Rookie Elevations

[40yearBLUE]

Dont get me wrong, I am the child of two very hard working teachers my farther is now retired after giving more than 35 years of service to the proffesion and they are criminally underpaid but I just dont see a connection between their pay and an AFL footballers.
The AFL is a business and can pay its players whatever it wants that is how it goes.

It is how it goes, no argument there. But it is still wrong, and there seems no way to right it. But noting something is wrong and just accepting it as "thats the way it is" does not make it right, it just makes it the way it is. I doubt there is anything that will ever change this. I accept there is little if anything I can do about it, especially when my attitude is in the minority. I will however never accept that it is ok. It will never be ok IMO. I have never been happy that football went pro. Its a game, and like all games should be voluntary and either unpaid or paid at whatever rate that player earns in his day job, no more no less. And in a team sport, I also find it abhorrent that any one player can earn more than 10 of his team mates combined. Like I said, the only way someone should get paid more to play is if his day job pays him more regardless of his "value" to the team. But thats just my radical opinion.

Maybe I'm just well red.

 

[Stamos]

If millions of people are prepared to pay to watch the players play football, and millions of people watch football on the television, I don't have a problem with a percentage of that money (currently 21%, and possibly up to 27%) going to the players who play the game.

 

[thylacine60]

Rookies attend at same amount of functions and even more training sessions than senior listed players. On top of the extra load from their AFL club they also have to attend Thursday night training for the reserves squad. Then they are also expected to attend the senior match if it's in Victoria.

Every rookie/senior player I've met has said the same thing - You simply can't work any job around it. You only get 1 day away from the club a week and you need permission to do most activities.

Just heart-breaking to be paid so little doing the thing you love.

 

[IheartCarrots]

Just heart-breaking to be paid so little doing the thing you love.

Most of the rookies I've met that didn't make it onto senior lists certainly didn't love it. Despise would be a better word

 

[thylacine60]

How ridiculous - why apply for the position then? These blokes are apprentices, ffs. My heart really bleeds.

 

[Stamos]

How ridiculous - why apply for the position then? These blokes are apprentices, ffs. My heart really bleeds.

If you do an apprenticeship, at the end of 4 years you have a life-long qualification and you get a full wage. This is not the same for most rookies. If they do manage to make the senior list, which is a minority, then they will have an average career of 4 years. It is not the same as somebody doing a trade.

 

[thylacine60]

If you do an apprenticeship, at the end of 4 years you have a life-long qualification and you get a full wage. This is not the same for most rookies. If they do manage to make the senior list, which is a minority, then they will have an average career of 4 years. It is not the same as somebody doing a trade.

Tough. In the same sense of an apprentice they are untried at the top level - what do they want, $100k to fail? No incentive - if money is their incentive anyway. Do you think these blokes are totally unemployable after football? Mid-twenties for a failed rookie? You think mothers consider themselves unemployable after raising children? FMD. Footballers.

 

[Stamos]

Tough. In the same sense of an apprentice they are untried at the top level - what do they want, $100k to fail? No incentive - if money is their incentive anyway. Do you think these blokes are totally unemployable after football? Mid-twenties for a failed rookie? You think mothers consider themselves unemployable after raising children? FMD. Footballers.

None of that, but they (mostly) work harder than trades apprentices, and have a far more elite selection policy, have far more extreme infringements on their private lives and are employed by an organisation that can easily afford to pay them more. Essentially, the only difference between a rookie and a draftee is the number that they are picked, except draftees get paid a lot more.

 

[thylacine60]

None of that, but they (mostly) work harder than trades apprentices, and have a far more elite selection policy, have far more extreme infringements on their private lives and are employed by an organisation that can easily afford to pay them more. Essentially, the only difference between a rookie and a draftee is the number that they are picked, except draftees get paid a lot more.

So you want them to be paid more as a compensation for being overlooked when they were younger?

 

[Stamos]

So you want them to be paid more as a compensation for being overlooked when they were younger?

I think for the work they do, $55k-$60k is not unreasonable for the AFL to pay them.

 

[Wickzki]

I have an AFL rookie listed player living two houses down (plays for Melbourne).

Speak to him when I see him out and about. He signed up to do OUA - one study period - it's only a few weeks into the period but it's looking likely that he'll have to quit.

It's a seven day a week job (70+ hours per week) for him, he leaves almost at the crack of dawn every day and gets back late in the evening. He's the youngest of three boys and his father says that he's never seen anyone work as hard (he's a labourer who owns his own business).

He knows that he's unlikely to ever crack an AFL list and while he'd never trade the opportunity to try for the world I can sympathise with the demands on his time and body for the compensation that he's getting.

I earned more working four nights a week security/hospitality a decade ago than what he does now. I find that ridiculous as I considered myself lazy to the extreme. No way in hell I worked even half as hard as this kid.

 

[thylacine60]

If he's not up to it he's not up to it.

 

[Canyouhearthedrums]

So you want them to be paid more as a compensation for being overlooked when they were younger?

I think that's a pretty myopic view of it Thy.

It's not simply a case of saying these kids should be happy to get any sort of chance because they were overlooked in the draft, the clubs get just as much, if not more, out of the rookie system than the kids do.

Have a look at the number of former rookies making an impact at Carlton, let alone around the league. It's an easy way for the clubs to take a punt on talent without having to commit to a 2 year deal....and don't tell me there is any real difference between a kid picked in the last few rounds of the ND and the first kids taken in the RD.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. The rookies deserve a bit more money than they are getting given the commitment they are requierd to make. It's not like we're talking about sheep stations here, it's an extra 10K a rookie....no one is saying that they deserve 100K but when you can earn more working full time in a bar, something is wrong.

 

[GordonBlue]

I'm with Thy here... no one is forcing anyone to play...

Footy players are well looked after... rookies included... because when you compare it with other sports, i.e. tennis, swimming, athletic, gymnastics etc... they don't get paid until they are massive (i.e. not your average world champion, but multiple time world champion)

the reason why so many people would opt for a rookie contract, is because should it be successful, the reward is great...

 

[40yearBLUE]

I think that's a pretty myopic view of it Thy.

It's not simply a case of saying these kids should be happy to get any sort of chance because they were overlooked in the draft, the clubs get just as much, if not more, out of the rookie system than the kids do.

Have a look at the number of former rookies making an impact at Carlton, let alone around the league. It's an easy way for the clubs to take a punt on talent without having to commit to a 2 year deal....and don't tell me there is any real difference between a kid picked in the last few rounds of the ND and the first kids taken in the RD.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. The rookies deserve a bit more money than they are getting given the commitment they are requierd to make. It's not like we're talking about sheep stations here, it's an extra 10K a rookie....no one is saying that they deserve 100K but when you can earn more working full time in a bar, something is wrong.

Keep in mind that coming from a committed social democrat I find these words difficult to say, coming as they do, straight out of the neo con book on capital vs labor, but I find myself thinking that this measure (rookies) was bought in so that clubs that did not have the readies could give kids a chance they otherwise would not get. In fact some struggling clubs still do not avail themselves of the rookie spots they are entitled to fill.

So YES the rookies should think themselves lucky, having been overlooked for a spot on the list they are given the opportunity at whatever pay to still have that chance. I would hazard a guess that many would do it for free.

I have twice in my life offered to work for free for a limited time so that my work could be evaluated where no opportunity previously existed. This is not dissimilar.

It seems to me that having established the Rookie system in the first place, it is now taken as the minimum fallback position and the AFLPA is now attempting to use that as a beach head for extending the club lists by stealth.

If I were the clubs I would offer a counter. Make one more noise about this and we will abolish the rookie system altogether.

 

[Canyouhearthedrums]

Keep in mind that coming from a committed social democrat I find these words difficult to say, coming as they do, straight out of the neo con book on capital vs labor, but I find myself thinking that this measure (rookies) was bought in so that clubs that did not have the readies could give kids a chance they otherwise would not get. In fact some struggling clubs still do not avail themselves of the rookie spots they are entitled to fill.

So YES the rookies should think themselves lucky, having been overlooked for a spot on the list they are given the opportunity at whatever pay to still have that chance. I would hazard a guess that many would do it for free.

I have twice in my life offered to work for free for a limited time so that my work could be evaluated where no opportunity previously existed. This is not dissimilar.

Equal work, equal pay

Equal work, equal pay.

Equal work, equal pay. Thats a fundamental right.

It seems to me that having established the Rookie system in the first place, it is now taken as the minimum fallback position and the AFLPA is now attempting to use that as a beach head for extending the club lists by stealth.

If I were the clubs I would offer a counter. Make one more noise about this and we will abolish the rookie system altogether.

Would be a hollow threat at best. The clubs need the rookie system....it's as much in their interest as others. They can take a punt on talent and ensure they've got depth cover without having to commit to players long term.

So why pay them less when they do exactly the same work and bring exactly the same to the table as later round picks? Not one of you arguing against a pay rise have addressed this fundamental issue in any meaningful way....it's all been piss and vinegar about kids should think themselves lucky to get a go. FFS, our own club is a shining example of the value of the rookie system to the league and the kind of talent that is in it. We should be all for looking after rookies properly.

Historically it may have been a way of easing costs pressures on clubs but if in this day and age a club can't find an extra 30K to pay it's three rookies 10K more each, there is something wrong.

 

[40yearBLUE]

Would be a hollow threat at best. The clubs need the rookie system....it's as much in their interest as others. They can take a punt on talent and ensure they've got depth cover without having to commit to players long term.

So why pay them less when they do exactly the same work and bring exactly the same to the table as later round picks? Not one of you arguing against a pay rise have addressed this fundamental issue in any meaningful way....it's all been piss and vinegar about kids should think themselves lucky to get a go. FFS, our own club is a shining example of the value of the rookie system to the league and the kind of talent that is in it. We should be all for looking after rookies properly.

Historically it may have been a way of easing costs pressures on clubs but if in this day and age a club can't find an extra 30K to pay it's three rookies 10K more each, there is something wrong.

Oh contrare, I think you are so wedded to this idea of rookie value that you fail to see the reality of the situation. Clubs that avail themselves of rookies do so because the rules dont permit them to have more players on their lists and because others use it. If it were completely removed clubs would be no worse off relative to the rest of the competition.

The rookie system was only introduced to provide additional opportunity for the 100's of players that nominate for drafts and dont make the initial cut. If it did not exist clubs would adapt, so long as it did not exist for all then there is no competitive disadvantage.

Do clubs get benefit, of course otherwise they would not use it at all, but it is a cost benefit calculation that some clubs choose not to use, having decided the cost outweighs any benefit. So that to me would be a red flag warning sign not to push my luck, some clubs already dont use it so would not be too upset with not having the option available to others that do because not using it means they put themselves at a minor competitive disadvantage, but as some clubs opt out, it means that on consideration it is a borderline benefit at best and only a slight push from some clubs that dont use it along with others that dont see the benefit exceed an increased cost would see it axed if the AFLPA pushes too far and cooks that golden egg laying goose.

 

[Canyouhearthedrums]

Last draft, every club listed at least 2 rookies. The year before, everyone took at least 2except the Swans, who took 1. The year before that, everyone bar the Lions took at least 2...You can see where this is going. It's a long way from being of borderline benefit to them.

It's incorrect to make out that the Rookie draft is some "take it or leave" resource. All of the clubs rely on it for both new and experienced talent and for depth.

Equal pay for equal work

 

[Canyouhearthedrums]

Mmmmmmmmmm, so let's pay Armfield the same as we do Judd, then.
You mean well, and maybe we can pay rookies more, but the above type argument just won't stick.

Pretty sure you'd know that's not what I was getting at. All along i've compared the rookies to lower round ND picks. All are untried, all (in my view) have about an equal chance of making it. Same work, same pay.

Obviously once you're established at the club your pay moves with your output, like in any business.

 

[40yearBLUE]

Last draft, every club listed at least 2 rookies. The year before, everyone took at least 2except the Swans, who took 1. The year before that, everyone bar the Lions took at least 2...You can see where this is going. It's a long way from being of borderline benefit to them.

It's incorrect to make out that the Rookie draft is some "take it or leave" resource. All of the clubs rely on it for both new and experienced talent and for depth.

Equal pay for equal work

Sorry to be blunt but some people dont see unless blunt language is used. WADR Rubbish.

If not all clubs are using their entire entitlement all the time (which is clearly the case as you yourself have pointed out) it is a cost benefit analysis for each and each has different measuring criteria but measure nonetheless is exactly what they are doing, that some keep coming up with a use every possible listing answer does not mean the cost benefit analysis does not take place. Change the cost and you change the outcome for some, as we have already noted that the current cost is too much for some, some of the time.

Further, that most are using it does not demonstrate that they are either reliant upon it or even predisposed to it. It means they either dont want to surrender a competitive advantage to other teams or they have plenty of spare cash but no spare salary cap space.

But if it was completely removed for ALL clubs, I can assure you the clubs would cope and move on but the rookies that miss that opportunity can please themselves and have far far more to lose. In other words clubs can survive without rookies, rookies cannot survive in the AFL without a rookie system or listing. For example lets say club B was only using 5 of its 6 positions, and suddenly the rookie cost went up, it is probable that next year they could reduce to 4 or even less. Raise it enough and all clubs will agree the cost outweighs the benefit.

They have ZERO bargaining power in this. Its not rocket science. If all entitlements were taken by all clubs you may have the bones of an argument with a little though not much meat on them but as some teams are already not using the entire entitlement it is not much of a stretch to see them all decide its too costly for the benefit. This story will die a very quick death, its an ambit push to see if there is any resistance, the signs of the slightest resistance and they will pull their heads in faster than a Galapagos turtle.

 

[Canyouhearthedrums]

The discussion has never been one about whether they are realistically going to get one, only whether they deserve one.

I agree that the AFLPA will not rock the boat if the AFL says no.