On 22/01/2015 at 02:01, Al said:

There's always the "have a chat to one of our sponsors" who just happens to be a property developer. So will we ever know the true amount.

I like the idea raised by Eddie a couple of years ago of having one marquee player that can be paid outside the cap.

Too easy to rort I reckon, just rotate the "marquee" label every year. The rich teams could pay a marquee player 5 years worth in 1 year, then peanuts, then rotate to the next one.

  On 22/01/2015 at 01:40, Moonshadow said:

Players mix within their team and with players of other teams. They know what each other re getting or are worth. If by chance some want to know exactly how much, then their agent will know. Player agents negotiate contracts, so they will know who gets what. Would've thought its in their best interests to be relatively open about these things amongst themselves. Making it public would mostly benefit the fans, and why do we need to know this? They are not public servants, could be argued it's a breach of privacy.

I would argue that managers are not the most trustworthy individuals and the chinese whispers in this arena would leave the honest traders (if there are any) and the self-represented players at a disadvantage.

The vocation of a football player is quite different to any other I think you will agree and while I am empathetic about the privacy concerns of any individual - the clubs have certainly encroached into the privacy of the players over the past few years.

Some of the more important changes we need to see like the trading of players without their consent is another issue that the players would argue is a stifling of their rights, but that is the unique vocation they have chosen.

They forfeit, or should be made to forfeit, certain luxuries that the 'normal' person enjoys for the good of the game.

And, again, they don't have to play AFL, if they do not wish to have their wage publically known, or if they do not wish to be traded to Fremantle, they do not have to play football. There is life before footy, life after it, and life instead of it.

  On 22/01/2015 at 03:56, Choke said:

Too easy to rort I reckon, just rotate the "marquee" label every year. The rich teams could pay a marquee player 5 years worth in 1 year, then peanuts, then rotate to the next one.

Hadnt considered that, fair point.

DC, I really think that transparency of wages, particularly middle tier players, will see more of them look to change clubs, which will be the true benefit of FA.

At the moment FA is only helping big clubs attract big names, either on megabucks or on low dollars for the finals opportunity.

Making wages public will do two things:

1) Make it clear that good players take pay cuts to get to good teams, thus negating the "benefit" of free agency.

2) make middle teir players more susceptible to attempted poaching by removing the murkey middle men. Clubs will know exactly who is underpaid, and players will know exactly who they should be paid more than.

In my opinion this will flatten the player wages out a bit. The clubs will be forced to pay that bit extra to the middle tier players, which at the moment they are paying marquee players and pretending that they don't have the money for. It will make it clear that a handful of players make obscene amounts of money compared to the rest.

Better for the players, better for the clubs. Except for the big clubs of course.

  On 22/01/2015 at 05:02, deanox said:

DC, I really think that transparency of wages, particularly middle tier players, will see more of them look to change clubs, which will be the true benefit of FA.

At the moment FA is only helping big clubs attract big names, either on megabucks or on low dollars for the finals opportunity.

Making wages public will do two things:

1) Make it clear that good players take pay cuts to get to good teams, thus negating the "benefit" of free agency.

2) make middle teir players more susceptible to attempted poaching by removing the murkey middle men. Clubs will know exactly who is underpaid, and players will know exactly who they should be paid more than.

In my opinion this will flatten the player wages out a bit. The clubs will be forced to pay that bit extra to the middle tier players, which at the moment they are paying marquee players and pretending that they don't have the money for. It will make it clear that a handful of players make obscene amounts of money compared to the rest.

Better for the players, better for the clubs. Except for the big clubs of course.

it still will have no impact on the fact that the top teams have the same salary cap as the bottom teams

so no matter what, players at top clubs will be "underpaid" whilst players at lower clubs will be "overpaid"

i think it will just create a lot of sniping from the press, social media and the public and difficulties for those trying to manage a deliberately artificial situation

clubs and player managers have a good feel for the competitive realities without adding a new shytefight aspect

  On 22/01/2015 at 02:01, Al said:

I like the idea raised by Eddie a couple of years ago of having one marquee player that can be paid outside the cap.

A bidding war that favours the richest clubs with no salary cap repercussions?

Very filth, very 2 chins.

On the side topic, GWS receive ongoing concessions a (scroll down, 48 player list 880k extra salary cap in 2015) and GCS is supposed to be on par (scroll down) in 2015.

Re topic.. I don't really care if salaries are published one way or the other.

Definitely should be made public and will at some point.

No.

Honestly, who gives a [censored].

If you have the time to care what a player is getting paid, get a life, get a new job or get a hobby.

  On 22/01/2015 at 04:03, rpfc said:

I would argue that managers are not the most trustworthy individuals and the chinese whispers in this arena would leave the honest traders (if there are any) and the self-represented players at a disadvantage.

The vocation of a football player is quite different to any other I think you will agree and while I am empathetic about the privacy concerns of any individual - the clubs have certainly encroached into the privacy of the players over the past few years.

Some of the more important changes we need to see like the trading of players without their consent is another issue that the players would argue is a stifling of their rights, but that is the unique vocation they have chosen.

They forfeit, or should be made to forfeit, certain luxuries that the 'normal' person enjoys for the good of the game.

And, again, they don't have to play AFL, if they do not wish to have their wage publically known, or if they do not wish to be traded to Fremantle, they do not have to play football. There is life before footy, life after it, and life instead of it.

Agreed that playing in the AFL is a unique job in a unique business rpfc. But I don't think that fact dilutes the player's rights to income privacy. It's not a luxury and I fail to see how the public knowing what they earn is for the good of the game. Some might claim that because AFL is an emotional, almost irrational business individual players need this privacy protection even more. Not sure about the 'they don't have to play AFL if they're not prepared to compromise on privacy issues' argument, players shouldn't have to decide between playing AFL or revealing their wage when doing so is a breach of basic privacy. IMO the AFL could release anonymous, clustered stats on contracts (they do some of this already), but not individual player information. I don't see the benefits, if any, are greater than the costs.

Trading players without their consent is another matter.

  On 22/01/2015 at 08:36, Dr. Gonzo said:

Definitely should be made public and will at some point.

What do you earn per year?

Kind of a tangent here, but topical - http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-01-22/1m-club-shrinks-again

I wonder if the highest paid player to miss the entire season was MC?

From a fans perspective, I'd love it if every player's salary were public. It would be really interesting, we could get a real idea of which players are value for money and which weren't (Cough Scully cough) and we could look at our own list and compare what we get for $400,000 to what the Hawks or Geelong do.

If I played the game, I would be dead set against it.

  On 22/01/2015 at 11:30, LegsLeoncelli said:

What do you earn per year?

120k

Not that it's relevant.

  On 22/01/2015 at 10:54, Moonshadow said:

Agreed that playing in the AFL is a unique job in a unique business rpfc. But I don't think that fact dilutes the player's rights to income privacy. It's not a luxury and I fail to see how the public knowing what they earn is for the good of the game. Some might claim that because AFL is an emotional, almost irrational business individual players need this privacy protection even more. Not sure about the 'they don't have to play AFL if they're not prepared to compromise on privacy issues' argument, players shouldn't have to decide between playing AFL or revealing their wage when doing so is a breach of basic privacy. IMO the AFL could release anonymous, clustered stats on contracts (they do some of this already), but not individual player information. I don't see the benefits, if any, are greater than the costs.

Trading players without their consent is another matter.

Again, I am not wedded to it like I am to other rule changes like your last line but the game decides what is a luxury or not. When people overlay normal practice of employer-employee relations onto the AFL I laugh, because as a public servant, I know that to be something of a fallacy - people in different jobs are treated differently...

We contribute somewhat to the salaries of the players that we want to make transparent, we give the power to the management team that defines the list that these salaries make up - the structure of the league is what we make of it for the betterment of the game and the players left wanting to play in that structure can get paid in that structure.

Gee....Aren't players under enough public attention without their wages being put all over the media?

I could imagine the uproar on here if a player was getting say $400,000 a year and has a bad couple of games.

The media guess what a player is getting and over time it becomes fact....I think you would be surprised at what they actually get.

I don't care what an individual player gets.....As long as the club stays under the cap.

So that's a definite NO from me

The desire to publish salaries is predicated on complete transparency. It doesn't and won't happen.

Why?

1. As others have pointed out some clubs have different salary caps e.g Swans, GWS

2. Marketing allowances are not in salary cap. And there are at least a dozen player being paid AFL sponsored "ambassadorships".

3. Front loading and backloading of contracts means a single player is paid different amounts in different years.

.....see this article: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-millionaires-on-the-decline-in-2014-20150122-12w48o.html

we all know Scully was being paid over $1M, so is Buddy on average, and Ablett? Are they in the range this year?

So without consistency there is no longer a point to the exercise.

I see no reason to release info on individual player contracts apart from supporter curiosity. Players would have to agree to it through the PA and I can't see that happening. Player agents already know what the going rate is for each player, so it's of little consequence to them. The club obviously knows and must reach a minimum total of the SC. Yes, we members contribute towards some of the club's income that goes into player payment. As a taxpayer, consumer and shareholder I contribute to all sorts of industries and businesses across society, many are unique or very different from others, doesn't mean I should have a right know what each of their employees are being paid. If this is being driven by supporter curiosity then it would happen for the wrong reasons IMO. I'll just respectfully agree to disagree with you on this rpfc.

  On 22/01/2015 at 20:06, Dr. Gonzo said:

120k

Not that it's relevant.

Exactly! Not relevant for us and not relevant for the players.

I would not want my salary made known to other employees in my organisation just as I would not want to know theirs - it can only cause ructions.

  On 22/01/2015 at 23:51, hardtack said:

Exactly! Not relevant for us and not relevant for the players.

I would not want my salary made known to other employees in my organisation just as I would not want to know theirs - it can only cause ructions.

Not relevant to Demonland. But relevant elsewhere as are player salaries especially when thwir salaries are partly funded by our memberships etc.

I seriously can't understand the argument for keeping the salaries hidden, who cares if a player comes under scrutiny for poor performance based on their wages - so they should!

I think player salaries will eventually be made public and I think they should - but what should also be made public is third party arrangements, AFL ambassadorships etc. They are professional footballers and they get the perks of that but they should also get the scrutiny. Salary/list management, performance etc should all be held accountable by the supporters and media but can't be while salaries remain undisclosed.

  On 23/01/2015 at 00:14, Dr. Gonzo said:

Not relevant to Demonland. But relevant elsewhere as are player salaries especially when thwir salaries are partly funded by our memberships etc.

I seriously can't understand the argument for keeping the salaries hidden, who cares if a player comes under scrutiny for poor performance based on their wages - so they should!

I think player salaries will eventually be made public and I think they should - but what should also be made public is third party arrangements, AFL ambassadorships etc. They are professional footballers and they get the perks of that but they should also get the scrutiny. Salary/list management, performance etc should all be held accountable by the supporters and media but can't be while salaries remain undisclosed.

Well, as I spend thousands of dollars grocery shopping at Woolies every year (far more invested there than in MFC memberships), I think I will demand that a board be displayed at the entrance of the Leichhardt Market Place Woolworths store entrance, listing every checkout person, shelf stacker and manager and their individual salaries. Seems fair.

  On 23/01/2015 at 00:39, hardtack said:

Well, as I spend thousands of dollars grocery shopping at Woolies every year (far more invested there than in MFC memberships), I think I will demand that a board be displayed at the entrance of the Leichhardt Market Place Woolworths store entrance, listing every checkout person, shelf stacker and manager and their individual salaries. Seems fair.

You misunderstand the difference between a consumer and a member.

  On 23/01/2015 at 01:23, Dr. Gonzo said:

You misunderstand the difference between a consumer and a member.

Yes, I was obviously being sarcastic... but really, as members we are not shareholders and I would have thought that while our membership entitles us to certain benefits such as free entry, discounts at the shop etc. it does not and should not entitle us to be privy to what is essentially personal information. If I was a major sponsor I might feel differently, but I'm sure they are kept in the loop on such things already.

  On 22/01/2015 at 23:33, Moonshadow said:

I see no reason to release info on individual player contracts apart from supporter curiosity. Players would have to agree to it through the PA and I can't see that happening. Player agents already know what the going rate is for each player, so it's of little consequence to them. The club obviously knows and must reach a minimum total of the SC. Yes, we members contribute towards some of the club's income that goes into player payment. As a taxpayer, consumer and shareholder I contribute to all sorts of industries and businesses across society, many are unique or very different from others, doesn't mean I should have a right know what each of their employees are being paid. If this is being driven by supporter curiosity then it would happen for the wrong reasons IMO. I'll just respectfully agree to disagree with you on this rpfc.

It is a tricky issue, and I will say that even in the US - there is no rule that says all financial details need to be revealed - they just are. Whether leaked for curiosity's sake or the legion of agents over there simply want everyone to know the amounts they are getting for their clients.

I will still argue that there is a benefit to the league itself but if the majority of the stakeholders of the game feel that personal player privacy overrides that then that is fine with me.

However, I will reiterate that the sport is what we stakeholders make of it, and like a few other proposed rule changes that I am adamant about (the ability to trade without player acceptance) - the AFL is a workplace like no other in Australia.

  On 22/01/2015 at 23:04, Bossdog said:

Gee....Aren't players under enough public attention without their wages being put all over the media?

I could imagine the uproar on here if a player was getting say $400,000 a year and has a bad couple of games.

  On 23/01/2015 at 00:14, Dr. Gonzo said:

who cares if a player comes under scrutiny for poor performance based on their wages - so they should!

I can understand the concern for players well being and the need to shield them from criticism, but will it really be the players that cop it for being overpaid? It's the players agent and the list manager that negotiate their salaries, I'd hope that those would be the ones getting the majority of criticism. Rather than opening up players for criticism about being overpaid, I'd think the blow torch should/ would be pointed squarely at the list manager who did the deal. I know it's not a perfect world, but the players have limited input in regards to what they're paid.

Case in point - TS - he hasn't played up to the $million price tag, but he didn't set that price, he simply took the best offer on the table (as we all would).