4 minutes ago, Macca said:

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.

 

Agree totally.

A career in Industrial relations, would indicate that likely outcome. There is little(no) consideration for community impacts, it's about self interest. I think Paul Keating got that right. 

If any player, ours included, sat on their arse in protest, I would boo, boo, then boo some more.

Racist.

 

There will be no strike. Some vvanker is postulating making big noises and the kiddies are following like the Pied Piper. It will go nowhere other than an agreed payrise, whatever the AFL decides. After all the AFL bankrolls the AFLPA in the main. No other major code spends as much elsewhere on developing the game as the AFL, I'll give them that. 

Players been led up the path. Gate'll shut soon. 

Reverse bluff.  Go on....go on strike... Who's first...who wants to be THAT one ?? Is a small world footy. Whoever so bold or foolish to do so will face shut doors everafter !! 

20 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

There will be no strike. Some vvanker is postulating making big noises and the kiddies are following like the Pied Piper. It will go nowhere other than an agreed payrise, whatever the AFL decides. After all the AFL bankrolls the AFLPA in the main. No other major code spends as much elsewhere on developing the game as the AFL, I'll give them that. 

Players been led up the path. Gate'll shut soon. 

Reverse bluff.  Go on....go on strike... Who's first...who wants to be THAT one ?? Is a small world footy. Whoever so bold or foolish to do so will face shut doors everafter !! 

if they were going to strike, they need to find a way that has minimal impact on the fans. i can think of some things but doubt they would concern the afl greatly

3 hours ago, daisycutter said:

if they were going to strike, they need to find a way that has minimal impact on the fans. i can think of some things but doubt they would concern the afl greatly

Yes DC.

Nobody showing up to the Brownlow would be a wonderful innovation.

Costly also to the right people.

5 hours ago, Fork 'em said:

Racist.

 

Saw some minstrels on vietnamese TV today which got a huge laugh in the Ka-Phe.

Never gets old.

3 hours ago, Biffen said:

Yes DC.

Nobody showing up to the Brownlow would be a wonderful innovation.

Costly also to the right people.

Yep. Boycott the AFL's sponsor's meet and greet events (while honouring club sponsor dos). Don't visit schools. Plenty of things they can do to p!ss off the AFL. A strike as a first resort is really poor tactics. Everyone knows they won't do it ... unless the really are that dumb.

From a supercoach and MFC perspective I'd be annoyed at a strike. But as to whether a strike is warranted, I have no idea. But just thinking about it right now, the AFL have a lot going on. They have the Women's footy, the ongoing franchises in the men's footy, the international expansion, stadium deals, and I'm sure many other potential cash drains, or areas for profit. So they will have to be careful with this player pay rise. If any one of the other areas start to fall to the wayside and bleed $$$, then the AFL could find itself in trouble.

It seems the new CBA negotiations have stalled, again. 

Our President has suggested a 'circuit breaker' - http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/shut-out-afl-players-union-once-pay-talks-stall-beyond-deadline-melbourne-president-glen-bartlett-20170419-gvo4y9.html

Quote:  "The Bartlett proposal, first suggested at the meeting of club presidents and the commission in March, would create a circuit-breaker for collective bargaining agreement negotiations between the AFL and the players...The AFL would shut out the players' union and go direct to the 800 or so players should no resolution be reached at a deadline set by both parties.

Now that would set the AFLPA squealing! 

My reading of events so far is the players on the AFLPA eg Dangerfield, Pavlich etc have really dug in their heals and taken a hard line eg threatened to strike. And, the AFLPA doesn't have many runs on the board.  It failed miserably to defend the Ess players and now is failing to get an agreement thru when many of their members are waiting to sign contracts.  AFLPA would be mighty upset to be shut out of the negotiation process.  But that might make Paul Marsh more amenable to negotiating.

Good to see Bartlett getting involved in broader AFL matters.  Gives him a bit of a profile.  Can't leave all the wheeling and dealing to Eddie.
.

In any workplace, the employer has the right to take a general vote directly to the employees, bypassing the union. Make a reasonably modest offer greater than what they have now, hold off for as long as necessary, put in place aggressive PR, then go for a general vote without the union. Sometimes people take a piece of cake instead of waiting for the whole cake to be offered. Bartlett is an IR specialist, he knows exactly what he's doing. 

 

1 minute ago, Moonshadow said:

In any workplace, the employer has the right to take a general vote directly to the employees, bypassing the union. Make a reasonably modest offer greater than what they have now, hold off for as long as necessary, put in place aggressive PR, then go for a general vote without the union. Sometimes people take a piece of cake instead of waiting for the whole cake to be offered. Bartlett is an IR specialist, he knows exactly what he's doing.

I know that.  But a general vote to employees is very very rare.

And yes, Barlett's legal practice specialises in IR.  That is why I posted the article.

7 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I know that.  But a general vote to employees is very very rare.

And yes, Barlett's legal practice specialises in IR.  That is why I posted the article.

Ok then... Was I quoting you or challenging what you posted?

Btw, it's happened twice unsuccessfully in my workplace in 2 years. That why I posted.

Every player is a member of the AFLPA (by default), I'd imagine such an approach would likely lead to disputation.

AFL also more or less bankroll the AFLPA (conflict of interest much?), so would they want to hamstring them so totally?

If the players actually voted against the AFLPA recommendations, how could they effectively represent players at all (personal judgements of how they represent players currently notwithstanding) going forward?

Many workplaces have negotiated 13% increments across 4 year deals, so 18 over 5 is pretty good when compared to other workplaces. Then again, the AFL is a billion dollar industry and AFL players are in and out of their careers in a much more compressed period of time than the typical workplace (on average about a quarter of their working life will account for 75% of their career earnings). The AFLPA have been pretty consistent in their requests for a percentage of revenue.  I can appreciate the clubs impatience, but find it telling that they fall in behind the AFL on this topic every time. 

5 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Ok then... Was I quoting you or challenging what you posted?

Btw, it's happened twice unsuccessfully in my workplace in 2 years. That why I posted.

Usually a tactic employed by management to create a wedge between non-union and union members of staff. Not viewed as good faith bargaining and its success usually is determined by how unionised a workforce is.

Might be a tough sell when 100% of players are AFLPA members.

9 minutes ago, ChaserJ said:

Usually a tactic employed by management to create a wedge between non-union and union members of staff. Not viewed as good faith bargaining and its success usually is determined by how unionised a workforce is.

Might be a tough sell when 100% of players are AFLPA members.

Is it compulsory for all players to be a member 'Chaser'?

1 hour ago, rjay said:

Is it compulsory for all players to be a member 'Chaser'?

i believe joining has become part of the induction for new players into AFL and a lot of the access to player development programs is organised through the PA, it's as close to compulsory without it officially being a formalised condition of being a registered AFL player.

I don't like union busting tactics. I wish he'd stay out of it. People who think unions have too much power should look at the history of the past forty years - a rapidly widening gap between rich and poor. There are very few powerful unions in Australia today. This is a result of the effective strategies employed by conservative governments and employers in combination with the changing landscape of the economy. There is much less job stability and the employment environment is constantly shifting. The numbers of unionised workers is fraction of what it was in the 1970s. Unions are by and large, much less powerful. Nowadays, when a union appears to have any semblance of bargaining strength, they are roundly pilloried by the conservative media. I'm not suggesting that AFL players are poor but that they have every right to negotiate a CBA which protects them, sets up a reasonable pay structure which is commensurate with the very profitable industry they work in. It is a high risk, high reward career. Their careers can be very short lived and they deserve some security.

This is where we'll see how seriously the players take their rep association.

If the players think the AFLPA really represents them, they'll tell the AFL to get knotted and to talk to the PA or no-one.

On the other hand, if they play along and deal directly with head office, then they're giving a clear indication that the PA does not represent them. And Paul Marsh can go back to cleaning Gil's pool without distraction.

My bet: well before then, the PA will have a revelation and accept the 20% on offer.

Who is that young firebrand in sector 7 G?.

Dangerfield ey?

Is he a union man?

Get him up here Smithers!!

My reading is is that the AFL is willing to consider a 'fixed % of revenue'.  Paul Marsh made his name by negotiating using that same model for Cricket players. This is a model that Cricket Australia is on the verge of abandoning because their view is 'it is dated'. 

It seems the main stumbling block with the AFL is the scope of the AFLPA claim for what is 'revenue'. 

The AFLPA are demanding a % of Total AFL and Club revenue.  ie At the Club level this includes things like pokie revenue, fundraising, merchandising, sponsorship, gate takings etc etc.  Not sure what AFL revenue would be included.

Not sure where the AFLPA thinks the Clubs are going to find the money.  It will hurt a lot of clubs like ours who have small membership bases and limited opportunities for high value sponsorships etc.

But that aside my concern is that a greater $ pool just means the top few elite players will command bigger contracts ala Free Agents and KPP in high demand.  The next tier may improve their overall contracts somewhat but the other 75% of players won't see much difference.  

Let them eat cake...and be damn thankful its cake and not dog biscuits.

Too many have tickets on themselves.

It's put up or shut up time for the AFLPA

The deal that the AFL has offered is pretty dam good. 

Imagine a 20% Pay rise for next year...

28 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

It's put up or shut up time for the AFLPA

The deal that the AFL has offered is pretty dam good. 

Imagine a 20% Pay rise for next year...

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. As with most pay increases, a total percentage is usually determined (in this case ~25%) and then divided into the years of contract. By getting the vast majority of the increase upfront, it has financial benefits to players. 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 to introduce post-career care for concussion sufferers, or care for badly injured players who needed to retire prematurely. Unfortunately, their goal seems to just be guaranteeing even more money for the 0.1% at the top, while the median salary would hardly change.

Why not get some perspective from lesser-known players on sub-$100K rather than those trying to purchase their 4th house?

Merchant bankers will be marching in the streets if this deal goes through.

Must be time for the teachers ,nurses and cops to get a pay rise too.

I feel for the AFLPA. They,like the real estate agents are doing it tough.