubs to put more people into more financial difficulty through gambling addiction.

They can and will call it a concession, but it was really the only move they could make.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

It's good bargaining from their perspective - the players certainly don't want to be in a position where they're asking/forcing clubs to put more people into more financial difficulty through gambling addiction.

They can and will call it a concession, but it was really the only move they could make.

Personally i thought having bequests even mentioned was disgusting

 

[nobbyiscool]

Personally i thought having bequests even mentioned was disgusting

I wonder how many people even leave bequests to footy clubs. These are multi million dollar businesses. Surely people have better causes to support after they're gone.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I wonder how many people even leave bequests to footy clubs. These are multi million dollar businesses. Surely people have better causes to support after they're gone.

Thats the diff between vic and wa

Vic clubs have programs to sign up for a bequest, and have had for years. I know rfc often gets requests for ashes for be buried at punt road (same with blues at pp)

Its not just a footy club, its something we have loved our entire life