afl vs players pay dispute

[nobbyiscool]

I'm concerned about how the players come back from this to be motivated, high performing guys who give it all for the fans:

- it was only 24 hours after the West Coast/Melbourne game finished that this was being called a dispute. Essentially negotiating a new EBA, which would usually take months, the players were already taking a beating from a PR sense.

- by Wednesday they were being labelled greedy, when the whole point was about trying to protect the guys that aren't on $400k + a year.

- from a societal perspective, it was particularly unedifying watching greedy campaigners say "well my job's at risk, why are these guys special?" It's a testament to neo-liberalism that this ended up being workers vs workers. If we were more mature and less greedy, the prevailing opinion would've been "let's hope that all workers, including professional athletes, get the best deal that they can so the economy can keep ticking along." It's like people are more concerned for Rupert and his millions than they are with saying "let's protect the games main asset - the players - and support them to get the best deal they can."

If I'm a player, I'm watching this discussion going "what the ****?!" I'm watching people like Leigh Matthews and Caroline Wilson thinking "**** you, you make a living in this industry because of me, and you're shitting on me 24 hours after the league's suspension because we couldn't do a deal in a day?"

How do they pretend to care about fans who called them greedy going forward? How do they engage with the media that were shitting them less than a day after the suspension? I think I'd have a really hard time overcoming that if I were a footballer.

 

[The Nostradamus]

I'm concerned about how the players come back from this to be motivated, high performing guys who give it all for the fans:

- it was only 24 hours after the West Coast/Melbourne game finished that this was being called a dispute. Essentially negotiating a new EBA, which would usually take months, the players were already taking a beating from a PR sense.

- by Wednesday they were being labelled greedy, when the whole point was about trying to protect the guys that aren't on $400k + a year.

- from a societal perspective, it was particularly unedifying watching greedy campaigners say "well my job's at risk, why are these guys special?" It's a testament to neo-liberalism that this ended up being workers vs workers. If we were more mature and less greedy, the prevailing opinion would've been "let's hope that all workers, including professional athletes, get the best deal that they can so the economy can keep ticking along." It's like people are more concerned for Rupert and his millions than they are with saying "let's protect the games main asset - the players - and support them to get the best deal they can."

If I'm a player, I'm watching this discussion going "what the fu**?!" I'm watching people like Leigh Matthews and Caroline Wilson thinking "fu** you, you make a living in this industry because of me, and you're shitting on me 24 hours after the league's suspension because we couldn't do a deal in a day?"

How do they pretend to care about fans who called them greedy going forward? How do they engage with the media that were shitting them less than a day after the suspension? I think I'd have a really hard time overcoming that if I were a footballer.

Good it will sort the self motivated from those that aren’t

 

[nobbyiscool]

Good it will sort the self motivated from those that aren’t

Self motivation is crazy over rated.

If this shutdown teaches us anything, it's that the majority of people wouldn't do shit if they didn't have to pay bills and rent/mortgages. It's why everyone "working from home" is on twitter or big footy all day.

I don't expect footballers to be "self motivated". I want them to be motivated by success, by their fan bases, by their team mates. You take the motivation of the fan base out of that? I wouldn't blame anyone for being a bit more flat going into round 2 of this season.

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

I'm concerned about how the players come back from this to be motivated, high performing guys who give it all for the fans:

- it was only 24 hours after the West Coast/Melbourne game finished that this was being called a dispute. Essentially negotiating a new EBA, which would usually take months, the players were already taking a beating from a PR sense.

- by Wednesday they were being labelled greedy, when the whole point was about trying to protect the guys that aren't on $400k + a year.

- from a societal perspective, it was particularly unedifying watching greedy campaigners say "well my job's at risk, why are these guys special?" It's a testament to neo-liberalism that this ended up being workers vs workers. If we were more mature and less greedy, the prevailing opinion would've been "let's hope that all workers, including professional athletes, get the best deal that they can so the economy can keep ticking along." It's like people are more concerned for Rupert and his millions than they are with saying "let's protect the games main asset - the players - and support them to get the best deal they can."

If I'm a player, I'm watching this discussion going "what the fu**?!" I'm watching people like Leigh Matthews and Caroline Wilson thinking "fu** you, you make a living in this industry because of me, and you're shitting on me 24 hours after the league's suspension because we couldn't do a deal in a day?"

How do they pretend to care about fans who called them greedy going forward? How do they engage with the media that were shitting them less than a day after the suspension? I think I'd have a really hard time overcoming that if I were a footballer.

At the end of the day without the TV deal, the the money simply isn't there to pay them. The AFL has put up the docklands stadium as collateral just to pay them their reduced wages.

I don't expect them to be happy about it but the alternative is no AFL. When they understand that reality i think they'll come around pretty quickly.

 

[BF Tiger]

Max Gawn on Footy Classified continued on the complacent PR efforts by players, arguing they deserve their pay because they still get drug tested and have to keep fit!

Also mentioned on FC that the AFLPA has 40-45 employees. Seems like AFL coaching groups aren't the only part of the industry that have an indulgent number of employees.

Poor Max, might get called up for a urine test. Any thought given to the low paid kayaker/gymnast/swimmer/boxer/weightlifter who has been training for four years for the Olympics, had them delayed and will have to push through for another year, who also has to stay fit and potentially get tested at any time? It is part of being an athlete these days Max.

 

[wagstaff]

I'm concerned about how the players come back from this to be motivated, high performing guys who give it all for the fans:

- it was only 24 hours after the West Coast/Melbourne game finished that this was being called a dispute. Essentially negotiating a new EBA, which would usually take months, the players were already taking a beating from a PR sense.

- by Wednesday they were being labelled greedy, when the whole point was about trying to protect the guys that aren't on $400k + a year.

- from a societal perspective, it was particularly unedifying watching greedy campaigners say "well my job's at risk, why are these guys special?" It's a testament to neo-liberalism that this ended up being workers vs workers. If we were more mature and less greedy, the prevailing opinion would've been "let's hope that all workers, including professional athletes, get the best deal that they can so the economy can keep ticking along." It's like people are more concerned for Rupert and his millions than they are with saying "let's protect the games main asset - the players - and support them to get the best deal they can."

If I'm a player, I'm watching this discussion going "what the fu**?!" I'm watching people like Leigh Matthews and Caroline Wilson thinking "fu** you, you make a living in this industry because of me, and you're shitting on me 24 hours after the league's suspension because we couldn't do a deal in a day?"

How do they pretend to care about fans who called them greedy going forward? How do they engage with the media that were shitting them less than a day after the suspension? I think I'd have a really hard time overcoming that if I were a footballer.

There's a fair bit of truth to this. I think the resentment from the public is partly to the neo-liberal 'aspirational' mindset that has taken hold in Oz society in the past couple of decades where any semblance of general awareness and support of employees v employers has severely declined.

But it's also true that the players have been terrible at the public messaging on this. Yes, it should be about the lowest-paid players and their plight but because the spokespeople tend to be the wealthiest players in the league, that seems to never be mentioned.

 

[nick1408]

As predicted this deal is hurting the players that can least afford it. Hopefully the AFL can step in and help Marlion (and any other players that need it) out ASAP. It was always ridiculous to cut the lowest paid players pay in half. If the AFL won't help at least let the clubs do it. Right now they aren't even allowed to renegotiate contracts. The club's hands are completely tied as anything they give him goes into the salary cap.

 

[radiojake]

If that article is correct, Marlion Pickett is on the same wage as the Jobkeeper subsidy

I don't know what the AFLPA have being doing if they have let their rookie members end up on that kinda of coin -

Dangerfield has come out looking like a self-serving twat lately - "NO HUBS WE CAN'T LEAVE OUR FAMILIES' - WA & SA teams get the hub "AH THEY JUST GOTTA TAKE ONE FOR THE TEAM"

Now lets the lowest made members reach welfare levels of pay

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

If that article is correct, Marlion Pickett is on the same wage as the Jobkeeper subsidy

I don't know what the AFLPA have being doing if they have let their rookie members end up on that kinda of coin -

Dangerfield has come out looking like a self-serving twat lately - "NO HUBS WE CAN'T LEAVE OUR FAMILIES' - WA & SA teams get the hub "AH THEY JUST GOTTA TAKE ONE FOR THE TEAM"

Now lets the lowest made members reach welfare levels of pay

Why are any AFL players on Jobkeeper, inc rookies? Good question. I think the club is receiving JobKeeper for everyone stood down - players + footy staff + general staff.

The deal was all players were paid their base payments until 31st March, base payments are paid on last day of the month and match payments are on the 15th of the month for game played in preceding month.

The deal was April and May the players would get paid 50% base payments and - then they will either give up 50 per cent or 70 per cent for the remaining five pay periods, depending on whether games resume this season.

This is the rookie base and match payments from CBA page 71.



So that $80,000 from what I have read includes superannuation. Superannuation not mentioned or defined in the CBA but Football Payments definition is broad so it would be caught under that.

$80,000/1.095 = $73,059 salary + 9.5% super of $6,940 = $80,000

$73,059 / 26 fortnights = $2,809.96 / fortnight

50% pay cut players accepted = $1,404.98 /fortnight when JobKeeper is $1,500 per fortnight. Basically clubs are saying apply for JobKeeper so we can get $1,500 to pay rookies is my take on why he would be on Jobkeeper.

Actually clubs could apply for JobKeeper for every employee who has been stood down ie players and staff. My understanding is Sydney could get paid $1,500 per fortnight to help pay 50% of Buddy's $1.4mill base payment for April and May. $1.4m might be Buddy's pay if plays all games so Base might be $1.2m - still 50% cut.

The above example is why I said back in my post #123 on 27 March, that the pay should have been structured something like this when the AFL were pushing a 79% pay cut and the players said no.

Base payment $80,000 to $200,000 a year get $1,000 a week - covers approx 1/3rd players
Base payment $200,001 to $300,000 a year get $1,500 a week - covers approx 1/3rd players
Base payment $300,001+ a year get $2,000 a week - covers approx 1/3rd players

The above was posted after JobSeeker was doubled but before JobKeeper

Experienced players on minimum base wage of $110,000 will be getting a bit more than the $1,500 JobKeeper pays. Most of the 2018 and 2019 players would technically be on JobKeeper as about $86,000 base cut by 50% equals $1,500 / fornight.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the players are technically paid by the AFL, who presumably earn too much to apply for the JobKeeper payment. Even if the AFL were eligible Marlion and the other mid season rookies have not been employed for over 12 months anyway.

 

[radiojake]

Why are any AFL players on Jobkeeper, inc rookies? Good question. I think the club is receiving JobKeeper for everyone stood down - players + footy staff + general staff.

The deal was all players were paid their base payments until 31st March, base payments are paid on last day of the month and match payments are on the 15th of the month for game played in preceding month.

The deal was April and May the players would get paid 50% base payments and - then they will either give up 50 per cent or 70 per cent for the remaining five pay periods, depending on whether games resume this season.

This is the rookie base and match payments from CBA page 71.

View attachment 879516

So that $80,000 from what I have read includes superannuation. Superannuation not mentioned or defined in the CBA but Football Payments definition is broad so it would be caught under that.

$80,000/1.095 = $73,059 salary + 9.5% super of $6,940 = $80,000

$73,059 / 26 fortnights = $2,809.96 / fortnight

50% pay cut players accepted = $1,404.98 /fortnight when JobKeeper is $1,500 per fortnight. Basically clubs are saying apply for JobKeeper so we can get $1,500 to pay rookies is my take on why he would be on Jobkeeper.

Actually clubs could apply for JobKeeper for every employee who has been stood down ie players and staff. My understanding is Sydney could get paid $1,500 per fortnight to help pay 50% of Buddy's $1.4mill base payment for April and May. $1.4m might be Buddy's pay if plays all games so Base might be $1.2m - still 50% cut.

The above example is why I said back in my post #123 on 27 March, that the pay should have been structured something like this when the AFL were pushing a 79% pay cut and the players said no.

Base payment $80,000 to $200,000 a year get $1,000 a week - covers approx 1/3rd players
Base payment $200,001 to $300,000 a year get $1,500 a week - covers approx 1/3rd players
Base payment $300,001+ a year get $2,000 a week - covers approx 1/3rd players

The above was posted after JobSeeker was doubled but before JobKeeper

Experienced layers on minimum base wage of $110,000 will be getting a bit more than the $1,500 JobKeeper pays. Most of the 2018 and 2019 players would technically be on JobKeeper as about $86,000 base cut by 50% equals $1,500 / fornight.

View attachment 879569

I don't think Pickett is on jobkeeper, rather he is apparently only getting paid the same as that rate

 

[Rob R]

As predicted this deal is hurting the players that can least afford it. Hopefully the AFL can step in and help Marlion (and any other players that need it) out ASAP. It was always ridiculous to cut the lowest paid players pay in half. If the AFL won't help at least let the clubs do it. Right now they aren't even allowed to renegotiate contracts. The club's hands are completely tied as anything they give him goes into the salary cap.

Unless it is less than the jobkeeper payment that many other Australians are relying on why should the AFL step in? If anything the AFLPA screwed up by not negotiating a deal that took care of the rookies better. The players on a higher salaries could have taken a slightly bigger hit which could have been used for the lower paid players to take less of.a cut.

On SM-G570F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the players are technically paid by the AFL, who presumably earn too much to apply for the JobKeeper payment. Even if the AFL were eligible Marlion and the other mid season rookies have not been employed for over 12 months anyway.

If your business has turnover of less than $1 bil and revenue has dropped by 30% or more, then you can apply for Jobseeker to pay workers stood down ie not sacked but put in hibernation. So all 18 clubs and the AFL are still paying workers stood down, but then get a subsidy from the government by 1 month in delay to the payment to workers.

The players are not technically paid by the AFL. Legally they are paid by the clubs, but that can only happen because the AFL distributes monies to the clubs, which covers almost all the wages bill in a normal year and all at the moment. The PAYG statement that Trent Cotchin receives in July has the Richmond FC Ltd as his employer not the AFL Ltd.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I don't think Pickett is on jobkeeper, rather he is apparently only getting paid the same as that rate

Not to say its accurate but the media report on the radio I heard said he is getting paid JobKeeper. Which would make sense as my calculation shows his 50% put cut sees him get less than $1,500 and Richmond like all clubs would have put players on JobKeeper, they would be dumb if they didn't, and so under the JobKeeper rules, if he was getting $1,400 after 50% cut they have to pay him $1,500.