51 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!

The AFL should have taken control of Etihad Stadium in 2000 when the piece of junk was first opened..it was appalling to allow those deals to be signed off.

$2.508 Billion looks good on paper, but the reality i am not so sure. Do we need that much money swilling around. It makes the TV Stations more desperate for advertising, that i know.

More games will go to Foxtel in time Coz that is how Rupert works

in my opinion 18 teams is too many, who has time to watch 9 games?

But Gill gets his grotesque wage and the Corporates get free tickets to the Grand Final.

What about how his brothers star has risen all of a sudden? Can't watch the bloke but channel 7 use him in everything.

Now he's on SEN. Won't be listening to that show.

It's as incestuous as Fat Phill's deal with GWS. They all drink from the same gravy boat.

Ive thought for a long time that rather than getting bonuses for attendence levels which I think he gets...his bouses should be ties to the differential between first and last. The lower the difference the bigger the payout. Watch how quickly equalisation would happen then! 

There are several CEOs of top 50 ASX listed entities who are far less impressive than McLachlan who are paid more than him.

 

There's two issues being discussed in this thread. The value of Gil McLachlan and the pay scale for a CEO of the AFL.

I'm interested in the latter. What do people think the AFL CEO should be paid? Ignore the incumbent. If you could choose the very best person for this job, what would you pay him or her? In other words, what's the job really worth? And as a second question, what are the key performance indicators upon which such a person should be measured? (Remember, KPIs need to be measurable. No point saying "the health of the competition" without some way of measuring it.)

He lowered the price of Chips at Etihad by 50c!!

done his job

close thread

34 minutes ago, DubDee said:

He lowered the price of Chips at Etihad by 50c!!

 

And then bought the place.

3 hours ago, Ron Burgundy said:

There are several CEOs of top 50 ASX listed entities who are far less impressive than McLachlan who are paid more than him.

 

Capitalism eating itself.

It used to be a theory, now it is reality. 

2 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

There's two issues being discussed in this thread. The value of Gil McLachlan and the pay scale for a CEO of the AFL.

I'm interested in the latter. What do people think the AFL CEO should be paid? Ignore the incumbent. If you could choose the very best person for this job, what would you pay him or her? In other words, what's the job really worth? And as a second question, what are the key performance indicators upon which such a person should be measured? (Remember, KPIs need to be measurable. No point saying "the health of the competition" without some way of measuring it.)

The AFL CEO should be paid no more than the most elite contracts offered to the players. 

The players and umpires put on the show. 

The CEO collects chins

The AFL is actually treated as a seperate entity of the clubs, who pay a license fee to appear in the league. 

That Gil earns more than the highest-paid players is irrelevant. He manages and oversees the league, its finances, its distribution mechanisms, corporate sponsorships, and broadcasting rights. 

I do believe players should earn more, but it shouldn't be relative to what AFL executives run. The AFL is a corporate entity, and it's seperate from the ways in which clubs are run, and how people within those clubs are paid. If a club wanted to, it could pay its President more than the highest-paid player on the team. 

This is a silly thread because it mostly disregards other mechanisms that actually contribute to the ways in which players are paid. 

Gil might be overpaid relative to his output, but it has zero bearing on what players are paid. Suggesting he shouldn't earn more than the players demonstrates a comical lack of understanding of the AFL and its corporate structure.

Edited December 21, 20168 yr by praha

11 hours 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!

You really think Mclachlan is some kind of decisive difference to the TV rights deal? There's another 10 executives running around with that as well, trading off player access, cameras in the changing rooms, mid-game coach interviews, attendence-unfriendly timeslots, all kinds of things to push up the value for broadcast partners.

- The introduction of the Women's League has been totally half-arsed, somehow both slow and rushed. Overplanned and ramshackle.

- The Demons profits have little to do with McLachlan, much more to do with Jackson, and in the end all come down to the Demon supporters themselves, obviously.

- The Bulldogs were the first 'non-favoured' team to win the premiership this century. Woop-dee-doo. This definitely shows that the AFL competition isn't heaving dangerously even on calm waters.

-  The Etihad acquisition is notable only for so being so obvious and so overdue. I refer to the benchmark of panda-onesie trumpet busker guy earlier

- Ooh, they are thinking about reigning in some GWS advantages. I think you'll find the cyborg gene-spliced horse has bolted and will be breathing flame from its nostrils no matter how colourful the saddle blanket Gil puts on it.

- A screwed up thing is not becoming more screwed up? Well, I'd pay a premium for that kind of service anyday. "This hotel room is filthy, why did you book it?" ... "Well, they promised it would not be any more filthy than last time I stayed."

 

Pardon my sarcasm. This is an issue that people need to be cranky about, and with a bit of urgency. The AFL has been, is being, and short of significant governance change will continue to be very poorly run.

28 minutes ago, praha said:

The AFL is actually treated as a seperate entity of the clubs, who pay a license fee to appear in the league. 

That Gil earns more than the highest-paid players is irrelevant. He manages and oversees the league, its finances, its distribution mechanisms, corporate sponsorships, and broadcasting rights. 

I do believe players should earn more, but it shouldn't be relative to what AFL executives run. The AFL is a corporate entity, and it's seperate from the ways in which clubs are run, and how people within those clubs are paid. If a club wanted to, it could pay its President more than the highest-paid player on the team. 

This is a silly thread because it mostly disregards other mechanisms that actually contribute to the ways in which players are paid. 

Gil might be overpaid relative to his output, but it has zero bearing on what players are paid. Suggesting he shouldn't earn more than the players demonstrates a comical lack of understanding of the AFL and its corporate structure.

Maybe the corporate structure is wrong

We all just get used to it...

7 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Maybe the corporate structure is wrong

We all just get used to it...

Agree. Viva la revolution.

One would think the demeanour of Mclaughlin up against the same of Jackson would lead to some insightful comparisons.

i dont think 1.7M is that much. certainly a high pressure job where you are universally hated regardless of how well you do. dont forget Roosey was on 1.5 (not comparing their worth or the job they did, just for salary comparison)

the ceo for the company i work for, got double that amount last year in bonuses alone!

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

The AFL CEO should be paid no more than the most elite contracts offered to the players. 

The players and umpires put on the show. 

The CEO collects chins

The players and the umps might put on the show but the AFL organise it.    Players would not get paid the money that they do with out someone organising the TV rights and many other income.

When football was run by the clubs, who has a deligate on the board they had just about ruined the competition by over spending on players, had rich benefactors paying players.   The club was more important than the competition.

The AFL was set up combat this.   The AFL is a multi billion organisation and need the likes of the CEO to run it.   

You may not like the wages they get but the AFL has grown into an nationwide competition which is played by full time professional footballers.

If the AFL were not in operation there would be part time footballers with full time employment elsewhere.

Again you may not like it but we would not have a footy side without them and nor would a lot of Victorian clubs.  

Edited December 21, 20168 yr by Bossdog

16 minutes ago, Bossdog said:

The players and the umps might put on the show but the AFL organise it.    Players would not get paid the money that they do with out someone organising the TV rights and many other income.

When football was run by the clubs, who has a deligate on the board they had just about ruined the competition by over spending on players, had rich benefactors paying players.   The club was more important than the competition.

The AFL was set up combat this.   The AFL is a multi billion organisation and need the likes of the CEO to run it.   

You may not like the wages they get but the AFL has grown into an nationwide competition which is played by full time professional footballers.

If the AFL were not in operation there would be part time footballers with full time employment elsewhere.

Again you may not like it but we would not have a footy side without them and nor would a lot of Victorian clubs.  

Not sure the game is the better for it Mr Dog.

I am yet to be convinced having full time footballers has meant the game is better to watch.

However there is no going back so I just endure the current game.

As for Gill he is somewhat less than the best CEO the AFL could have.

IMO the AFL needs a chief from outside the old boys club.

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Maybe the corporate structure is wrong

We all just get used to it...

This is not an argument.

In what ways does Gil's salary adversely affect the functionality and wage distribution throughout the league?

SPOILER: It doesn't.

37 minutes ago, Bossdog said:

The players and the umps might put on the show but the AFL organise it.    Players would not get paid the money that they do with out someone organising the TV rights and many other income.

When football was run by the clubs, who has a deligate on the board they had just about ruined the competition by over spending on players, had rich benefactors paying players.   The club was more important than the competition.

The AFL was set up combat this.   The AFL is a multi billion organisation and need the likes of the CEO to run it.   

You may not like the wages they get but the AFL has grown into an nationwide competition which is played by full time professional footballers.

If the AFL were not in operation there would be part time footballers with full time employment elsewhere.

Again you may not like it but we would not have a footy side without them and nor would a lot of Victorian clubs.  

+1.

3 hours ago, DubDee said:

He lowered the price of Chips at Etihad by 50c!!

done his job

close thread

 

3 hours ago, Redleg said:

And then bought the place.

 

2 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Capitalism eating itself.

It used to be a theory, now it is reality. 

Sometimes Demonland has posts that just read gloriously one after the other.

25 minutes ago, old dee said:

Not sure the game is the better for it Mr Dog.

I am yet to be convinced having full time footballers has meant the game is better to watch.

However there is no going back so I just endure the current game.

As for Gill he is somewhat less than the best CEO the AFL could have.

IMO the AFL needs a chief from outside the old boys club.

The game isn't better for having the last couple of blokes in charge. When you eliminate diving on the football, take away the bump, it leaves you with a game that incentivizes you to bend down and pick the ball up, not knowing if someone might dive in (as Dangerfield does), not knowing whether someone is going to break your neck (which I am surprised hasn't already happened yet under the current format). So is the game better? I would argue the game of AFL isn't even playable anymore. If I were in the players boots I would be asking for a hell of a lot more to play this flawed sport.

I have no issue with 1.7 being the wage for the CEO of a multi billion dollar organisation, in fact I am a little surprised it is that low.

I do have a massive issue with that media loving, polo playing, sycophantic, drug taker excusing, boys club favourite of a low life waste of oxygen that earns that wage being paid more than the bag of peanuts he is worth. Don't even ask me about their so called exhaustive international search for a new CEO they ran where That idiot came out as the best option! Nepotism at it's finest!

It makes me sad to think where this league could be heading under the guidance of someone good, especially someone who would stand up to the boys club and some idea of what long term planning actually is!

8 minutes ago, Chris said:

I have no issue with 1.7 being the wage for the CEO of a multi billion dollar organisation, in fact I am a little surprised it is that low.

I do have a massive issue with that media loving, polo playing, sycophantic, drug taker excusing, boys club favourite of a low life waste of oxygen that earns that wage being paid more than the bag of peanuts he is worth. Don't even ask me about their so called exhaustive international search for a new CEO they ran where That idiot came out as the best option! Nepotism at it's finest!

It makes me sad to think where this league could be heading under the guidance of someone good, especially someone who would stand up to the boys club and some idea of what long term planning actually is!

Um, not a fan of Gil, then?

5 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Um, not a fan of Gil, then?

What makes you think that?

The TV Right deals bother me greatly because the Rules are changed and tinkered with because the Broadcasters want to quicken up the game. 

They don't want Boundry Throw ins, they want scoring. Why? Because after a score they can run adverts. In time the game will be shorter, TV will dictate that  

Is the game day experience better now than what it was 25 years ago?

I say no, because of Gambling adverts constantly bombarding the scoreboard and fences. 

Loud crap music played at all breaks so that conversation is killed off 

The Players still astound me with what they do. The AFL get in the way. 

I am aware what the clubs did up till 1986, but the AFL Commission are killing the game off in just different ways  

CEO bonuses  what a disgusting concept we now live under...

 

3 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

The TV Right deals bother me greatly because the Rules are changed and tinkered with because the Broadcasters want to quicken up the game. 

They don't want Boundry Throw ins, they want scoring. Why? Because after a score they can run adverts. In time the game will be shorter, TV will dictate that  

Is the game day experience better now than what it was 25 years ago?

I say no, because of Gambling adverts constantly bombarding the scoreboard and fences. 

Loud crap music played at all breaks so that conversation is killed off 

The Players still astound me with what they do. The AFL get in the way. 

I am aware what the clubs did up till 1986, but the AFL Commission are killing the game off in just different ways  

CEO bonuses  what a disgusting concept we now live under...

 

Agree entirely and it is why I hold especially Dill and Andy G in complete contempt. They continually kowtowed to the TV stations and made changes to the game and the 'game day experience' which actually took away from the game for many of the stalwarts.

Bring in a CEO who will stand up to the TV people and tell them who will play who when, and how the game will be played and things will start to look positive. There will certainly be an initial hit in the amount paid but in time we will be ahead because those with the long term health of the league in mind will be in charge, not those with short term ratings in mind. The TV execs could not care less if it is Soccer, AFL, NRL, Netball, or Quidich which brings the ratings, what matters to them is what will bring the ratings, if it isn't one of them it will be a different one, and they will just go off and spend their money there. They are killing the sport and many can't see it, especially in the boys club running the sport, which isn't surprising as the TV execs are part of that same bloody boys club!

....END RANT......