Skip to main content
Topic: AFLW - Contract Dispute (Read 1321 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: AFLW - Contract Dispute

Reply #15
My personal opinion.

We discussed this a couple of seasons back, there were clear signs that factions within the AFLW and the AFLPA were putting the $ cart before the horse. They want big dollars now, despite not really generating any income for the sport, at the moment they are a cost and part-timers.

This whole philosophical debate, the idea full-time professionalism has to come before the women's game can be profitable is bogus. Bring the sport at a high level, looking and playing professionally, and the dollars follow, not the other way around.

Unfortunately as I see it, what the AFLW girls need to accept is that those that come after them will benefit from their efforts while they may not. For those currently involved, it's both good and bad time, because they will be foundation members and legends, but they won't profit. I suppose it's no different to Bobby Skilton looking at Buddy Franklin!

The disagreement is about the length of the season and has little to do with remuneration.  The dissenting group want a longer season.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be . . .

Re: AFLW - Contract Dispute

Reply #16
The disagreement is about the length of the season and has little to do with remuneration.  The dissenting group want a longer season.
Correct.

The wages is not an issue....its not even a debating point.

Its the length of the season for 2020 and beyond.

The AFL has flagged a minimal increase in season length for 2020 (10 rounds instead of 9) and potentially building up to 13 in a few years.
The AFLW players want 13 now and potentially longer in the future.

AFL is not so much opposed to the idea in principle, it is just worried (supposedly) that it will not be able to televise all games (live?), and doesn't want to miss out broadcasting whole games at all.

The longer the season, the more they have to dodge up the fixture to accomodate the AFL/AFLW overlaps and scheduling conflicts. Not only in grounds, but also broadcasting.

Re: AFLW - Contract Dispute

Reply #17
Correct.

The wages is not an issue....its not even a debating point.

Its the length of the season for 2020 and beyond.

The AFL has flagged a minimal increase in season length for 2020 (10 rounds instead of 9) and potentially building up to 13 in a few years.
The AFLW players want 13 now and potentially longer in the future.

AFL is not so much opposed to the idea in principle, it is just worried (supposedly) that it will not be able to televise all games (live?), and doesn't want to miss out broadcasting whole games at all.

The longer the season, the more they have to dodge up the fixture to accomodate the AFL/AFLW overlaps and scheduling conflicts. Not only in grounds, but also broadcasting.

Angela Pippos has a theory that AFL wants the AFLW season to start just after the AFL grand final and finish just before the AFL round 1 - 12 months of footy!

I’m not sure whether she’s on the money but it will be a long term goal if she is.

13 weeks makes sense!
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be . . .

Re: AFLW - Contract Dispute

Reply #18
Angela Pippos has a theory that AFL wants the AFLW season to start just after the AFL grand final and finish just before the AFL round 1 - 12 months of footy!

I’m not sure whether she’s on the money but it will be a long term goal if she is.

13 weeks makes sense!

In an ideal world, sure.

Problem is a lot of the grounds will have a cricket pitch in the middle of it which makes it impossible.

Thats why the AFL doesn't want to expand the season.
Push it later and it cuts into the mens season.
Make it earlier and you have no grounds to play on.

Re: AFLW - Contract Dispute

Reply #19
The added element in length of season is that for the 2020 season there are 2 more teams, but no more games.

Can't agree more with the women - they are being shafted - AFL/PA isn't taking them seriously.

Re: AFLW - Contract Dispute

Reply #20
Surely there are grounds available for women's afl.

What about the old vfl grounds?

They were suitable enough, they should be sufficient now.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: AFLW - Contract Dispute

Reply #21
Surely there are grounds available for women's afl.

What about the old vfl grounds?

They were suitable enough, they should be sufficient now.

If a ground is good enough for AFL footy, it is certainly good enough for cricket.

Re: AFLW - Contract Dispute

Reply #22
Surely there are grounds available for women's afl.

What about the old vfl grounds?

They were suitable enough, they should be sufficient now.

Most of them have central turf wickets and are used by the VCA for District Cricket over summer, no way they'll allow football on them.
The Force Awakens!

Re: AFLW - Contract Dispute

Reply #23
You could start the AFLW season from the bye weekend after the H&A fixture.

Showcases the competition on a dead weekend before the finals, then gives fans something to watch during the finals if their team isn't playing in AFL finals.  Effectively, finding five weekends of crossover...then AFLW continues through Spring until Xmas.
"...that's the thing about opinion - you don't have to know anything to have one..."  Andre Agassi commenting on Pat Cash 2004
"...the less you know - the more you believe..." - Bono 2006

Re: AFLW - Contract Dispute

Reply #24
Most of them have central turf wickets and are used by the VCA for District Cricket over summer, no way they'll allow football on them.

Are you guys telling me that Punt Road Oval, Ikon park, Kardinia Park, Victoria Park, Windy Hill, Whitten Oval Etc arent available to play AFL W on?

SURELY, these grounds are suitable enough for AFL W and are not used for Cricket?
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: AFLW - Contract Dispute

Reply #25
Most of them have central turf wickets and are used by the VCA for District Cricket over summer, no way they'll allow football on them.

If its an issue about grounds how about the following:-

Feel free to left me know if cricket is played on these ground during spring/summer.

Ikon Park - Parkville
Preston Oval - Preston
Victoria Park - Collingwood
Olympic Park - Melbourne
Arden Street - North Melbourne
Port Oval - Port Melbourne
Punt Road - Richmond
Kardina Park - Geelong
RSEA Park - Mooorabbin
Whitten Oval - Footscray
Casey Fields - Cranbourne

Most of these would be used by the men for pre-season, but surely there would be enough grounds with correct scheduling to enable a spring/summer football comp to work.
Enough ground & spread to cover the Victoria based teams.

Also, most of the AFLW teams are already utilising these ground for their pre-season and their AFLW season. They are available now so makes sense to me that they could be available for a Spring/Summer competition.

Re: AFLW - Contract Dispute

Reply #26
Ikon Park - Parkville ✔️
Preston Oval - Preston ❌
Victoria Park - Collingwood ❌(+Soccer)
Olympic Park - Melbourne ❌(+Soccer(Melbourne Victory))
Arden Street - North Melbourne ❌
Port Oval - Port Melbourne ❌
Punt Road - Richmond ❌
Kardina Park - Geelong ❌❌❌(+Soccer, +Rugby, +Cricket)
RSEA Park - Mooorabbin ❌ (+Baseball)
Whitten Oval - Footscray ✔️
Casey Fields - Cranbourne ✔️

✔️ Available due to sole AFL tenant.

❌ Limited by multiple/shared tenancy.

If possible I've listed additional tenants when they are not cricket, obviously all these venues excluding Kardinia are nowhere near utilized 100% of the time, but they do have existing tenants, some with commitments to other sports.

Training is obviously not affected by having cricket tenants as they fence off the square, but I doubt they would allow games.

Keep in mind, most of the shared tenants also have 2nd, 3rd or even under-age squads.
The Force Awakens!

Re: AFLW - Contract Dispute

Reply #27
✔️ Available due to sole AFL tenant.

❌ Limited by multiple/shared tenancy.

If possible I've listed additional tenants when they are not cricket, obviously all these venues excluding Kardinia are nowhere near utilized 100% of the time, but they do have existing tenants, some with commitments to other sports.

Training is obviously not affected by having cricket tenants as they fence off the square, but I doubt they would allow games.

Keep in mind, most of the shared tenants also have 2nd, 3rd or even under-age squads.

Thanks for the feedback LP.

Re: Olympic Park (i'm talking about the CollingwoodFC oval on the site of the old Olympic track). Does soccer/Victory use that?

With Kardinia, I think you'll find that the outside ovals are used pre-dominantly for the cricket & other sports, other than the big bash stuff.
Hold on the new soccer Western United are going to be based down there aren't they  :-\

Re: AFLW - Contract Dispute

Reply #28
Looking at the list of potentially available venues.

Clubs could play their home games across them.

Say

Ikon (lighting would need to be upgraded, already muted to be done) - Carlton, Collingwood & Richmond
Whitten (lighting good) - WB, Geelong & North
Casey (lighting ?) - Melbourne & St. Kilda

Play match day double headers.

Ground over usage wouldn't be too dramatic if training is limited on them.
Teams affected would be Carlton (outside ovals available) & Doggies.
All others already have training bases elsewhere.

Victoria Park, Kardinia, Arden, RSEA, Punt etc... could still be used when available for the home teams to use.

The match day double headers could in theory happen now.
The AFL could extend the season to thirteen games as the most want.
Play the double headers and still fit the season into the 10-12week time frame the AFL wants.

Games would still get boardcast.

Haven't done the sums re: costing it etc... but it does open it up for the AFL to charge even a small amount and they'll still get crowds.

Imagine a round of

Thu
WCE vs Freo (night)

Fri
GWS vs Adel (night)

Sat
Melb vs StK (Casey early afternoon)
Bris vs GC (late afternoon)
WB vs Geel (Whitten night)

Sun
Carl vs Coll (Ikon afternoon)
Rich vs North (Ikon night)

 

Re: AFLW - Contract Dispute

Reply #29
I think match day openers / double hearders makes sense, but I suspect it doesn't suit the AFL's political agenda, they seem to be deliberately trying to make AFLW compete head to head for resources with other sports. Using AFLW as a political tool to freeze out other sports when AFL is out of season!

The NRL play the NRLW in parallel and it works fine.
The Force Awakens!