afl vs players pay dispute

[Lavender Bushranger]

I think the position of the AFLPA (via its president) that there are many intricacies to work through is totally correct.

Eddie McGuire suggested tonight that it will end up being a case of game needs $____ to continue, cuts need to be made to work backwards from that point. So the cost will be substantial. Thousands laid off across the industry already. Some clubs picking and choosing which staff to stand down based on financial situation and not necessarily role importance says it all.

But back to the players, of course there are intricacies to work through. Like how long does this pay cut last for? What provisions to include if it lasts longer (likely will), it will be ok for the Nat Fyfe, Dangerfield, Pendlebury’s in the comp, they’ve accumulated enough to get by, first and second year draftees might be down to somewhere between $400-600 a week if the 79% gets approved, rightly so they need to know how long for and what clauses are in play for extensions to the shutdown. They have to look after all players.

Oh man, this is tricky.


- Players have contracts with the clubs/AFL.

- They are not delivering on those contracts (ie. They're not playing).

- But it's the AFL's fault they aren't playing. So the AFL must still honour the contracts.

- If they honour the contracts, the AFL goes broke.

- If the AFL goes broke, the players don't have jobs and don't get paid anyway.


So who's the bad guy here? Who is sacrificing? And how much are they sacrificing?

Is Paul Marsh going to work for free given the players aren't getting paid?

Are the AFL Exec going to work for free to keep the AFL afloat?

Are supporters expected to pay membership fees for nothing in return?

 

[wagstaff]

Read former CEO Wayne Jackson say the AFL funds the AFLPA for $37 million.

I think that's the AFLPA's main problem; to have genuine power it needs to be self-reliant and independent of the AFL instead of being run by people who become club/AFL CEOs.

This belief that the interests of the AFL and the players are one and the same is a nonsense and exposed at times like this and why the AFLPA Will fall in line almost certainly.

 

[dont bowl there]

Jake Lever just today:

"It's really hard (and) it's not just the everyday Australians – some of my close mates are doing the exact same thing as these guys are doing, lining up in Centrelink.

"You do definitely get to see every day Australian life but for us it's really important to put out there that footballers are going to be the exact same…

"There are going to be people in the AFL world, especially players, who are going to have to put their houses up for sale, because of this situation, and we're just like everyone else…"

Not sure you could be more tone-deaf in this situation. It's pretty simple as a player right now, you know you have it better than most so you either shut up or when asked talk about the community and not how you might have to move from Toorak to Prahran.

 

[Norm De Guerre]

As I understand it players had already been payed a substantial percentage of their contracts prior to the shutdown of the game. So, one can imagine the reaction of the laid-off admin and non-football plebs at each club as they hear the mounting stories of hardship that the players have had to go through should they be forced to take a 50% pay cut for the initial 8 weeks that they have been told to stay away from the clubs thus far. Should it as expected go beyond that, then they will for once in their privileged lives experience what their former colleagues have had to do and live off their savings or get a temp job stacking shelves at Coles or whatnot.

 

[The mighty Hawks]

As I understand it players had already been payed a substantial percentage of their contracts prior to the shutdown of the game. So, one can imagine the reaction of the laid-off admin and non-football plebs at each club as they hear the mounting stories of hardship that the players have had to go through should they be forced to take a 50% pay cut for the initial 8 weeks that they have been told to stay away from the clubs thus far. Should it as expected go beyond that, then they will for once in their privileged lives experience what their former colleagues have had to do and live off their savings or get a temp job stacking shelves at Coles or whatnot.

Post of the year......

 

[projectv]

No play, no pay.

Simple.

 

[nick1408]

I don't really mind the players digging their heels in. I do mind that it's getting played out in the media. My thoughts are as follows:

- Someone like Lance Franklin is on millions. On the surface it seems like he could take an 80% pay cut and still get by on his $200k (most of us would love to be on $200k). Now, Lance looks at his finances. How does he pay the mortgage on his $2.3m property in Rose Bay? His other properties would need to be paid for as well. You can't just put a property on the market and expect it to be gone so you can use the money.

- Richmond has Dustin Martin and Tom Lynch on front-end/back-end contracts. Does the bloke on the front-ended deal cop a huge loss of pay while the back-ended guy still gets the bulk of his money later?

- Minimum salary is $85k for a rookie listed player. A 70% cut would see his wage drop to $25,500. AFL players are paid quarterly so for the next quarter he would receive $6375 instead of $21250. That's a huge adjustment to someone like say Marlion Pickett with 4 kids, a wife and a mortgage/rent. Marlion would have been thinking he could top up his pay packet with match payments but that option is gone too.

There aren't too many jobs I can think of where the minimum and maximum wage are so far apart for doing the exact same job with the exact same expectations. Everyone more or less lives to the means of their pay packet. I know if I was on Lance's pay packet I'd be in a much nicer house and own much nicer things (even be able to invest in say the share market) as I could rely on my big pay packet. Conversely, On Marlion's minimum payments i'd be in a much crappier house than Lance with much crappier things but still living within my means.

Just because someone is on a good wicket doesn't mean they don't have bills like the rest of us. Hell, they may even be much bigger bill that requires a much bigger wage. The current argument being played out in the media is too simplistic. The AFL/clubs need to safeguard but the players also need to safeguard themselves as well.

 

[daddy_4_eyes]

Oh man, this is tricky.

- Players have contracts with the clubs/AFL.

- They are not delivering on those contracts (ie. They're not playing).

- But it's the AFL's fault they aren't playing. So the AFL must still honour the contracts.

- If they honour the contracts, the AFL goes broke.

- If the AFL goes broke, the players don't have jobs and don't get paid anyway.

Australian employment laws permit employers to "stand down" their employees in certain circumstances. It is why there have been such massive layoffs across Australia already.

AFL doesn't actually need to pay the players anything, but they are negotiating because they have the games long term interests at heart, as well as the players welfare.

The "oh but we have mortgages and other costs of living" sob story by AFL players doesn't fly for me. Going from an average of $350k to $70k for 2 months (80% pay cut) is hardly an oppressive request from the AFL. That means the average wage for 2020 goes from $350k to $303k. Cry me a river!

How about the thousands who went from a $45k salary to $0 as they were laid off? The thousands who won't have $350k pa jobs to go back to in June?

Even if the AFL is finished for 2020 and players take the 80% hit for the whole season. They're still in a better position than a huge chunk of Australia's population.

Danger is the biggest flog to ever grace the AFL. Zero respect for him.

 

[reload141]

Gill making Dangerfield and the AFLPA look bad.... Gill going to work around the clock to ensure the league survives while the players sit at home

 

[JM#1]

Someone who was on the players side wrote recently that the AFL should cave in to the players because the competition is nothing without the players. Completely WRONG. The players are nothing without the AFL, and if it goes under or if clubs fold, then a lot of them will be joining the real world very quickly.

 

[thewiz0033]

I don't really mind the players digging their heels in. I do mind that it's getting played out in the media. My thoughts are as follows:

- Someone like Lance Franklin is on millions. On the surface it seems like he could take an 80% pay cut and still get by on his $200k (most of us would love to be on $200k). Now, Lance looks at his finances. How does he pay the mortgage on his $2.3m property in Rose Bay? His other properties would need to be paid for as well. You can't just put a property on the market and expect it to be gone so you can use the money.

- Richmond has Dustin Martin and Tom Lynch on front-end/back-end contracts. Does the bloke on the front-ended deal cop a huge loss of pay while the back-ended guy still gets the bulk of his money later?

- Minimum salary is $85k for a rookie listed player. A 70% cut would see his wage drop to $25,500. AFL players are paid quarterly so for the next quarter he would receive $6375 instead of $21250. That's a huge adjustment to someone like say Marlion Pickett with 4 kids, a wife and a mortgage/rent. Marlion would have been thinking he could top up his pay packet with match payments but that option is gone too.

There aren't too many jobs I can think of where the minimum and maximum wage are so far apart for doing the exact same job with the exact same expectations. Everyone more or less lives to the means of their pay packet. I know if I was on Lance's pay packet I'd be in a much nicer house and own much nicer things (even be able to invest in say the share market) as I could rely on my big pay packet. Conversely, On Marlion's minimum payments i'd be in a much crappier house than Lance with much crappier things but still living within my means.

Just because someone is on a good wicket doesn't mean they don't have bills like the rest of us. Hell, they may even be much bigger bill that requires a much bigger wage. The current argument being played out in the media is too simplistic. The AFL/clubs need to safeguard but the players also need to safeguard themselves as well.

Under the fair work act an employer can stand down an employee on no pay is they cannot do useful work for a stoppage for which the employer cannot reasonably be held responsible.
If the AFL players do not accepy a reasonable pay cut, the AFL and the clubs have the legal right to stand them down without pay. Obviously no club would do so independantly but if the league acted as one the AFLPA would be powerless to take any legal action.


Sorry nick quoted the wrong post. Im new at this Ha Ha

 

[Falcon27]

Oh man, this is tricky.


- Players have contracts with the clubs/AFL.

- They are not delivering on those contracts (ie. They're not playing).

- But it's the AFL's fault they aren't playing. So the AFL must still honour the contracts.

- If they honour the contracts, the AFL goes broke.

- If the AFL goes broke, the players don't have jobs and don't get paid anyway.


So who's the bad guy here? Who is sacrificing? And how much are they sacrificing?

Is Paul Marsh going to work for free given the players aren't getting paid?

Are the AFL Exec going to work for free to keep the AFL afloat?

Are supporters expected to pay membership fees for nothing in return?

How is it the AFL's fault that they are not playing?

 

[skipper kelly]

If any player is experiencing mortgage stress they should talk to their bank.

 

[kozi]

- Players take big short term pay cuts now to assist in the survival of the league, or

- Recieve permanent pay cuts down to 0 if it doesn’t

Most of them can’t see past their own noses can they.

 

[skipper kelly]

Someone who was on the players side wrote recently that the AFL should cave in to the players because the competition is nothing without the players. Completely WRONG. The players are nothing without the AFL, and if it goes under or if clubs fold, then a lot of them will be joining the real world very quickly.

The players are nothing without the jumpers.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Reduce all players wage to a set amount during the period whilst games aren’t being played , regardless of what their yearly wage is . Rookies during this time get paid same as high flyers.
Repay over the next 5 years once things get going and adjust future salary caps to suit .

 

[Falcon27]

None of these parties have covered themselves in glory from the get go on this issue, and like many have already said, respect from the general public is going out the window. Once again the AFL thought they could control the narrative and get the season under, whilst almost every sport in the world had already been shutdown. Then the players, through the likes of Reiwoldt etc start publicly start grandstanding about their work raising funds for the bushfire relief to justify their position on pay cuts. Whilst bushfires were devastating, players actually sacrificed very little other then 3 hours to run around the G.
Unfortunately the true colours of all those involved in the AFL (players and execs)have come out showing them as nothing more then Fat Cats who look after their own insular group of mates in the Boys Club.
Would not be unreasonable to expect the current AFL Exec. to fall on their sword after this all settles, as they have been totally irresponsible with the billions of dollars poured into the AFL through TV rights by helping themselves to obscene incomes and dumping endless amount money into the likes of the Suns, GWS, China etc. Yet at the same time completely neglecting the game itself by not have a contingency plan in place should a season ever go into recess.

 

[Papa G]

Jake Lever just today:

"It's really hard (and) it's not just the everyday Australians – some of my close mates are doing the exact same thing as these guys are doing, lining up in Centrelink.

"You do definitely get to see every day Australian life but for us it's really important to put out there that footballers are going to be the exact same…

"There are going to be people in the AFL world, especially players, who are going to have to put their houses up for sale, because of this situation, and we're just like everyone else…"

Not sure you could be more tone-deaf in this situation. It's pretty simple as a player right now, you know you have it better than most so you either shut up or when asked talk about the community and not how you might have to move from Toorak to Prahran.

A $million mortgage is still "only" $5000 per month these days. The only players who have these types of mortgages would be those on substantial salaries, at a bare minimum probably those on $400k plus. Also, mortgage repayments are allowed to be differed for 6 months (interest still accrues, but you don't get hit with defaults). Such an idiotic thing for Lever to say. Footballers by and large, aren't too bright.

 

[dont bowl there]

A $million mortgage is still "only" $5000 per month these days. The only players who have these types of mortgages would be those on substantial salaries, at a bare minimum probably those on $400k plus. Also, mortgage repayments are allowed to be differed for 6 months (interest still accrues, but you don't get hit with defaults). Such an idiotic thing for Lever to say. Footballers by and large, aren't too bright.

I enjoyed how he said it’s not just everyday Australians getting hit, it’s his mates as well!!!! ****ing idiot.

 

[MightyHawks]

don't think the players have factored in that if they bleed the competition dry this year then they'll be getting 40% pay for next year

Anyone coming out of contract this year might discover no one wants to pay them next year

The loudest talkers in the AFLPA will be the ones earning the most - they should be suggesting they take the biggest pay cuts themselves

 

[Falcon27]

A $million mortgage is still "only" $5000 per month these days. The only players who have these types of mortgages would be those on substantial salaries, at a bare minimum probably those on $400k plus. Also, mortgage repayments are allowed to be differed for 6 months (interest still accrues, but you don't get hit with defaults). Such an idiotic thing for Lever to say. Footballers by and large, aren't too bright.

Surely the AFLPA would be instructing their members to just keep their mouths shut.

 

[Falcon27]

I enjoyed how he said it’s not just everyday Australians getting hit, it’s his mates as well!!!! ******* idiot.

That comment in itself just demonstrates how insular the AFL is and how far out of touch they are. They really need a reality check.

 

[Papa G]

NRL players are being asked to take an 87% pay cut

NRL players told they need to take 87pc pay cut to save the game

It would leave the top 30 players at each club on about $26,000 each for the season.

www.smh.com.au

 

[Watson_my_mind]

**** me. Half my mates have lost their jobs and I'm sure mine isn't too far away either, and Danger on $800K is only offering up 50% for two months? None of them should even be paid. They've already had half their pay for the year, so why give them anymore

 

[chiwigi]

Reduce all players wage to a set amount during the period whilst games aren’t being played , regardless of what their yearly wage is . Rookies during this time get paid same as high flyers.
Repay over the next 5 years once things get going and adjust future salary caps to suit .

Yup, work out the average of all wages.
Lop off 75%, then pay the rest out evenly to all players.

I'd imagine it would be around 150-200k each for doing nothing.