AFLPA again threaten to strike

[nobbyiscool]

If you think they should get NFL and elp wages, what about the other conditions?

Ability for clubs to trade contracted players without player approval

Ability for clubs to have play for pay contracts (ie no coin if injured or not selected)

Morality clauses in player contracts

No restrictions on club mandated media, sponsor, or fan commitments

Where did I say that AFL players should get the same wages as NFL and EPL players? In an Australian context that is beyond ridiculous.

But when Cam Newton, or even Eli ******* Manning makes as much in a year as the total salary cap of two AFL teams, I don't think everyone engaged in global sport is going to agree that AFL players are overpaid and greedy.

If the AFL wants to propose any of things you suggest they're welcome to do it - that's how a bargaining negotiation works.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Where did I say that AFL players should get the same wages as NFL and EPL players? In an Australian context that is beyond ridiculous.

But when Cam Newton, or even Eli ******* Manning makes as much in a year as the total salary cap of two AFL teams, I don't think everyone engaged in global sport is going to agree that AFL players are overpaid and greedy.

If the AFL wants to propose any of things you suggest they're welcome to do it - that's how a bargaining negotiation works.

My point is the afl players get a lot of concessions and protections for their lower wage

They have quotas on how much promo work they do for the clubs

They get guaranteed minimum contract levels, even if they play zero games that year

They cannot be the traded without their approval

They want big coin, some of this needs to be killed

Also clubs will die. Private ownership sustains the higher wages of other comps. Pay above our means and north, Saints, dees, and dogs will be either cellar dwellers or broke. Wages may be capped, but they will get destroyed by the off field infrastructure costs.

Pegging wages to revenue and ignoring expenses will have massive consequences to club viability as the costs of medical and coaching rise faster than revenues

 

[Rob]

My point is the afl players get a lot of concessions and protections for their lower wage

They have quotas on how much promo work they do for the clubs

They get guaranteed minimum contract levels, even if they play zero games that year

They cannot be the traded without their approval

They want big coin, some of this needs to be killed

Also clubs will die. Private ownership sustains the higher wages of other comps. Pay above our means and north, Saints, dees, and dogs will be either cellar dwellers or broke. Wages may be capped, but they will get destroyed by the off field infrastructure costs.

The lack of private ownership in our game is the single biggest difference when the AFL gets compared to the pay models in Europe and the US. Other than in WA, there are no shareholders of clubs here. There aren't millions in profits flowing out to some billionaire that will provide the source of the money they seek.

That's why the AFLPA will almost certainly lose the public relations battle if it gets nasty. They're going to get asked where the money they want is going to come from, and they won't be able to answer it.

 

[telsor]

I think you're being a little harsh on the public. Of course there are those who will call the players greedy and blame them. But I think, among everything else, sport has become more globalised - people know a lot more about what EPL players earn, what NFL players earn, and what basketballers in the US and even in a lot of Europe are worth.

In that context AFL footballers are grossly underpaid. And if the AFLPA can remind people of that, as well as get people to understand their argument and the relatively low proportion of the AFLs money they receive as part of their own campaign, I think the AFL is likely to come under a lot more pressure from the public than they currently are.

No, they're really not.

EPL/NFL have massively larger markets, both domestically and globally.

Adjust the AFL wages to the size of those markets (US would be 20-30 times the AFL part of Aus, and have much larger overseas incomes) and it's probably fairly close, if not in favor of the AFL players.

 

[The_Wookie]

http://www.watoday.com.au/afl/afl-n...ul-aflpa-boss-paul-marsh-20170419-gvo9w2.html

my favorite part of this is where the players claim the 1% rises are less than CPI...but somehow the fact that 20% in the first year is well and truly beyond CPI isnt getting a mention. Nor is the fact that over the life of the deal CPI will be well and truly cleared.

 

[telsor]

http://www.watoday.com.au/afl/afl-n...ul-aflpa-boss-paul-marsh-20170419-gvo9w2.html

my favorite part of this is where the players claim the 1% rises are less than CPI...but somehow the fact that 20% in the first year is well and truly beyond CPI isnt getting a mention. Nor is the fact that over the life of the deal CPI will be well and truly cleared.

Which really does sum a lot of it up.

When revenue spikes (e.g. New TV deal), they want salaries to spike. When revenue is flat, they still want salaries to rise solidly.

 

[doppleganger]

No, they're really not.

EPL/NFL have massively larger markets, both domestically and globally.

Adjust the AFL wages to the size of those markets (US would be 20-30 times the AFL part of Aus, and have much larger overseas incomes) and it's probably fairly close, if not in favor of the AFL players.

And the NFL doesnt pump truckloads of money into 'grass roots' junior football.

The revenue is increasing as a result of the expanding league, but the AFL expenses are also increasing as they are under-writing the expansion of the game in NSW and QLD, which is designed to future proof the sport and ensure growth in untapped markets.

Do the AFL players want to argue that they should have that money come to them instead of being spent on expanding the game!?

 

[telsor]

And the NFL doesnt pump truckloads of money into 'grass roots' junior football.

The revenue is increasing as a result of the expanding league, but the AFL expenses are also increasing as they are under-writing the expansion of the game in NSW and QLD, which is designed to future proof the sport and ensure growth in untapped markets.

Do the AFL players want to argue that they should have that money come to them instead of being spent on expanding the game!?

Yup.

Look at soccer here. As I understand it, one of the big things holding back the growth of the game is the cost. The A-League/FFA put very little into the grass roots, so to get decent coaching, etc, the parents have to fork out significant $$$. That's not to say kids playing AFL get everything for free, but the difference is apparently quite substantial.

 

[telsor]

There is a thread on the main board about the feds potentially banning gambling ads during live sports broadcasts.

Given the potential influence that would have on media rights, I imagine the AFLPA might be better served avoiding tying their incomes to that too closely.

 

[GTOA]

This is what most people don't get, and as many of you are workers, I thought that you would.

The money isn't the issue, I believe. Of course, they make a lot of money now, and if they saved some of it, it would set them up for many decades.

This is more than that. This is a test of the players' "worth" in the AFL.

Now, most of you work. When you get a pay rise, is it more that you have more money to spend on things, or the fact that your work "value" you enough to agree to pay you more, as if it is your boss saying "you are SO valuable to this company, and we appreciate what you do here, that I am willing to pay you more money which could have gone elsewhere, because you deserve it instead"? Is it a sign of appreciation, respect and how they would be lost without you there, or the boss just deciding to throw money around just because, or because you bitch and moan and threaten to go strike until you get it?

The AFL offer to the players is insulting. Gil doesn't even show up to meetings, which is very disrespectful to the players. The AFL have the dough (by the 2.8 billion dollar TV rights they are always bragging about), why not cut a big slice for the players, who played a pivotal role on giving something for viewers to watch on Seven and Foxtel, rather than a footy telecast where all we see is cut grass, and no one running around on it.

Many of you look at the dollars offered to players, compare it to your own measly pay packet, and think it is unfair. But the players might just look at this as a gauge of where they are on the AFL's priority list, and how much Gil and co appreciate the players' role in making them millions of dollars a year. I was taught that it is always good to share, so why not sling a couple of mill the players' way, like a successful employer should use increases in profits to pay his employees well.

It's the principle of the thing. It has gone beyond bucks. It is about where the AFL players sit in the scheme of things. Given how the media and the fans have reacted, it shows too how little AFL players mean to you. Many of you probably see them as performing seals, who are there to entertain you. "They are lucky to even get my money" you say, as if you are paying at the gate out of the goodness of your heart, rather than to gain out of the deal (via being entertained).

It is a transaction like any other. You gain by being entertained by football, and being emotional invested in it, and the players gain by you paying at the gate, or by memberships. You need each other. Pretending like you get nothing out of the deal, and the players should fall to their knees and bow to you is ludicrious, when you are not being exactly ultruistic about the whole thing. You need them as much as they need you, otherwise, why waste your hard-earned on something you don't enjoy and don't value?

If I was an AFL player, seeing the response from all and sundry, it would make me wonder why I bother, when my efforts aren't appreciated. Why play for people who think that you are greedy scum, undeserving of even the money you make now, let alone any more? Maybe if the players went on strike, we would truly see how the AFL, the media and the public use the players to their own ends, and how little they seem to care about them as footballers or people.

Why shouldn't someone who entertains you and puts a smile on your face, making you forget the crap in your life for a couple of hours, be paid in appreciation for that? That is why I am against movie and video piracy, as the people who provide me with the entertainment deserve my money, not some scumbag who didn't put in the work. At a restuarant, you tip a waiter or waitress who you are pleased with. Why are many here so intent to take, and not give a bit back? Don't fool yourselves. The extra money the AFL deny the players won't mean more for grassroots footy or AFLW. It will go towards Gil buying a new car, or some AFL commissioner extending their home.

 

[GTOA]

And the NFL doesnt pump truckloads of money into 'grass roots' junior football.

The revenue is increasing as a result of the expanding league, but the AFL expenses are also increasing as they are under-writing the expansion of the game in NSW and QLD, which is designed to future proof the sport and ensure growth in untapped markets.

Do the AFL players want to argue that they should have that money come to them instead of being spent on expanding the game!?

I don't think the AFL should have had teams in Gold Coast or Greater Western Sydney.

If they are losing money to prop up Gold Coast and GWS, that is the league's own fault. They should have done market research, to see if people in those areas were actually crying out for an AFL side ( I don't think they would have cared). But no, they fast-tracked teams there, to one-up the NRL and A-League.

If the AFL put a team in Tassie, who actually WANT a side, they would make more money for the game.

Why should the players pay for the incompetence of the AFL in bringing in two teams unwanted by their areas, that the AFL bastardise the draft, give them unfair advantages over other teams, who have worked to get where they are, and throw good money after bad, all to fund what was an Andrew Demetriou vanity project?

Also, the AFL used those two new teams to get bigger TV rights. So then, why not use that increase in TV rights to pay a percentage to those putting on the show- the players?

Saying that the money should go to grassroots for future generations, rather than current players, is like arguing that your employer should pay schools and colleges who teach the next generations of their profession, rather than those who already work there. Without current players today, there are no "players of tomorrow", as why would kids take up football if being an AFL player isn't valued.

 

[GTOA]

Why is not okay when AFL players, who you CHOOSE to pay, go on strike, and you all hate on them.

Yet nurses, police and paramedics, who I have to pay, whether I use them or not (through my taxes), go on strike, put lives in jeapordy (so they are putting their own pay packets ahead of other people's lives) , and yet you people support them having their greedy hands out for more, when they should be doing that job mainly because they have a compassion for people.

Why do you hold AFL players, who are playing for profit, don't have an affect on life or death, and that you choose to pay, to a higher standard, than those who society entrusts to look after us, who shouldn't be doing the job for profit, and who you have to pay regardless, even if you never use them (like I have never had to)? That seems backwards to me.

 

[wagstaff]

I reckon the hostility towards AFL players striking would be greater than for teachers, nurses and the like.

The reason the public reaction seems fairly muted at this stage is that no one really believes it will get to that.

But if it does... could you imagine how Tigers fans would feel for example if the season was derailed when the club has their best start in over 20 years? AFL & players will get it but I think largely the latter.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[GTOA]

I reckon the hostility towards AFL players striking would be greater than for teachers, nurses and the like.

The reason the public reaction seems fairly muted at this stage is that no one really believes it will get to that.

But if it does... could you imagine how Tigers fans would feel for example if the season was derailed when the club has their best start in over 20 years? AFL & players will get it but I think largely the latter.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

I don't think it would happen in-season.

More likely they would boycott season 2018.

I thought a more effective way is for the AFLPA to tell the AFL that they have until the finals to reach an agreement. Then, the players will do things to hurt the AFL as in not do interviews during finals (when it is the media's busiest time of year), won't promote finals games, only play in them, and then boycott the Brownlow and all Grand Final celebrations leading up to the Grand Final (such as no-showing GF Carbine Club lunch, the Brownlow Medallist won't do a presser, no Grand Final parade).

Believe me, once the media and Channel 7 in particular put up with this, and the AFL is embarassed, they will try to reach an amicable agreement ASAP without strike action being needed, and the public are hardly affected (as finals are still being played).

 

[telsor]

I reckon the hostility towards AFL players striking would be greater than for teachers, nurses and the like.

The reason the public reaction seems fairly muted at this stage is that no one really believes it will get to that.

But if it does... could you imagine how Tigers fans would feel for example if the season was derailed when the club has their best start in over 20 years? AFL & players will get it but I think largely the latter.

Stuff that, strike now, so we can revel in being undefeated for the duration before the reality hits 4 weeks should do it (so we miss away games against Adelaide, WB & GWS) then we can resume in round 10

 

[telsor]

I don't think it would happen in-season.

More likely they would boycott season 2018.

I thought a more effective way is for the AFLPA to tell the AFL that they have until the finals to reach an agreement. Then, the players will do things to hurt the AFL as in not do interviews during finals (when it is the media's busiest time of year), won't promote finals games, only play in them, and then boycott the Brownlow and all Grand Final celebrations leading up to the Grand Final (such as no-showing GF Carbine Club lunch, the Brownlow Medallist won't do a presser, no Grand Final parade).

Believe me, once the media and Channel 7 in particular put up with this, and the AFL is embarassed, they will try to reach an amicable agreement ASAP without strike action being needed, and the public are hardly affected (as finals are still being played).

Not sure that would qualify as an 'amicable agreement'.

As for the tactic...the AFLs counter would probably be along the lines of "you're contracted to do this stuff, do it or we'll sue you for breach of contract, and the amount we'll sue you for will include damages".

 

[wagstaff]

The Age are reporting that significant breakthroughs have been made in the pay dispute with concessions made by both sides and an agreement very near.

Sounds feasible... only caveat being The Age did pretty much the same story at the start of March with the same authors (Wilson & McClure).

It's probably true although any report associated with Sam McClure one should be wary of.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Our Game]

The players deserve to be paid well but not some of the over the top payments like Buddy and Tom Boyd does any one think that over 1 million a year
( over $20,000 per week every week of the year) for players is good for the game esp the Swans buddy deal for the next 5 years which most footy pundits are now claming is hurting the Swans There are not many people earning that sort of money outside of sport who can work for 10 - 12 years and set themselves for life.

To me its more important for the future of our great game that the grassroots level which relies on tens of thousands of unpaid volunteers and the northern markets to be looked after before we let greedy players and esp their bloodsucking managers who now make millions from the game suck up all the cash gained from the latest TV deal which BTW could be the last big one considering that FTA TV is losing viewers and advertising income at a rapid rate.

If the players dont want to except a fair deal good for both parties what are their options? dont play and get no money or go and play another sport = not going to happen.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The players deserve to be paid well but not some of the over the top payments like Buddy and Tom Boyd does any one think that over 1 million a year
( over $20,000 per week every week of the year)

That doesn't make any sense to me. As long as you ensure that there's a minimum contract in place for all players with match payments, it's unfair on the clubs to have limitations on how they can distribute the remaining salary cap space. Say if 45 player list spots all have a minimum contract of $100,000 against next year's salary cap of $12.5 million that leaves $8 million for paying players above the minimum contract. It's unfair on clubs to prevent them from freely paying their players and their ability to recruit players from other teams if they're not able to distribute that $8 million among 45 without restrictions.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

AFL are in the awkward position where they aren't just managing the elite LEAGUE (AFL), but also the entire grass-roots of the SPORT as well.

Is 25% of gross revenues to the AFL players unrealistic? What about 20%? 30%?

Without all the details it's impossible to tell, and the AFL are hardly going to "open the books" for review - so we are all working on estimates and guesswork.

From my perspective, I would rather see significant investment into second tier football (VFL/SANFL/etc) to re-establish it as a viable career path (rather than one-off celebrity country gigs which still goes to the former AFL star, rather than the journeyman), and trickle down to local level clubs.

The AFL is comparing with other sports - how much are the top Rugby League, Union, Cricket, Aussie Soccer players making? Are we losing kids to those sports due to salary?

I do wonder how much "Management" of the AFL is simply creating additional workloads, and how much could be streamlined from Head Office down.

Perhaps a better option would be to redefine playing lists to create a longer career path, develop the AFL league into a true "Premier" competition (rather than 18yo's running around for some clubs).

For example, "Active" lists of 30, "Reserve" rosters of ~50. Thus a far greater # of people employed as players = longer careers, greater job security; less mature players retiring at 25 to get "real jobs". "Reserve" players earn enough to be committed full-time (100k), with Active players getting individualised contracts.

The Players get more as a total share of the pie - but the pie is cut into more slices so each player overall receives smaller increase. What is better for the SPORT, Franklin getting another 100k a season, or a 23yo "List Clogger" making a career out of the game?

Melbourne have another 2-3 mature rucks on their list, who can be brought up for a few weeks injury cover, then go back to reserves/VFL footy once their stars return.

 

[Kwality]

Interesting to see the Sports Minister shaking the tree over at cricket, threatening to intervene in the pay dispute over the Ashes:
Federal Sports Minister Greg Hunt says he will intervene to make sure Australia fields its strongest possible Ashes team, amid lock out and boycott threats that have cast a shadow over the series.

Cricket Australia and the players’ union have until June 30 to reach agreement before the current deal lapses.

Mr Hunt said the Federal Government was prepared to step in if the dispute threatened the Ashes, by far the biggest event on Australia’s cricketing calendar. “If it got to a last-minute situation, I suspect we would offer ... brokering between the parties,” he said.

https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/ill-fix-cricket-pay-row-hunt-ng-b88489503z

No doubt both the AFL & the PA will be knocking on the Ministers door .....

 

[GreyCrow]

Made a comment on our board about a quote that came with a CBA announcement , might have been the Dusty rumour. The basics are ''Essendon/North/Adelaide can afford to pay Dustin his $1million+ a year contract because of the changes to the CBA'

My comment was that this is why the public haven't been totally behind the AFL players. Its seen as only benefitting the top tier and not the Rookies /2nd year players. Now this may well be because of poor media messaging but that's the fault of the AFLPA not the AFL

 

[Rob]

Made a comment on our board about a quote that came with a CBA announcement , might have been the Dusty rumour. The basics are ''Essendon/North/Adelaide can afford to pay Dustin his $1million+ a year contract because of the changes to the CBA'

My comment was that this is why the public haven't been totally behind the AFL players. Its seen as only benefitting the top tier and not the Rookies /2nd year players. Now this may well be because of poor media messaging but that's the fault of the AFLPA not the AFL

Hard to say, but i'd expect that if the salary cap rises so will the minimum salary points.

 

[jatz14]

AFL are in the awkward position where they aren't just managing the elite LEAGUE (AFL), but also the entire grass-roots of the SPORT as well.

Is 25% of gross revenues to the AFL players unrealistic? What about 20%? 30%?

Without all the details it's impossible to tell, and the AFL are hardly going to "open the books" for review - so we are all working on estimates and guesswork.

From my perspective, I would rather see significant investment into second tier football (VFL/SANFL/etc) to re-establish it as a viable career path (rather than one-off celebrity country gigs which still goes to the former AFL star, rather than the journeyman), and trickle down to local level clubs.

The AFL is comparing with other sports - how much are the top Rugby League, Union, Cricket, Aussie Soccer players making? Are we losing kids to those sports due to salary?

I do wonder how much "Management" of the AFL is simply creating additional workloads, and how much could be streamlined from Head Office down.

Perhaps a better option would be to redefine playing lists to create a longer career path, develop the AFL league into a true "Premier" competition (rather than 18yo's running around for some clubs).

For example, "Active" lists of 30, "Reserve" rosters of ~50. Thus a far greater # of people employed as players = longer careers, greater job security; less mature players retiring at 25 to get "real jobs". "Reserve" players earn enough to be committed full-time (100k), with Active players getting individualised contracts.

The Players get more as a total share of the pie - but the pie is cut into more slices so each player overall receives smaller increase. What is better for the SPORT, Franklin getting another 100k a season, or a 23yo "List Clogger" making a career out of the game?

Melbourne have another 2-3 mature rucks on their list, who can be brought up for a few weeks injury cover, then go back to reserves/VFL footy once their stars return.

I can understand the AFLs issue with a fixed percentage of gross revenue going to players. As has been raised in the Cricket dispute, while the argument that a percentage of money the players generate should go to the players gets a sympathetic hearing, getting a cut of gross revenue means they get a cut of what everybody earns for the AFL, whether it came from the players or not.

Investments and activities the AFL gets involved in that generate a return would then go into the pool of player payments.

It also makes no allowance for variable costs.

I have a variable rate mortgage, just so my repayments can suite my circumstances at the time, I can pay more or less,, depending on events. The AFL would want the same freedom.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I can understand the AFLs issue with a fixed percentage of gross revenue going to players. As has been raised in the Cricket dispute, while the argument that a percentage of money the players generate should go to the players gets a sympathetic hearing, getting a cut of gross revenue means they get a cut of what everybody earns for the AFL, whether it came from the players or not.

Investments and activities the AFL gets involved in that generate a return would then go into the pool of player payments.

It also makes no allowance for variable costs.

I have a variable rate mortgage, just so my repayments can suite my circumstances at the time, I can pay more or less,, depending on events. The AFL would want the same freedom.

One of the player's arguments is that what's estimated/projected is inevitably conveniently lower than the actual revenue generated, shorting the players out of some money, because the AFL are the party that both creates the projections and the ones trying to minimise the money paid to the players. Fair enough I suppose though. A fixed model solves that issue.