21 hours ago, xarronn said:

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

 

21 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

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. 

Agree completely deanox

The actual figure is not absolutely clear but I am sure it is not as low as an average of 4 games.  Consider that  74 listed players who played 0 games plus Bob Murphy would give you an average of 4 games. Not that many players last to 300, but for every player that plays 100 games there have to be 24 others that play none. 

Of course in the final analysis it is not games played but years on a list which matters in terms of payments. Look at a guy like Spencer, I believe this is his 10th year counting his time on the rookie list. Daniel Menzel in his 8th year with not many games. There are plenty of others 

A few years back the AFLPA was claiming the the average career was only 2.5 years. That didn't ring true to me and a quick calculation of players who had been on the Melb lists, didn't support that. I notice the AFLPA no longer use this figure at all.

I have found two other figures,  one  from an article by Michelangelo Rucci: He would be just quoting common statements that have been mentioned

'GENERALLY, it is a short career - four years for the average AFL player. But that is long enough now for a player to collect more than $1 million, along with free tertiary education, a cache of frequent-flier points and valuable off-field connections'.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-players-laughing-all-the-way-to-the-bank-average-salary-now-265179/news-story/e7d0f6b9e24362675f64b1ffc50432ed

The second from a paper by the School of Sport Science, Exercise and Health The University of Western Australia: One would expect that it is based on some analysis of data and so it claims.

'The average playing career is approximately 6.2 years' (5). That reference came from 5. AFL Players’ Association. Player retirement data since 1997.

http://hpeu.com.au/media/8963/afl-careers-and-injuries_perspectives-of-past-players.pdf

I am quite surprised at that figure of 6.2 years, but probably because of the myths and misinformation which has been peddled in the past.

As I said earlier it is interesting that the AFLPA is no longer using the 2.5 year claim that it was making  before the last agreement.

Just to be clear, I am not arguing about player salaries here, only trying to clarify what the true career span of players on AFL lists is.

Good get xxaron

I didn't realise how impressive the club presidents C.V. is. He is obviously a well-respected pro in his field and "Bartlett's proposal, which he has also put before other commissioners, is in line with industrial reforms which led to the 2009 Australian Fair Work Act." I would have thought the law of the land was a good model because whatever the AFL is doing is clearly not working. 

It must be extraordinarily difficult to plan player contracts if you don't know what you have to pay or can afford. WE have several young champions we want to tie up for years.

So ... I thought the 4 games must be a bit low. I took all MFC players from the 90s, 00s and 10s. Removed those still playing (Jones, Watts, etc etc). Stuck 'em in Excel.

And got these results:

185 players

4.6 years average on list

51.7 games average

Would expect most clubs to be similar.

These numbers include players like Scully and Byrnes who played elsewhere before or after. So those players actually have higher no of years/games than counted in the MFC lists. My numbers are therefore a low figure but probably only by a bit.

I think people are confused with the definition of 'average' in this context. As in; an average AFL player, like Tom McNamara, will end up playing about four games of AFL for their career.

11 minutes ago, Skuit said:

I think people are confused with the definition of 'average' in this context. As in; an average AFL player, like Tom McNamara, will end up playing about four games of AFL for their career.

Exactly. Like, Isaac Weetra has Brent Harvey to thank for reaching the hallowed 4-game average.

On 20/04/2017 at 3:37 PM, Moonshadow said:

Some AEU covered teachers are going for 20%.

Just sayin'...

Think that's landed at 13-17.5% rises over the life of the new agreement (4 year deal I believe, in principle agreement is in place).

16-20% (when you factor in the removal of the veterans allowance) over the life of the agreement for AFL players isn't such an amazing deal when compared with what some other workplaces are securing. Of course there are others that are getting nowhere near that amount. 

Looks like the deal is almost done. 

Players to get 28% of total revenue i am told. 

So the PA won the battle....

6 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Looks like the deal is almost done. 

Players to get 28% of total revenue i am told. 

So the PA won the battle....

The PA will win every battle. They represent the valuable resources.

*28% of the revenues that the players directly contribute to. 

What that converts to in terms of the percentage of the total revenue is unknown at this stage.  I'd say it would be less than 25% though.  Somewhere between 22% - 25% probably.

In dollar terms the 6 year wages deal would be worth more than 1.5 billion (the 6 year broadcast rights amounts to 2.508 billion)

There's not too many losers whichever way it's spun. 

18 minutes ago, Macca said:

*28% of the revenues that the players directly contribute to. 

What that converts to in terms of the percentage of the total revenue is unknown at this stage.  I'd say it would be less than 25% though.  Somewhere between 22% - 25% probably.

In dollar terms the 6 year wages deal would be worth more than 1.5 billion (the 6 year broadcast rights amounts to 2.508 billion)

There's not too many losers whichever way it's spun. 

Players represent the game in all facets i would argue. 28% is 28%

i wish my Union had balls that large. 

43 minutes ago, Chook said:

The PA will win every battle. They represent the valuable resources.

Yes. But it was a test...

1 minute ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Players represent the game in all facets i would argue. 28% is 28%

i wish my Union had balls that large. 

Things like the TV money, membership, sponsorship etc but not sure about poker machine revenue and the like.  That's what they'd mean ... the figure was about 22% so I highly doubt it would jump up all the way to 28%. Not when they were only pushing for about 25% anyway.

AFL, players believe resolution to pay dispute in sight

Quote

While neither party would publicly discuss the finer detail of the positive turn in negotiations in the past week - nor the revenue streams the AFL has removed from the overall model - the new CBA should see the players claiming 28 per cent of the revenues to which they believe they directly contribute.

 

3 minutes ago, Macca said:

Things like the TV money, membership, sponsorship etc but not sure about poker machine revenue and the like.  That's what they'd mean ... the figure was about 22% so I highly doubt it would jump up all the way to 28%. Not when they were only pushing for about 25% anyway.

AFL, players believe resolution to pay dispute in sight

 

28% of total Revenue was what i was told this afternoon

so i will watch with interest. 

From what i gathered the PA had upped the deal and it was agreed. 

The players want a slice of it all & i think they have got it!!

2 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

28% of total Revenue was what i was told this afternoon

so i will watch with interest. 

From what i gathered the PA had upped the deal and it was agreed. 

The players want a slice of it all & i think they have got it!!

Who told you?  Some bloke in a pub?

It's all fake news anyway Wyl .. and no one loses here anyway.  There's a whole bunch of people associated with the sport making a nice dollar.  And good luck to 'em I say. 

We said it earlier in the thread ... they all walk away happy.

Just now, Macca said:

Who told you?  Some bloke in a pub?

It's all fake news anyway Wyl .. and no one loses here anyway.  There's a whole bunch of people associated with the sport making a nice dollar.  And good luck to 'em I say. 

We said it earlier in the thread ... they all walk away happy.

Media insiders tell me Macca, it's where i work. They aint always right but the strike rate is pretty good. 

Just now, Sir Why You Little said:

Media insiders tell me Macca, it's where i work. They aint always right but the strike rate is pretty good. 

It's full of lefties they tell me .. prone to exaggeration & political correctness

But I digress ..

In the end, it was all shadow-boxing and the players were never going to strike.  The AFL could always afford to splash some more coin about and the players knew it.

2 minutes ago, Macca said:

It's full of lefties they tell me .. prone to exaggeration & political correctness

But I digress ..

In the end, it was all shadow-boxing and the players were never going to strike.  The AFL could always afford to splash some more coin about and the players knew it.

I was hoping for a sit down myself. 

Put the frighteners on Gill for a week or so

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I was hoping for a sit down myself. 

Put the frighteners on Gill for a week or so

The 2.508 billion TV rights could never be shunted away - it was like a beacon in terms of what the players could go after. 

The money that has come into the game is astonishing ... not by world standards but the growth has been huge.  It was only about 20 years ago that a lot of the players had jobs outside of football.

The game is in great shape in terms of the financial returns ... the game itself needs more fine-tuning (IMO) but those discussions have been seen here previously.

19 minutes ago, Macca said:

The 2.508 billion TV rights could never be shunted away - it was like beacon in terms of what the players could go after. 

The money that has come into the game is astonishing ... not by world standards yet but the growth has been huge.  It was only about 20 years ago that a lot of the players had jobs outside of football.

The game is in great shape in terms of the financial returns ... the game itself needs more fine-tuning (IMO) but those discussions have been seen here previously.

Pity the AFL have no wish to cater for the internet. This years deal is a disgrace

All this talk about money for the players and money for the AFL, but they are both forgetting about the people who give cause for this game to exist... the supporter.

Watching the game via the AFL app is a joke, foxtel represents terrible value for money, and don't get me started about those pizzweak commentators. BT is a fat lightweight. Then there's the rorting of entry fees by clubs such as the bombers at the Anzac day game, or the corporate squeeze at the GF that make a GA ticket almost impossible to find. Last week at the game I almost re- mortgaged my house just to buy a few beers, some soggy chips and a like warm pie. 

Where's the respect for the fans who make all this greed happen?

End rant.

9 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

Where's the respect for the fans who make all this greed happen?

You've paid your money, can you just shut up and watch? Gil's You've never had it so good.

On 2/4/2017 at 3:40 PM, Sir Why You Little said:

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.  

A good deal of that is owed to gross mismanagement by the administration.

1 hour ago, ChaserJ said:

A good deal of that is owed to gross mismanagement by the administration.

Not denying that