AFLPA Collective Bargaining Agreement Discussion

[bulldogtragic]

The new AFLPA & AFL Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) is due to be signed off by November 1 at the latest. Reading some of the material from the AFLPA they've indicated over the course of the 2002 and current agreement players overall share dropped from 26% of total revenue to about 21.2% of total revenue. The aflpa's position is to have a fixed figure of no less than 25% but of course asking more as you do early on.

So that's 3.8% over five years which is reasonable at face value. But owing to the fact that the TV rights deal has gone up, that's closer to a real figure is actually closer to 5-7% depending on the figures agreed to. The current AFL salary cap is $10,600,000. This could see the cap rise by about $530,000 to $742,000 per annum over the next five years.

If the AFLPA can achieve such a result, then that's great for the players. From our club's perspective, the ability to keep the list together is significantly improved. Sure other clubs will have more to enduce players to leave, but if we can develop a potential dynasty then players will still be getting very good salaries to remain and have sustained success (win-win). For the white noise on Boyd's salary, if the higher figure was implemented then that pays his full & complete salary to end of the contract alone. Leaving the full 2016 salary cap of $10,600,000 for the remaining players. It's essentially a rise that gives us Boyd for free in a sense, from here on in. Tell me 16 other AFL clubs who wouldn't do the deal?

Certainly makes throwing some bucks at Hurley easier too. This CBA is coming up at the perfect time with Boyd off his front loading and FA's like Hurley about. So here's hoping the AFLPA strike a big deal.

[boydogs]

That's asking for too much I think. A big part of the increased TV rights deal is due to the AFL's investment in GC & GWS to give NSW & QLD one home game a week and the AFL 9 games per round, and also the 4:40pm timeslots on Saturday & Sunday so the fans who watch every game they can watch more games each weekend, which detracts from attendances & club earnings. The AFL and the clubs deserve more of an increase than the players do

There is definitely more money to go around though, so I would expect an increase to the cap of 3-5% pa or 318,000-530,000, which will make a difference to contract negotiations that come up each year after the cap increases

The smart clubs who have been front loading and locking players away long term like us will benefit from this

[Topdog]

A big part of the increased TV rights deal is due to the AFL's investment in GC & GWS to give NSW & QLD one home game a week

Really? Does anyone actually watch either club?

[LostDoggy]

Really? Does anyone actually watch either club?

Yeah Nah! :)

[Twodogs]

Really? Does anyone actually watch either club?

Only when their team is playing against them.

[boydogs]

Really? Does anyone actually watch either club?

I don't know the viewer numbers but there is a big difference in the sporting culture in Victoria compared to NSW & QLD, whereby Vics will turn out in big numbers to live sports whereas further north they are still interested, but will watch from leagues clubs, pubs or home rather than attend

Every Lions & Suns game is broadcast live on free to air into QLD, same for every Swans & Giants game in NSW, home or away. The AFL don't even try to incentivise fans to physically go to the games, they want them watching on TV

AFL sponsors want exposure in those markets too. They're not as keen on growing their brands in Tassie

[jeemak]

How any stakeholder that is getting paid by this windfall, which is ultimately paid by the fans in the first place, could expect to get a bigger lick as a priority over another is baffling.

The biggest priority for the game should be to have itself more accessible to more people. To think that any argument is diverted away from that simple concept is confirmation the game has cooked itself and any pretence of supporter enjoyment or supporter support is done.

My view is the players deserve the largest piece of the pie, clubs deserve the next level, and City Hall runs lean with registered savings agreed by other stakeholders taken into account for future benefit to the broad competition.

[bulldogtragic]

How any stakeholder that is getting paid by this windfall, which is ultimately paid by the fans in the first place, could expect to get a bigger lick as a priority over another is baffling.

The biggest priority for the game should be to have itself more accessible to more people. To think that any argument is diverted away from that simple concept is confirmation the game has cooked itself and any pretence of supporter enjoyment or supporter support is done.

My view is the players deserve the largest piece of the pie, clubs deserve the next level, and City Hall runs lean with registered savings agreed by other stakeholders taken into account for future benefit to the broad competition.

That's seems fair and reasonable. So it's not happening. I'd love to know the total costs of mid and top tier salaries, but they deserve it just because, you know, because.

[bornadog]

How any stakeholder that is getting paid by this windfall, which is ultimately paid by the fans in the first place, could expect to get a bigger lick as a priority over another is baffling.

The biggest priority for the game should be to have itself more accessible to more people. To think that any argument is diverted away from that simple concept is confirmation the game has cooked itself and any pretence of supporter enjoyment or supporter support is done.

My view is the players deserve the largest piece of the pie, clubs deserve the next level, and City Hall runs lean with registered savings agreed by other stakeholders taken into account for future benefit to the broad competition.

But who is going to pay for the 600 plus employees at AFL house.

[Throughandthrough]

The expected large increase in salary caps over the next decade was surely a big factor in the offer he couldn't refuse we gave Boyd.


On a Simao but different tact the swans have already got all the money they spent on buddy back and then some through extra sponsorship and members.

[bulldogtragic]

Despite Gillon saying it will be signed of in a week or two, many times, it's stalled it seems. Dangerfield in his capacity as being on the AFLPA has said there may be strikes over the preseason games if there's still no resolution by then. The AFLPA are demanding a percentage of revenue sharing while the AFEL are refusing it. Last time there was a stalemate players refused all media interviews, as the line before threatening strike action. Something has got to give.

[ledge]

About 25% isn't it they are asking but would take 22% im hearing.
It's a gamble for the players if the AFL make less but it's still a very healthy wage.

[bulldogtragic]

About 25% isn't it they are asking but would take 22% im hearing.
It's a gamble for the players if the AFL make less but it's still a very healthy wage.

They're after 25% but based on moving numbers, they're effectively down to 21.2%. A 3.8% rise over 5 years is not an unreasonable position for the people who are the game.

[Topdog]

When the CEOs get nearly 4m a year in salary its not unreasonable that the players ask for a bigger slice of the pie.

[Sedat]

I'm normally not an apologist for the AFEL but this is simply posturing by Paul Marsh and the AFLPA, who are doing nothing more than applying a lazy method to increase the revenue for the players (and no doubt his own bonuses). The fixed percentage will simply give a fixed return to the players at the expense of the clubs - the AFEL won't be losing any of their own revenue.

For starters how is this going to work with multi year player contracts? If overall revenue goes down for a season (quite a possible scenario with Australian economic growth going into negative territory in the Sep qtr for the first time in many years) then every single club will be over the salary cap the following year if the percentage model is in play.

The AFEL are happy to increase the pie for the players to what their expectations are but not through a fixed percentage model. Paul Marsh needs to get off his arse and do some actual work on behalf of the players he supposedly represents.

[Greystache]

I'm normally not an apologist for the AFEL but this is simply posturing by Paul Marsh and the AFLPA, who are doing nothing more than applying a lazy method to increase the revenue for the players (and no doubt his own bonuses). The fixed percentage will simply give a fixed return to the players at the expense of the clubs - the AFEL won't be losing any of their own revenue.

For starters how is this going to work with multi year player contracts? If overall revenue goes down for a season (quite a possible scenario with Australian economic growth going into negative territory in the Sep qtr for the first time in many years) then every single club will be over the salary cap the following year if the percentage model is in play.

The AFEL are happy to increase the pie for the players to what their expectations are but not through a fixed percentage model. Paul Marsh needs to get off his arse and do some actual work on behalf of the players he supposedly represents.

Agree. Marsh is a simpleton who just parrot's what the players say without the viability lens his role dictates he should apply.

The AFLPA seems to just look at NFL, cherry pick the best parts, then demand that from the AFEL without sacrificing any of the cushy benefits they currently enjoy. If they want an NFL model the AFEL should offer it completely- No guaranteed contracts, trading players against their will, limited support for injuries, and in return they can have their fixed percentage. The AFLPA would go nuts if they had to face the ugly real world out there.

[1eyedog]

How any stakeholder that is getting paid by this windfall, which is ultimately paid by the fans in the first place, could expect to get a bigger lick as a priority over another is baffling.

The biggest priority for the game should be to have itself more accessible to more people. To think that any argument is diverted away from that simple concept is confirmation the game has cooked itself and any pretence of supporter enjoyment or supporter support is done.

My view is the players deserve the largest piece of the pie, clubs deserve the next level, and City Hall runs lean with registered savings agreed by other stakeholders taken into account for future benefit to the broad competition.

Socialist

[Ozza]

I'm normally not an apologist for the AFEL but this is simply posturing by Paul Marsh and the AFLPA, who are doing nothing more than applying a lazy method to increase the revenue for the players (and no doubt his own bonuses). The fixed percentage will simply give a fixed return to the players at the expense of the clubs - the AFEL won't be losing any of their own revenue.

For starters how is this going to work with multi year player contracts? If overall revenue goes down for a season (quite a possible scenario with Australian economic growth going into negative territory in the Sep qtr for the first time in many years) then every single club will be over the salary cap the following year if the percentage model is in play.

The AFEL are happy to increase the pie for the players to what their expectations are but not through a fixed percentage model. Paul Marsh needs to get off his arse and do some actual work on behalf of the players he supposedly represents.

Couldn't agree more. Setting aside the management & salary cap issues that will occurring should revenue drop;
My biggest issue with the request - is that there doesn't seem to be an acknowledgement that plenty of the clubs are either carry a huge amount of debt - or would be if not for the AFL handouts/equalization measures. This includes our own club up until recent success (and some huge donations) is re-writing our story.

I'm all for the salary cap being increased, especially given our current position - but it should be within the framework of the current salary cap, and be relevant to this economy.

[bornadog]

How any stakeholder that is getting paid by this windfall, which is ultimately paid by the fans in the first place, could expect to get a bigger lick as a priority over another is baffling.

The biggest priority for the game should be to have itself more accessible to more people. To think that any argument is diverted away from that simple concept is confirmation the game has cooked itself and any pretence of supporter enjoyment or supporter support is done.

My view is the players deserve the largest piece of the pie, clubs deserve the next level, and City Hall runs lean with registered savings agreed by other stakeholders taken into account for future benefit to the broad competition.

The AFEL is far from lean with the massive HQ. Did you know they have something like 60 people working on NZ as a project.

[Twodogs]

Agree. Marsh is a simpleton who just parrot's what the players say without the viability lens his role dictates he should apply.

The AFLPA seems to just look at NFL, cherry pick the best parts, then demand that from the AFEL without sacrificing any of the cushy benefits they currently enjoy. If they want an NFL model the AFEL should offer it completely- No guaranteed contracts, trading players against their will, limited support for injuries, and in return they can have their fixed percentage. The AFLPA would go nuts if they had to face the ugly real world out there.

Yep. Marsh is about as useful as a chocolate teapot. He's better than Benny Gale though. The players are living in la la land.

[Ozza]

The players love trotting out the line about them being the ones providing the entertainment.
That line alone is fine - and works well as a sound bite.
But it also has very little to do with the AFL pushing back against the financial model in which they want to base the salary cap/player payments.

[comrade]

Some great points being made here, enjoying the read.

The lack of control clubs have over player movement is completely at odds with what the players are now demanding. As Grey said, give them more money but take control over movement away from them. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[hujsh]

The players love trotting out the line about them being the ones providing the entertainment.
That line alone is fine - and works well as a sound bite.
But it also has very little to do with the AFL pushing back against the financial model in which they want to base the salary cap/player payments.

Also not necessarily correct as people go to watch the club's team that they are loyal to not an assortment of talented individuals (like the Big Bash teams)

[Sedat]

Interesting that Cricket Australia are desperate to peel back the percentage model for their next collective bargaining agreement with the players, and are currently wining and dining Smith and Warner to get their support to do so.

[bornadog]

Agreement reached - announcement at 5pm today

[bulldogtragic]

Agreement reached - announcement at 5pm today

I hope at 5.01pm JJ announces he's staying, and Webb & Dale too.

Hopefully we've got a war chest for this year for free agents with most of guns locked away for many years still.

[bornadog]

I hope at 5.01pm JJ announces he's staying, and Webb & Dale too.

Hopefully we've got a war chest for this year for free agents with most of guns locked away for many years still.

Average wages will be up 20% - $307k to $371k, Salary cap goes to $12.4million

[bulldogtragic]

Average wages will be up 20% - $307k to $371k, Salary cap goes to $12.4million

With the cash the club has confirmed we still have from last year, plus this rise to some level, I wonder if we could do a Hawthorn 2009 (Burgoyne) and do a Western Bulldogs 2016 (Nat Fyfe).

[westdog54]

Summary of main points:

20% Increase in Salary Cap for this season, with annual increases of 1.2% (2018), 1.3% (2019) and 2% (2020-2022).
All Tribunal fines will be part of an annual contribution of $250,000 for concussion research
WA clubs will receive 12 business class airfares per flight when doing east/west travel
Category A rookies will be eligible to play from round one next season
Restricted free agency has been removed, with all free agents 'unrestricted'
'Rested' players or 'held over' travelling emergencies left out of their senior team will receive match payments
Players have agreed to license their personal GPS data to be made available to clubs and broadcasters with specified limitations
Annual contribution of $4million to players lifetime health/career ending injuries plan
$13million for player development programs/services
Minimum salary for players beyond their second season will be $100000

[The Adelaide Connection]

Forgive my ignorance, but whilst there is the general notion that 'all players get a pay rise' isn't the extra 20% cap space at each clubs discretion and won't it likely end up being gobbled up by the high end talent or recruiting blokes in?

Or are current contracts held to ransom and whatever the previous signed on figure is has to be adjusted by 20%? ie If Harry Highpants signed on last year for 4 years at $400k, does the remainder of his contract automatically adjust to $480k initially and then by the incremental 1% or so increases thereafter?

[divvydan]

Forgive my ignorance, but whilst there is the general notion that 'all players get a pay rise' isn't the extra 20% cap space at each clubs discretion and won't it likely end up being gobbled up by the high end talent or recruiting blokes in?

Or are current contracts held to ransom and whatever the previous signed on figure is has to be adjusted by 20%? ie If Harry Highpants signed on last year for 4 years at $400k, does the remainder of his contract automatically adjust to $480k initially and then by the incremental 1% or so increases thereafter?

Some contracts will have a clause in there anticipating some sort of increase from the new CBA and will go up 20% as a result, however it's not an automatic thing. If there's no clause in the contract then they stay as they are and the extra money just becomes available to use in order to re-sign existing players or chase new ones.

[The Adelaide Connection]

Some contracts will have a clause in there anticipating some sort of increase from the new CBA and will go up 20% as a result, however it's not an automatic thing. If there's no clause in the contract then they stay as they are and the extra money just becomes available to use in order to re-sign existing players or chase new ones.

So really if the AFLPA had all of the players interests in mind, they would have negotiated that any increase was automatically applied to all players current contracts so that they all got the 20%. If my industry union or whatever negotiates a % increase to wages they don't pick and choose who gets the extra cash and have some workers getting their extra slice of the pie and also another worker on the same tiers extra slice of pie (while they get none).

The reality is that players in the top bracket will get a nice boost to their money bins, but the bottom rung will be unlikely to see any benefit at all.

On a tangent, do we know if Tom Boyd's contract had the CBA clause written into it?

[Ozza]

So really if the AFLPA had all of the players interests in mind, they would have negotiated that any increase was automatically applied to all players current contracts so that they all got the 20%. If my industry union or whatever negotiates a % increase to wages they don't pick and choose who gets the extra cash and have some workers getting their extra slice of the pie and also another worker on the same tiers extra slice of pie (while they get none).

The reality is that players in the top bracket will get a nice boost to their money bins, but the bottom rung will be unlikely to see any benefit at all.

On a tangent, do we know if Tom Boyd's contract had the CBA clause written into it?

Its not really apples and apples though. These footballers have player agents/managers to work on their contracts, and the nature of their work is contract to contract.

I would certainly hope that Tom Boyd doesn't have the CBA clause written into it - and his example is a good one to illustrate circumstances where it is better that the 20% is an increase to the cap - and not to just be a 20% across the board pay rise.

The AFLPA have clearly put in some steps to raise the 'minimum wages', and are also looking after match payments for those players who are regularly the travelling emergency or held over players.

[The Adelaide Connection]

Its not really apples and apples though. These footballers have player agents/managers to work on their contracts, and the nature of their work is contract to contract.

I would certainly hope that Tom Boyd doesn't have the CBA clause written into it - and his example is a good one to illustrate circumstances where it is better that the 20% is an increase to the cap - and not to just be a 20% across the board pay rise.

The AFLPA have clearly put in some steps to raise the 'minimum wages', and are also looking after match payments for those players who are regularly the travelling emergency or held over players.

I know it is a long bow to draw between professional sporting contracts and standard workplace, but it is rather insulting that players like Dangerfield (who sit on the AFLPA) flagged industrial action and sit downs, whilst the reality is that they were only really fighting for their own interests. It would really impact a player like Dangerfield but not so much 75% of players on the lists. The rise should have been a blanket rise to all players existing contracts.
I'd like to see the AFLPA required to have equal representation across each pay bracket. The majority are, or were, high money earners at their respective clubs.

For the record the board consists of:
Paul Marsh

Matthew Pavlich (President)

Leigh Montagna

Patrick Dangerfield

Rory Sloane

Daisy Pearce

Scott Pendlebury

Sam Docherty

Phil Davis

Easton Wood

[Bulldog4life]

Its not really apples and apples though. These footballers have player agents/managers to work on their contracts, and the nature of their work is contract to contract.

I would certainly hope that Tom Boyd doesn't have the CBA clause written into it - and his example is a good one to illustrate circumstances where it is better that the 20% is an increase to the cap - and not to just be a 20% across the board pay rise.

The AFLPA have clearly put in some steps to raise the 'minimum wages', and are also looking after match payments for those players who are regularly the travelling emergency or held over players.

It would be absolutely crazy if it did.

[divvydan]

The only players who would have had a CBA type agreement are those who re-signed late last year or this year. The whole problem is that the CBA is for 2017-2022 but we're already halfway through the 2017 season and this should've been resolved a year ago. So what happened at the end of last year is that clubs had to renegotiate contracts not knowing what the salary cap for 2017 was going to be, with there being the issue of large fines/draft penalties if clubs go over the cap.

The AFL had advised clubs to make the assumption of a 10% increase this year when renegotiating contracts so I imagine many of the new contracts would've had a base with that 10% in mind and then an extra stipulation that they get extra if the new CBA allows for it.

[westdog54]

I know it is a long bow to draw between professional sporting contracts and standard workplace, but it is rather insulting that players like Dangerfield (who sit on the AFLPA) flagged industrial action and sit downs, whilst the reality is that they were only really fighting for their own interests. It would really impact a player like Dangerfield but not so much 75% of players on the lists. The rise should have been a blanket rise to all players existing contracts.
I'd like to see the AFLPA required to have equal representation across each pay bracket. The majority are, or were, high money earners at their respective clubs.

For the record the board consists of:
Paul Marsh

Matthew Pavlich (President)

Leigh Montagna

Patrick Dangerfield

Rory Sloane

Daisy Pearce

Scott Pendlebury

Sam Docherty

Phil Davis

Easton Wood

I get where you are coming from but the simple fact is that these guys are all on individual contracts, and for the most part the CBA looks at circumstances going forward rather than improving upon what is already in place for individual players.

As to the question of representation, its worth remembering that this is the executive. I'm speculating here but you'd probably find that each club would have a delegate or two that would meet with the executive fairly regularly. In any representative body you want your best people in important positions.

Given that Pavlich is the only player not currently listed on the board, you'd think that there'd be a decent amount of turnover and that there would be succession planning in place for players they think would make good executives.

[Ozza]

I know it is a long bow to draw between professional sporting contracts and standard workplace, but it is rather insulting that players like Dangerfield (who sit on the AFLPA) flagged industrial action and sit downs, whilst the reality is that they were only really fighting for their own interests. It would really impact a player like Dangerfield but not so much 75% of players on the lists. The rise should have been a blanket rise to all players existing contracts.
I'd like to see the AFLPA required to have equal representation across each pay bracket. The majority are, or were, high money earners at their respective clubs.

For the record the board consists of:
Paul Marsh

Matthew Pavlich (President)

Leigh Montagna

Patrick Dangerfield

Rory Sloane

Daisy Pearce

Scott Pendlebury

Sam Docherty

Phil Davis

Easton Wood

I'm sorry - but I couldn't be further from agreeing with you on this. I think the suggestion that it benefits the Dangerfield type of player and doesn't benefit 75% of players is not right at all. Making the overall pool of funds bigger benefits all players. They've also brought up the minimum wage, put more into the retirement fund, and added payments for emergencies.

There are always going to be players that are paid considerably more than others. Chances are that the likes of Franklin, Boyd and Dangerfield - who signed lucrative, multi-year deals back 3 and 4 years ago - would not immediately benefit from the CBA - whereas the players who have signed in the last year or so, would likely have had it captured in contracts.

Economics aside - I think the members of the executive are, at least on what I've seen of them, pretty genuine characters who would also be genuine in representing the best interests of all the players current and future. Look at the list - they are all already well paid established players, many of which won't see many years of this new CBA anyway - I don't believe they would give up their time to represent the players with it being only about self-interest.

[ledge]

I guess they are like a union you pick your reps at your workplace and from that the the reps vote in the best reps they want to represent them in negotiations.
We have about 8 reps at work and from that pool maybe four go into EBA negotiations while the others stick to the normal union rep items.
All these players would have been voted in by the players to represent them so it's not a matter of them choosing themselves to do it.

[GVGjr]

To get a greater slice of the pie for the players ALPHA has conceded greater media access to players for those coughing up the extra cash but with all the mental health issues that we know of are the people they are supposed to be representing actually ready for the 24/7 scrutiny?

[bornadog]

To get a greater slice of the pie for the players ALPHA has conceded greater media access to players for those coughing up the extra cash but with all the mental health issues that we know of are the people they are supposed to be representing actually ready for the 24/7 scrutiny?

I think the biggest issue is the social media. I see The Bont got rid of his Twitter account a few weeks ago.

[bulldogtragic]

I think the biggest issue is the social media. I see The Bont got rid of his Twitter account a few weeks ago.

I don't like that he's had to. But I'm happy he and hopefully all the other men and women get rid of it too.

[Ozza]

I think the biggest issue is the social media. I see The Bont got rid of his Twitter account a few weeks ago.

Bevo said in the Cloke press conference that unless the players were making a $$ out of their social media accounts, then he thinks they shouldn't have them. He mentioned it again yesterday. Seems Bont took it on board around the time of the Cloke press conference. Good on him.

Years ago (think it was early 2011) on a night where a handful of us had dinner with Rocket - I remember him saying about social media (and this is before Twitter existed) that he had told the players he reckons they are crazy to been on Facebook and those sort of things

[AndrewP6]

Bevo said in the Cloke press conference that unless the players were making a $$ out of their social media accounts, then he thinks they shouldn't have them. He mentioned it again yesterday. Seems Bont took it on board around the time of the Cloke press conference. Good on him.

Years ago (think it was early 2011) on a night where a handful of us had dinner with Rocket - I remember him saying about social media (and this is before Twitter existed) that he had told the players he reckons they are crazy to been on Facebook and those sort of things

Twitter was launched in 2006, so if that conversation was around 2011, it was well in use by then.