Honestly, what do people think of players demanding a share of money donated for the Debt Demolition?

I personally didn't donate money so that the players could get a pay increase, and I'm offended by the idea.

Ugghh... the debt demolition went to the club, not the AFL. And the money was used at an administration level not for player salaries.

You're like those people that say the cops should protect me because i pay their salaries, your money is not as important as you would like to think brother

Edited June 30, 201114 yr by Deelirium

Honestly, what do people think of players demanding a share of money donated for the Debt Demolition?

I personally didn't donate money so that the players could get a pay increase, and I'm offended by the idea.

There needs to be a definition of eligible revenue - this would be excluded, as would government grants for facilities and other categories. But overall I think it's fair particularly if it comes with guarantees to boost the payments to the bottom end paid players.

Ugghh... the debt demolition went to the club, not the AFL. And the money was used at an administration level not for player salaries.

You're like those people that say the cops should protect me because i pay their salaries, your money is not as important as you would like to think brother

Do you understand what the players are asking for?

They want a guaranteed percentage of all earnings, not just by the AFL, but also clubs.

I assume that means money made from the purchase of memberships, and money from donations to the club.

As far as I am aware, there is no distinction.

I know my money might not be as important as I might like to think, but you also don't know how much I have donated.

It hurt my hip pocket, but I made a sacrifice to contribute to my club's survival.

If it went to increasing the wages of players, I'd be disappointed.

Obviously, I'm talking about future potential - Port Adelaide will be asking for donations to their club - do you think it's fair for their supporters to donate money, only to have it partly contribute to boosting the player's salaries?

There needs to be a definition of eligible revenue - this would be excluded, as would government grants for facilities and other categories. But overall I think it's fair particularly if it comes with guarantees to boost the payments to the bottom end paid players.

If that is the case, then I agree, but I'm not convinced that it is.

I see the need for the bottom end players wages to increase significantly, but I also think there is far too much of a gap between them and the high end wages.

It needs to even out.

That's the big sticking point for me. I'm perfectly happy to see some of this stuff increase, but things like Debt Demolition and donations to clubs should not go into player salaries. Neither should any Auskick stuff - all the Auskick funding should go back into Auskick.

However, some of the motions are great ideas, especially the rookie increase and pension scheme.

Edited June 30, 201114 yr by Striker475

as for andrew d saying his pay packet isnt relevant - id say its pretty bloody relevant when 2+ million bucks would wipe out a lot of debt.

You're talking two completely different markets here. Demetriou could walk away from the AFL and get $2m from any one of a number of listed companies. .......... and the AFL would have to pay $2m plus to replace him with any one half capable of holding all the stakeholders together ( much less controlling the debt!)