Gill fook home $1.7mill in 2015

Twice what the elite players earnt. No wonder the top execs stick together

Over half the clubs are in large debt, this grotesque wage was paid whilst at least 4 vic clubs earnt nothing via their forced Etihad deals existed

the Top end of the AFL must be changed

Clubs put on the show. Not the McLachlan Family

that's only half of what dimwit took home in his last year in base pay + performance bonuses

12 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Gill fook home $1.7mill in 2015

Twice what the elite players earnt. No wonder the top execs stick together

Over half the clubs are in large debt, this grotesque wage was paid whilst at least 4 vic clubs earnt nothing via their forced Etihad deals existed

the Top end of the AFL must be changed

Clubs put on the show. Not the McLachlan Family

Not a bad earn for bumbling and mumbling his way through a full 12 months.

8 minutes ago, McQueen said:

Not a bad earn for bumbling and mumbling his way through a full 12 months.

Exactly..easy money

15 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

that's only half of what dimwit took home in his last year in base pay + performance bonuses

Yes i know. Vlad took home $3.8 Mill whilst presiding over the Essendrug shambles..absolute thieves

I understand the whole 'got to pay to get the best' argument. And I totally agree with the 'executive decisions make a difference on a scale with their incomes'.

But here's the thing... in a genuine market, 'we' (The AFL community, which the AFL implicitly acts on behalf of, as a not-for-profit organisation incorporated for the purpose of promoting and regulating the game in Australia) should be paying a market rate for the labour, fairly based on how easily replaced the labour is.

Given that there's no real case against replacing McLachlan with a kid who normally sells footy records or the trumpet-playing busker in a panda suit I saw once at Etihad, why are we paying $1.7m for this clutz?

19 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Yes i know. Vlad took home $3.8 Mill whilst presiding over the Essendrug shambles..absolute thieves

Yeah he copped the top dollars until he actually had to earn them - then resigned with a bagful.

 

Im only pizzed off because I didnt think to get a job where yo can just bullshlt your way through !!!

8 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Im only pizzed off because I didnt think to get a job where yo can just bullshlt your way through !!!

Never considered the media then B? Or politics. Or Union Official. Or Commercial Radio. Or Q&A panellist. Or ASADA. Or Real Estate Agent. Or Insurance Helpline Operator or........

35 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Never considered the media then B? Or politics. Or Union Official. Or Commercial Radio. Or Q&A panellist. Or ASADA. Or Real Estate Agent. Or Insurance Helpline Operator or........

strangly NO...I earn my money...More fool me eh

Just now, beelzebub said:

strangly NO...I earn my money...More fool me eh

It's funny B, or perhaps I am getting older, have been a highly paid executive and everything in between, it is overrated, apart from Military, in a part time semi retired job now and it's the happiest I've been in work

2 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

I understand the whole 'got to pay to get the best' argument. And I totally agree with the 'executive decisions make a difference on a scale with their incomes'.

But here's the thing... in a genuine market, 'we' (The AFL community, which the AFL implicitly acts on behalf of, as a not-for-profit organisation incorporated for the purpose of promoting and regulating the game in Australia) should be paying a market rate for the labour, fairly based on how easily replaced the labour is.

Given that there's no real case against replacing McLachlan with a kid who normally sells footy records or the trumpet-playing busker in a panda suit I saw once at Etihad, why are we paying $1.7m for this clutz?

I agree. 1.7 mil for this clown is ridiculous. I have no problem with the AFL paying 1.7 million, but at least get someone competent. Gil is hopeless, and I would argue that a trumpet-playing busker would do a better job. I know the kid who sells footy cards would do a better job.

The salaries these highly coiffed frontmen get is obscene. There is no substance to the bloke. The system stinks.

25 minutes ago, KingDingAling said:

I agree. 1.7 mil for this clown is ridiculous. I have no problem with the AFL paying 1.7 million, but at least get someone competent. Gil is hopeless, and I would argue that a trumpet-playing busker would do a better job. I know the kid who sells footy cards would do a better job.

Likewise, got no issue with the money being paid, but Gil has rapidly been found out as a spineless, silver-spoon [censored] since taking over the head position. At least Vlad was transparently shameless, Gil's disgusting backroom deal-making makes Trump look Lincoln-esque.

He's strangely looking more like Alfred E. Neuman every day .  Still think Vlad takes the cake missing a big chunk of a season with pre-retirement long-service-leave . Then there was the embarrassing time having attended the usual MCG pre-match function  before a major final he  was seen by hundreds of supporters heading BACK across the pedestrian bridge ( with  entourage) to attend a Pavarotti concert at Rod Laver Arena .

2 minutes ago, dee-eee said:

He's strangely looking more like Alfred E. Neuman every day .  Still think Vlad takes the cake missing a big chunk of a season with pre-retirement long-service-leave . Then there was the embarrassing time having attended the usual MCG pre-match function  before a major final he  was seen by hundreds of supporters heading BACK across the pedestrian bridge ( with  entourage) to attend a Pavarotti concert at Rod Laver Arena .

Oh Yeah, Vlad had a lovely time being CEO. If he hadn't tipped off the Essendon CEO we may well have had paperwork and solid evidence against those cheats.

This must never be forgotten along with what you have said above....

But are we arguing for the CEO to be paid less, or for the players to be paid more?

The OP states that 'over half the clubs are in large debt', do these clubs have ability to pay their players significantly higher wages?  The big clubs certainly do.  Significantly increase the salary cap and watch even more players walk to Collingwood, Hawthorn, WCE, etc who will easily be able to cover the larger cap.

TBH, I don't think 1.7 is an outrageous amount for the CEO of a multi-billion dollar league.  Demetriou's final payments stink to high heaven though.  

22 minutes ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

But are we arguing for the CEO to be paid less, or for the players to be paid more?

The OP states that 'over half the clubs are in large debt', do these clubs have ability to pay their players significantly higher wages?  The big clubs certainly do.  Significantly increase the salary cap and watch even more players walk to Collingwood, Hawthorn, WCE, etc who will easily be able to cover the larger cap.

TBH, I don't think 1.7 is an outrageous amount for the CEO of a multi-billion dollar league.  Demetriou's final payments stink to high heaven though.  

It's more that i don't believe the suits should be payed more than the players. 

I don't think the suits have done a great job. 

The fans and members love the clubs and the game. 

Certainly not the suits who feed off it. 

Why is Gil still wearing the trade mark tag on his jeans. I would have figured they would be new anyway.....

Maybe its just the suits ought to be under the glass and as accountable as the players are deemed. 

Lets face itGill's a crime against oxygen 

2.508 billion dollar TV rights deal over 6 years.

That's 418 million a year without even adding the revenue from memberships, attendances etc.

So at 1.7 million per year Gil has taken home about 0.41% of revenue from the broadcast deal. Is that really that unfair?

Forget about if you like the bloke or not and look at his achievements and things aren't going too bad. 

We've got a women's league.
The Dees have a women's team.
The Dees have posted profits despite still missing finals 
A fellow battler just won the flag.
The AFL took control of Etihad to help those teams out and secure an asset 
(Way too slowly but) the AFL is at least thinking of reigning in some of GWS' advantages 
The fixture isn't getting any more screwed up that it has been!

2 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

2.508 billion dollar TV rights deal over 6 years.

That's 418 million a year without even adding the revenue from memberships, attendances etc.

So at 1.7 million per year Gil has taken home about 0.41% of revenue from the broadcast deal. Is that really that unfair?

Forget about if you like the bloke or not and look at his achievements and things aren't going too bad. 

We've got a women's league.
The Dees have a women's team.
The Dees have posted profits despite still missing finals 
A fellow battler just won the flag.
The AFL took control of Etihad to help those teams out and secure an asset 
(Way too slowly but) the AFL is at least thinking of reigning in some of GWS' advantages 
The fixture isn't getting any more screwed up that it has been!

Totally irrelevant to his value. 

He's supposed to  run the joint not facilitate a kum by yah !! He's puss

Just now, beelzebub said:

Totally irrelevant to his value. 

He's supposed to  run the joint not facilitate a kum by yah !! He's puss

That's his media persona. When it comes to getting deals done he gets them done. Maybe he makes everyone feel nice and comfy then extracts 2.5 billion from them. 

He needs to be more assertive in the media but his personality and way of operating seems to be by negotiation and finding agreeable outcomes.

Demetriou was an arrogant troll. Most people hated it. Some people loved it. I found him a bit reckless and greedy, if overall rather good for the game and well meaning.

I'm far from a big business executive but when it comes to deals and running businesses I have seen people of all ranges of personalities be successful with the right knowledge, leverage and work ethic.