Players Strike....Thoughts

[old dee 23,799]

A player strike could easily be the end for me.

I have little interest in AFL beyond the MFC.

Take the game away for a few weeks and I would have little enthusiasm to return.

[Sir Why You Little 37,052]

16 minutes ago, SaberFang said:

Hard to believe any sane person who would knock that percentage back, especially in this climate. The stumbling block is that 20% in the first year is fine but 1% in successive years isn't enough because of CPI (laughable); do they even understand how pay increases over multiple years are determined? A set percentage is determined (in this case 26%) and then divided into the years of contract. By getting the vast majority of the increase upfront, it has financial benefits to players (like an instant benefit to interest in their savings account). What would you prefer, 20% + 1% + 1% + 1% + 2% or 5% + 5% + 5% + 5% + 5%?

I'd feel more sympathy for the AFLPA if the stumbling block was increasing the base salary for rookies, or introduce post-career care for concussion sufferers, or care for badly injured players who needed to retire prematurely. Unfortunately, their real goal is very transparent; guaranteeing even more money for the already overpaid 0.1% of players at the very top, while the median salary for the rest would barely change.

Hardly surprising that Dangerfield is leading the charge. Why not get some perspective from lesser-known players on sub-$100K rather than those trying to purchase their 2nd yacht?

I got a 2%pay rise last year

first one in 15 years

The AFLPA can get f....

[Moonshadow 17,676]

3 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I got a 2%pay rise last year

first one in 15 years

The AFLPA can get f....

Does your career only last for about 10 years (actually, I believe the AFL average is around the 4 game mark), include countless workplace injuries and your body is generally shot at the end? Not to mention lack of training for life atfer footy.

Whilst I do think the players and AFLPA are being overly ambitious, I don't think comparisons to the average punter's job are necessarily valid. It's a unique and unreal industry. I'm not sure what the result should be, but I know ex players who have been chewed up and spat out with little prospects afterwards. 

 

Edited April 20, 2017 by Moonshadow

[Sir Why You Little 37,052]

3 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Does your career only last for about 10 years (actually, I believe the AFL average is around the 4 game mark), include countless workplace injuries and your body is generally shot at the end? Not to mention lack of training for life atfer footy.

Whilst I do think the players and AFLPA are being overly ambitious, I don't think comparisons to the average punter's job are necessarily valid. It's a unique and unreal industry.

 

Of course not. But NOWHERE else is an Employee going to offer a 20% Pay Rise. 

Take it and be thankfull...

[Moonshadow 17,676]

2 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Of course not. But NOWHERE else is an Employee going to offer a 20% Pay Rise. 

Take it and be thankfull...

Some AEU covered teachers are going for 20%.

Just sayin'...

[Sir Why You Little 37,052]

31 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Some AEU covered teachers are going for 20%.

Just sayin'...

They would be mad not to take it. 

 

Just sayin'

[Biffen 12,944]

4 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

Does your career only last for about 10 years (actually, I believe the AFL average is around the 4 game mark), include countless workplace injuries and your body is generally shot at the end? Not to mention lack of training for life atfer footy.

Whilst I do think the players and AFLPA are being overly ambitious, I don't think comparisons to the average punter's job are necessarily valid. It's a unique and unreal industry. I'm not sure what the result should be, but I know ex players who have been chewed up and spat out with little prospects afterwards. 

 

If you look at the price of capital and the price of money  the last two decades then those who have access to money in bulk and early are going to outstrip those people on a normal wage with even the most basic investments.

I don't accept football as a comparable career to anything other than banking- where kids get large amounts of money they can then leverage into much more if they are half way smart.

The big money they get includes danger/ risk money,short career money etc.

They are compensated more than adequately.Even a 50 game player will get a kick start to life most people never get .

This is why bankers own most of London.Footballers get a chance to pay off an inner city house before they hit 25.From there life only gets easier.

Capital assets are purchased by those with the means and that wealth will appreciate quicker than cash.i.e houses and land,stock.etc.

They then have another 30 years to capitalise and work .

[monoccular 17,432]

On 03/02/2017 at 10:29 AM, Sir Why You Little said:

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. 

.....and those with prime time scheduling too.  The rich get richer and the poor struggle on handouts.  Like life in general.

But, hey, IF there is a strike how about the keyboard warriors from the various supporter websites (like this and 'ology) show their true skill sets, and undoubted courage, and put on matches at the scheduled times.  

[monoccular 17,432]

26 minutes ago, Biffen said:

If you look at the price of capital and the price of money  the last two decades then those who have access to money in bulk and early are going to outstrip those people on a normal wage with even the most basic investments.

I don't accept football as a comparable career to anything other than banking- where kids get large amounts of money they can then leverage into much more if they are half way smart.

The big money they get includes danger/ risk money,short career money etc.

They are compensated more than adequately.Even a 50 game player will get a kick start to life most people never get .

This is why bankers own most of London.Footballers get a chance to pay off an inner city house before they hit 25.From there life only gets easier.

Capital assets are purchased by those with the means and that wealth will appreciate quicker than cash.i.e houses and land,stock.etc.

They then have another 30 years to capitalise and work .

Except that those in banking are, generally, a lot more shrewd (and possibly devious) about their forward financial planning.  

[Biffen 12,944]

18 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Except that those in banking are, generally, a lot more shrewd (and possibly devious) about their forward financial planning.  

You would think so but the career of investment bankers is about 9 years on average- most of them get the lemonade after a big failure and can never work again in that field.

Many millionaires are created but not many last.

What people actually do with the money is up to them.

 

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

6 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

Does your career only last for about 10 years (actually, I believe the AFL average is around the 4 game mark), include countless workplace injuries and your body is generally shot at the end? Not to mention lack of training for life atfer footy.

Pretty serious stuff. The AFLPA will undoubtedly be pushing for post-career training and health plans for retired footballers. Rather than just a pay rise. Won't they?

7 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

Whilst I do think the players and AFLPA are being overly ambitious, I don't think comparisons to the average punter's job are necessarily valid. It's a unique and unreal industry.

For that reason I am happy for the players to be rewarded handsomely. But claims for super, long service leave, etc, are having a lend.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

4 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

Some AEU covered teachers are going for 20%.

Just sayin'...

Ambit claim. Plus, that's what they are asking for. Here we have the employer already offering it!

[Moonshadow 17,676]

Just now, Ted Fidge said:

Ambit claim. Plus, that's what they are asking for. Here we have the employer already offering it!

Fair point Ted. 

[xarronn 380]

7 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

Does your career only last for about 10 years (actually, I believe the AFL average is around the 4 game mark), include countless workplace injuries and your body is generally shot at the end? Not to mention lack of training for life atfer footy.

Whilst I do think the players and AFLPA are being overly ambitious, I don't think comparisons to the average punter's job are necessarily valid. It's a unique and unreal industry. I'm not sure what the result should be, but I know ex players who have been chewed up and spat out with little prospects afterwards. 

 

Isn't the average 4 Years rather than 4 games?

[deanox 9,940]

7 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

Does your career only last for about 10 years (actually, I believe the AFL average is around the 4 game mark), include countless workplace injuries and your body is generally shot at the end? Not to mention lack of training for life atfer footy.

Whilst I do think the players and AFLPA are being overly ambitious, I don't think comparisons to the average punter's job are necessarily valid. It's a unique and unreal industry. I'm not sure what the result should be, but I know ex players who have been chewed up and spat out with little prospects afterwards. 

 

You are probably right that on average, they have a hard time of that transition. 

 

But instead of additional pay rises, which will mostly go to the successful career players, any extra available money should go into career planning/training/education plus support for ex players.

 

About 100 players leave the AFL system every year.  Put on full time "retired player support officers" who's job it is to help players find training or jobs.  

Put money in a fund so that "delisted players with less than 5 years on the list" get a $50,000 stippend in their first year after being delisted if they take up a full time education option.

 

Don't ask for more salary cap. 

[Moonshadow 17,676]

12 minutes ago, xarronn said:

Isn't the average 4 Years rather than 4 games?

I was told about a year ago by an ex AFL player that the average games played per player is about 4. Happy to be corrected by someone with better stats. 

1 minute ago, deanox said:

You are probably right that on average, they have a hard time of that transition. 

But instead of additional pay rises, which will mostly go to the successful career players, any extra available money should go into career planning/training/education plus support for ex players.

About 100 players leave the AFL system every year.  Put on full time "retired player support officers" who's job it is to help players find training or jobs.  

Put money in a fund so that "delisted players with less than 5 years on the list" get a $50,000 stippend in their first year after being delisted if they take up a full time education option.

Don't ask for more salary cap. 

Agree completely deanox

[monoccular 17,432]

8 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

Does your career only last for about 10 years (actually, I believe the AFL average is around the 4 game mark), include countless workplace injuries and your body is generally shot at the end? Not to mention lack of training for life atfer footy.

Whilst I do think the players and AFLPA are being overly ambitious, I don't think comparisons to the average punter's job are necessarily valid. It's a unique and unreal industry. I'm not sure what the result should be, but I know ex players who have been chewed up and spat out with little prospects afterwards. 

 

1. They get guaranteed 2 years on pretty decent $ for an 18-19yo, regardless of playing zero or 44 games.

2. Do you think that when their footy careers are over they should be able to just go out to pasture at around 30 yo?   Nothing in footy precludes them from going on to a satisfying and well paid career or succession of careers like the rest of us, footy related or otherwise.  Those who have 'average careers' in footy, maybe 5 Y should have been able to put aside a tidy sum (as compared to 'normal' kids of their age who may have just finished study with large HECS debts etc) to set themselves up quite comfortably.

[CityDee 738]

After a good chat with a retired Hawk ( last season ) who has been in the system from 18 till stumps i reckon  they deserve as much as they can get if they are generating the money .

this bloke cant push a wheelbarrow jump on the tools -

will have ongoing costs with operations on hips shoulders 

cant run around with his future kids without serious pain 

you get the picture, also said the one day off a week is sacred and getting degrees and the like as a modern day player isnt easy at all . 

I reckon this guy would have made 2.5 - 3 mill over the journey less tax so should be ok . 

I reckon there are others who have paid a similar physical price for alot less which aint great.

look after the guys who are putting on the show and taking the hits first i say .  

 

[Moonshadow 17,676]

55 minutes ago, monoccular said:

1. They get guaranteed 2 years on pretty decent $ for an 18-19yo, regardless of playing zero or 44 games.

2. Do you think that when their footy careers are over they should be able to just go out to pasture at around 30 yo?   Nothing in footy precludes them from going on to a satisfying and well paid career or succession of careers like the rest of us, footy related or otherwise.  Those who have 'average careers' in footy, maybe 5 Y should have been able to put aside a tidy sum (as compared to 'normal' kids of their age who may have just finished study with large HECS debts etc) to set themselves up quite comfortably.

Don't necessarily disagree with your second point Mono.

But their first 2 years are:

1st rounder $78k pa + match payments etc 

2nd rounder $68k pa +

3rd rounder onwards $64k pa +

Rookie $55k pa +

Not necessarily big money for working 6 days pw when the average Aus wage is about $79k

Having said that, a number 1 pick can potentially earn nearly $200k pa. But there are an awful lot of 3rd, 4th, 5th rounders and rookies on AFL lists not getting games.

I guess I'm trying to bust the myth that all AFL players are rolling in cash and can spring able bodied into any reasonable occupation after their grand 4 game career ends. I know a few who certainly couldn't. 

Edited April 20, 2017 by Moonshadow

[demoniac 1,333]

It is of note that the players driving the AFLPA negotiations this time are the elite like Dangerfield, Selwood and Sloane. Which makes it great that our President has been revealed as architect of AFL option to go straight to players if a deal cannot be reached with AFLPA. Not an unexpected idea to emanate from a former Clayton Utz IR Partner but for mine its not a great idea for the club to be associated with given it will likely antagonise players who we may be seeking to recruit. 

I can see why they want a fixed percentage of AFL revenue. Under previous CBA their estimated percentage of income when deal was signed did not pan out fell as AFL income was greater than expected but because their share was not a fixed percentage players did not benefit. The reason the players hired Marsh was his success at getting a fixed percentage for cricketers.

Its easy to say players earn too much but the fact is they are entitled to a fair share of the income their talents generate.

 

Edited April 20, 2017 by demoniac

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,842]

And who says that AFL revenue will always continue to grow?  The players might want to be careful what the ask for chasing a % of revenue.

[beelzebub 23,380]

Who so ever striketh shall for all eternity be known upon the list of selfish phloggs.

They might well recall the lesson of Icarus !!

[Skuit 10,031]

The players and their dedication to football provide me with entertainment every week. The AFL meanwhile provides mostly antagonism. But still, I'm on the side of the AFL - which is a non-profit organisation and funnels the money back into the sport, even if on occasion they distribute it to the wrong places. Most of the players today would have benefited from this current non-profit-sharing arrangement at some stage in their development, and they also have it much better now thanks to many of the equally-dedicated non-benefiting players of the past.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

8 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Who so ever striketh shall for all eternity be known upon the list of selfish phloggs.

They might well recall the lesson of Icarus !!

Don't buy Homebrand wax?

[Diamond_Jim 12,596]

14 hours ago, deanox said:

You are probably right that on average, they have a hard time of that transition. 

 

But instead of additional pay rises, which will mostly go to the successful career players, any extra available money should go into career planning/training/education plus support for ex players.

 

About 100 players leave the AFL system every year.  Put on full time "retired player support officers" who's job it is to help players find training or jobs.  

Put money in a fund so that "delisted players with less than 5 years on the list" get a $50,000 stippend in their first year after being delisted if they take up a full time education option.

 

Don't ask for more salary cap. 

wonderful suggestion.... I could have just liked it but it is worth re-quoting

When the transition fund and health fund are in place plus something for players from the old days then the salary cap can go up