Footy isn't far away

[The Pie Man]

The alternative is to call off the season, no one gets paid as they are not at work, and most clubs go into huge debt.

I don't think they would be locked away for 20 weeks, I hear it is only 5 or so weeks.

Bloody prima donnas some of these players, starting with Dangerfield.

I read the responses to a twitter post from Tom Morris about this, and it echoes this view.

Sorry bad, but I couldn't be more disappointed with statements like that - and it's feeding into me feeling like I couldn't care less if this season starts again or not.

Dean Jones / Sam Groth can do one as well.

[bornadog]

I'm sure they'll give players the option to opt out, so if Danger doesn't want to be away from his family for example - which he is well within his rights - there will be a hungry young kid ready to take his spot.

I guess that is what will happen. Of course players have the right to play or not. If you don't play, you don't get paid in my books.

The clubs are desperate for revenue and I don't want to see us go down if players decide they don't want to play.

[Topdog]

I can't get excited at all about this. I mean I'm sure I will watch the games but just struggle to see the point to it.

[The Underdog]

I can't get excited at all about this. I mean I'm sure I will watch the games but just struggle to see the point to it.

Pretty sure the point is revenue. Closely followed by content

[hujsh]

Don't have kids so can only imagine it's hard being away but... plenty of people do it longer for less...

[Eastdog]

It'll be something to watch - so that's a positive. A footy fix is always good, even if it was a practice game.

Am I excited? Not really. I would prefer we win - as always - but even if we did win the whole thing, while enjoyable, it wouldn't feel the same.

Hopefully the players feel differently and attack the season as they otherwise would, but on a personal level, I'm not sure I'll be as passionate about winning as I ordinarily would be.

Yes pretty much sums it up for me as well TBB.

[bornadog]

Coronavirus impact: Why AFL players have a responsibility to accept hub model


I’m sure no players like the idea of hubs, but if that is what Australia’s best medical experts are putting forward to the AFL as the only appropriate measure then they have to accept it.

These are unprecedented times, requiring radical and unprecedented measures.

Current players are faced with extremely difficult decisions, and every individual will have their own different circumstances that they need to work through.

Family should and always will come first, and if a player decides he doesn’t want to go into an isolation hub for an extended period of time then the supporters, his teammates and the club would not begrudge anyone for that.

St Kilda coach Brett Ratten has already suggested as much, saying the club would respect the decision of any player who wanted to stay home with their wives and kids.

“Somebody could say, ‘It’s too hard for me mentally to leave my wife and kids or not to see my kids and we would respect that,” Ratten told SEN on Monday.

“At the end of the day, this is a situation and a season like no other.

“The health of our people and the mental health of our people is first and foremost.

“If that meant somebody said they weren’t playing, we would respect that.”

However, the current-day players have found themselves playing the game in a historic moment in time - a time that will shape and ultimately impact the fate and future of the game we all love.

With that comes an enormous responsibility, a responsibility that quite frankly has never fallen on a playing group before.

And while the natural immediate reaction is to think of how it will impact oneself, there needs to be a bigger, broader view on this.

This is not just about them and their club any more. This has ramifications for the whole industry, to the game’s viability going forward and the next generation of players, sponsors, supporters, umpires - everyone the game employs directly or indirectly.

Every player who has played the game has enjoyed and benefited from it, largely because of the players and coaches who went before.

Now, as the current custodians of the game, it is their turn to potentially sacrifice more than they would ever have thought possible, to make sure the game gets through this and comes out the other side.

Apart from this great level of responsibility, many players will simply need to get a season away to help them earn a living and potentially extend their careers beyond this year.

Every week two-thirds of the playing list are fighting to get a game each week, with little security week to week or year to year.

With talk of smaller playing lists and reduced salary cap spend in the future this will be some players’ only opportunity to prove their worth to their clubs and opposition sides who could be their future employers.

If I were a playing today my mindset would be that the alternative of sitting out a season far outweighs the discomfort of playing from a hub.

As hard as it might be, players can look back at this 2020 season with a great sense of pride and enduring memory.

While lighter in the pocket, they will be richer for knowing that their sacrifices helped the game navigate its way through its toughest period and ensured its survival.

[mjp]

I pretty much always side with the players but I think they are wrong here.

40000 hospitality workers in WA alone were stood down 5 weeks ago. Some are eligible for Job Keeper. But a lot (due to the nature of the industry) are not. Six of my eleven staff are on JobKeeper - 5 are NOT ELIGIBLE are therefore battling along on a CentreLink allowance. FIFO workers - of which there are a lot in my state - have almost to a person had their rosters changed to double the time away from their families, and interstate/NZ-based workers have been forced to permanently (well, permanent for now) relocate to WA.

There is a compromise position available here. I accept a lot of what the players are saying in terms of being away from family - hell, one reason I am no longer in the IT industry was the continuous interstate and international travel that took me away from home - but there are compromise positions that can be reached. Expecting the clubs/AFL to fund their families to be relocated is just not realistic - besides, some families will have kids at school, working wives etc who simply cannot relocate...

Just like my old boss in IT land hated sending me overseas to client sites at short notice, I don't think the AFL went into 2020 saying 'You know what we could do this year? Make the lives of our key employees miserable by taking them away from their families'. But just like I once upon a time had to, they really do need to acknowledge the overall impact this has had on the community and take a 'I am prepared to do whatever it takes to get things going again' approach.

To those people saying it's only a game and it isn't that important and let's just shut it down until 2021, well...footy is a big part of what makes life 'normal'. Watching with your mates on Friday night, talking about it in the workplace, listening to radio/podcasts, tv, etc...it grounds people and people need 'grounding'. If the footy is being played, it means some of those hospitality workers are closer to going back to work...hell, it will mean a lot of people in a lot of industries are closer to going back to work.

I personally think that Dangerfield is a terrible spokesperson for the players - he simply is not a popular figure amongst supporters (though he seems completely unaware of this fact) and this has not helped his messaging. I am sure the AFL gave a 'little more' than they otherwise would have in the pay deal - the fact the players will effectively receive 65% of their contracts even if they don't play another game this year is simply not appropriate given the current economic circumstances - because they "knew" something like this (the hubs) was going to happen and they were going to need the support of the players...NOW is the time for the players to step up and acknowledge that.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

I pretty much always side with the players but I think they are wrong here.

40000 hospitality workers in WA alone were stood down 5 weeks ago. Some are eligible for Job Keeper. But a lot (due to the nature of the industry) are not. Six of my eleven staff are on JobKeeper - 5 are NOT ELIGIBLE are therefore battling along on a CentreLink allowance. FIFO workers - of which there are a lot in my state - have almost to a person had their rosters changed to double the time away from their families, and interstate/NZ-based workers have been forced to permanently (well, permanent for now) relocate to WA.

There is a compromise position available here. I accept a lot of what the players are saying in terms of being away from family - hell, one reason I am no longer in the IT industry was the continuous interstate and international travel that took me away from home - but there are compromise positions that can be reached. Expecting the clubs/AFL to fund their families to be relocated is just not realistic - besides, some families will have kids at school, working wives etc who simply cannot relocate...

Just like my old boss in IT land hated sending me overseas to client sites at short notice, I don't think the AFL went into 2020 saying 'You know what we could do this year? Make the lives of our key employees miserable by taking them away from their families'. But just like I once upon a time had to, they really do need to acknowledge the overall impact this has had on the community and take a 'I am prepared to do whatever it takes to get things going again' approach.

To those people saying it's only a game and it isn't that important and let's just shut it down until 2021, well...footy is a big part of what makes life 'normal'. Watching with your mates on Friday night, talking about it in the workplace, listening to radio/podcasts, tv, etc...it grounds people and people need 'grounding'. If the footy is being played, it means some of those hospitality workers are closer to going back to work...hell, it will mean a lot of people in a lot of industries are closer to going back to work.

I personally think that Dangerfield is a terrible spokesperson for the players - he simply is not a popular figure amongst supporters (though he seems completely unaware of this fact) and this has not helped his messaging. I am sure the AFL gave a 'little more' than they otherwise would have in the pay deal - the fact the players will effectively receive 65% of their contracts even if they don't play another game this year is simply not appropriate given the current economic circumstances - because they "knew" something like this (the hubs) was going to happen and they were going to need the support of the players...NOW is the time for the players to step up and acknowledge that.

Agreed. I’m in IT as well and always dread having to go interstate for projects. I sense it coming sometimes so I understand why the players would be against it. But if it’s that vs not earning a living then common sense needs to apply.

BTW what do you do now MJP?

[bornadog]

Agreed. I’m in IT as well and always dread having to go interstate for projects. I sense it coming sometimes so I understand why the players would be against it. But if it’s that vs not earning a living then common sense needs to apply.

BTW what do you do now MJP?

https://round1fitness.com.au/

[GVGjr]

I pretty much always side with the players but I think they are wrong here.

40000 hospitality workers in WA alone were stood down 5 weeks ago. Some are eligible for Job Keeper. But a lot (due to the nature of the industry) are not. Six of my eleven staff are on JobKeeper - 5 are NOT ELIGIBLE are therefore battling along on a CentreLink allowance. FIFO workers - of which there are a lot in my state - have almost to a person had their rosters changed to double the time away from their families, and interstate/NZ-based workers have been forced to permanently (well, permanent for now) relocate to WA.

There is a compromise position available here. I accept a lot of what the players are saying in terms of being away from family - hell, one reason I am no longer in the IT industry was the continuous interstate and international travel that took me away from home - but there are compromise positions that can be reached. Expecting the clubs/AFL to fund their families to be relocated is just not realistic - besides, some families will have kids at school, working wives etc who simply cannot relocate...

Just like my old boss in IT land hated sending me overseas to client sites at short notice, I don't think the AFL went into 2020 saying 'You know what we could do this year? Make the lives of our key employees miserable by taking them away from their families'. But just like I once upon a time had to, they really do need to acknowledge the overall impact this has had on the community and take a 'I am prepared to do whatever it takes to get things going again' approach.

To those people saying it's only a game and it isn't that important and let's just shut it down until 2021, well...footy is a big part of what makes life 'normal'. Watching with your mates on Friday night, talking about it in the workplace, listening to radio/podcasts, tv, etc...it grounds people and people need 'grounding'. If the footy is being played, it means some of those hospitality workers are closer to going back to work...hell, it will mean a lot of people in a lot of industries are closer to going back to work.

I personally think that Dangerfield is a terrible spokesperson for the players - he simply is not a popular figure amongst supporters (though he seems completely unaware of this fact) and this has not helped his messaging. I am sure the AFL gave a 'little more' than they otherwise would have in the pay deal - the fact the players will effectively receive 65% of their contracts even if they don't play another game this year is simply not appropriate given the current economic circumstances - because they "knew" something like this (the hubs) was going to happen and they were going to need the support of the players...NOW is the time for the players to step up and acknowledge that.

Above touches on a lot of my reservations about footballers playing the homesick card when they get drafted interstate and then decide (normally after a superior financial offer) that they desperately need to get back home and then want their club to release them on companionate grounds no matter if a fair deal can be struck or not.
We must be the only professional competition that continually bends to that nonsense. All the players know going into the draft that there is a strong chance they could be picked up and have to move interstate but want to challenge it once they've established themselves. If you can't adapt to the demands of the industry you work in then find a less demanding industry that meets your work life balance expectations. Footballers can always play at a lower level if they can't meet the professional requirements.

With this current issue, I get being away from home for a length of time is going to be a significant challenge for some players but for many they will simply learn to adapt. If you can't go, then step aside and allow others the opportunity.
I won't be critical of any player who won't go in to a playing hub but given this is an unprecedented time they need to give this a long and hard thought and need to be comfortable that they won't be paid.
It's not the time for the players to be adding to the cost of the clubs by insisting their family comes with them and expecting the club to pick up the tab.

I get the reservations but for most players they will know now if it's a yes or no situation for them

[GVGjr]

I'm hearing that the chances of Hubs being in place is reducing. There could be some exemptions for travel for AFL players

There still might be a Hubs in place for a couple of 2 week periods (teams play 3 games) but I'm hearing there might be a way around having to have players away from their homes for a 3 or 4 week period.

[Mofra]

I'm hearing that the chances of Hubs being in place is reducing. There could be some exemptions for travel for AFL players

There still might be a Hubs in place for a couple of 2 week periods (teams play 3 games) but I'm hearing there might be a way around having to have players away from their homes for a 3 or 4 week period.

Well if they quarantine Richmond to the MCG would anyone even notice?

[Eastdog]

PM about to speak. Said he might address some stuff about sports return.

[Eastdog]

Pretty sure the point is revenue. Closely followed by content

Yep for the broadcasting money.