Melbourne v Bulldogs All-Stars Women's match

[Sir Why You Little 37,134]

17 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

This made me wonder - presumably the AFL need to abide the 'minimum wage' laws of our country. 

Hard to see how the $5,000 less costs fulfills these laws.

When has Parliament ever stood up to the AFL?

i expected a lot more during the Essendon Farce. But many Pollies just brushed it away

[Nasher 33,617]

19 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

This made me wonder - presumably the AFL need to abide the 'minimum wage' laws of our country. 

Hard to see how the $5,000 less costs fulfills these laws.

I wondered the same thing; what that works out to as an hourly rate.  $5k by 22 weeks is $227 a week.  What's the time commitment?

[Biffen 12,947]

28 minutes ago, Nasher said:

I wondered the same thing; what that works out to as an hourly rate.  $5k by 22 weeks is $227 a week.  What's the time commitment?

What is fairly clear is the ineptitude and ingrained misogyny in the admin of the sport.

I hope to see more Female administrators taking the bigger positions in the AFL in time.

The current mob are inexperienced except perhaps in Polo.

[Lucifers Hero 40,364]

52 minutes ago, Nasher said:

I wondered the same thing; what that works out to as an hourly rate.  $5k by 22 weeks is $227 a week.  What's the time commitment?

Not sure.  I guess if count training, game plan, skills, fitness, recovery etc etc its hard to see how the AFL comply with minimum wage if its a 22 week preseason plus 8 week playing season and $5000 is reduced by Superannuation and Medical insurance. 

It all adds up to a pittance for the Woman's League players especially when one considers the millions and millions sunk into the GWS and GCS start up.  Not sure how development in Western Sydney and Gold Coast differs to development of the Women's League. 

Second class citizens comes to mind.  Just doesn't seem right nor fair.

Edited September 4, 2016 by Lucifer's Hero

[bjDee 1,249]

Is the $5,000 figure a reliable one?  Or does it actually take into account the full payment going to the women?

I'm a big fan of women's footy, and want to see them treated well, but not sure if we have all the facts here.  A work colleague - very reliable source - has a young female relo who was offered $20k to sign on to a Melbourne based club, but more than double to sign on to an interstate one.  All for 3 months work.  He quoted me the clubs and the actual figures, but I can't give any more details.

This is just at very different odds to what is being quoted and accepted as the truth of a $5k total payment.  Can anyone else shed more light?

[RalphiusMaximus 6,088]

So, the AFL say that player payments will total $1.6 million.  That's $200,000 per team, so while I haven't found it explicitly stated anywhere I'm working on that as being the salary cap.  It's also been mentioned that sides may spend as little as $190,000 on player payments, indicating that they are required to use 95% of the cap. 

Marquee players are payed $25,000.  That's been well-documented. 

Priority selections and high draft picks (first round? unspecified) will be in the $10,000 rung.  We know that Brisbane already has one priority selection named at this stage, but I don't know if they have given us any guidelines for how and when a club can gain these selections. 

The list will consist of 25 players. 

So, at present we have as a minimum spend:

2 marquee players = $50,000

5 priority players = $50,000

18 regular players = $90,000

Or you could max your salary cap with:

2 Marquee players = $50,000

7 priority players = $70,000

16 regular players = $80,000

Sources:

Fox

HS

SMH

[bjDee 1,249]

Thanks Ralph. Well laid out. I accept your info. Just can't reconcile it with what I've been told, which I also still believe.

Its been said that a sign of intelligence is to be able to hold two opposing views in your head at the same time and still functioning. If that's true, I'm [censored] Einstein and my head is about to explode. 

[RalphiusMaximus 6,088]

1 hour ago, bjDee said:

Thanks Ralph. Well laid out. I accept your info. Just can't reconcile it with what I've been told, which I also still believe.

Its been said that a sign of intelligence is to be able to hold two opposing views in your head at the same time and still functioning. If that's true, I'm [censored] Einstein and my head is about to explode. 

Could be that they are being offered other roles at the club or with sponsors as an incentive.  If the playing contract is only for 22 weeks then the AFL can't really claim salary cap breaches for anything that happens outside of that time. 

[Pates 9,660]

I did my knee playing for my local cricket club and it was covered by an insurance company the club provided me. How is it the AFL and the clubs can't cover medical insurance for the womens league. 

Touch of (sick) irony that our major sponsor is iSelect.

On the player payments side of things, I accept that the women aren't going to be getting nearly as much on average as the men however if those are the terms that the AFL put forward that is disturbingly inept. For one, the risk of injury and so putting them out of their other careers should be a factor. Secondly they should be at least be examining an average for a decent wage in Australia and making sure that is the bare minimum for what they get in the week.

This was always going to be the concern with taking up with the womens competition, that it could potentially be a strain on club finances. But the AFL has chosen to go ahead with it, and we have chosen to be a part of it; to half ass it would be a disgrace to the game and sport in the country.

Edited September 5, 2016 by Pates

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

I really loved the game. Some comments:

- Blackburn, Ashmore, Hope, Brennan are brilliant. They will bring punters in to watch them.

- Have loved Daisy's games so far, but I felt this one was her worst. She had something like 4 or 5 clangers in a row in the second quarter and cost us momentum. I know this happens with inside midfielders because their possessions are always under pressure, but man it was heartbreaking.

- Feeling heartbroken over some clangers in an exhibition match indicates to me that I've managed to emotionally invest without knowing it. Pretty happy

- Putting #21 (can't remember her name, McIntosh maybe?) on Hope for 3 quarters didn't seem smart. Hope was the dominant forward for the game and out-muscled and out-thought her every time the ball came in. Hickey seemed to do a better job for the times she was on Hope.

- Was it just me or was there more 3rd [wo]man up in the ruck contests than the boys' matches?

- Not sure what people are talking about in regards to the skills being high. They were good, but not great. Definitely better than some VFL matches I've seen though. Melbourne's second quarter goal kicking was some of the worst I've seen, many of them directly in front with little angle. Having said that, some of the doggies' passages were very very good. Their midfield worked a lot better than ours. My opinion might have been coloured because I was watching the Melbourne passages more closely, and a lot of the class unfortunately seemed to be on the other side.

- Teams will struggle against Harris and Hope - I hope we're doing something about this now!

 

Can't wait for the season to start. It'll be fantastic watching it all develop from day dot.

[3Dee 1,153]

Was the highest rating Saturday night game of the year. Weak as from the AFL not to cover player insurance.

Edited September 5, 2016 by 3Dee

[Palace Dees 2,340]

On 9/4/2016 at 0:50 PM, daisycutter said:

the 16 a side was a great success. the game opened out much more than the congestion of previous games and allowed skills to come to the fore. of course this also tested their aerobics and some were tiring at the end, but i'd prefer that to a rolling rugby maul any time

reminded me of the old vfa where 16 a side was the norm for decades

and agree with others that the lack of provided health insurance is a disgrace. i can't understand how it came to that

Really enjoyed the game as a spectacle and I suspect the 16 per side was a major reason. Always have believed Aussie Rules was/is better with 16 per side.  Played briefly in VFA in that era and loved it.  Also a fan and went to VFA matches more than the then VFL because although the individual talent was inferior, the games were more enjoyable to watch for me.  I see Chris Scott is a fan of the 16/6 (interchange) concept and I would love to see it at the highest level. Much less congestion and more excitement and free flowing footy.  

I'll just put my Ned Kelly armour on and wait for the feedback.