AFLPA again threaten to strike

[nobbyiscool]

I'd be very interested to see what your training was, to spend 12 years training a skill and still be well below average at it would suggest that most sporting skill (and hand eye coordination) is genetic. From most studies i've seen it requires damage to the brain, or biological neuro-deformities to cause such an issue.

The kids I know who have made it at top level have spent most nights of their childhood practicing, even when alone, kicking a footy into a wall, handballing into a sheet on a clothesline, running around an oval, kicking a high ball and chasing it down. If you were putting in that much work, and were still "s**t" i'd suggest there's a deeper issue in you, but if that's the case it has no bearing on the 99% I referenced.

Of course most of your skill is genetic. If I wanted to be a singer, no amount of professional lessons is going to change the fact that I can't sing. Same with dancing. To take it to an extreme, your argument suggests that anyone could be a brain surgeon with the right education, which is patently ridiculous. Unless you want to suggest that natural physical ability is more malleable than natural intellectual ability? I think you'd have a hard time making that argument though.

Sporting ability is probably akin to other nature/nurture arguments where most of the good professionals (sociologists, psychologists, scientists etc) agree that nature ie. genetics is the main element of your ability or talent, and nurture ie. your environment impacts that roughly +/- 10%

So if I have crap genetics for sport, and my "natural" ability when it comes to footy is about 30 out of 100, my environment/training etc can take it as low as about 27/100 or about as high as 33/100. It certainly won't take me to the 98/100 that I need to be an AFL footballer.

It stands to reason that the more natural ability you have, you'll get a slightly bigger impact from environment. 10% of 90 is bigger than 10% of 30. To explain that to it's natural end, an AFL footballers genetics probably give him a "score" of 90/100 - his environment, his training, his upbringing, his coaching et al could allow him to get an "ability score" as high as 99/100 (or if he's lazy, as low as 81/100 - which are the guys we see who are super talented juniors, but never make it in the AFL.)

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

Wrong.

TV rights and sponsorship deals have exploded across the world for elite mens sport. The administrators are no more responsible than the players are - they were just in the right place at the right time.

because of the ever increasing money supply in the world, nominal revenues are always rising in a macroeconomic sense. But to dismiss senior management's role in the AFL's off field success is ignorant. yes they were certainly present at an opportunistic time, but making tons of money doesn't just happen. everything from the expansion of league, to the fixture of matches, gambling sponsorship etc etc the very things the people on this forum consistently complain about because apparently the AFL has money as it's top agenda. can't have it both ways, can't complain that the AFL only wants to make money and then say that they didn't earn it when those policies finally bear fruit.

 

[DemonTim]

Of course most of your skill is genetic. If I wanted to be a singer, no amount of professional lessons is going to change the fact that I can't sing. Same with dancing. To take it to an extreme, your argument suggests that anyone could be a brain surgeon with the right education, which is patently ridiculous. Unless you want to suggest that natural physical ability is more malleable than natural intellectual ability? I think you'd have a hard time making that argument though.

Sporting ability is probably akin to other nature/nurture arguments where most of the good professionals (sociologists, psychologists, scientists etc) agree that nature ie. genetics is the main element of your ability or talent, and nurture ie. your environment impacts that roughly +/- 10%

So if I have crap genetics for sport, and my "natural" ability when it comes to footy is about 30 out of 100, my environment/training etc can take it as low as about 27/100 or about as high as 33/100. It certainly won't take me to the 98/100 that I need to be an AFL footballer.

It stands to reason that the more natural ability you have, you'll get a slightly bigger impact from environment. 10% of 90 is bigger than 10% of 30. To explain that to it's natural end, an AFL footballers genetics probably give him a "score" of 90/100 - his environment, his training, his upbringing, his coaching et al could allow him to get an "ability score" as high as 99/100 (or if he's lazy, as low as 81/100 - which are the guys we see who are super talented juniors, but never make it in the AFL.)

There has only been suggestions of genetic markers that MAY have an impact on sporting ability (however these relate more to endurance and power, than hand eye coordination). There's some good studies on motivation in relation to sport, and genetics, but that's not really relevant here. Genetics play more of a role in VO2 max scores, and muscle fibre make up, and from the studies i've seen generally people aren't genetically superior in both physical attributes.

AFL football requires a number of different performance indicators, something that genetics may make EASIER, but certainly does not determine the potential to be elite, it is not the key indicator. There are plenty of players who may seem more "naturally" talented, yet are surpassed by others. To blame genetics for not making it is a pretty major cop out. I may be remembering incorrectly but wasn't Jordan renowned for being a hard worker who wasn't naturally gifted?

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

So if we remove the 800 players we would have a comp still worth a few billion a year?

AFL is a complex institution. take away any critical part and it ceases to function well. lets see that billion dollar a year industry thrive without a tv deal. lance franklin and gary ablett won't be worth the fabric of their jersey of no one can watch them play.

 

[HairyO]

AFL is a complex institution. take away any critical part and it ceases to function well. lets see that billion dollar a year industry thrive without a tv deal. lance franklin and gary ablett won't be worth the fabric of their jersey of no one can watch them play.

I would say taking away the top 10 management people would have far less impact than taking away the top 10 players. And there would only really be 10 people that count in AFL management (with the other 4,990 working for the AFL essentially shuffling paper).

People have always watched football. And unless the AFL really screw things up, people always will. The idea that the AFL had anything to do with the TV rights is silly. The numbers exploded when not only were the FTA networks keen on football, but Pay TV who were desperate for marquee programming.

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

I would say taking away the top 10 management people would have far less impact than taking away the top 10 players. And there would only really be 10 people that count in AFL management (with the other 4,990 working for the AFL essentially shuffling paper).

People have always watched football. And unless the AFL really screw things up, people always will. The idea that the AFL had anything to do with the TV rights is silly. The numbers exploded when not only were the FTA networks keen on football, but Pay TV who were desperate for marquee programming.

but the number of people watching determines how valuable the tv rights are and the AFL has done an excellent job at marketing and reaching as many viewers as possible, certainly a lot better than it's brother up north.

the 10 best players of the AFL are paid very well and it increases every year. i don't think we're talking about those guys here.

 

[Freomaniac]

I am willing to agree for the players pay rise provided is given to rookie listed players.

Draftees are given a 2 year deal at $150,000 a year while rookie listed guys get $65,000 a year.

Don't mind getting $300,000. If you don't cut it the cash can be used wisely such as doing a trade, head to uni or get licenses for jobs you want to do.

 

[HairyO]

So the latest talk is the players will strike. of course they have said this before and backed away so time will tell.

The AFL are still refusing to open the books to scrutiny so we seem to have gone exactly nowhere in yhe 6 months of discussions.

 

[Garlic muncher]

I am willing to agree for the players pay rise provided is given to rookie listed players.

Draftees are given a 2 year deal at $150,000 a year while rookie listed guys get $65,000 a year.

Don't mind getting $300,000. If you don't cut it the cash can be used wisely such as doing a trade, head to uni or get licenses for jobs you want to do.

I think we all know that will not be the case in all likelihood unfortunately.

 

[telsor]

I think we all know that will not be the case in all likelihood unfortunately.

Players do get a lot of assistance in various areas, including financial advice, and would be well aware of the potentially short 'career' as a footballer, so it's not unreasonable to expect that they'd save/invest a fair proportion. If they don't then it's on their heads.

 

[SBYM]

Completely agree with the players' right to strike if they feel that's best, but fmd Patrick Dangerfield is rubbing me up the wrong way...

 

[Aussie in exile]

So the latest talk is the players will strike. of course they have said this before and backed away so time will tell.

The AFL are still refusing to open the books to scrutiny so we seem to have gone exactly nowhere in yhe 6 months of discussions.

The AFL won't open the books to scruting as that in turn will open a can of worms and the AFL won't want that.

 

[NoobPie]

The AFL won't open the books to scruting as that in turn will open a can of worms and the AFL won't want that.

What are you talking about? Is this somehow related to the CBA or are you worried that if you actually elaborate you'd just be rolling out tin foil?

 

[HairyO]

What are you talking about? Is this somehow related to the CBA or are you worried that if you actually elaborate you'd just be rolling out tin foil?

The AFL have consistently refused to open their books to everyone. So no-one knows where all the money goes. Its something the clubs really should push to see, but given how many are financially dependent on handouts, they are too gutless to risk the AFL getting angry.

They have thousands of employees. Do you reckon you'd know what even 5% do?

 

[Garlic muncher]

The AFL have consistently refused to open their books to everyone. So no-one knows where all the money goes. Its something the clubs really should push to see, but given how many are financially dependent on handouts, they are too gutless to risk the AFL getting angry.

They have thousands of employees. Do you reckon you'd know what even 5% do?

Where do you think the money all goes ?, siphoned through crown bet and then back to the cartels in Columbia ?

 

[DemonTim]

Where do you think the money all goes ?, siphoned through crown bet and then back to the cartels in Columbia ?

Well where is it going? Judging by how much clubs struggle at lower levels to stay afloat, it's not going there
I'm unsure how anyone could argue against wanting to know where the afl spends the money that comes in

 

[Garlic muncher]

Well where is it going? Judging by how much clubs struggle at lower levels to stay afloat, it's not going there
I'm unsure how anyone could argue against wanting to know where the afl spends the money that comes in

You do understand that in general clubs need to be protected from themselves, that is why the commission was implemented in the first place because the clubs are all about self importance and looking after themselves rather than the game.

Give a club a zillion $ they will just spend it, treat them mean and keep them lean.

The AFL have self appointed and anointed themselves as keepers, custodians of the game, money for players wages is but one thing they are tasked with doing

The players will look incredibly stupid going on strike let alone threatening it.

You think there is enough snouts in the trough now ?, lets just let the players get in and cave to there demands.

The AFL also put out financials, have a look at then put up a decent post with any claims of misappropriating/wasting/hiding funds.

 

[HairyO]

Where do you think the money all goes ?, siphoned through crown bet and then back to the cartels in Columbia ?

I dont know, but my suspicion is that at least half of it gets wasted on things which have exactly to do with running a football competition.

That is why they wont open the books. If the clubs knew the truth the AFL commission and executive would be booted out.

Do you think the AFL needs thousands of employees to run the competition?

Where do you think all the money goes?

 

[DemonTim]

You do understand that in general clubs need to be protected from themselves, that is why the commission was implemented in the first place because the clubs are all about self importance and looking after themselves rather than the game.

Give a club a zillion $ they will just spend it, treat them mean and keep them lean.

The AFL have self appointed and anointed themselves as keepers, custodians of the game, money for players wages is but one thing they are tasked with doing

The players will look incredibly stupid going on strike let alone threatening it.

You think there is enough snouts in the trough now ?, lets just let the players get in and cave to there demands.

The AFL also put out financials, have a look at then put up a decent post with any claims of misappropriating/wasting/hiding funds.

The first part has no relevance to my post. Where did I say the clubs need to be given large amounts of money extra to what they currently recieve?

The players look stupid for asking for an increase in revenue % when the afl has drastically increased the revenue % it receives? Really? Do you also post every year about executives recieving more money? (Let's ignore the fact that this thread shows a split of opinion in if they look stupid or not. We can just ignore you presenting opinion as fact)

The financial report that is released is 4 pages and doesn't actually list much. It very broad groups, and the key indicators.

Since apparently you find the report useful, maybe you could advise how much is going to executives, how much is being spent on Auskick, state level, local level?

 

[DemonTim]

It's funny watching a poster who complains about the afl not looking after tassie, arguing that the afl is doing what's best for the game and that what they release financially is 100% authentic
So can we use this same logic with tassie? The AFL are doing the right thing in not setting up a team and we should trust them on that.

 

[Garlic muncher]

The first part has no relevance to my post. Where did I say the clubs need to be given large amounts of money extra to what they currently recieve?

The players look stupid for asking for an increase in revenue % when the afl has drastically increased the revenue % it receives? Really? Do you also post every year about executives recieving more money? (Let's ignore the fact that this thread shows a split of opinion in if they look stupid or not. We can just ignore you presenting opinion as fact)

The financial report that is released is 4 pages and doesn't actually list much. It very broad groups, and the key indicators.

Since apparently you find the report useful, maybe you could advise how much is going to executives, how much is being spent on Auskick, state level, local level?

You are the one whinging about not knowing where the money goes, but you actually haven't referenced anything in particular.

Maybe you cant find anything, is it just a vibe you have ?.

 

[DemonTim]

You are the one whinging about not knowing where the money goes, but you actually haven't referenced anything in particular.

Maybe you cant find anything, is it just a vibe you have ?.

I just referenced last years financial report. It doesn't list WHERE the money goes. The financial report is 4 pages in total (in future if you can't read a post, maybe don't respond)

Just for reference, how does one reference a negative. You want a reference for information I'm saying doesn't exist. May be the stupidest request on here

 

[Garlic muncher]

I dont know, but my suspicion is that at least half of it gets wasted on things which have exactly to do with running a football competition.

That is why they wont open the books. If the clubs knew the truth the AFL commission and executive would be booted out.

Do you think the AFL needs thousands of employees to run the competition?

Where do you think all the money goes?

I have a suspicion that if they went through with a broom they could tighten things up significantly, but that would no doubt be the same for any big organization and i am pretty sure there are some snouts in the trough that shouldn't be there.

My other suspicion is that they spend the absolute bulk of their income supporting and growing the game of football and the bulk of there employees do the right thing.

 

[HairyO]

I have a suspicion that if they went through with a broom they could tighten things up significantly, but that would no doubt be the same for any big organization and i am pretty sure there are some snouts in the trough that shouldn't be there.

My other suspicion is that they spend the absolute bulk of their income supporting and growing the game of football and the bulk of there employees do the right thing.

I have far more faith in the first part of your post, and little for the 2nd. Their primary goal is to grow themselves. That is how they hit their KPIs.

Given the clubs are mostly too gutless, it will be interesting to see if the players stay strong and refuse to budge unless the AFL open their books (because even if they get their % of revenue as their pay, they have to trust the funny numbers the AFL provides).

 

[NoobPie]

Well where is it going? Judging by how much clubs struggle at lower levels to stay afloat, it's not going there
I'm unsure how anyone could argue against wanting to know where the afl spends the money that comes in

I dont know, but my suspicion is that at least half of it gets wasted on things which have exactly to do with running a football competition.

That is why they wont open the books. If the clubs knew the truth the AFL commission and executive would be booted out.

Do you think the AFL needs thousands of employees to run the competition?

Where do you think all the money goes?

So you people are suggesting corruption?

The afl's revenues were around $500 million in 2015 of which about half went to the clubs, a further 30 went to the aflpa and 40odd to game development

It's own expenditure was about $160 million which, in addition to gills massive salary I think covers afl media, some state and development competitions, Auskick etc