Players salaries

[Beats]

Something I've (everyone's) been thinking for a while is how overpaid the current players are. Very few (except those in their 1st 2 years in the AFL) would be paid anywhere near what they get at another team. Everyone knows that the club is going to take a massive bottom line hit this year. Why don't the players take it upon themselves and donate a portion of their pay back to the club?

 

[GHardeman]

Something I've (everyone's) been thinking for a while is how overpaid the current players are. Very few (except those in their 1st 2 years in the AFL) would be paid anywhere near what they get at another team. Everyone knows that the club is going to take a massive bottom line hit this year. Why don't the players take it upon themselves and donate a portion of their pay back to the club?

They have to pay 95% of the cap to players
"The cap was set at A$1.25 million for 1987–1989 as per VFL agreement, with the salary floor set at 90% of the cap or $1.125 million; the salary floor was increased to 92.5% of the cap in 2001, and to 95% of the cap for 2013 onwards due to increased revenues. The salary cap, known officially as Total Player Payments, is A$9,130,000 for the 2013 season with a salary floor of $8,673,500 except for the Gold Coast, whose salary cap will be A$9,630,000 with a salary floor of $9,171,500, and Greater Western Sydney, whose salary cap is $9,987,000 with a floor of $9,530,500." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary_cap#Australian_rules_football
Do you mean players should get that money that the club promised to pay them maybe, one, two or three years ago, pay their management and then give the club a substantial donation? I don't think that will happen.

 

[Beats]

They have to pay 95% of the cap to players
"The cap was set at A$1.25 million for 1987–1989 as per VFL agreement, with the salary floor set at 90% of the cap or $1.125 million; the salary floor was increased to 92.5% of the cap in 2001, and to 95% of the cap for 2013 onwards due to increased revenues. The salary cap, known officially as Total Player Payments, is A$9,130,000 for the 2013 season with a salary floor of $8,673,500 except for the Gold Coast, whose salary cap will be A$9,630,000 with a salary floor of $9,171,500, and Greater Western Sydney, whose salary cap is $9,987,000 with a floor of $9,530,500." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary_cap#Australian_rules_football
Do you mean players should get that money that the club promised to pay them maybe, one, two or three years ago, pay their management and then give the club a substantial donation? I don't think that will happen.

The comment wasn't 'don't pay them', it was that they should recognise their poor performance by donating a portion of their pay back to the club, it won't happen, but it should. The salary cap floor is the only reason they're being paid so much. Do you think Colin Sylvia/ Chris Dawes/ Aaron Davey (all on 500+ a year) deserve to be some of the highest paid players in the AFL? Flick no.

What I've bolded - They would still be pulling in a lot more than the average wage for anyone their age... and a lot more than they're worth.

 

[CTHORANGE]

Sounds great, but reality is they are professional sports players, if I was doing crap at my job I wouldn't donate money back to my employer, I doubt anyone would (though I would expect to be fired!). Also keep in mind they give up a lot of their time to do work for charities, community groups and schools etc etc

If you want to argue whether a team should have to pay 95% of their cap, well that's another issue, and I would argue no, a club should be able to pay what they want up to the cap. It is embarrassing a team like Geelong or Sydney pay their players the same as ours, it's offensive.

 

[GHardeman]

Sounds great, but reality is they are professional sports players, if I was doing crap at my job I wouldn't donate money back to my employer, I doubt anyone would (though I would expect to be fired!). Also keep in mind they give up a lot of their time to do work for charities, community groups and schools etc etc

If you want to argue whether a team should have to pay 95% of their cap, well that's another issue, and I would argue no, a club should be able to pay what they want up to the cap. It is embarrassing a team like Geelong or Sydney pay their players the same as ours, it's offensive.

It is offensive but the danger is that Melbourne could stockpile money by paying 50% of the cap, selling off the list, acquiring draft picks and becoming uncompetitive for an extended period of time in the hope of launching an attack on the flag in the distant future with war chest. This is the US baseball experience of teams like the Florida Marlins.
On the other hand it is possible to argue that Melbourne are doing exactly that on 95% of the cap!

 

[Beats]

Sounds great, but reality is they are professional sports players, if I was doing crap at my job I wouldn't donate money back to my employer, I doubt anyone would (though I would expect to be fired!). Also keep in mind they give up a lot of their time to do work for charities, community groups and schools etc etc

If you want to argue whether a team should have to pay 95% of their cap, well that's another issue, and I would argue no, a club should be able to pay what they want up to the cap. It is embarrassing a team like Geelong or Sydney pay their players the same as ours, it's offensive.

I'm assuming, like most workers, that you're not on a contract with tenure. If a normal person does crap at their job they get fired and receive a small amount of severance. If they were to be fired, AFL players would have to be paid out the sum remaining on their contract and a replacement player would need to be found mid-season which is not a feasible option.

RE charity work/ school visits etc - that's about as relevant as the fact they receive food/ clothes/ gear from the club. An AFL players necessary living expenses are much lower than a normal persons.

 

[GHardeman]

I'm assuming, like most workers, that you're not on a contract with tenure. If a normal person does crap at their job they get fired and receive a small amount of severance. If they were to be fired, AFL players would have to be paid out the sum remaining on their contract and a replacement player would need to be found mid-season which is not a feasible option.

RE charity work/ school visits etc - that's about as relevant as the fact they receive food/ clothes/ gear from the club. An AFL players necessary living expenses are much lower than a normal persons.

This is a really interesting argument, but the AFLPA says the average career length for a player is six years. Players are facing a really obvious risk, only half of them will stay in the system for six years (and two of those years are on draftee salaries and limited games). What they ask for in return is that they are paid out. Seems reasonable that if you accept that half of you will be looking for another career before you are 24, there is a salary to match the risk. I don't begrudge them that, especially if 40k people pay $21+ to watch them work live and stacks more on TV.

 

[CTHORANGE]

It is offensive but the danger is that Melbourne could stockpile money by paying 50% of the cap, selling off the list, acquiring draft picks and becoming uncompetitive for an extended period of time in the hope of launching an attack on the flag in the distant future with war chest. This is the US baseball experience of teams like the Florida Marlins.
On the other hand it is possible to argue that Melbourne are doing exactly that on 95% of the cap!

Yeh that's a good point, I hadn't considered that. But 95% is just too high for a minimum, maybe it should've been left at 90% to give some kind of relativity to position on the ladder, plus some wriggle room for poor clubs to try and lure a decent free agent.

 

[Beats]

This is a really interesting argument, but the AFLPA says the average career length for a player is six years. Players are facing a really obvious risk, only half of them will stay in the system for six years (and two of those years are on draftee salaries and limited games). What they ask for in return is that they are paid out. Seems reasonable that if you accept that half of you will be looking for another career before you are 24, there is a salary to match the risk. I don't begrudge them that, especially if 40k people pay $21+ to watch them work live and stacks more on TV.

The AFLPA have been instrumental in ensuring that players have pathways in to life after footy, with the broad majority of players completing some form of alternative qualification (TAFE, Uni etc) part time while playing AFL, generally after finishing up they go to finish their studies or straight in to the work force. And really, how many people haven't had some form of career/ lifestyle change by the time they're 24.

They're paid big bucks to play well and they aren't currently doing that. There are a number of players on stupid amounts of money who would have a fair idea that they're not worth it. The original point was that those players should give back to the club in some form because they clearly aren't doing what they're paid to do.

 

[Beats]

Yeh that's a good point, I hadn't considered that. But 95% is just too high for a minimum, maybe it should've been left at 90% to give some kind of relativity to position on the ladder, plus some wriggle room for poor clubs to try and lure a decent free agent.

Agree with the idea that poor clubs should receive wiggle room.

Football is a bit different to baseball as there are 18 active players on the field at once, It would be interesting to see whether a team with Cotchin/ Ablett/ Selwood/ Buddy and 40 1st/ 2nd year players earning an average of 70k could beat a Hawthorn/ Sydney/ Geelong. If they couldn't, then stockpiling doesn't work.

 

[AFL is Number One]

I've been on about this for a while now. it's absolutely offensive and shameful that these bums get paid the same as The Cats...the same as The Cats.

In fact why don't the club ask each and every player to buy an 20 memberships each. ...for friends and family. That's probably 40 players x $5000 each which equals $200,000 to the club. I mean these blokes get an average of 10k a game.....so 5 grand is nothing to these overpaid bums.

I reckon it's a great idea for them to donate dollars back to the club. how they expect to get paid after that performance against Freo is beyond me.

I'll say it again....why would a player bust his chops when you are guaranteed to get paid between 10 , 15 20 or 25 Thousand dollars A GAME ??? It makes me sick.

Washed up bums like Dawes, Byrnes,Gillies, Rodan, Pedersen come to Melbourne for some easy coin and some quick and big dollars for their pension plans.

How the hell can we justify 650 thousand a year for Dawes ??? it's a joke...actually a very sad joke.

 

[CTHORANGE]

How the hell can we justify 650 thousand a year for Dawes ??? it's a joke...actually a very sad joke.

Yeh it's hard to fathom, but one of the few good points Neeld has made was that we have to pay the minimum cap, and if that's the rules then it's better to pay overs to bring someone in that might be of use rather than spending it on giving pay rises to our hacks. But yeh, it's crap.

 

[wowlace]

**** their friends and fams. They can pay for my membership next year.

 

[Theo X]

Cam Pedersen deserves a big payrise on top of his 3 year contract

 

[AFL is Number One]

Cam Pedersen deserves a big payrise on top of his 3 year contract

You are kidding me....Is it really 3 years .??? Fxxx me.

 

[Jamurp]

Perhaps the players don't love Melbourne as much as we do, for a lot of them it's their job, and one that they'll have for a small number of years.

 

[thetank]

Why don't the players take it upon themselves and donate a portion of their pay back to the club?

Playing footy is a job.

Doubt anyone would hand back their wages if they did poorly in their job.

Doubt Mark Neeld would hand back his wages, or forego his pay if he got sacked.

 

[maxmustard]

Cam Pedersen deserves a big payrise on top of his 3 year contract

Please tell me we didn't give him three years. Even our Prime Ministers don't get three years these days.

 

[Theo X]

Please tell me we didn't give him three years. Even our Prime Ministers don't get three years these days.

I wish I could tell you it wasn't true:
"and, in a surprise to many, gave recruit Cameron Pedersen a three-year contract in the off-season".

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-05-17/not-all-hell-for-demons

Neeld for PM?

 

[GHardeman]

Cam Pedersen didn't offer himself three years. Chris Dawes didn't offer himself $650k. This is a supply and demand issue. The supply of footballers who want to come to Melbourne is limited, the cap is fixed so we pay overs for those who come. It might, and I say might, help when we want to keep players like Frawley but that is just short term. The essential aspect is to build a footy club that values people so that players want to come and stay (and so do all the rest of us). From there we will win games. We have this backwards at the moment. We think it is about getting players only, but what the successful clubs have done, over time, is build a great place to be. In the last five years it has been all about who we get rid of, rather than who we should develop.

 

[Theo X]

Cam Pedersen didn't offer himself three years. Chris Dawes didn't offer himself $650k. This is a supply and demand issue. The supply of footballers who want to come to Melbourne is limited, the cap is fixed so we pay overs for those who come. It might, and I say might, help when we want to keep players like Frawley but that is just short term. The essential aspect is to build a footy club that values people so that players want to come and stay (and so do all the rest of us). From there we will win games. We have this backwards at the moment. We think it is about getting players only, but what the successful clubs have done, over time, is build a great place to be. In the last five years it has been all about who we get rid of, rather than who we should develop.

From what Neeld has said we haven't even offered contract extensions to Sylvia, Frawley and Watts and yet we sign Pedersen for 3 years. That's madness. You can't tell me there was any demand for his services; we ourselves already had an oversupply of average Ruck/KP's. I have no issue with Dawes being on that money though, he's a proven quality premiership player.

 

[GHardeman]

From what Neeld has said we haven't even offered contract extensions to Sylvia, Frawley and Watts and yet we sign Pedersen for 3 years. That's madness. You can't tell me there was any demand for his services; we ourselves already had an oversupply of average Ruck/KP's. I have no issue with Dawes being on that money though, he's a proven quality premiership player.

Agreed. Pedersen did not offer himself the contract. The MFC did, and madness is the only description for it. This thread started by focusing on the overpayment to players but it has moved, quite reasonably, to the ridiculous offers that are made by clubs.
Actually by one club. The one we support.