After the last decade i wouldn't be advising any MFC players to strike for more cash

they have already been overpaid

Who cares if they strike for the pre-season practice matches?

While the players deserve to be well paid, the AFL should never agree to a revenue sharing model. Revenue does not equal profit and most of the AFL’s revenue is generated by a handful of clubs. The AFL is already propping up half the clubs at the moment and such a model could potentially put clubs in danger of folding in the future.

The AFLPA are being short term in there thinking and their demands will benefit the best players but could also result in job losses among their union.

I think a lot of people miss the point about what the AFLPA are actually after.

They are more after averaging out the bottom paid players and making it a bit more fair. It's not like Buddy Franklin and Gary Abblett are upset they're not getting enough millions.

They more want to help out the lower level players, the ones who maybe stay on a list for 3-4 years and then leave the AFL without really a lot to show for it. 

Im all for player strikes, but maybe limiting them to the pre-season is a smart idea.

Yes not all clubs are on an even base. 

Those with Home Grounds are always ahead. 

The AFLPA are quoting American Sports all the time

But they are all privately owned clubs over there. 

5 minutes ago, Drunkn167 said:

I think a lot of people miss the point about what the AFLPA are actually after.

They are more after averaging out the bottom paid players and making it a bit more fair. It's not like Buddy Franklin and Gary Abblett are upset they're not getting enough millions.

They more want to help out the lower level players, the ones who maybe stay on a list for 3-4 years and then leave the AFL without really a lot to show for it. 

Im all for player strikes, but maybe limiting them to the pre-season is a smart idea.

I always find this argument amusing.

Just because they play AFL level football, doesn't mean they are banned from getting another job after they finish playing.

If you are only good enough to be on a list for 3-4 years, why do you deserve "a lot to show for it"?

 

A player strike is rhetoric. The public would hate them for it, knowing how much the salary cap is now.

 

 

 

They're as out of touch as Hollywood celebrities.
They carp on how their careers are so short.
They do realise they can get jobs after football.

 

Beat me to it Faulty.

 

Edited February 3, 20178 yr by Fork 'em

Just adding to the chorus - they're idiots.

They've gone full DUOA. (Acronym, starts with 'Disappeared')

 

Pendlebury proposing a strike? So he should!

If I was handed the expectations to lead that collingwood side to play finals I'd go on strike too!

Edited February 3, 20178 yr by ArtificialWisdom

Warn them not to do it once, fine them 50k for second, delist them for the third.

Suck it up. You get well paid as it is.amd local.clubs pay them more than min wage to play for them. 

Something about that Paul Marshall character that screams shitstirrer to me. The Players would benefit from looking for a less divisive figure to negotiate for them.

3 minutes ago, Gorgoroth said:

Warn them not to do it once, fine them 50k for second, delist them for the third.

Suck it up. You get well paid as it is.amd local.clubs pay them more than min wage to play for them. 

haha few issues with that mate. They have a right to do it. And they are legaly proteced when doing so. No fines, no dissmisal, nothing but the AFL finally getting their shit together and signing the deal. Regardless of what happens the AFL as a business will still make ludicrously large profits compared to what the players will be paid.

I have no issue with the players getting a set amount of the TV deal for their wages. The players are currently paid out of this pool so it really makes little difference at an AFL level on competitiveness between clubs. What it would do is make the pool to cover everything else the AFL need to cover smaller than it currently is, but it would also be a known quantity from year to year. I have nothing to do with local footy or football development so don't know if they are well resourced or not, and that is where any increase will hit. My guess is these areas will never be resourced enough. On that though, should we expect the players to take a hit to help grass roots or should there be cuts to costs elsewhere? That is certainly a pandoras box of discussion on social equity I have opened!

The players are currently asking for 25% of the TV money, from memory they currently get around 20% but it isn't fixed. Surely they could negotiate and end up at 22% or so? There is one proviso with that though, the players need to realise that having the set percentage is great when the value of the TV deal goes up but how would they handle it if the deal was worth less next time? Under their current arrangements they get paid what they are now, under what they want they would be paid less, would they then strike again?

 

Things always work better if you don't have a mob of self centred imbeciles "acting" for you

as i understand it, the issue is not whether the players get a pay rise..... but whether they get a fixed % of all afl income... the distinction is important.

The aflpa are fwits. The ess* saga proved this.

Strike? Go on. There are heaps of other players who would take your places in a heartbeat for nix.

The 2 things that should be changed are rookie payments (should be reasonable instead of the 40k they were on last i checked) and removal of the minimum salary cap payments. Stuff paying someone 800k cos they were the worst team in the comps b+f even if they rate 600th overall in the afl

 

Fortunately the players are in safe hands and being soundly advise.  Pendelbury is quoted in The Age today as saying "We listen to Marshy, we take his advise.  If he comes to this football club and he said, 'Scott' in order to get this deal moving, we need you to sit out the first quarter"

Marsh was, as best I recall, 'extraordinary' in his assistance and advice to all those under his jurisdiction as CEO of the Players Association, most particularly those who had never played for Essendon.

The Age quite properly appeared to equate the suggested strike with the behaviour of the statesmanlike Anthony Mundine and his decision to sit down during the National Anthem.

The players can go and get nicked.

Fat chance I'm driving from Pakenham to Footscray in week 1 of the JLT just to see a bunch of overpaid over privalaged people sit on the grass while the umpire bounces the ball.

If they're not happy they can always get a depressing 9-5er job paying 70k a year like the rest of society.

Edited February 3, 20178 yr by Bring-Back-Powell

The average AFL player's wage is 300k. 

 

 

 

Enough said.

14 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

as i understand it, the issue is not whether the players get a pay rise..... but whether they get a fixed % of all afl income... the distinction is important.

Huh?

 

You don't sit on the grass for something that has the possibility of you earning less. They want a fixed percentage, because the AFL's income is exploding, and they want more, more, more.

Head in sand.

I've seen Pendles walking his stupid little white dog through the rough streets of Middle Park.His humble little shack overshadowing the neighbourhood.

I often wonder how he can go on.

Meanwhile at Auskick they beg,borrow and steal from the community to feed it back into the AFL system.

Mark Jacksons comments"On the Couch" about Queensland footy are playing out in front of our eyes .

but 2k a week for an honest tradesman is too much?

Tradesmen don't ask for a cut after the house is sold for a massive profit.

Luke Ball et al can go take a flying at a rolling donut.

This sounds like the annual chest beating from those tough negotiators at the AFLPA

They'll make plenty of sound and fury right up to the moment when Gil explains to them what the negotiated outcome is. Then they'll quieten down for another 12 or so months.

If they really want to know what the players are thinking, get off the teat of the AFL and suggest the players pay a membership fee. Then they'll find out what the players want, or if the players even care.

The players are paid enough. But to me, that is not the point.

The institution/brand/adminstration of the game, the AFL, controls the vast percentage of money circulating through the game, and the profit derived from it. Any time a business or organisation prioritises time, energy and money for adminstration and maintenance over its core business (in this case the actual playing of football) then something has to be done to correct it. A player strike is not the answer here and just makes the players look like  greedy fools. 

The AFL is putridly rich, yet local grounds across the country are in apalling condition, century old clubs are dying, and kids now look at a sporting smorgasbord of which footy is only one option. How about they put some more dollars to the communitg development of footy? 

1 hour ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

The players can go and get nicked.

Fat chance I'm driving from Pakenham to Footscray in week 1 of the JLT just to see a bunch of overpaid over privalaged people sit on the grass while the umpire bounces the ball.

If they're not happy they can always get a depressing 9-5er job paying 70k a year like the rest of society.

Which is exactly what the vast majority of them will have to do once their football careers are over in their early thirties.  They might have no educational qualifications to fall back on, they might be carrying chronic issues with knees, legs, shoulders etc as a result of the rigours of AFL footy that will require expensive ongoing treatment/management, and unless they have been fortunate enough to be well advised, they will more than likely have no super plan in place (serious question: does the AFL pay super on player salaries?).

The various sponsors/television companies are making an absolute fortune out of these players who are providing one of the most watched entertainment spectacles in the country, so why shouldn't they be well compensated and as the income to the various sponsors/television companies increases, why shouldn't their salaries increase as well?  After all, the players are the ones who are putting their bodies on the line every time they step onto the field.

The 3 changes i would hope to see are

1. A Higher base wage for the Rookies, but isn't this the last year of the Rookie list?

2. More Money put aside for ex AFL footballers who need assistance with Medical Bills directly attributed to playing injuries

3. A change in Salary Cap criteria whereby the Bottom clubs do not pay exactly the same money as the Top Clubs, so there is room for incentive bonuses within a players contract.

25% of the AFL Gross output will be a huge amount once the league run their own media, i believe that will happen within the next decade.

Clubs will also have their own channels probably on a streaming basis.

I have no doubt this is why Marsh is going in so hard..This is his one and only Agenda, and he will fight on until he gets it.

Edited February 3, 20178 yr by Sir Why You Little