AFLPA again threaten to strike

[The_Wookie]

Heard that interview & it underlined how badly McLachlan has handled the whole thing following the absence at the meeting with the ALPA - as I said before, Gil was well within his rights not attending but when it became an issue he should have been on the phone to the players concerned even if he gave two fingers to Paul Marsh.

Gil shouldnt be getting on the phone just because the players didnt get who they wanted at their little getaway.

Mitchells voice carries weight with ordinary fans, the guy has performance on his side going back to his knock backs on the way to getting listed. How hard is it for Gil, hell he was on an ego trip outside the womens game.

The womens game was a fairly important deal for the league. Anyone who says otherwise is full of it. Ego trip - you are literally the only person ive seen express this sentiment. And Im not surprised in the slightest.

 

[telsor]

Heard that interview & it underlined how badly McLachlan has handled the whole thing following the absence at the meeting with the ALPA - as I said before, Gil was well within his rights not attending but when it became an issue he should have been on the phone to the players concerned even if he gave two fingers to Paul Marsh.
Mitchells voice carries weight with ordinary fans, the guy has performance on his side going back to his knock backs on the way to getting listed. How hard is it for Gil, hell he was on an ego trip outside the womens game.

I get it. Gil isn't from WA so will never be good enough for you.

But seriously, it's a negotiation. If both sides don't have complaints about the behavior and tactics of the other, then the other side is doing a crappy job. If anything, that the AFLPA is still whining about this minor incident from some time back suggests that, if anything, the AFL may need to go harder.

 

[Rob]

NBA is also not much like the AFL.

Sure, they both run sports, but does the NBA administer the game across the country (even globally), including funding development programs?

They also have private owners that take a share of profits. The AFL and it's clubs have nothing like that. Anything that goes to the players has to be taken away from somewhere else within the game.

If the AFLPA could just point out where then it would help their argument immensely.

 

[Kwality]

Gil shouldnt be getting on the phone just because the players didnt get who they wanted at their little getaway.



The womens game was a fairly important deal for the league. Anyone who says otherwise is full of it. Ego trip - you are literally the only person ive seen express this sentiment. And Im not surprised in the slightest.

Whacko!

The reason Gil should have got on the phone to Dangerfield, to Mitch is to retain the initiative with key players, just as an employer talks directly to employees during any potential industrial action. Its a short call.

 

[The_Wookie]

A BREAKTHROUGH deal is close in footy’s bitter pay stoush.

Talks between AFL chiefs and the AFL Players’ Association have progressed significantly in recent weeks.

Central to the discussions is a “mechanism” that will guarantee AFL players a cut of any unbudgeted industry revenues across the next six seasons.

Both parties would seek to claim victory in the salaries standoff under the compromise agreement.

Players could argue they secured a set percentage of some revenues, while the AFL could claim to have stood its ground in nominating a set amount it is prepared to pay the game’s 817 combatants.

The average AFL wage was $300,000 last year and an anticipated minimum 10 per cent increase would take that to $330,000.

A new pay deal is unlikely to be struck before the start of the pre-season competition next week, but the likelihood of an unprecedented player strike is now considered remote.

Asked about the prospect of a player strike, AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan told the Herald Sun: “I have not thought about it … because I’m focused on getting a fair deal for the players — I’m confident we will.

“What I would say is the players having a mechanism where they share are in the upside of the game is a principle we absolutely agree with.

“It’s the detail of the mechanism we’re talking about and we are working on that at the moment.

“Part of the issue is determining what of the game’s revenue should be available to the players and the consequences, if there was a fixed return to the players, if revenue fell.

“I’m confident we’ll get there because we’re committed to getting a deal done, a fair deal.”

Players across the 18 clubs took home more than $205 million last season — a team salary cap of $10.37 million plus marketing allowances of $1.022m. Clubs are preparing for a rise of 10-20 per cent.

Under the new model being negotiated, set player salaries would increase beyond the new salary cap if industry revenues rise above those forecast by the AFL.

Revenue forecasts by the AFL in past pay deals have proved to be conservative — a major irritant to the AFLPA.

The AFL had refused to meet with the player union for two months late last year but returned to the negotiating table four weeks ago.

Stars including Patrick Dangerfield, Scott Pendlebury and Jack Riewoldt insist that industrial action will be taken by players if a fairer revenue sharing model is not agreed by the league.

McLachlan is yet to enter the negotiations with AFLPA boss Paul Marsh but clubs are now hopeful a resolution will be reached before the Carlton-Richmond season-opener on March 23.


The AFL negotiation team is headed by league executives Ray Gunston and Andrew Dillon.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/af...t/news-story/c48182cd0655bb4d0ffbbbef4120e92e

parts in bold for Kwalitys benefit.

 

[DemonTim]

Whacko!

The reason Gil should have got on the phone to Dangerfield, to Mitch is to retain the initiative with key players, just as an employer talks directly to employees during any potential industrial action. Its a short call.

Considering my employer is going through industrial action currently I can tell you that the CEO has made absolutely zero contact with those taking action

 

[BringBackTorps]

They also have private owners that take a share of profits. The AFL and it's clubs have nothing like that. Anything that goes to the players has to be taken away from somewhere else within the game.

If the AFLPA could just point out where then it would help their argument immensely.

The AFLPA appear not to have the moral courage and intellectual capacity to argue where funding "has to be taken away from somewhere else within the game". Other areas of the game obviously would receive a LOWER percentage of AFL revenues - to accomodate their demands for an increased, set percentage of revenues.

The AFLPA conveniently ignore that the AFL funds the unprofitable GWS & GC -& other unprofitable clubs for many years; junior game development throughout Australia -& provides some funding for overseas leagues & the Inter. Cup here in Aust. every 3 years. The AFL also is not privately owned,Clubs are community "not for profit"organisations -in contrast to many professional codes overseas.
Also, most Clubs are already in significant debt -they will never vote themselves out of existence by paying exhorbitant wages -even if the poor players are really struggling to survive on an average $300,000 pa.

The players' argument basically is "We put on the show, we deserve more, gimme more".
I believe the players have a good argument to put a salary cap AND reduce the moneys spent on non-player wage football dept. spending ie reduce the coaches'etc. wages.

 

[compact72]

http://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/af...t/news-story/c48182cd0655bb4d0ffbbbef4120e92e

parts in bold for Kwalitys benefit.

Good to see Gil stood his ground and didn't get into the negotiations

 

[nobbyiscool]

The AFLPA appear not to have the moral courage and intellectual capacity to argue where funding "has to be taken away from somewhere else within the game". Other areas of the game obviously would receive a LOWER percentage of AFL revenues - to accomodate their demands for an increased, set percentage of revenues.

The AFLPA conveniently ignore that the AFL funds the unprofitable GWS & GC; junior game development throughout Australia -& provides some funding for overseas leagues & the Inter. Cup here in Aust. every 3 years. The AFL also is not privately owned,Clubs are community "not for profit"organisations -in contrast to many professional codes overseas.
Also, most Clubs are already in significant debt -they will never vote themselves out of existence by paying exhorbitant wages -even if the poor players are really struggling to survive on an average $300,000 pa.

The players' argument basically is "We put on the show, we deserve more, gimme more".
I believe the players have a good argument to put a salary cap AND reduce the moneys spent on non-player wage football dept. spending ie reduce the coaches'etc. wages.

This is a completely ridiculous argument.

It's not the AFLPA's job - nor is it the job of any other union - to do the employers job for them and figure out the economics. The AFLPA makes the bargaining claim on behalf of their members, and it's the AFL's job to negotiate that claim and figure out how it's going to be funded. If they can't, that's where we ultimately end up with industrial action.

 

[The_Wookie]

This is a completely ridiculous argument.

It's not the AFLPA's job - nor is it the job of any other union - to do the employers job for them and figure out the economics. The AFLPA makes the bargaining claim on behalf of their members, and it's the AFL's job to negotiate that claim and figure out how it's going to be funded. If they can't, that's where we ultimately end up with industrial action.

It is their job if they want to sway public opinion - which they wont get much of in their favour if they strike now.

 

[nobbyiscool]

It is their job if they want to sway public opinion - which they wont get much of in their favour if they strike now.

I don't think public opinion matters a hell of a lot to this dispute. There aren't any political repercussions, and people are still going to want to see their team - fans aren't about to have their own boycotts because players take industrial action.

 

[The_Wookie]

I don't think public opinion matters a hell of a lot to this dispute. There aren't any political repercussions, and people are still going to want to see their team - fans aren't about to have their own boycotts because players take industrial action.

thats not all that matters here. If the AFL feels it has public support, its not exactly going to change its mind in a hurry.

 

[Rob]

I don't think public opinion matters a hell of a lot to this dispute. There aren't any political repercussions, and people are still going to want to see their team - fans aren't about to have their own boycotts because players take industrial action.

You reckon? I can see there would be a lot of disillusioned fans if there was a players strike. Especially if the players were seen as appropriately paid now.

 

[The_Wookie]

You reckon? I can see there would be a lot of disillusioned fans if there was a players strike. Especially if the players were seen as appropriately paid now.

especially after watching women play for 2 months at a fraction of the cost.

 

[telsor]

This is a completely ridiculous argument.

It's not the AFLPA's job - nor is it the job of any other union - to do the employers job for them and figure out the economics. The AFLPA makes the bargaining claim on behalf of their members, and it's the AFL's job to negotiate that claim and figure out how it's going to be funded. If they can't, that's where we ultimately end up with industrial action.

No, it's not their job, but if they want to be taken seriously, their demands need to be realistic, and when you're looking at a not for profit organisation like the AFL, that pretty much means giving an idea of where they think the money needs to come from.

If you don't think the PR matters, then just consider...It's coming close to a strike, and the AFL says "We can pay their money, but we'd have to defund AUSKICK, so we'll co the strike in order to preserve junior football"...I think a lot of mums and dads would be more than happy to have the players locked out for as long as it takes. Further, if it doesn't matter, why does the AFLPA talk to the media at all? Why whinge about Gil not coming to a meeting if PR doesn't matter?

 

[CakeEater]

Just on all of this, Gil wont be in the room till the deal is done.

He will then be spruiking the productive negotiations that occurred, the positive relationship between the AFL and the AFLPA and how both parties have negotiated with the games best interests at heart etc.

 

[Kwality]

Good to see Gil stood his ground and didn't get into the negotiations

good to see Gil meet with the players, eh what a resolution?

Patrick Dangerfield, Matthew Pavlich and Leigh Montagna met McLachlan on Monday and spoke to the competition's CEO about the challenges and unique demands that faced AFL players.

In a meeting which has dramatically hastened the path to a resolution, the players and head office have virtually set in place a mechanism by which the players will be rewarded should the game's revenues exceed the AFL's forecasts.

The meeting, which took place at the headquarters of the AFL Players Association in Albert Park, marked the first time McLachlan has fronted the players during the protracted negotiations for a new player pay deal. His presence and that of the players' posse signalled a determination by both sides to reach a quick resolution.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...year-of-bitter-wrangling-20170302-gup7b6.html

 

[GreyCrow]

good to see Gil meet with the players, eh what a resolution?


The meeting, which took place at the headquarters of the AFL Players Association in Albert Park, marked the first time McLachlan has fronted the players during the protracted negotiations for a new player pay deal. His presence and that of the players' posse signalled a determination by both sides to reach a quick resolution.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...year-of-bitter-wrangling-20170302-gup7b6.html

Helps when you turn up to offices and not beachbum cafes wearing beachbum clothes

 

[wagstaff]

Unless I missed something this issue has gone quiet for a month or so which is surprising as back in Feb/March the news seemed to suggest an agreement was just around the corner.

How long before the lack of a resolution becomes a major concern?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[wagstaff]

Now Herald Sun reporting AFLPA going to reject the AFL's initial offer. So much for all that media chatter in February that a deal was just about done.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Kwality]

Now Herald Sun reporting AFLPA going to reject the AFL's initial offer. So much for all that media chatter in February that a deal was just about done.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

The Paul Marsh effect?

 

[wagstaff]

Indeed, probably if it had been previous negotiators this would've been the point they caved. Will be interesting to see how far Marsh pushes this.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[telsor]

Now Herald Sun reporting AFLPA going to reject the AFL's initial offer. So much for all that media chatter in February that a deal was just about done.

Initial offers are there to be rejected. Although of course, the one making it will declare it to be fair and that they're confident that it will be accepted.

It's all part of the dance. That the media bought into it shows how naive the AFL media is on such matters.


That said, it really does need some resolution soon...I dare say at least part of the reason there are a number of big name players out of contract at the end of the year is that their negotiations are held up by this....Tough to negotiate for your share of the salary cap when nobody is sure what the total figure will be. (although I'd love a player/manager to negotiate for '10% of the TPP' rather than a $ sum).

 

[LeverPuller]

Radical plan orchestrated by Melbourne President Glen Bartlett to cut the AFLPA out of the negotiations and go directly to the players with their offer if the AFLPA continues to stall.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-president-glen-bartlett-20170419-gvo4y9.html

 

[nobbyiscool]

Radical plan orchestrated by Melbourne President Glen Bartlett to cut the AFLPA out of the negotiations and go directly to the players with their offer if the AFLPA continues to stall.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-president-glen-bartlett-20170419-gvo4y9.html

So to read the article, it doesn't sound like they're trying to cut the AFLPA out of negotiations - it sounds like Bartlett wants them to stop negotiating then set an arbitrary "deadline" on which they'll put out an EA for a vote without in-principle agreement... which is a complete waste of time because the members of the AFLPA (ie. the players) will vote it down anyway.

Any of us who work somewhere with an EBA understand that - regardless of whether parts of the AFL's make-up sit outside the Fair Work Act - we all have the right to appoint a bargaining representative. If your workplace is about to have EBA negotiations you can literally attend those meetings representing only yourself.

I''ve heard all this before. But when you have a union that has been itching to go more militant for over a decade now, and you have an employer who thinks they can just tell the bargaining rep to piss off and try and ram an EBA through... in my experience the employers don't win too many of those arguments. For the simple reason that, as much as AFL players are clearly on good money, and despite the fact there's only one primary league for Australian football - almost invariably, at the end of the day, any single employer needs its employees more than the employees need their employer.