|
walnuts
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xall of the W-league clubs except Melbourne City are no where near the salary cap (a few seasons ago Sydney Fc wage bill for W-league was $70,000). W-league players without Matildas contract generally earn between $1000 and $6000 a season, although there are a few clubs (Adelaide and Brisbane) where some players don't get paid at all, just costs covered. So the minimum 5000 at the Afl would be tempting to any w-leaguer who is not going to ever be good enough for the national team or playing overseas. That's right, and it's worth mentioning that $5,000 is the base pay, and I'd say about half the team will be on that, others will be on $10,000 and $15,000 (two marquees will receive an additional $10,000, bringing their pay to $25,000, still on the low side, but it's a start). The salary cap is currently $190,000. Each of the 8 teams will receive $250,000 from the AFL, and total annual costs for the inaugural season are estimated to be $500,000, meaning each club needs to find $250,000 in additional revenue. All the clubs already have sponsorships lined up (with Collingwood's womens team receiving $1.5 million from Holden). What this is telling me is that the 8 clubs are going to cover their costs for the first season with absolute ease, plus some, meaning they can look to increase both teams and salaries from the second season onwards. At least one game, possibly two, will be on FTA starting next year. Why has AFL House not included insurance in the players' registration?
|
|
|
|
|
|
HortoMagiko
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xall of the W-league clubs except Melbourne City are no where near the salary cap (a few seasons ago Sydney Fc wage bill for W-league was $70,000). W-league players without Matildas contract generally earn between $1000 and $6000 a season, although there are a few clubs (Adelaide and Brisbane) where some players don't get paid at all, just costs covered. So the minimum 5000 at the Afl would be tempting to any w-leaguer who is not going to ever be good enough for the national team or playing overseas. That's right, and it's worth mentioning that $5,000 is the base pay, and I'd say about half the team will be on that, others will be on $10,000 and $15,000 (two marquees will receive an additional $10,000, bringing their pay to $25,000, still on the low side, but it's a start). The salary cap is currently $190,000. Each of the 8 teams will receive $250,000 from the AFL, and total annual costs for the inaugural season are estimated to be $500,000, meaning each club needs to find $250,000 in additional revenue. All the clubs already have sponsorships lined up (with Collingwood's womens team receiving $1.5 million from Holden). What this is telling me is that the 8 clubs are going to cover their costs for the first season with absolute ease, plus some, meaning they can look to increase both teams and salaries from the second season onwards. At least one game, possibly two, will be on FTA starting next year. Its all a pathetic Gimmick. Have them play in lingerie and then youll get some traction.
Is Wellington diverse? Dont know, however this is a club that has no historical or existing link to a specific migrant group - Rusty Einstein
The negative stereotypes are perpetuated by people who either have no idea or are serving a vested interest; neither viewpoint should get anywhere near running Australian football - Ange Postecoglou
|
|
|
|
|
bigpoppa
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xI noticed how you ignored the $1.5 million isn't new money, but repurposed. It is part of Holden's original $3 million per annum sponsorship package to Collingwood, but Holden has insisted that half be directed towards the womens team (or Collingwood were going to lose it entirely if they did not agree). Because when Eddie McGuire outed himself as your garden variety domestic violence advocate Holden forced them to divert the funds to womens programmes to compensate for the brand damage to them. That's right, nevertheless it's a $1.5 million annual sponsorship package directed at the new womens football team. Every article I have read has said half of $3m towards the womens team aswell as community partnerships and infrastructure. No where have I seen an amount of exactly $1.5m going solely to the womans team, For all we know it could be $500,000 split amongst the three.
|
|
|
|
Mister Football
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xall of the W-league clubs except Melbourne City are no where near the salary cap (a few seasons ago Sydney Fc wage bill for W-league was $70,000). W-league players without Matildas contract generally earn between $1000 and $6000 a season, although there are a few clubs (Adelaide and Brisbane) where some players don't get paid at all, just costs covered. So the minimum 5000 at the Afl would be tempting to any w-leaguer who is not going to ever be good enough for the national team or playing overseas. That's right, and it's worth mentioning that $5,000 is the base pay, and I'd say about half the team will be on that, others will be on $10,000 and $15,000 (two marquees will receive an additional $10,000, bringing their pay to $25,000, still on the low side, but it's a start). The salary cap is currently $190,000. Each of the 8 teams will receive $250,000 from the AFL, and total annual costs for the inaugural season are estimated to be $500,000, meaning each club needs to find $250,000 in additional revenue. All the clubs already have sponsorships lined up (with Collingwood's womens team receiving $1.5 million from Holden). What this is telling me is that the 8 clubs are going to cover their costs for the first season with absolute ease, plus some, meaning they can look to increase both teams and salaries from the second season onwards. At least one game, possibly two, will be on FTA starting next year. Its all a pathetic Gimmick. Have them play in lingerie and then youll get some traction. Well, we're talking about ratings of 543k for a womens exhibition game. To put that into some sort of context, that's over double what the A-League gets for a full round of games, on both FTA and Fox combined. Even a sponsorship package of $1.5 million would be around the level of what the top A-League clubs are making from their major sponsor (if you're lucky). So it's looking like a bit more than just a gimmick.
|
|
|
|
HortoMagiko
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xall of the W-league clubs except Melbourne City are no where near the salary cap (a few seasons ago Sydney Fc wage bill for W-league was $70,000). W-league players without Matildas contract generally earn between $1000 and $6000 a season, although there are a few clubs (Adelaide and Brisbane) where some players don't get paid at all, just costs covered. So the minimum 5000 at the Afl would be tempting to any w-leaguer who is not going to ever be good enough for the national team or playing overseas. That's right, and it's worth mentioning that $5,000 is the base pay, and I'd say about half the team will be on that, others will be on $10,000 and $15,000 (two marquees will receive an additional $10,000, bringing their pay to $25,000, still on the low side, but it's a start). The salary cap is currently $190,000. Each of the 8 teams will receive $250,000 from the AFL, and total annual costs for the inaugural season are estimated to be $500,000, meaning each club needs to find $250,000 in additional revenue. All the clubs already have sponsorships lined up (with Collingwood's womens team receiving $1.5 million from Holden). What this is telling me is that the 8 clubs are going to cover their costs for the first season with absolute ease, plus some, meaning they can look to increase both teams and salaries from the second season onwards. At least one game, possibly two, will be on FTA starting next year. Its all a pathetic Gimmick. Have them play in lingerie and then youll get some traction. Well, we're talking about ratings of 543k for a womens exhibition game. To put that into some sort of context, that's over double what the A-League gets for a full round of games, on both FTA and Fox combined. Even a sponsorship package of $1.5 million would be around the level of what the top A-League clubs are making from their major sponsor (if you're lucky). So it's looking like a bit more than just a gimmick. Lol. Your Hal comparions are pitiful. Just because our admin doesnt know how to grow the sport better doesnt automatically make womens afl not a joke. All this is, is afl squeezing every last drop of blood out of its dwindling monopoly.. calling in all final favors, flexing connections with sponsors..........big gimmick that will never have the longevity or trajectory of footval, And tv ratings, how long do you reallly expect that to last, lets see what happens with the ratings over the season proper before you bar up. #2 seasons tops.... by the end of the 2nd, with the gimmick exhausted, it will have faded into irrelevance.
Is Wellington diverse? Dont know, however this is a club that has no historical or existing link to a specific migrant group - Rusty Einstein
The negative stereotypes are perpetuated by people who either have no idea or are serving a vested interest; neither viewpoint should get anywhere near running Australian football - Ange Postecoglou
|
|
|
|
|
walnuts
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xall of the W-league clubs except Melbourne City are no where near the salary cap (a few seasons ago Sydney Fc wage bill for W-league was $70,000). W-league players without Matildas contract generally earn between $1000 and $6000 a season, although there are a few clubs (Adelaide and Brisbane) where some players don't get paid at all, just costs covered. So the minimum 5000 at the Afl would be tempting to any w-leaguer who is not going to ever be good enough for the national team or playing overseas. That's right, and it's worth mentioning that $5,000 is the base pay, and I'd say about half the team will be on that, others will be on $10,000 and $15,000 (two marquees will receive an additional $10,000, bringing their pay to $25,000, still on the low side, but it's a start). The salary cap is currently $190,000. Each of the 8 teams will receive $250,000 from the AFL, and total annual costs for the inaugural season are estimated to be $500,000, meaning each club needs to find $250,000 in additional revenue. All the clubs already have sponsorships lined up (with Collingwood's womens team receiving $1.5 million from Holden). What this is telling me is that the 8 clubs are going to cover their costs for the first season with absolute ease, plus some, meaning they can look to increase both teams and salaries from the second season onwards. At least one game, possibly two, will be on FTA starting next year. Its all a pathetic Gimmick. Have them play in lingerie and then youll get some traction. Well, we're talking about ratings of 543k for a womens exhibition game. To put that into some sort of context, that's over double what the A-League gets for a full round of games, on both FTA and Fox combined. Even a sponsorship package of $1.5 million would be around the level of what the top A-League clubs are making from their major sponsor (if you're lucky). So it's looking like a bit more than just a gimmick. Why has AFL House not included insurance in the players' registration?
|
|
|
|
|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xall of the W-league clubs except Melbourne City are no where near the salary cap (a few seasons ago Sydney Fc wage bill for W-league was $70,000). W-league players without Matildas contract generally earn between $1000 and $6000 a season, although there are a few clubs (Adelaide and Brisbane) where some players don't get paid at all, just costs covered. So the minimum 5000 at the Afl would be tempting to any w-leaguer who is not going to ever be good enough for the national team or playing overseas. That's right, and it's worth mentioning that $5,000 is the base pay, and I'd say about half the team will be on that, others will be on $10,000 and $15,000 (two marquees will receive an additional $10,000, bringing their pay to $25,000, still on the low side, but it's a start). The salary cap is currently $190,000. Each of the 8 teams will receive $250,000 from the AFL, and total annual costs for the inaugural season are estimated to be $500,000, meaning each club needs to find $250,000 in additional revenue. All the clubs already have sponsorships lined up (with Collingwood's womens team receiving $1.5 million from Holden). What this is telling me is that the 8 clubs are going to cover their costs for the first season with absolute ease, plus some, meaning they can look to increase both teams and salaries from the second season onwards. At least one game, possibly two, will be on FTA starting next year. Its all a pathetic Gimmick. Have them play in lingerie and then youll get some traction. Well, we're talking about ratings of 543k for a womens exhibition game. To put that into some sort of context, that's over double what the A-League gets for a full round of games, on both FTA and Fox combined. Even a sponsorship package of $1.5 million would be around the level of what the top A-League clubs are making from their major sponsor (if you're lucky). So it's looking like a bit more than just a gimmick. Aha there is no way you actually believe this.
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
Mister Football
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xall of the W-league clubs except Melbourne City are no where near the salary cap (a few seasons ago Sydney Fc wage bill for W-league was $70,000). W-league players without Matildas contract generally earn between $1000 and $6000 a season, although there are a few clubs (Adelaide and Brisbane) where some players don't get paid at all, just costs covered. So the minimum 5000 at the Afl would be tempting to any w-leaguer who is not going to ever be good enough for the national team or playing overseas. That's right, and it's worth mentioning that $5,000 is the base pay, and I'd say about half the team will be on that, others will be on $10,000 and $15,000 (two marquees will receive an additional $10,000, bringing their pay to $25,000, still on the low side, but it's a start). The salary cap is currently $190,000. Each of the 8 teams will receive $250,000 from the AFL, and total annual costs for the inaugural season are estimated to be $500,000, meaning each club needs to find $250,000 in additional revenue. All the clubs already have sponsorships lined up (with Collingwood's womens team receiving $1.5 million from Holden). What this is telling me is that the 8 clubs are going to cover their costs for the first season with absolute ease, plus some, meaning they can look to increase both teams and salaries from the second season onwards. At least one game, possibly two, will be on FTA starting next year. Its all a pathetic Gimmick. Have them play in lingerie and then youll get some traction. Well, we're talking about ratings of 543k for a womens exhibition game. To put that into some sort of context, that's over double what the A-League gets for a full round of games, on both FTA and Fox combined. Even a sponsorship package of $1.5 million would be around the level of what the top A-League clubs are making from their major sponsor (if you're lucky). So it's looking like a bit more than just a gimmick. Lol. Your Hal comparions are pitiful. Just because our admin doesnt know how to grow the sport better doesnt automatically make womens afl not a joke. All this is, is afl squeezing every last drop of blood out of its dwindling monopoly.. calling in all final favors, flexing connections with sponsors..........big gimmick that will never have the longevity or trajectory of footval, And tv ratings, how long do you reallly expect that to last, lets see what happens with the ratings over the season proper before you bar up. #2 seasons tops.... by the end of the 2nd, with the gimmick exhausted, it will have faded into irrelevance. There's a possibility that it might fade into irrelevance. In the meantime, last night's game got the following ratings: 420k for Fox; 676k for Seven;and 222k for 7Mate. Total ratings (Fox plus 5 city metro): 1,318k It probably helps explain why the AFL has a $2.5 billion TV deal - that should be enough to allow the AFL to survive for at least another six years - at least. To put that 1.3 million in ratings for one game in context, it's the equivalent of what the A-League would get in ratings from six to seven full rounds of games, 30 to 35 games.
|
|
|
|
HortoMagiko
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xall of the W-league clubs except Melbourne City are no where near the salary cap (a few seasons ago Sydney Fc wage bill for W-league was $70,000). W-league players without Matildas contract generally earn between $1000 and $6000 a season, although there are a few clubs (Adelaide and Brisbane) where some players don't get paid at all, just costs covered. So the minimum 5000 at the Afl would be tempting to any w-leaguer who is not going to ever be good enough for the national team or playing overseas. That's right, and it's worth mentioning that $5,000 is the base pay, and I'd say about half the team will be on that, others will be on $10,000 and $15,000 (two marquees will receive an additional $10,000, bringing their pay to $25,000, still on the low side, but it's a start). The salary cap is currently $190,000. Each of the 8 teams will receive $250,000 from the AFL, and total annual costs for the inaugural season are estimated to be $500,000, meaning each club needs to find $250,000 in additional revenue. All the clubs already have sponsorships lined up (with Collingwood's womens team receiving $1.5 million from Holden). What this is telling me is that the 8 clubs are going to cover their costs for the first season with absolute ease, plus some, meaning they can look to increase both teams and salaries from the second season onwards. At least one game, possibly two, will be on FTA starting next year. Its all a pathetic Gimmick. Have them play in lingerie and then youll get some traction. Well, we're talking about ratings of 543k for a womens exhibition game. To put that into some sort of context, that's over double what the A-League gets for a full round of games, on both FTA and Fox combined. Even a sponsorship package of $1.5 million would be around the level of what the top A-League clubs are making from their major sponsor (if you're lucky). So it's looking like a bit more than just a gimmick. Lol. Your Hal comparions are pitiful. Just because our admin doesnt know how to grow the sport better doesnt automatically make womens afl not a joke. All this is, is afl squeezing every last drop of blood out of its dwindling monopoly.. calling in all final favors, flexing connections with sponsors..........big gimmick that will never have the longevity or trajectory of footval, And tv ratings, how long do you reallly expect that to last, lets see what happens with the ratings over the season proper before you bar up. #2 seasons tops.... by the end of the 2nd, with the gimmick exhausted, it will have faded into irrelevance. There's a possibility that it might fade into irrelevance. In the meantime, last night's game got the following ratings: 420k for Fox; 676k for Seven;and 222k for 7Mate. Total ratings (Fox plus 5 city metro): 1,318k It probably helps explain why the AFL has a $2.5 billion TV deal - that should be enough to allow the AFL to survive for at least another six years - at least. To put that 1.3 million in ratings for one game in context, it's the equivalent of what the A-League would get in ratings from six to seven full rounds of games, 30 to 35 games. No its the equivalent of cr7s twitter following. "enough to allow the AFL to survive for at least another six years - at least." Wow after 100 years of dominance, thats super optimistic of you. Now youre starting to sound like your mate salty malty.
Is Wellington diverse? Dont know, however this is a club that has no historical or existing link to a specific migrant group - Rusty Einstein
The negative stereotypes are perpetuated by people who either have no idea or are serving a vested interest; neither viewpoint should get anywhere near running Australian football - Ange Postecoglou
|
|
|
|
|
crimsoncrusoe
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.9K,
Visits: 0
|
If AFL want to buy players for their women's league what's the problem?
Personally I couldn't care less.
But why stop at football players,they already have shown that rugby league players are more suitable.Why aren't they offering the gold medalists a gig .
Why stop at NRL and football? Why not go for Stephanie Rice and some swimmers or some hockey players.?
It's just so cringeworthy ,watching the AFL attempt to disrupt football.
Play AFL X on soccer pitches.Offer to buy female soccer players.Quiz show games denigrating football.The list goes on.
Why are they targeting football and not Rugby or League?
Talk about paranoia.
|
|
|
|
Mister Football
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xall of the W-league clubs except Melbourne City are no where near the salary cap (a few seasons ago Sydney Fc wage bill for W-league was $70,000). W-league players without Matildas contract generally earn between $1000 and $6000 a season, although there are a few clubs (Adelaide and Brisbane) where some players don't get paid at all, just costs covered. So the minimum 5000 at the Afl would be tempting to any w-leaguer who is not going to ever be good enough for the national team or playing overseas. That's right, and it's worth mentioning that $5,000 is the base pay, and I'd say about half the team will be on that, others will be on $10,000 and $15,000 (two marquees will receive an additional $10,000, bringing their pay to $25,000, still on the low side, but it's a start). The salary cap is currently $190,000. Each of the 8 teams will receive $250,000 from the AFL, and total annual costs for the inaugural season are estimated to be $500,000, meaning each club needs to find $250,000 in additional revenue. All the clubs already have sponsorships lined up (with Collingwood's womens team receiving $1.5 million from Holden). What this is telling me is that the 8 clubs are going to cover their costs for the first season with absolute ease, plus some, meaning they can look to increase both teams and salaries from the second season onwards. At least one game, possibly two, will be on FTA starting next year. Its all a pathetic Gimmick. Have them play in lingerie and then youll get some traction. Well, we're talking about ratings of 543k for a womens exhibition game. To put that into some sort of context, that's over double what the A-League gets for a full round of games, on both FTA and Fox combined. Even a sponsorship package of $1.5 million would be around the level of what the top A-League clubs are making from their major sponsor (if you're lucky). So it's looking like a bit more than just a gimmick. Lol. Your Hal comparions are pitiful. Just because our admin doesnt know how to grow the sport better doesnt automatically make womens afl not a joke. All this is, is afl squeezing every last drop of blood out of its dwindling monopoly.. calling in all final favors, flexing connections with sponsors..........big gimmick that will never have the longevity or trajectory of footval, And tv ratings, how long do you reallly expect that to last, lets see what happens with the ratings over the season proper before you bar up. #2 seasons tops.... by the end of the 2nd, with the gimmick exhausted, it will have faded into irrelevance. There's a possibility that it might fade into irrelevance. In the meantime, last night's game got the following ratings: 420k for Fox; 676k for Seven;and 222k for 7Mate. Total ratings (Fox plus 5 city metro): 1,318k It probably helps explain why the AFL has a $2.5 billion TV deal - that should be enough to allow the AFL to survive for at least another six years - at least. To put that 1.3 million in ratings for one game in context, it's the equivalent of what the A-League would get in ratings from six to seven full rounds of games, 30 to 35 games. No its the equivalent of cr7s twitter following. "enough to allow the AFL to survive for at least another six years - at least." Wow after 100 years of dominance, thats super optimistic of you. Now youre starting to sound like your mate salty malty. Let us hope that the $2.5 billion TV deal is sufficient for both the mens and womens AFL to survive.
|
|
|
|
Mister Football
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xIf AFL want to buy players for their women's league what's the problem?Personally I couldn't care less.But why stop at football players,they already have shown that rugby league players are more suitable.Why aren't they offering the gold medalists a gig .Why stop at NRL and football? Why not go for Stephanie a Rice and some swimmers or some hockey players.?It's just so cringeworthy the AFL attempt. To disrupt football.Play AFL X on soccer pitches.Offer to buy female soccer players.Quiz show games denigrating football.The list goes on.Talk about paranoia. This post appears to be somewhat confused. For starters, this thread is about womens football, not AFL X, there is a separate thread for that. Also, you appear to be intimating that the gold medallists (presumably you mean the womens 7s) play rugby league. Some might, but not all.
|
|
|
|
|
bohemia
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xall of the W-league clubs except Melbourne City are no where near the salary cap (a few seasons ago Sydney Fc wage bill for W-league was $70,000). W-league players without Matildas contract generally earn between $1000 and $6000 a season, although there are a few clubs (Adelaide and Brisbane) where some players don't get paid at all, just costs covered. So the minimum 5000 at the Afl would be tempting to any w-leaguer who is not going to ever be good enough for the national team or playing overseas. That's right, and it's worth mentioning that $5,000 is the base pay, and I'd say about half the team will be on that, others will be on $10,000 and $15,000 (two marquees will receive an additional $10,000, bringing their pay to $25,000, still on the low side, but it's a start). The salary cap is currently $190,000. Each of the 8 teams will receive $250,000 from the AFL, and total annual costs for the inaugural season are estimated to be $500,000, meaning each club needs to find $250,000 in additional revenue. All the clubs already have sponsorships lined up (with Collingwood's womens team receiving $1.5 million from Holden). What this is telling me is that the 8 clubs are going to cover their costs for the first season with absolute ease, plus some, meaning they can look to increase both teams and salaries from the second season onwards. At least one game, possibly two, will be on FTA starting next year. Its all a pathetic Gimmick. Have them play in lingerie and then youll get some traction. Well, we're talking about ratings of 543k for a womens exhibition game. To put that into some sort of context, that's over double what the A-League gets for a full round of games, on both FTA and Fox combined. Even a sponsorship package of $1.5 million would be around the level of what the top A-League clubs are making from their major sponsor (if you're lucky). So it's looking like a bit more than just a gimmick. Lol. Your Hal comparions are pitiful. Just because our admin doesnt know how to grow the sport better doesnt automatically make womens afl not a joke. All this is, is afl squeezing every last drop of blood out of its dwindling monopoly.. calling in all final favors, flexing connections with sponsors..........big gimmick that will never have the longevity or trajectory of footval, And tv ratings, how long do you reallly expect that to last, lets see what happens with the ratings over the season proper before you bar up. #2 seasons tops.... by the end of the 2nd, with the gimmick exhausted, it will have faded into irrelevance. There's a possibility that it might fade into irrelevance. In the meantime, last night's game got the following ratings: 420k for Fox; 676k for Seven;and 222k for 7Mate. Total ratings (Fox plus 5 city metro): 1,318k It probably helps explain why the AFL has a $2.5 billion TV deal - that should be enough to allow the AFL to survive for at least another six years - at least. To put that 1.3 million in ratings for one game in context, it's the equivalent of what the A-League would get in ratings from six to seven full rounds of games, 30 to 35 games. No its the equivalent of cr7s twitter following. "enough to allow the AFL to survive for at least another six years - at least." Wow after 100 years of dominance, thats super optimistic of you. Now youre starting to sound like your mate salty malty. Let us hope that the $2.5 billion TV deal is sufficient for both the mens and womens AFL to survive. The biggest threat to Aussie Rules is its own largesse. Give them a 10 billion media deal, they'll spend it on bureacracy. The game will never expand overseas because it doesn't want to. It will always be motivated by increasing its revenue to be sent straight back to Melbourne and divied to constitutents (read: players). Noticed their latest "expansion" in NZ? Local council yanks funding, sport bolts. They tried Sout Africa, but it turns out third world country governments don't write cheques. With a strong local currenecy and swelling coffers there's simply no reason why they can't shock and awe one developing nation at a time and build participation. Except they can't extract rent, so it's not an option to them.
|
|
|
|
HortoMagiko
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xall of the W-league clubs except Melbourne City are no where near the salary cap (a few seasons ago Sydney Fc wage bill for W-league was $70,000). W-league players without Matildas contract generally earn between $1000 and $6000 a season, although there are a few clubs (Adelaide and Brisbane) where some players don't get paid at all, just costs covered. So the minimum 5000 at the Afl would be tempting to any w-leaguer who is not going to ever be good enough for the national team or playing overseas. That's right, and it's worth mentioning that $5,000 is the base pay, and I'd say about half the team will be on that, others will be on $10,000 and $15,000 (two marquees will receive an additional $10,000, bringing their pay to $25,000, still on the low side, but it's a start). The salary cap is currently $190,000. Each of the 8 teams will receive $250,000 from the AFL, and total annual costs for the inaugural season are estimated to be $500,000, meaning each club needs to find $250,000 in additional revenue. All the clubs already have sponsorships lined up (with Collingwood's womens team receiving $1.5 million from Holden). What this is telling me is that the 8 clubs are going to cover their costs for the first season with absolute ease, plus some, meaning they can look to increase both teams and salaries from the second season onwards. At least one game, possibly two, will be on FTA starting next year. Its all a pathetic Gimmick. Have them play in lingerie and then youll get some traction. Well, we're talking about ratings of 543k for a womens exhibition game. To put that into some sort of context, that's over double what the A-League gets for a full round of games, on both FTA and Fox combined. Even a sponsorship package of $1.5 million would be around the level of what the top A-League clubs are making from their major sponsor (if you're lucky). So it's looking like a bit more than just a gimmick. Lol. Your Hal comparions are pitiful. Just because our admin doesnt know how to grow the sport better doesnt automatically make womens afl not a joke. All this is, is afl squeezing every last drop of blood out of its dwindling monopoly.. calling in all final favors, flexing connections with sponsors..........big gimmick that will never have the longevity or trajectory of footval, And tv ratings, how long do you reallly expect that to last, lets see what happens with the ratings over the season proper before you bar up. #2 seasons tops.... by the end of the 2nd, with the gimmick exhausted, it will have faded into irrelevance. There's a possibility that it might fade into irrelevance. In the meantime, last night's game got the following ratings: 420k for Fox; 676k for Seven;and 222k for 7Mate. Total ratings (Fox plus 5 city metro): 1,318k It probably helps explain why the AFL has a $2.5 billion TV deal - that should be enough to allow the AFL to survive for at least another six years - at least. To put that 1.3 million in ratings for one game in context, it's the equivalent of what the A-League would get in ratings from six to seven full rounds of games, 30 to 35 games. No its the equivalent of cr7s twitter following. "enough to allow the AFL to survive for at least another six years - at least." Wow after 100 years of dominance, thats super optimistic of you. Now youre starting to sound like your mate salty malty. Let us hope that the $2.5 billion TV deal is sufficient for both the mens and womens AFL to survive. Yeah "hope" ....or delusion, whatever helps you sleep. Afl is at the stage where its akin to filling a bucket with holes at the bottom. There is no tv deal big enough to stop the inevitable demise of the insular game. Money cant make young kids take up the sport. Keep playing your fiddle while rome burns paisan.
Is Wellington diverse? Dont know, however this is a club that has no historical or existing link to a specific migrant group - Rusty Einstein
The negative stereotypes are perpetuated by people who either have no idea or are serving a vested interest; neither viewpoint should get anywhere near running Australian football - Ange Postecoglou
|
|
|
|
|
Oblivious Troll
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 737,
Visits: 0
|
+xWell, we're talking about ratings of 543k for a womens exhibition game. To put that into some sort of context, that's over double what the A-League gets for a full round of games, on both FTA and Fox combined. Even a sponsorship package of $1.5 million would be around the level of what the top A-League clubs are making from their major sponsor (if you're lucky). So it's looking like a bit more than just a gimmick. I saw a quote from Dr Johnson about that game. He was talking to his little mate Jim Boswell who said he had watched the game. Johnson responded "Sir, a woman playing ARF is like a dog walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."
I appreciate that as pioneers of a sort you may argue that they should be cut some slack initially and clearly by a lot of ARF fans they have been - if only because of the novelty or some perceived prurient appeal. But the alternate view is that they are more like bears dancing in a market, most people fail to perceive that they are not actually dancing but performing by rote. It's amusing so the lower standard is accepted.
Women's football is on the other hand acceptable because it has a long history and is played, seriously, internationally under the auspices of FIFA. It is played using the same laws as the men's game whereas in ARF the ladies play using modified rules
Its a game for everyone. Its not pale, male, or stale. It transcends race, gender, economic status. Its for everyone. - Tal Karp
|
|
|
|
|
sydneyfc1987
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xWell, this is timely. A few on this forum have predicted that the National Womens League will be lucky to last four years. I can promise everyone that the momentum for the league is huge, media interest is huge, and the recent exhibition game last saturday night got ratings of 543k (5 city metro). Most of the clubs (if not all of them) have sponsors already lining up. Holden will sponsor the Collingwood womens team to the tune of $1.5 million for the next two years (that's per annum by the way). Let me tell you, most A-League clubs would be lucky to have a major sponsor worth that much. There will be at least one, maybe two games on FTA next season. All in all, the signs are there for the new National Womens League to prosper, it might be a long time before it can catch Netball in terms of commercial value, but it will by pass all the other womens sports very quickly. we may as well pack our bags and leave now hey :crying: Who is we? This is simply good news for women who want to play Australian Football at an elite level. They now have their own league and it will be a huge success. Australian footballers have had their own league for years.
(VAR) IS NAVY BLUE
|
|
|
|
HortoMagiko
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xWell, we're talking about ratings of 543k for a womens exhibition game. To put that into some sort of context, that's over double what the A-League gets for a full round of games, on both FTA and Fox combined. Even a sponsorship package of $1.5 million would be around the level of what the top A-League clubs are making from their major sponsor (if you're lucky). So it's looking like a bit more than just a gimmick. I saw a quote from Dr Johnson about that game. He was talking to his little mate Jim Boswell who said he had watched the game. Johnson responded "Sir, a woman playing ARF is like adog walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."
I appreciate that as pioneers ofa sort you may argue that they should be cut some slack initially and clearly by a lot of ARF fans they have been - if only because of the novelty or some perceived prurient appeal. But the alternate view is that they are more like bears dancing in a market, most people fail to perceive that they are not actually dancing but performing by rote. It's amusing so the lower standard is accepted.
Women's football is on the other hand acceptable because it has a long history and is played, seriously, internationally under the auspices of FIFA. It is played using the same laws as the men's game whereas in ARF the ladies play using modified rules
Boom! What a post! Ps. Bahaha. Hind legs :)
Is Wellington diverse? Dont know, however this is a club that has no historical or existing link to a specific migrant group - Rusty Einstein
The negative stereotypes are perpetuated by people who either have no idea or are serving a vested interest; neither viewpoint should get anywhere near running Australian football - Ange Postecoglou
|
|
|
|
Mister Football
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xall of the W-league clubs except Melbourne City are no where near the salary cap (a few seasons ago Sydney Fc wage bill for W-league was $70,000). W-league players without Matildas contract generally earn between $1000 and $6000 a season, although there are a few clubs (Adelaide and Brisbane) where some players don't get paid at all, just costs covered. So the minimum 5000 at the Afl would be tempting to any w-leaguer who is not going to ever be good enough for the national team or playing overseas. That's right, and it's worth mentioning that $5,000 is the base pay, and I'd say about half the team will be on that, others will be on $10,000 and $15,000 (two marquees will receive an additional $10,000, bringing their pay to $25,000, still on the low side, but it's a start). The salary cap is currently $190,000. Each of the 8 teams will receive $250,000 from the AFL, and total annual costs for the inaugural season are estimated to be $500,000, meaning each club needs to find $250,000 in additional revenue. All the clubs already have sponsorships lined up (with Collingwood's womens team receiving $1.5 million from Holden). What this is telling me is that the 8 clubs are going to cover their costs for the first season with absolute ease, plus some, meaning they can look to increase both teams and salaries from the second season onwards. At least one game, possibly two, will be on FTA starting next year. Its all a pathetic Gimmick. Have them play in lingerie and then youll get some traction. Well, we're talking about ratings of 543k for a womens exhibition game. To put that into some sort of context, that's over double what the A-League gets for a full round of games, on both FTA and Fox combined. Even a sponsorship package of $1.5 million would be around the level of what the top A-League clubs are making from their major sponsor (if you're lucky). So it's looking like a bit more than just a gimmick. Lol. Your Hal comparions are pitiful. Just because our admin doesnt know how to grow the sport better doesnt automatically make womens afl not a joke. All this is, is afl squeezing every last drop of blood out of its dwindling monopoly.. calling in all final favors, flexing connections with sponsors..........big gimmick that will never have the longevity or trajectory of footval, And tv ratings, how long do you reallly expect that to last, lets see what happens with the ratings over the season proper before you bar up. #2 seasons tops.... by the end of the 2nd, with the gimmick exhausted, it will have faded into irrelevance. There's a possibility that it might fade into irrelevance. In the meantime, last night's game got the following ratings: 420k for Fox; 676k for Seven;and 222k for 7Mate. Total ratings (Fox plus 5 city metro): 1,318k It probably helps explain why the AFL has a $2.5 billion TV deal - that should be enough to allow the AFL to survive for at least another six years - at least. To put that 1.3 million in ratings for one game in context, it's the equivalent of what the A-League would get in ratings from six to seven full rounds of games, 30 to 35 games. No its the equivalent of cr7s twitter following. "enough to allow the AFL to survive for at least another six years - at least." Wow after 100 years of dominance, thats super optimistic of you. Now youre starting to sound like your mate salty malty. Let us hope that the $2.5 billion TV deal is sufficient for both the mens and womens AFL to survive. Yeah "hope" ....or delusion, whatever helps you sleep. Afl is at the stage where its akin to filling a bucket with holes at the bottom. There is no tv deal big enough to stop the inevitable demise of the insular game. Money cant make young kids take up the sport. Keep playing your fiddle while rome burns paisan. With a little luck, a $2.5 billion TV deal might help it last a little longer.
|
|
|
|
|
sydneyfc1987
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+xHoldens only diverting a portion of the $3m they already give to Collingwood to their womens team as well as communtiy programs and infrastructure. In retaliation to Eddie McGuires comments about drowning Caroline Wilson. Only covering their own arses from backlash. Harvey Norman already sponsor GWS and Priceline Pharmacy(Bulldogs) already sponsor Adelaide Thunderbirds in the netball but is netball taking over the world? Visy already sponsor Carlton. Visy also sponsor Melbourne Victory! A quick google search will throw up a number of links. You do realise that these sponsors are only jumping on board to sponsor a brand as opposed to sponsoring Womens AFL. Its no different to Etihad sponsoring Melbourne City as well as Manchester and New York. This is just more AFL sharades, no one really gives too hoots. Every AFL fan I know will admit (with an eye roll) this is just the AFL jumping on the bandwagon of political correctness/equality, throw in Indigenous Round, Multicultural Round, Womens Round, Pride Round. Its squeamish to even the most passionate AFL supporter. Its a novelty, its an 8 game season where the women can earn $5000 for training 9 hours a week. Your nothing but a troll Mr.Football. Its more a form of subsidization than genuine sponsorship. More of a "good on Holden for supporting the women's side of the game" move. Companies do it all the time and it has little to nothing to do with expected TV rating and/or exposure.
(VAR) IS NAVY BLUE
|
|
|
|
Mister Football
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xHoldens only diverting a portion of the $3m they already give to Collingwood to their womens team as well as communtiy programs and infrastructure. In retaliation to Eddie McGuires comments about drowning Caroline Wilson. Only covering their own arses from backlash. Harvey Norman already sponsor GWS and Priceline Pharmacy(Bulldogs) already sponsor Adelaide Thunderbirds in the netball but is netball taking over the world? Visy already sponsor Carlton. Visy also sponsor Melbourne Victory! A quick google search will throw up a number of links. You do realise that these sponsors are only jumping on board to sponsor a brand as opposed to sponsoring Womens AFL. Its no different to Etihad sponsoring Melbourne City as well as Manchester and New York. This is just more AFL sharades, no one really gives too hoots. Every AFL fan I know will admit (with an eye roll) this is just the AFL jumping on the bandwagon of political correctness/equality, throw in Indigenous Round, Multicultural Round, Womens Round, Pride Round. Its squeamish to even the most passionate AFL supporter. Its a novelty, its an 8 game season where the women can earn $5000 for training 9 hours a week. Your nothing but a troll Mr.Football. Its more a form of subsidization than genuine sponsorship. More of a "good on Holden for supporting the women's side of the game" move. Companies do it all the time and it has little to nothing to do with expected TV rating and/or exposure. Geez - looks and sounds a lot like sponsorship.
|
|
|
|
|
walnuts
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xHoldens only diverting a portion of the $3m they already give to Collingwood to their womens team as well as communtiy programs and infrastructure. In retaliation to Eddie McGuires comments about drowning Caroline Wilson. Only covering their own arses from backlash. Harvey Norman already sponsor GWS and Priceline Pharmacy(Bulldogs) already sponsor Adelaide Thunderbirds in the netball but is netball taking over the world? Visy already sponsor Carlton. Visy also sponsor Melbourne Victory! A quick google search will throw up a number of links. You do realise that these sponsors are only jumping on board to sponsor a brand as opposed to sponsoring Womens AFL. Its no different to Etihad sponsoring Melbourne City as well as Manchester and New York. This is just more AFL sharades, no one really gives too hoots. Every AFL fan I know will admit (with an eye roll) this is just the AFL jumping on the bandwagon of political correctness/equality, throw in Indigenous Round, Multicultural Round, Womens Round, Pride Round. Its squeamish to even the most passionate AFL supporter. Its a novelty, its an 8 game season where the women can earn $5000 for training 9 hours a week. Your nothing but a troll Mr.Football. Its more a form of subsidization than genuine sponsorship. More of a "good on Holden for supporting the women's side of the game" move. Companies do it all the time and it has little to nothing to do with expected TV rating and/or exposure. Geez - looks and sounds a lot like sponsorship. Why has AFL House not included insurance in the players' registration?
|
|
|
|
Mister Football
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xHoldens only diverting a portion of the $3m they already give to Collingwood to their womens team as well as communtiy programs and infrastructure. In retaliation to Eddie McGuires comments about drowning Caroline Wilson. Only covering their own arses from backlash. Harvey Norman already sponsor GWS and Priceline Pharmacy(Bulldogs) already sponsor Adelaide Thunderbirds in the netball but is netball taking over the world? Visy already sponsor Carlton. Visy also sponsor Melbourne Victory! A quick google search will throw up a number of links. You do realise that these sponsors are only jumping on board to sponsor a brand as opposed to sponsoring Womens AFL. Its no different to Etihad sponsoring Melbourne City as well as Manchester and New York. This is just more AFL sharades, no one really gives too hoots. Every AFL fan I know will admit (with an eye roll) this is just the AFL jumping on the bandwagon of political correctness/equality, throw in Indigenous Round, Multicultural Round, Womens Round, Pride Round. Its squeamish to even the most passionate AFL supporter. Its a novelty, its an 8 game season where the women can earn $5000 for training 9 hours a week. Your nothing but a troll Mr.Football. Its more a form of subsidization than genuine sponsorship. More of a "good on Holden for supporting the women's side of the game" move. Companies do it all the time and it has little to nothing to do with expected TV rating and/or exposure. Geez - looks and sounds a lot like sponsorship. Why has AFL House not included insurance in the players' registration? I think they have made an error, and I hope it's rectified by the start of the inaugural season.
|
|
|
|
|
walnuts
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xHoldens only diverting a portion of the $3m they already give to Collingwood to their womens team as well as communtiy programs and infrastructure. In retaliation to Eddie McGuires comments about drowning Caroline Wilson. Only covering their own arses from backlash. Harvey Norman already sponsor GWS and Priceline Pharmacy(Bulldogs) already sponsor Adelaide Thunderbirds in the netball but is netball taking over the world? Visy already sponsor Carlton. Visy also sponsor Melbourne Victory! A quick google search will throw up a number of links. You do realise that these sponsors are only jumping on board to sponsor a brand as opposed to sponsoring Womens AFL. Its no different to Etihad sponsoring Melbourne City as well as Manchester and New York. This is just more AFL sharades, no one really gives too hoots. Every AFL fan I know will admit (with an eye roll) this is just the AFL jumping on the bandwagon of political correctness/equality, throw in Indigenous Round, Multicultural Round, Womens Round, Pride Round. Its squeamish to even the most passionate AFL supporter. Its a novelty, its an 8 game season where the women can earn $5000 for training 9 hours a week. Your nothing but a troll Mr.Football. Its more a form of subsidization than genuine sponsorship. More of a "good on Holden for supporting the women's side of the game" move. Companies do it all the time and it has little to nothing to do with expected TV rating and/or exposure. Geez - looks and sounds a lot like sponsorship. Why has AFL House not included insurance in the players' registration? I think they have made an error, and I hope it's rectified by the start of the inaugural season. You know what it tells me? AFL house views female footballers as 'disposable commodities' - useless if they get broken, so they just get discarded.
|
|
|
|
Mister Football
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xHoldens only diverting a portion of the $3m they already give to Collingwood to their womens team as well as communtiy programs and infrastructure. In retaliation to Eddie McGuires comments about drowning Caroline Wilson. Only covering their own arses from backlash. Harvey Norman already sponsor GWS and Priceline Pharmacy(Bulldogs) already sponsor Adelaide Thunderbirds in the netball but is netball taking over the world? Visy already sponsor Carlton. Visy also sponsor Melbourne Victory! A quick google search will throw up a number of links. You do realise that these sponsors are only jumping on board to sponsor a brand as opposed to sponsoring Womens AFL. Its no different to Etihad sponsoring Melbourne City as well as Manchester and New York. This is just more AFL sharades, no one really gives too hoots. Every AFL fan I know will admit (with an eye roll) this is just the AFL jumping on the bandwagon of political correctness/equality, throw in Indigenous Round, Multicultural Round, Womens Round, Pride Round. Its squeamish to even the most passionate AFL supporter. Its a novelty, its an 8 game season where the women can earn $5000 for training 9 hours a week. Your nothing but a troll Mr.Football. Its more a form of subsidization than genuine sponsorship. More of a "good on Holden for supporting the women's side of the game" move. Companies do it all the time and it has little to nothing to do with expected TV rating and/or exposure. Geez - looks and sounds a lot like sponsorship. Why has AFL House not included insurance in the players' registration? I think they have made an error, and I hope it's rectified by the start of the inaugural season. You know what it tells me? AFL house views female footballers as 'disposable commodities' - useless if they get broken, so they just get discarded. Well,professional athletes are certainly viewed as commodities, but I agree that the AFL has a duty of care for those under their charge.
|
|
|
|
|
And Everyone Blamed Clive
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xHoldens only diverting a portion of the $3m they already give to Collingwood to their womens team as well as communtiy programs and infrastructure. In retaliation to Eddie McGuires comments about drowning Caroline Wilson. Only covering their own arses from backlash. Harvey Norman already sponsor GWS and Priceline Pharmacy(Bulldogs) already sponsor Adelaide Thunderbirds in the netball but is netball taking over the world? Visy already sponsor Carlton. Visy also sponsor Melbourne Victory! A quick google search will throw up a number of links. You do realise that these sponsors are only jumping on board to sponsor a brand as opposed to sponsoring Womens AFL. Its no different to Etihad sponsoring Melbourne City as well as Manchester and New York. This is just more AFL sharades, no one really gives too hoots. Every AFL fan I know will admit (with an eye roll) this is just the AFL jumping on the bandwagon of political correctness/equality, throw in Indigenous Round, Multicultural Round, Womens Round, Pride Round. Its squeamish to even the most passionate AFL supporter. Its a novelty, its an 8 game season where the women can earn $5000 for training 9 hours a week. Your nothing but a troll Mr.Football. Its more a form of subsidization than genuine sponsorship. More of a "good on Holden for supporting the women's side of the game" move. Companies do it all the time and it has little to nothing to do with expected TV rating and/or exposure. Geez - looks and sounds a lot like sponsorship. Why has AFL House not included insurance in the players' registration? I think they have made an error, and I hope it's rectified by the start of the inaugural season. You know what it tells me? AFL house views female footballers as 'disposable commodities' - useless if they get broken, so they just get discarded. No different to FFA view of Male & Female players #Culinagate #minimumwage
Winner of Official 442 Comment of the day Award - 10th April 2017
|
|
|
|
|
sydneyfc1987
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xHoldens only diverting a portion of the $3m they already give to Collingwood to their womens team as well as communtiy programs and infrastructure. In retaliation to Eddie McGuires comments about drowning Caroline Wilson. Only covering their own arses from backlash. Harvey Norman already sponsor GWS and Priceline Pharmacy(Bulldogs) already sponsor Adelaide Thunderbirds in the netball but is netball taking over the world? Visy already sponsor Carlton. Visy also sponsor Melbourne Victory! A quick google search will throw up a number of links. You do realise that these sponsors are only jumping on board to sponsor a brand as opposed to sponsoring Womens AFL. Its no different to Etihad sponsoring Melbourne City as well as Manchester and New York. This is just more AFL sharades, no one really gives too hoots. Every AFL fan I know will admit (with an eye roll) this is just the AFL jumping on the bandwagon of political correctness/equality, throw in Indigenous Round, Multicultural Round, Womens Round, Pride Round. Its squeamish to even the most passionate AFL supporter. Its a novelty, its an 8 game season where the women can earn $5000 for training 9 hours a week. Your nothing but a troll Mr.Football. Its more a form of subsidization than genuine sponsorship. More of a "good on Holden for supporting the women's side of the game" move. Companies do it all the time and it has little to nothing to do with expected TV rating and/or exposure. Geez - looks and sounds a lot like sponsorship. Similar to how DHL sponsors surf living-saving. It's admirable but nothing to toot your horn over.
(VAR) IS NAVY BLUE
|
|
|
|
|
AEK Spartan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
It's inevitable that other sports will be hit sooner or later with the surge in AFL ladies game. Sokahhgh will be no worse off than Netball and Basketball etc.
|
|
|
|
|
aussie pride
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
When will Gill & the boys start paying maternity leave?
Thats the secret to the womens code war :Whistling:
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xHoldens only diverting a portion of the $3m they already give to Collingwood to their womens team as well as communtiy programs and infrastructure. In retaliation to Eddie McGuires comments about drowning Caroline Wilson. Only covering their own arses from backlash. Harvey Norman already sponsor GWS and Priceline Pharmacy(Bulldogs) already sponsor Adelaide Thunderbirds in the netball but is netball taking over the world? Visy already sponsor Carlton. Visy also sponsor Melbourne Victory! A quick google search will throw up a number of links. You do realise that these sponsors are only jumping on board to sponsor a brand as opposed to sponsoring Womens AFL. Its no different to Etihad sponsoring Melbourne City as well as Manchester and New York. This is just more AFL sharades, no one really gives too hoots. Every AFL fan I know will admit (with an eye roll) this is just the AFL jumping on the bandwagon of political correctness/equality, throw in Indigenous Round, Multicultural Round, Womens Round, Pride Round. Its squeamish to even the most passionate AFL supporter. Its a novelty, its an 8 game season where the women can earn $5000 for training 9 hours a week. Your nothing but a troll Mr.Football. Its more a form of subsidization than genuine sponsorship. More of a "good on Holden for supporting the women's side of the game" move. Companies do it all the time and it has little to nothing to do with expected TV rating and/or exposure. Geez - looks and sounds a lot like sponsorship. Why has AFL House not included insurance in the players' registration? I think they have made an error, and I hope it's rectified by the start of the inaugural season. You know what it tells me? AFL house views female footballers as 'disposable commodities' - useless if they get broken, so they just get discarded. Don't delude yourself when it comes to 'insurance' you get with soccer rego. It's practically useless. Try claiming an ACL or similar and see how you go. Football 'insurance' is anything but for the average (non-professional) player.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|