What did XR do?

[Meg]

Thats professional sport the world over. There is a massive pay difference. 10x. For essentially the same job. I think X and other lowly players accept that.

Well no, not for "essentially the same job". Value is a function of quality as well as quantity, with quality very often the far more important factor.

(I could dress up and walk up and down a runway, but I doubt I would get paid the same as Miranda Kerr.)

[caj23]

No matter how him/his manager/and a few posters on here want to paint it, he clearly botched the whole thing up.

I highly doubt he was thinking when he requested a trade "Oh well there's a chance no other team will pick me up and my AFL career will be over. I'll just work a 9 - 5 job with all the other plebs for a quarter of the money I could have been earning as an AFL player. Cool"

[YvonneH]

Is there any chance that he tried to do the right thing by the Swans by requesting a trade (therefore giving us the opportunity to gain from his departure even though he was going home whatever the outcome), seeing he said he wasn't fazed if he didn't play AFL?

Dre Everitt said the cost of living was too high in Sydney as did X. Maybe they were both trying to help the Swans by putting that out there.

I like to think the best of people until proven wrong.

[grarmy]

Naaaaah. Value is based on delivering measurable results set against mutually agreed goals. If you could sell more clothes than Miranda Kerr you would be paid more than her no matter how beautiful you looked, how hard you worked, and how well you performed your duties. That is why Josh Kennedy will command and receive a pay increase. That is why Kurt 'The Log' Tippett should be traded out.

[Meg]

grarmy, you and I are saying the same thing. X may have trained as many hours, run as many laps, lost as much perspiration as other players but his value and therefore pay was never going to match the best players in the Swans.

[Ludwig]

grarmy, you and I are saying the same thing. X may have trained as many hours, run as many laps, lost as much perspiration as other players but his value and therefore pay was never going to match the best players in the Swans.

I support the SAFL: The Socialist Australian Football League, where all the revenue goes into a big pot and shared equally among all the workers, whatever their job may be. Those with special talents, like Tom Derickx, can supplement their incomes with modelling gigs.

[bloodspirit]

A few points to throw in the mix:

* players are not primarily playing for the money. Sure, it's become a big factor, but they are doing it because they love it and it beats "working" for a living (I know they work much harder than me - but that's not my point). Even before they earned so much there was still footy and crowds and players giving their all.

* if a player gets injured in the line of duty that is no reason to diss them. They've put their body on the line for us. This particularly relates to the criticism being thrown at Tippett and Reid. They don't owe us anything. Perhaps if we continue to show faith in them after a series of injuries then the pendulum can swing a little. But then, if a player is injury prone that will be reflected in their wages after a while anyway.

* while acknowledging better players are always going to get paid more, I still think there is a good case for a decent minimum wage given that unlike modelling, banking, pulling beer and other occupations, our players are (again) putting their bodies on the line and, much more frequently than in other professions, wind up with permanently diminished physical capacities after their playing career is over. This applies to both more and less talented players (possibly more so to the less talented because they have to rely more on grit) and that is a reason for bottom players getting paid decently even if they are not as good as their better paid team mates. I think it's great that the players themselves have some kind of fund and support for players whose careers are cut short by injury.

[dimelb]

A few points to throw in the mix:

* players are not primarily playing for the money. Sure, it's become a big factor, but they are doing it because they love it and it beats "working" for a living (I know they work much harder than me - but that's not my point). Even before they earned so much there was still footy and crowds and players giving their all.

* if a player gets injured in the line of duty that is no reason to diss them. They've put their body on the line for us. This particularly relates to the criticism being thrown at Tippett and Reid. They don't owe us anything. Perhaps if we continue to show faith in them after a series of injuries then the pendulum can swing a little. But then, if a player is injury prone that will be reflected in their wages after a while anyway.

* while acknowledging better players are always going to get paid more, I still think there is a good case for a decent minimum wage given that unlike modelling, banking, pulling beer and other occupations, our players are (again) putting their bodies on the line and, much more frequently than in other professions, wind up with permanently diminished physical capacities after their playing career is over. This applies to both more and less talented players (possibly more so to the less talented because they have to rely more on grit) and that is a reason for bottom players getting paid decently even if they are not as good as their better paid team mates. I think it's great that the players themselves have some kind of fund and support for players whose careers are cut short by injury.

Well put, especially your third point.

[Meg]

Well put, especially your third point.

It is precisely the third point that the Players' Association aim to protect through the minimum terms and conditions negotiated in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. I think the association does a pretty fair job for the players. While the delay in announcing the TPP for 2017 and beyond has made recruitment decisions difficult for the clubs, I suspect the delay reflects the association holding firm on a good outcome for the players.

[707]

Comprehensive article this morning on the AFL website fully explaining what occurred with XR.

Classic case of misreading your own worth and in the end biting the hand that was going to feed you $150k+ for another two years. Looks like the Swans just got fed up with his posturing and banked some salary cap.

Looks like he'll be enjoying Melbourne's cheaper cost of living whilst studying next year.

[Ludwig]

Trading Places

[Mel_C]

So many articles have been written about X the last couple of months. The footy world is as dumbfounded as we are.

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

[Industrial Fan]

The more time passes after the delisting the more I think it will be a big positive for us keeping the list together.

[Aprilbr]

What did XR do?

Yes I read the article with great interest. The link is:

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2016-12-02/analysis-where-did-it-all-go-wrong-for-xavier-richards

It's interesting to read that some clubs did not rate his ability that highly. I thought he showed a bit in the last 10 games and is very athletic. Obviously he had a shocker in the GF but then again he had a few mates in that regard.

Knocking back $150k per year for 2 years to be on next to nothing as a student is a big decline. He complained about the cost of living being too high in Sydney but surely one could live a reasonable existence there on that money? By the way I live in Melb and it's not too cheap here either. I might add that I thought there was still a reasonable rent allowance permitted by the AFL for players in Sydney on the lower wage levels?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Markwebbos]

Maybe in the future we'll use the expression "doing an X" and everyone will remember this as a cautionary tale.

The way the AFL tells it X was the driving force not his manager, who tried to talk sense into him.

Question is, ARE the Swans better off without him? I'm not convinced but I understand why they did it.