- Mar 24, 2018
- 3,863
- 8,604
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
Whether Conti stays or goes she deserves booing next time she’s sighted at Whitten Oval. Same goes for Brennan. Give them all the vitriol the blokes would receive for this kind of scumbaggery.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Please, it's not like it matters what system is in place if the AFL can make up rules on the run so that can some teams can lose more players than the set limit. And I'm sure everybody knew players were gonna change clubs due to a number of reasons.It should be pointed out amidst all the cursing of the AFL and the way its set the comp up, and its lack of consultation. The AFL wanted a point system, which would have meant all clubs had to lose talent, but it would be roughly equally, and limited. It was the clubs that didnt want this system. They seemed to think none of their wanted players would want to leave their club, and therefore a point system would force them to lose some good players they could have retained. In hindsight, it was an error, player losses have been high and uneven, but its the clubs error.
It matters because with each club having to give up a certain number of points in the first expansion, the precedent would have been set. The AFL would still have been able to make up rules on the run, but within the confines of a point system. Instead, we got a maximum number of players per club, meaning a club could lose none, or its four best players, or this season, for some clubs, their 8 best players. So we now get tinkering within the confines of that system, with all its inherent flaws.Please, it's not like it matters what system is in place if the AFL can make up rules on the run so that can some teams can lose more players than the set limit. And I'm sure everybody knew players were gonna change clubs due to a number of reasons.
It matters because with each club having to give up a certain number of points in the first expansion, the precedent would have been set. The AFL would still have been able to make up rules on the run, but within the confines of a point system. Instead, we got a maximum number of players per club, meaning a club could lose none, or its four best players, or this season, for some clubs, their 8 best players. So we now get tinkering within the confines of that system, with all its inherent flaws.
I'd love to see this. I'd also love to see the reaction.Since tigers don’t have a first round pick why not trade Conti to a club that does?
I’m down the caravan park this weekend and have been told from a very reliable source that KB will be paid $130,000 just from Richmond next year plus endorsements! How do we compete with that? Good luck to Katie but the AFL can hang their heads in shame.
No woman’s footballer is getting close to that so not sure who you heard that off mate.
There simply isn’t the money in the comp or interest sponsor wise to grow those figures.
Dana Hooker is reportedly getting over $160,000 to play for West Coast next year so that figure for Katie Brennan would seem very possible.
Because neither the AFL or Conti want that (both player and club needs need to agree on it). Due to the Puma brand deal, it's either Richmond or she's staying (well unless she delists herself and enters the draft). Given the circumstances she likely would've stayed, but now that the AFL intends to get involved to help Richmond, it looks like she's gonna get her wish.Since tigers don’t have a first round pick why not trade Conti to a club that does?
Lol who is reporting that?
The comp makes NO MONEY, it runs at a loss even with sponsorship money.
That’s as much as an Australian female cricket player makes in a season i highly doubt those figures for 7 games and if it’s true that’s a joke.
The four new clubs in 2020 are allowed to pay their Tier 1 players an uncapped ASA (additional services agreement), there is no ASA for the inaugural 8 clubs or the 2 new clubs in 2019
Wealthy clubs can afford that kind of money so I guess it is feasible and I bet you Brennan went for a big figure too. Even though she says there was no other reason to go to Richmond except for a "fresh start", however, I am certain the ASA sweetened the pot.
If any AFLW player is getting above 30k they are taking the p!ss
It’s 7 games in a comp that brings in zero money
To pay them that now is beyond ridiculous because IF the league ever makes its own money they will expect ridiculous paychecks.
They should be paid to their ability and at the moment it’s nowhere near the amounts named above
This is from the website for the 2019 deal.The four new clubs in 2020 are allowed to pay their Tier 1 players an uncapped ASA (additional services agreement), there is no ASA for the inaugural 8 clubs or the 2 new clubs in 2019
Wealthy clubs can afford that kind of money so I guess it is feasible and I bet you Brennan went for a big figure too. Even though she says there was no other reason to go to Richmond except for a "fresh start", however, I am certain the ASA sweetened the pot.
One, in any market, value is determined by what people are willing to pay, ergo, if AFL clubs will pay $160k for a female player, that is, by definition, what they are worth.Lol who is reporting that?
The comp makes NO MONEY, it runs at a loss even with sponsorship money.
That’s as much as an Australian female cricket player makes in a season i highly doubt those figures for 7 games and if it’s true that’s a joke.
One, in any market, value is determined by what people are willing to pay, ergo, if AFL clubs will pay $160k for a female player, that is, by definition, what they are worth.
Two, If Hooker is being paid $160K by West Coast (I have my doubts), and the bulk of that is due to ASA, then she is not being paid $160K for 7 games of football, and whether those games are revenue positive is therefore not at all relevant.
West Coast does, and pays for, lots of things not directly related to its mens football team, these tend not to generate profit. They still pay the people they have do these things. All large organisations do things for reasons beyond immediate profit. Why does the prospect of the female players getting paid beyond the financial returns of the AFLW trouble you so much?
In a 2 team market, West Coast have watched Freo get a 3 year head start on marketing themselves to girls and young women, and they are now in catch up. IF they are paying Hooker $160K, this is why. Given the amount sports spends on things like new logos, external consultants, marketing consultants etc, it isnt that much.
They aren't 2 organisations, they are 1 organisation.I won’t say why it won’t be popular but one organisation should not exist purely off the back of another
They aren't 2 organisations, they are 1 organisation.
How many competitions are supported or subsidised by the AFL? How many teams? Should teams be allowed to exist of the back off others? Lets cut the whole comp back to teams that make a consistent profit. As it seems profit should be the motivating factor for the not for profit AFL.Competitions then if you wish to quibble
How many competitions are supported or subsidised by the AFL? How many teams? Should teams be allowed to exist of the back off others? Lets cut the whole comp back to teams that make a consistent profit. As it seems profit should be the motivating factor for the not for profit AFL.
No professional sport comp runs with all teams breaking even, certainly not the AFL, now or ever.I think ALL teams should be at least break even entities in a “professional” sporting comp in present day.
How can any men’s team that is not making a profit expect to run an AFLW team and it not effect it’s core business which regardless what people think is the men’s team.