View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Lazza
Joined: 04 Feb 2003 Location: Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
|
Post subject: | |
|
AN_Inkling wrote: | Free agency's not the AFL's baby. |
If I'm right the AFL opposed free agency but the AFL Players Association pushed hard for it over many years and finally won.
It is just stupid to put limits of a club's football related spending on one hand and then allow champion players to go to the Premiers on the other. Such a bloody mess but hey, thats what Luke Ball and his mates at the APA wanted. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
I think there's probably a broader debate to be had about whether the people who watch the game - and are ultimately the reason it is able to generate large quantities of money - want a competition that is run principally for the benefit of the professional players competing in it or for the benefit of the clubs the watchers support.
The players are paid reasonably well. Many other well-paid occupations impose constraints upon how the participants can act and operate. It is not necessary to start on the assumption that players should be able to maximise their earnings. Free agency is only "necessary" from the players' perspective. There's nothing immutable about it. |
|
|
|
|
John Wren
"Look after the game. It means so much to so many."
Joined: 15 Jul 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
Lazza wrote: | AN_Inkling wrote: | Free agency's not the AFL's baby. |
If I'm right the AFL opposed free agency but the AFL Players Association pushed hard for it over many years and finally won.
It is just stupid to put limits of a club's football related spending on one hand and then allow champion players to go to the Premiers on the other. Such a bloody mess but hey, thats what Luke Ball and his mates at the APA wanted. |
if a select few are getting most of the money there are a lot that aren't getting much in comparison. what's the salary cap nowadays? _________________ Purveyor of sanctimonious twaddle. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
$10.071 million in 2015, according to the AFL. That's about $250,000 per listed player, on average, I guess (I'm not entirely sure at this stage whether the figures stated include rookie payments etc).
I also specifically mention this change, which I hadn't previously noticed: "If clubs spend less than the salary cap in one season they will be able to spend more than the cap the following season."
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-06-05/salary-cap-safeguards-for-players-confirmed
THE AFL has confirmed the salary cap will rise beyond $10 million next season.
The cap will rise by $150,000 in each of the next two years, taking the Total Player Payments limit to $10.071 million in 2015 and $10.36 million in 2016.
Both the League and the AFL Players' Association confirmed the change after the two parties wrapped up the mid-term review of the players' collective bargaining agreement.
Player development managers to be exempt from spending cap
A number of other key matters were agreed upon as part of the review:
- If clubs spend less than the salary cap in one season they will be able to spend more than the cap the following season.
- The AFL has agreed to contribute an extra $7 million towards the existing AFL players’ player retirement fund.
- The AFL will provide $1 million over the next two years to be used for the establishment of a lifetime health care fund for retired players.
Click here to read the AFL's full statement on equalisation
- The provision of short-term income protection for players who are delisted due to a football injury.
"Negotiations were highly constructive and the review has enhanced the benefits available for both present and past AFL players," AFL general counsel Andrew Dillon said.
Equalisation changes explained
Acting players' association chief executive Ian Prendergast added: "We have been able to negotiate further benefits to players as we continue the push towards delivering a truly first-class sporting workplace." |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
Post subject: Re: Trade Period: The Age ranks us LAST | |
|
How can there be rankings before the trading period has been completed? It is a nonsense article. |
|
|
|
|
jackcass
Joined: 01 Mar 2005 Location: Bendigo
|
Post subject: Re: Trade Period: The Age ranks us LAST | |
|
RudeBoy wrote: |
How can there be rankings before the trading period has been completed? It is a nonsense article. |
Yep, just a fluff piece.
Clearly we'll be behind the other clubs. It appears we'll lose Beams who is (based on Brownlow voting) 1 of the top 10 players in the league, and Lumumba is is an AA and easily in our best 22. Who is losing more? |
|
|
|
|
Joel
Joined: 23 Mar 1999 Location: Mornington Peninsula
|
Post subject: | |
|
Who the f@#$ rates a trade period before it even has started? |
|
|
|
|
Piesnchess
piesnchess
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
|
Post subject: | |
|
IF we get Dangerfield, this little prick author will have egg all over his moosh. ! _________________ Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.
Chess and Vodka are born brothers. - Russian proverb. |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
Piesnchess wrote: | IF we get Dangerfield, this little prick author will have egg all over his moosh. ! |
If we get Dangerfield this little author will have moosh all over his prick. |
|
|
|
|
CarringbushCigar
Joined: 15 Nov 2007 Location: wherever I lay my beanie
|
Post subject: | |
|
maybe try rearranging that sentence to keep it in the PG guidelines |
|
|
|
|
Flashman
Joined: 11 Aug 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
RudeBoy wrote: | Piesnchess wrote: | IF we get Dangerfield, this little prick author will have egg all over his moosh. ! |
If we get Dangerfield this little author will have moosh all over his prick. |
I never got why you called yourself Rudeboy before but now I do.
Funny stuff |
|
|
|
|
|