3 hours ago, hardtack said:

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 opportunities for AFL players to study or take work experience during their football careers are endless. If players want to spend their downtime away from the game playing on an XBox or drinking, good luck to them, but don't come crying to me that you have no future. The smart ones will take the opportunities to set themselves up for life, even if their football careers are relatively short.

That said, the players deserve to be well compensated for their contributions to the game. Getting rid of the rookie list should be the first step, getting rid of the minimum salary cap should be the second.

 

Edited February 3, 20178 yr by george_on_the_outer
language

2 hours ago, poita said:

 The opportunities for AFL players to study or take work experience during their football careers are endless. If players want to spend their downtime away from the game playing on an XBox or drinking, good luck to them, but don't come crying to me that you have no future. The smart ones will take the opportunities to set themselves up for life, even if their football careers are relatively short.

That said, the players deserve to be well compensated for their contributions to the game. Getting rid of the rookie list should be the first step, getting rid of the minimum salary cap should be the second.

 

Hey, no need to butter it up.  I have no idea what opportunities the players have, so you may well be correct (I didn't make a definitive statement re that).  As you said, the "smart ones" will set themselves up... unfortunately there are bound to be those who are not that smart.

Edited February 3, 20178 yr by george_on_the_outer
language quote

1 hour ago, hardtack said:

  As you said, the "smart ones" will set themselves up... unfortunately there are bound to be those who are not that smart.

So of course they need more money to blow in the meantime.

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

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?

Consider rookies as VFL players, with the ability to be elevated to a list if good enough. Hardly worthy of a big pay rise. If the amount is currently enough for them to quit their day job gleefully, why the need for heaps more?

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

Good idea, but wouldn't they have medial insurance, like the rest of the working world?

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.

Minimum salary cap should be much less than current, or eliminated altogether.

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.

What happens when new media streams become available, that might cost a motza to operate? (Smellovision,  holographic image etc....yeah ok, , but who knows what will be available)

I don't see a problem with simply renegotiating a new deal each time a media deal is sealed.

A fixed percentage simply means that in future, the AFLPA will angle for a slice of something else, on top of what they already have. Remember, unions are never satisfied with what they already have.

 

1 hour ago, hardtack said:

Hey, no need to butter it up.  I have no idea what opportunities the players have, so you may well be correct (I didn't make a definitive statement re that).  As you said, the "smart ones" will set themselves up... unfortunately there are bound to be those who are not that smart.

Are you suggesting that the AFL up the monies paid, to support the ones too dumb too plan for their own future?

Only kidding, I'm sure you are not.

AFL shares similarities to politics. Many doors are opened by it.

11 minutes ago, faultydet said:

 

The whole Media Industry is in a kind of limbo at the moment, we have had massive changes with more to come & nobody really can predict at this stage how it is going to pan out. So it would be a massive call for the AFL to allow 25% at this stage

Free to Air TV is in it's final stages, be that good or bad it won't be around for long

7 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

The whole Media Industry is in a kind of limbo at the moment, we have had massive changes with more to come & nobody really can predict at this stage how it is going to pan out. So it would be a massive call for the AFL to allow 25% at this stage

Free to Air TV is in it's final stages, be that good or bad it won't be around for long

are you predicting the demise of the abc, wyl?   lol

The issue I have is that all the money up for grabs comes from the punters. Yes there are corporate $ but that is because they think there is a positive cost-benefit ratio to get more money off the public.

Yet there is ZERO discussion about the average punter getting a share of the new money coming in. How about putting money back into grass roots footy, or reducing the cost of tickets/membership???

We have no say in the debate.

 

15 minutes ago, DeeGee said:

The issue I have is that all the money up for grabs comes from the punters. Yes there are corporate $ but that is because they think there is a positive cost-benefit ratio to get more money off the public.

Yet there is ZERO discussion about the average punter getting a share of the new money coming in. How about putting money back into grass roots footy, or reducing the cost of tickets/membership???

We have no say in the debate.

 

...or free Fox Footy.

45 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

are you predicting the demise of the abc, wyl?   lol

iview will survive

4 minutes ago, rjay said:

...or free Fox Footy.

Rupert giving away free footy??

10 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

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

they have already been overpaid

Who are you referring to? not many players have been there for 10 years, Jones worth every cent, I'll think you will find the duds are gone and I don't feel like bklaming the current crop for mistakes of the past. They are totally within their rights to negotiate over their wages.

23 minutes ago, DaisyDeeciple said:

Who are you referring to? not many players have been there for 10 years, Jones worth every cent, I'll think you will find the duds are gone and I don't feel like bklaming the current crop for mistakes of the past. They are totally within their rights to negotiate over their wages.

You are free to have your opinion, but as a supporter of nearly 50 years i don't feel i have got great value for money on most of those years

Robbie Flower aside

Just now, Sir Why You Little said:

You are free to have your opinion, but as a supporter of nearly 50 years i don't feel i have got great value for money on most of those years

Robbie Flower aside

I take it you hold it to be true that the sins of the fathers are the sins of the sons? - Our list has turned over, the bruise free players of the past are well and truly gone.

5 minutes ago, DaisyDeeciple said:

I take it you hold it to be true that the sins of the fathers are the sins of the sons? - Our list has turned over, the bruise free players of the past are well and truly gone.

I know all that. But the club has to rebuild faith in its fan base. We still haven't done anything  

round 22 last year not one player deserved to get paid with a finals spot on the line  

Strike Action is not going to help all that. 

From a purely selfish point of view we can't afford our player to strike.

We are a young developing team and need as much footy as we can get and we need it with our senior leaders on the park standing up showing the way.

Let Pendles and the old timers from other clubs take their eye's of the ball and carry the can on this...

Edited February 3, 20178 yr by rjay

27 minutes ago, rjay said:

From a purely selfish point of view we can't afford our player to strike.

We are a young developing team and need as much footy as we can get and we need it with our senior leaders on the park standing up showing the way.

Let Pendles and the old timers from other clubs take their eye's of the ball and carry the can on this...

Exactly the last thing we need is a player revolt. 

We had 186 and we lost to Essendrug last year for 2 more examples

1 hour ago, rjay said:

From a purely selfish point of view we can't afford our player to strike.

We are a young developing team and need as much footy as we can get and we need it with our senior leaders on the park standing up showing the way.

Let Pendles and the old timers from other clubs take their eye's of the ball and carry the can on this...

There will be no strike.

Channel 7 and Fox would have conniptions. The AwFuL doesn't want or need the embarrassment. Or the leaning on they'd get from Ch7 & Fox.

Mr Marsh will find a horse's head in his bed if any strike looks even remotely like becoming a reality.

And who do they think they're kidding anyway? It's a stupid ambit proposal (unless they're actually serious???), there are other actions they can take well before it comes to a strike.

Agree Ted. Be no strike. 

Someones having a lend of themselves bigtime trying to marshal the lads.

Wont Actually Need Knock ing 

Another thing they can do is take a look at the career of Bob Cowper.

Made a triple century for his country then headed off to Monte Carlo to build a new life in the banking world.

We have seen enough bluff at our club to know they get more than enough.

Pendles brought the NFL into the equation. we don't have 300miilion people to pay for their financial ambitoos and the AFL would do well to ignore the goings on in the US and just leave the game alone, remove the match day experience failures and cut out the copycat cringe worthy crap.

6 hours ago, Biffen said:

Another thing they can do is take a look at the career of Bob Cowper.

Made a triple century for his country then headed off to Monte Carlo to build a new life in the banking world.

We have seen enough bluff at our club to know they get more than enough.

Pendles brought the NFL into the equation. we don't have 300miilion people to pay for their financial ambitoos and the AFL would do well to ignore the goings on in the US and just leave the game alone, remove the match day experience failures and cut out the copycat cringe worthy crap.

The NFL doesn't look after nor promote the various projects as does the AFL.

Call their bluff. Young turks with giant egos. Then instruct lil Johnny and Janey " see them...they care more about the car they drive than footy ! More about money than you"

Kids big and small idolise these faux heroes but can be shown they have misplaced reverance without too much effort.

There is mischief here for sure. Easy to spot the Mainchancers. Call them on it. Let them strike. ( They won't )

It's make or break time for Marsh, that is the only thing we really know so far. 

A lock out at Carlscum last night won't help the Chaps cause...

So we know that there is a truckload of money that the AFL generates that can be distributed in whichever way that the AFL wants (to a point) ... if the players don't get to their desired outcomes, where does those tens of millions of dollars go?

It's all very well to say that the money should go back into grass-roots programs but does anyone seriously believe that the AFL are going to redirect funds in that direction?  Fat chance.

So if the money is up for grabs then we can't blame the players for trying to get as much of that money as possible.  I don't blame them at all - they're putting on the show.

Ultimately we fund those monies and as long as we continue to watch the sport in droves, those large amounts of monies are going to continue to stream in. 

12 minutes ago, Macca said:

So we know that there is a truckload of money that the AFL generates that can be distributed in whichever way that the AFL wants (to a point) ... if the players don't get to their desired outcomes, where does those tens of millions of dollars go?

It's all very well to say that the money should go back into grass-roots programs but does anyone seriously believe that the AFL are going to redirect funds in that direction?  Fat chance.

So if the money is up for grabs then we can't blame the players for trying to get as much of that money as possible.  I don't blame them at all - they're putting on the show.

Ultimately we fund those monies and as long as we continue to watch the sport in droves, those large amounts of monies are going to continue to stream in. 

I don't blame the players for wanting more Cash either.

What makes me angry is when MFC players give up with 2 rounds of the season to go, with a Finals Spot still up for grabs and then later want that extra Cash. 

Just now, Sir Why You Little said:

I don't blame the players for wanting more Cash either.

What makes me angry is when MFC players give up with 2 rounds of the season to go, with a Finals Spot still up for grabs and then later want that extra Cash. 

I don't necessarily disagree with your thoughts on the MFC  - I just don't see the real relevance with this particular issue.

People here need to realise that if they're not arguing on behalf of the players they are effectively arguing for the corporate giant that is the AFL.

In an ideal world a lot of those monies would be redirected into worthy causes (such as country footy, metro footy,  junior programs etc) but history tells us that the AFL continues to be far too frugal in those areas. 

I'd also dispense with a 'minimum' salary cap but keep the maximum.   All pokies ownership and operations would go too.  Stringent PED testing (weekly blood tests as opposed to once a year urine tests)  The last 2 items would cost the clubs & the AFL a lot of money but they'd be able to readjust. 

But it won't happen so my ideal outcome is nothing but a pipe-dream.

If the AFL wants the public to be on their side then maybe they can promote a better way to distribute those tens of millions of dollars ... at the moment all we're effectively hearing is "We don't want to give the players any more money"