Players Strike....Thoughts

[Sir Why You Little 36,977]

16 minutes ago, Macca said:

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"

 

I only care about the MFC, the AFL has already shown itself to be corrupt to the core with how the Essendrug saga panned out. 

All i am saying is that the MFC do not deserve a pay rise after the decade we have just endured.  

Edited February 4, 2017 by Sir Why You Little

[daisycutter 29,604]

9 minutes ago, Macca said:

... at the moment all we're effectively hearing is "We don't want to give the players any more money"

 

not sure that is accurate, macca. the afl are offering the players more money. the aflpa is saying we want a fixed % as an ongoing contract and are nominating a %.

either way the players will get more money

so a pay rise in itself not the issue, nor is arguing about whether the players deserve more money. all agree on that. It's all about how much.

the afl don't seem to want to budge on the issue of a fixed %. Maybe the aflpa just want to scare the afl with the % tactic to force a bigger $ deal than the afl are offering . It's a good bargaining tactic. as usual in these deals no-one is saying what they really are prepared to accept.

[Macca 16,922]

10 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

the afl don't seem to want to budge on the issue of a fixed %. Maybe the aflpa just want to scare the afl with the % tactic to force a bigger $ deal than the afl are offering . It's a good bargaining tactic. as usual in these deals no-one is saying what they really are prepared to accept.

I knew the details, but the devil is in the details. 

A fixed percentage of revenue for the players (is it 25%?) would 'effectively' be a bridge too far for the AFL.  The AFL would much prefer to pay a fixed amount or a percentage of the 'net income' (and that figure would then have to be agreed upon) 

Anyway, the thrust of my argument is that if we're not on the players side, we're 'effectively' on the AFL's side.  And generally, it's difficult to ever find a kind word about the AFL (both here and as a general rule)

 

[daisycutter 29,604]

1 minute ago, Macca said:

I knew the details, but the devil is in the details. 

A fixed percentage of revenue for the players (is it 25%?) would 'effectively' be a bridge too far for the AFL.  The AFL would much prefer to pay a fixed amount or a percentage of the 'net income' (and that figure would then have to be agreed upon) 

Anyway, the thrust of my argument is that if we're not on the players side, we're 'effectively' on the AFL's side.  And generally, it's difficult to ever find a kind word about the AFL (both here and as a general rule)

 

it's true we are not normally on the afl's side. we have also in the past been quite critical of the aflpa, how they are funded, what they do and don't do etc.

as for how the afl spend their tv rights windfall, then that's a separate discussion and many here have quite rightly suggested obvious areas where they should be spending more

[Diamond_Jim 12,539]

Good Post Macca

Perhaps they could also reject the gambling sponsorship....... it is now way over the top.

[Macca 16,922]

Just now, daisycutter said:

it's true we are not normally on the afl's side. we have also in the past been quite critical of the aflpa, how they are funded, what they do and don't do etc.

as for how the afl spend their tv rights windfall, then that's a separate discussion and many here have quite rightly suggested obvious areas where they should be spending more

The AFL or the AFLPA ... Trump or Hillary ... Collingwood or Essendon on ANZAC day.

No ideal outcomes there dc

For what it's worth I reckon the AFL & the AFLPA will come to an agreement and we won't see any strike action.  Even if we did,  I suspect we'd only see the more veteran players sitting out the practice games (as they're apt to do now anyway)

[Sir Why You Little 36,977]

A strike will only work if the majority to all walk out together

[Macca 16,922]

16 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

A strike will only work if the majority to all walk out together

Depends on what the objective is Wyl ... what if the AFLPA just want to exert a little muscle to try and strengthen their position?

As far as I can make out the CBA agreement expired on the 31st of October 2016 but ... the terms of that agreement continue on verbatim until such a time as a new agreement is reached.  There are a few other clauses that can change that arrangement but none that have been taken up as yet.

So both sides are not necessarily in a hurry ... the current CBA agreement in place is not necessarily a bad one for both parties so we may continue to see ongoing threats and maneuvers until both sit down at the table and nut things out.  Or alternatively, the standoff could go on for quite some time.

[Sir Why You Little 36,977]

1 hour ago, Macca said:

Depends on what the objective is Wyl ... what if the AFLPA just want to exert a little muscle to try and strengthen their position?

As far as I can make out the CBA agreement expired on the 31st of October 2016 but ... the terms of that agreement continue on verbatim until such a time as a new agreement is reached.  There are a few other clauses that can change that arrangement but none that have been taken up as yet.

So both sides are not necessarily in a hurry ... the current CBA agreement in place is not necessarily a bad one for both parties so we may continue to see ongoing threats and maneuvers until both sit down at the table and nut things out.  Or alternatively, the standoff could go on for quite some time.

Marsh was bought in to get the deal done. He wants more than to just flex muscle. 

[Macca 16,922]

41 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Marsh was bought in to get the deal done. He wants more than to just flex muscle. 

Threatening to strike in largely meaningless practice games is hardly going to make them shudder at AFL house ... there's a percentage of fans who might think the games are ultra-important but even most of those fans change their tune once the practice games are done with.  The same process gets repeated every season - 'Can't wait' becomes meh

As for striking when the real stuff gets going, I very much doubt it will ever get to that stage.  Regardless, there's been no mention of striking during the season proper.

As is often the case, the middle ground will win out ... the ambit claim is just that.  An ambit claim.

A negotiated percentage will be agreed to.  Are the players currently getting 22% and wanting 25%?  Look for a negotiated figure between those 2 numbers.  The new TV rights which is about to kick in (2.508 billion) has changed the landscape. 

Survey finds 711 of 712 AFL players support push for percentage pay model

 

 

 

 

.

Edited February 4, 2017 by Macca

[daisycutter 29,604]

23 minutes ago, Macca said:

A negotiated percentage will be agreed to.  Are the players currently getting 22% and wanting 25%?  Look for a negotiated figure between those 2 numbers.  The new TV rights which is about to kick in (2.508 billion) has changed the landscape. 

 

very much doubt they will get a contracted %. they don't now and that would set a precedent the afl don't want at all costs

they will be offered a generous pay increase graded over the term of the media rights deal

[Macca 16,922]

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

very much doubt they will get a contracted %. they don't now and that would set a precedent the afl don't want at all costs

they will be offered a generous pay increase graded over the term of the media rights deal

It's been reported that the players currently get 22% of revenues but you're right, that figure isn't written into the now expired CBA.  However, the figure is and can be used as a guideline towards their ambit claim of 25%.

The players are currently being offered a 10% increase for this season with incremental increases thereafter (probably around about 3%)  This offered deal effectively keeps the players share of revenues at about 22%.

I do tend to agree with your projected outcome but ... it's now been over 3 months since the agreement ran out and the offer from the AFL hasn't been accepted.

 

[daisycutter 29,604]

10 minutes ago, Macca said:

It's been reported that the players currently get 22% of revenues but you're right, that figure isn't written into the now expired CBA.  However, the figure is and can be used as a guideline towards their ambit claim of 25%.

The players are currently being offered a 10% increase for this season with incremental increases thereafter (probably around about 3%)  This offered deal effectively keeps the players share of revenues at about 22%.

I do tend to agree with your projected outcome but ... it's now been over 3 months since the agreement ran out and the offer from the AFL hasn't been accepted.

 

yes, whatever they get will be compared or expressed (by some) as a % of afl income........but there will be no contracted % of afl income (if the afl have their way).

the afl will only want to express it as a % increase on their previous deal to put it publicly for them in the best light

[old dee 23,781]

A strike could easily be the end for me as far as AFL is concerned.

I have been losing interest for two years and that might be the Coup de gras. 

[Sir Why You Little 36,977]

1 hour ago, Macca said:

Threatening to strike in largely meaningless practice games is hardly going to make them shudder at AFL house ... there's a percentage of fans who might think the games are ultra-important but even most of those fans change their tune once the practice games are done with.  The same process gets repeated every season - 'Can't wait' becomes meh

As for striking when the real stuff gets going, I very much doubt it will ever get to that stage.  Regardless, there's been no mention of striking during the season proper.

As is often the case, the middle ground will win out ... the ambit claim is just that.  An ambit claim.

A negotiated percentage will be agreed to.  Are the players currently getting 22% and wanting 25%?  Look for a negotiated figure between those 2 numbers.  The new TV rights which is about to kick in (2.508 billion) has changed the landscape. 

Survey finds 711 of 712 AFL players support push for percentage pay model

 

 

 

 

.

I have no concern about Practise Games either. This will go further than that if the AFLPA are serious. 

All i know is that Paul Marsh was bought in to do one job. 

To get 25% for the players

he will either succeed or fail

[SaberFang 7,151]

I think any player deciding to boycott playing for their club would almost be facing career suicide with their coaches.

There's no shortage of talented depth players who would happily step up to the plate if someone else in the team was dumb enough to go on strike for a H&A match.

They'd also forego any match payments by refusing to play, plus probably breach any number of contractual obligations. It's all hot air.

[Macca 16,922]

13 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I have no concern about Practise Games either. This will go further than that if the AFLPA are serious. 

All i know is that Paul Marsh was bought in to do one job. 

To get 25% for the players

he will either succeed or fail

Well the "JLT Community Series" starts in 12 days so we'll find out soon enough Wyl.

 

 

 

[Deecisive 1,709]

The players are getting extremely well paid, the average is wage is somewhere around $75k, though there are an awful lot of people not getting anywhere near that evern. Base wage for a footballer is around $300k, 4 x the average wage, So someone playing for 3 years will earn close to $1m, which would take someone on an average wage something like 13 years to earn that same amount. Some obviously have short careers 1-3 years but at least they had a chance and  some have had long careers at even greater money how much did we pay Dawes. And they get that money even though they may have been pretty ordinary seasons at times. Cloak springs to mind... In my mind there are a lot of players paid far more than they are worth. Some dont even play for years at a time due to injuries but still get huge salaries.  Sorry I think striking for more is just greedy,  If they dont want to play then move over there are a lot more young and older folk who would love the wonderful opportunity that they have. 

[daisycutter 29,604]

not the base pay......the average pay

and i query the $300k average because 44 x 300k is 13,2M which is appreciably above the salary cap

[Earl Hood 6,082]

14 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

not the base pay......the average pay

and i query the $300k average because 44 x 300k is 13,2M which is appreciably above the salary cap

DC that is the problem with averages. There are of course a select few on $700k plus and then the rest, including rookies on $50k. It averages out but means nothing in terms of fairness. 

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

On ‎03‎/‎02‎/‎2017 at 10:28 AM, 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 haven't read through the whole thread yet to see if there was a counter... and while I agree in principle its what the players are after I don't think its what will actually happen once they get their bread buttered.

The AFLPA will probably increase the minimum base for rookies, eliminate the rookie list etc which is good for the lower paid players. I readily admit I don't know the details and am purely guessing.

The big issue is the bigger pool of cash. There is no guarantee this money will go to the lower ranks, (unless written in some form of payment legislation). The players operate a free market (which is what they wanted to increase salaries, not restrict trade etc). What I think will happen is the top paid players and the more experienced will get more. Like we are seeing now with contracts. The poorer players will remain well paid but low compared to top end.

If the AFLPA were serious they would share the pool and have a limit for the top paid so the bottom get more.... They clearly won't do that. Which for me means the players are simply after a cash grab.

I believe the players deserve what they get, I don't believe they should throw it in the face of the people who make it possible - US the supporters who pay the memberships and watch the ads that make them the money.

It will be very interesting to see what happens

 

[Fork 'em 6,983]

AFL players are always looking to the American professional sports for inspiration and all they think is the sooner they're making 20 Million a year the better.

 

[junk 342]

This is a case of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. I would say 50% of the poor people would attend footy matches and thus would contribute to the salaries of the players,without their contribution the wages would not be as high as they are. What about the womens AFL footy teams,most players don't get a wage,so money will need to be spent on them ( the women). The AFL womens match Coll V Car did attract a crowd of 24,000 despite the tickets being freebies. We also need to applease the social media and polictian women (may include vote grabbing men)  for equal pay. This could be one for Fair Work Australia !!!!! 

[dpositive 1,663]

21 hours 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. 

Good points Macca, unfortunately there is little opportunity for those who fund the sport to direct how it will be distributed.

i am sure most would want less to the administrators and more to the grass roots development etc, maybe more to the developing female sector.

Perhaps a strike by the spectators would be more valuable to the progress of the game than a player strike.

[Macca 16,922]

Just now, dpositive said:

Good points Macca, unfortunately there is little opportunity for those who fund the sport to direct how it will be distributed.

i am sure most would want less to the administrators and more to the grass roots development etc, maybe more to the developing female sector.

Perhaps a strike by the spectators would be more valuable to the progress of the game than a player strike.

We'll stay watching ... the sport sells itself.  The rivalries,  the tribalism,  the eyes on the prize,  Supercoach/Dreamteam,  tipping comps,  gambling & the aesthetic qualities.  We can't look away.

'dc' is on the money (no pun intended) ... the deal will be done that appeases both sides without a percentage of the total revenue being written into the new CBA (see post #63)

When factoring in how much money is involved, both sides can't really lose anyway.  Not to my eyes.