Dees win $1million McClelland Trophy

[jayceebee31 671]

On 15/10/2023 at 22:35, Demon Disciple said:

Yep. Flags over prize money every day of the week.

Both would be nice.

On 23/10/2023 at 08:19, Sir Why You Little said:

Sorry.
The Dr Mclelland Trophy has been around for Decades. 
long before the Women’s Comp. 
it was originally based on U19 Reserves and Seniors 

There should have been a Pot of Gold up for grabs a long time ago

Correct weight.

[old55 21,609]

20 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Totally agree with this. Most of the girls have day jobs, not because they want to but because they have to. If they didn’t have to work a day job there’d be so much more time to devote to all things footy, just as the boys do now. 

Firstly, all 18 clubs have begged the AFL to extend the W season to at least 17 rounds. No club wants a pitiful 10-round H&A season. But that’s a side point.

My main point is that the W play 10 rounds which is 43% of the 23 rounds played by the M. But they certainly aren’t getting paid 43% of what the M are paid.

Even if the $250,000 was split amongst the W players only, they still wouldn’t be anywhere near the rate of pay of the M. 

I'm a fan of our AFLW team and the standard of footy across the league is dramatically improving.

The fact is they don't draw the same attendance or media eyeballs as the men yet and payments are consequently a lot less.

[WalkingCivilWar 33,192]

2 minutes ago, old55 said:

I'm a fan of our AFLW team and the standard of footy across the league is dramatically improving.

The fact is they don't draw the same attendance or media eyeballs as the men yet and payments are consequently a lot less.

I understand that, but they’re disproportionately less. Imo anyways. 

[Timothy Reddan-A'Blew 4,060]

22 hours ago, daisycutter said:

couple of things

the boys list is larger, so per head payment to girls will be higher

the boys played 23 h&a games vs 10 ... just saying

and finally the club get $500k which they could (hopefully) spend on upgrading facilities etc for the girls

but sure, the girls have a bigger gap to close

 

20 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Totally agree with this. Most of the girls have day jobs, not because they want to but because they have to. If they didn’t have to work a day job there’d be so much more time to devote to all things footy, just as the boys do now. 

Firstly, all 18 clubs have begged the AFL to extend the W season to at least 17 rounds. No club wants a pitiful 10-round H&A season. But that’s a side point.

My main point is that the W play 10 rounds which is 43% of the 23 rounds played by the M. But they certainly aren’t getting paid 43% of what the M are paid.

Even if the $250,000 was split amongst the W players only, they still wouldn’t be anywhere near the rate of pay of the M. 

The Ws are contributing 8 points a game.

Without them we don't beat Brisbane.

Or Collingwood! 🤮

 

[Timothy Reddan-A'Blew 4,060]

19 hours ago, DEE fence said:

it will count against the AFL's soft cap restrictions

Seems a bit rough on the coaches and support staff, I don't get the rationale for that at all.

Particularly stupid if it's $ for $?!

Even if it's 'better' than $ for $, it's disingenuous calling it a '$1million' prize. It will be effectively less, possibly significantly.

[old55 21,609]

26 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

I understand that, but they’re disproportionately less. Imo anyways. 

Naarm vs North clash for top of the table - less than 3k at Princes Park ... I was there and it was a great win. But proportionally, I don't think they want that equation?

[Timothy Reddan-A'Blew 4,060]

1 minute ago, old55 said:

Naarm vs North clash for top of the table - less than 3k at Princes Park ... I was there and it was a great win. But proportionally, I don't think they want that equation?

@WalkingCivilWar (or you, 'Old'  or anyone else) do you know if any other 'viewing' numbers (than ground attendances) are included in the rounds-expansion metrics? I refer to TV, FTA and streamed, including the AFL app feed (which I use when I can't get to the ground).

[WalkingCivilWar 33,192]

38 minutes ago, Timothy Reddan-A'Blew said:

@WalkingCivilWar (or you, 'Old'  or anyone else) do you know if any other 'viewing' numbers (than ground attendances) are included in the rounds-expansion metrics? I refer to TV, FTA and streamed, including the AFL app feed (which I use when I can't get to the ground).

Yes, iirc it’s an average of 100,000 viewers per game.

[WalkingCivilWar 33,192]

57 minutes ago, old55 said:

Naarm vs North clash for top of the table - less than 3k at Princes Park ... I was there and it was a great win. But proportionally, I don't think they want that equation?

You’re right. And on that… 2,700 is so disappointing. We were disheartened to see so few fans turned up when we had guessed there’d be close to double that. We outnumbered North fans but even if there was 2,500 of us, that’s still a sad turnout. I don’t understand why people aren’t attending. 

[daisycutter 28,681]

11 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Yes, iirc it’s an average of 100,000 viewers per game.

in professional sport you need to always follow the money coming in. 

more coming in, higher player salaries

at the moment aflw is being subsidised (which is understandable) while in its development stage

ultimately it will need to stand on its own revenue streams i.e. bake its own cake.

nothing really to do with gender or fairness, just dollars

[daisycutter 28,681]

18 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

in professional sport you need to always follow the money coming in. 

more coming in, higher player salaries

at the moment aflw is being subsidised (which is understandable) while in its development stage

ultimately it will need to stand on its own revenue streams i.e. bake its own cake.

nothing really to do with gender or fairness, just dollars

i should have added, wcw that i think the aflw will get there, i certainly hope so.

but it is going to take time, maybe a lot more time than many eager beavers would hope

on the bright side though, the progress on skills has been great and to many punters exceeded their expectations.

 

Edited October 25, 2023 by daisycutter

[Katrina Dee Fan 2,483]

2 hours ago, old55 said:

I'm a fan of our AFLW team and the standard of footy across the league is dramatically improving.

The fact is they don't draw the same attendance or media eyeballs as the men yet and payments are consequently a lot less.

That doesn't mean they can't be paid at least a liveable salary.

[daisycutter 28,681]

2 minutes ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

That doesn't mean they can't be paid at least a liveable salary.

at this stage of the aflw development i see it still as a semi-professional sport

i don't think it will be too long before it is fully professional with a livable salary

how quick this takes depends on further development and of course monetisation 

[WalkingCivilWar 33,192]

6 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i should have added, wcw that i think the aflw will get there, i certainly hope so.

but it is going to take time, maybe a lot more time than many eager beavers would hope

on the bright side though, the progress on skills has been great and to many punters exceeded their expectations.

 

This eager beaver will remain eager (and patient) for as long as it takes. It’s just that sometimes it feels like the ever-uphill battle is a little steeper than it should be. ☹️

[daisycutter 28,681]

Just now, WalkingCivilWar said:

This eager beaver will remain eager (and patient) for as long as it takes. It’s just that sometimes it feels like the ever-uphill battle is a little steeper than it should be. ☹️

absolutely

still in a better place (potential wise) than say, the netball girls.

[Rab D Nesbitt 7,334]

If this money falls outside the salary cap it might help keep the girls squad together for at least another season or two. 

Edited October 25, 2023 by Rab D Nesbitt

[Neil Crompton 4,817]

The average AFL player gets paid over $400K. 

The average AFLW player gets paid $46K.

If we won the McLelland Trophy, the $500K player allocation, shared between our 75 men and women players would equate to $6.66K each. This equates to a 14% salary bonus for the ladies, and less than a 2% bonus for the men (hardly chump change for the majority).

It would therefore be a very nice gesture from the men (except perhaps for the rookies etc) if they donated their share to the ladies. This would equate to about $16k bonus for each lady, which would be significant not only in value but also in terms of how the Club values the ladies and their performance this year.

[deva5610 970]

On 23/10/2023 at 18:01, Sir Why You Little said:

 

playing in the NT this year cost us 2nd Spot. 

I forgot that to finish second on the ladder you must win at the NT.

I couldn't have been the 4 point loss to Port? The loss to Essendon in Adelaide? 7 points to Freo at the G? 2 goals to the Cats? 4 points to the Blues?

Nope. It was specifically the NT game. We'll ignore the fact that we won 5 on the trot following it. It's the NT game and the travel.

I for one quite like the game and what the club does around it. I'd be disappointed if they stopped.

Edited October 25, 2023 by deva5610

[DeelightfulPlay 2,264]

Unfortunately a lot of the natural growth and interest in the game has been hampered by the AFL's strange decision making in respect of the AFLW.  The most obvious instance being last year's grand final, where they forgot to secure venues in various states and so then we ended up in Springfield...  

Scheduling games at suburban grounds is one thing (and has its own charm) but doing so at 5 pm or other strange times on a Thursday or Friday makes it difficult for a lot of working people to travel and attend.  That'll eat into crowd numbers...

It's important to make things accessible to the general public to grow interest - which is why we prefer to play our home games at Ikon Park (heart of the city and all that) over Casey Fields.  

There are a whole lot of double standards used to justify the lower pay of the women.  It sounds reasonable until the bigger picture is looked at.

[Sir Why You Little 34,802]

2 hours ago, deva5610 said:

I forgot that to finish second on the ladder you must win at the NT.

I couldn't have been the 4 point loss to Port? The loss to Essendon in Adelaide? 7 points to Freo at the G? 2 goals to the Cats? 4 points to the Blues?

Nope. It was specifically the NT game. We'll ignore the fact that we won 5 on the trot following it. It's the NT game and the travel.

I for one quite like the game and what the club does around it. I'd be disappointed if they stopped.

Good for you. I would rather the Game was at The ‘G

[Katrina Dee Fan 2,483]

19 hours ago, daisycutter said:

at this stage of the aflw development i see it still as a semi-professional sport

i don't think it will be too long before it is fully professional with a livable salary

how quick this takes depends on further development and of course monetisation 

I find it puzzling how people are excusing not paying them a salary that can enable them to concentrate full time on their football then comment they're not at the same standard as AFL.  How do you expect the game to develop to a level deemed acceptable by those making comments "the standard is poor, the men's game is better" when they don't allow them to train and play under the same working conditions?  Especially as during the season they're expected to basically abandon their jobs outside football to travel at times while they'd be at their other jobs, leave work to go training, etc?  The demands on them are of those of a full time professional career without the renumeration or security. 

Just posing the question.

[brendan 3,412]

I think they made a mistake changing when the season starts should have left it as it was as everyone is itching for footy at the start of the year, not so much now 

[daisycutter 28,681]

25 minutes ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

I find it puzzling how people are excusing not paying them a salary that can enable them to concentrate full time on their football then comment they're not at the same standard as AFL.  How do you expect the game to develop to a level deemed acceptable by those making comments "the standard is poor, the men's game is better" when they don't allow them to train and play under the same working conditions?  Especially as during the season they're expected to basically abandon their jobs outside football to travel at times while they'd be at their other jobs, leave work to go training, etc?  The demands on them are of those of a full time professional career without the renumeration or security. 

Just posing the question.

katrina, i understand your points and frustrations.

ignore those who complain of the standard of skills and comparisons to the men. these are just trolls

personally i think the development has been rapid and impressive.

i know it's somewhat hackneyed but it's going to take time to get all the pieces in sync and follow a development process, but a process must be followed to be resilient and not fall flat in its face. There is SO much to do and money IS a big part of it and i don't just mean salaries. 

enjoy the ride (i am 😃) ... and keep pushing

Edited October 26, 2023 by daisycutter

[Katrina Dee Fan 2,483]

10 minutes ago, brendan said:

I think they made a mistake changing when the season starts should have left it as it was as everyone is itching for footy at the start of the year, not so much now 

Problem is, in Jan/Feb starts, you're asking them to play during the hottest time of the year, which cannot be good conditions for them.

[daisycutter 28,681]

1 minute ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

Problem is, in Jan/Feb starts, you're asking them to play during the hottest time of the year, which cannot be good conditions for them.

i notice the nrl-w play at the same time as the men. they do have less teams and a shorter season though ... just saying