Long Service Leave for footballers?

Following the recent developments between Tony "thug of the century" Liberatore and the Western Bulldogs, what do u all think about long service leave being payed to AFL footballers?

[Charlie]

Says a lot about the man that Liberatore is. He's quite well off thanks to the Bulldogs, who gave him a career after being rejected by other clubs, and who kept him on the list when he wouldn't have survived anywhere else in the late '90s.

However, he's more than willing to try and squeeze 14 weeks of long service pay out of a club that certainly can't afford it.

Mongrel.

[desredandwhite]

The thing is though Charlie.. This is not JUST about Liberatore. Whether he was thrown a lifeline to extend his career is irrelevant. Whether the dogs can afford it or not is irrelevant. I guess the question is "should footballers receive long-service leave?"

I don't know the full facts, so I'm hesitant to give an answer myself...

In a way, I think the veterans' list allows for this already - it rewards players who stick with one club for a long time, and it rewards the club by making part of it outside the salary cap.

[NMWBloods]

No - I don't think they should get LSL. They don't want the time off, they just want the money, which is against the spirit of LSL.

[bricon]

AFL players are employees of their clubs with individual workplace agreements (ie player contracts). A workplace agreement can only alter long service leave provisions if those provisions are more favorable than those laid down in any relevant award OR if the Industrial Relations Commission has exempted a particular employer from the conditions of the Long Service Leave Act. A player or club cannot legally waive LSL provisions in a player contract; the LSL Act overrides any provisions that may be made in such contracts.

After an employee has worked for an employer for 5 years, the employer should make a provision for long service leave in the company?s accounts as a LSL payment may be payable after 5 years service, subject to certain conditions. It is irrelevant that an AFL player may have been highly paid during his career or that the club stood by him through thick and thin or that a particular player is a ?mongrel?, none of these matters are covered by the (LSL) law.

AFL players should receive LSL payments, the clubs should provide for them in their accounts and pay up if a player (or any other employee) is entitled to them. LSL payments form part of the total player payments and must be included in a club?s salary cap.

[CureTheSane]

They want long service leave?
Fine, then play football for 2 hours a week, and for the other 36 hours, either be training, studying opposition players, studying team game plans, and be getting paid a whole lot less.

Sure it's hard work, but they have a pretty easy life while they're playing I think.

For the record, IMO long service leave is a bit of a joke anyway.
If a company really wants their employees to stick with their company and show some loyalty, then they PAY THEM MORE.
Simple.

BUT, this is the 'modern era' of football, and I suppose it's inevitable to an extent.

[NMWBloods]

It is irrelevant that an AFL player may have been highly paid during his career or that the club stood by him through thick and thin or that a particular player is a ?mongrel?, none of these matters are covered by the (LSL) law.

AFL players should receive LSL payments, the clubs should provide for them in their accounts and pay up if a player (or any other employee) is entitled to them. LSL payments form part of the total player payments and must be included in a club?s salary cap.

Legally maybe they should, but I don't think that was the point of the question. I don't think they are entitled to them.

[Charlie]

I don't give a stuff what the law says. It shows incredibly disloyalty and bad faith in this instance.

I don't think footballers need them. They get other benefits. How many employers provide their most important employees with education schemes so their employees can get jobs when they leave the company? Footy players get that.

[Mike_B]

I'm another who thinks no....

Most workplaces you have to work for 10 years to even be eligible for LSL (even if after 5 they must start putting something aside in case you make it to 10). You could, if you were to work for the only company for your entire working life, be there for 35 years or more.

Footballers barely play more than 10 years now, and if they have been even a regular player in the seniors, they are set for life. Like Charlie said, they also receive so many other benefits provided to them during the course of their footballing lives. IMHO its just a grab for more from people who really don't need it.

[robbieando]

I think Yes. If you play 10 years for a club then your entitled to it, no matter what you get paid. Its only fair. But saying that cases like Libba's is not right. No agreement was in place for it and as such shouldn't be given. So what I'm saying in the next AFLPA collective bargining agreement a long service pay should be added and that way each play will know what they have owing.

[Cheer Cheer]

I'm totally with charlie on this one
He said what I wanted to say perfectly
Couldnt say it better myself

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by robbieando
I think Yes. If you play 10 years for a club then your entitled to it, no matter what you get paid. Its only fair. But saying that cases like Libba's is not right. No agreement was in place for it and as such shouldn't be given. So what I'm saying in the next AFLPA collective bargining agreement a long service pay should be added and that way each play will know what they have owing.

LSL isn't about getting more money, it's about having time off work for an extended period. Why do AFL footballers need that? When are they going to take it?

[Norris Lurker]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
No - I don't think they should get LSL. They don't want the time off, they just want the money, which is against the spirit of LSL. Any footballer who actually took their leave during a season would ...

It's a joke. What's next - penalty rates for working weekends?

[Grant]

Definately NO.If he was to be awarded it now,would he just drop everything he is doing at Box Hill Hawks,and let them carry on with there work without him,i think not.He is just trying to clutch at any last bit of money he can from the club he apparantly loved to death,but obviously doesn't care about their financial situation at the moment.It was not in his agreement with the club,end of story.

If players in the future are smart enough to put that in their contracts then good on them,but they definately do not need it.Ten years of AFL football would set any of us up for life anyway,and some of them will still be getting royalties for the rest of their lives anyway.

[j s]

Originally posted by bricon
AFL players are employees of their clubs with individual workplace agreements (ie player contracts). A workplace agreement can only alter long service leave provisions if those provisions are more favorable than those laid down in any relevant award OR if the Industrial Relations Commission has exempted a particular employer from the conditions of the Long Service Leave Act. A player or club cannot legally waive LSL provisions in a player contract; the LSL Act overrides any provisions that may be made in such contracts.

After an employee has worked for an employer for 5 years, the employer should make a provision for long service leave in the company?s accounts as a LSL payment may be payable after 5 years service, subject to certain conditions. It is irrelevant that an AFL player may have been highly paid during his career or that the club stood by him through thick and thin or that a particular player is a ?mongrel?, none of these matters are covered by the (LSL) law.

AFL players should receive LSL payments, the clubs should provide for them in their accounts and pay up if a player (or any other employee) is entitled to them. LSL payments form part of the total player payments and must be included in a club?s salary cap.
I guess that should also mean that redundancy provisions should apply and all the counselling etc requirements for poor performance before being sacked (delisted)

[bricon]

js:



I guess that should also mean that redundancy provisions should apply and all the counselling etc requirements for poor performance before being sacked (delisted)


Both parties must honor the contract between a player and club; if a club wishes to sack a player before the expiration of the contract they must pay the player his contract money. The AFLPA/AFL Collective Bargaining Agreement allows for a club to delist a contracted player but the club must payout the outstanding amount specified in the contract up to a maximum of 12 months, if there was over a year to run on the contract.


This can be a straight payout or if the player agrees, a trade can be arranged with the player receiving the (originally) contracted amount, a portion of which may be paid by the original club. The Swans paid part of Greg Stafford?s package for his first year at Richmond under such an arrangement; the Tigers paid a part (most?) of Nick Daffy?s contract when he came to the Swans.


So, in effect there is a ?redundancy? provision contained in a player?s contract with a club ? the player must be paid the full amount specified in the contract until the contract expires or a termination payment in accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement ? whether the club wants him to play for them or not.

[TheMase]

They get paid more than enough already. I am sure the lifestyle they get to leave (play the sport they love) and get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, is a great one ..

Tell me I cant have long service leave and gimme a game for the Swans, id be stoked!

[bricon]

Tell me I cant have long service leave and gimme a game for the Swans, id be stoked!


Most of the feeling against LSL for AFL players seems to centre on the fact that the player's are compensated enough already through very large salaries, great lifestyles, celebrity status etc. Whilst I understand the sentiments behind these points, it must be re-stated that no employer can deny ANY employee their LSL entitlements. It's the L-A-W.

I know that legalistic points are dry and boring, but for those interested here is a link (http://www.dir.nsw.gov.au/rights/employer/respon/leave/longserv.html) to the NSW DIR site that explains the rights and responsibilities under the NSW legislation (all other state/territory/federal conditions are identical or similar). The NSW LSL Act is here (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/lsla1955179/).

These statutory conditions apply to AFL players unless it is specifically covered in a player?s contract, however the statutory conditions are the minimum that an employer is obligated to provide. The AFL/AFLPA Collective Bargaining Agreement (http://www.aflpa.com.au/CBA/) makes no mention of LSL, so any contract based on the CBA would also be subject to the minimum LSL provisions laid out in the law.

The AFL and clubs (particularly the Bulldogs!) are certainly aware of the legality of LSL provisions for players, as they made LSL settlements to Scott Wynd and Steve Kolyniuk (along with Essendon?s Darren Bewick) last February. To try and play the ?village idiot? over the Libratore claim is disingenuous. A newspaper report of that settlement is here (http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/news/2002/02/05/FFX0HM359XC.html).

Another issue that this throws up is the matter of the clubs?/AFL?s corporate governance. If there are substantial LSL commitments that are not provided for in the accounts of the clubs and club directors are signing off those accounts as a true and fair indication of a club?s financial position; those directors may be in breach of corporations law and may be personally liable for a club?s creditors (including players) in the event of a financial collapse.

[Dpw]

My answer is no way.

The problem with the law is it alway's effects area's it never intended this is one of them.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by bricon
Most of the feeling against LSL for AFL players seems to centre on the fact that the player's are compensated enough already through very large salaries, great lifestyles, celebrity status etc. Whilst I understand the sentiments behind these points, it must be re-stated that [B]no employer can deny ANY employee their LSL entitlements. It's the L-A-W.


Who cares if it's the law!! The point of the thread is who thinks AFL footballers should get LSL, not whether it is a legal entitlement. It's simply an exercise in determining people's views.

[Norris Lurker]

If clubs are liable for long service leave, which hasn't previously been provisioned for, it creates a huge hole in the clubs' salary cap.
The AFL may need to create some interim exemptions from the cap, particularly for clubs that have plenty of players who have been there for over 5 years. Otherwise virtually every club in the AFL will now find themselves well over the salary cap.

[Destructive]

This begs the question - What would they want next? Maternity Leave???

[CureTheSane]

Destructive, whilst joking around, brings up a valid point.
How about PATERNITY leave?
How many football fans would be happy if their start players took a couple of weeks off mid season because they have a new baby?

[desredandwhite]

Well, I certainly wouldn't begrudge a week or two off for paternity leave. Life and death ARE occasionally more important than footy, despite our jokes to the contrary. With all the horror stories I've heard from mates about not getting any sleep for weeks.. maybe they wouldn't be in decent enough shape to play footy anyway! ;-)

Wasn't there a brisbane player a year or two back who had a week off after his wife gave birth? I forget.

[Charlie]

Uh....... NO! Release them from any promotional, media, office or other duties they might have, but I see no way of justifying stepping away from training and playing. It's not as if there is a pressing 24/7 requirement for their involvement that can't be fulfilled by anyone else for a couple of hours.

Charlie

[Norris Lurker]

Originally posted by desredandwhite
Wasn't there a brisbane player a year or two back who had a week off after his wife gave birth? I forget. Daniel Bradshaw I think it was - he missed a final to be with his wife. Fair enough, I don't have a problem with that. Especially if there were complications with the birth, could a player really be expected to be 100% focussed on playing a game?
And players have had time off for other reasons. Mark Mercuri a couple of years ago had a couple of weeks off after his brother died.

Back to the issue, all clubs have been lodging salary papers with the AFL for years that have never included provision for long service leave. If such an entitlement is subsequently found to exist, then every club always has been not revealing the true picture to the AFL in relation to the salary cap.

[Charlie]

Just to clarify, I don't have a problem with players missing a match, if their wife is in labor at the time. However, once the baby has been born, I don't see why a player can't pull themselves away for a few hours. If men can spare the time to go and celebrate a safe arrival at the pub with their mates, a footballer can certainly spare the time to train and play.

[tez]

Being involved in contract management any contract for
employment should include all the entitlements and
the specific terms and conditions of employment.

Indicates to me that this may have been a flaw in
the Libbetore contract which gave him the opportunity
to seek an additional payment or there was provision in
the contract that provided for long service.

No, I dont believe players should be entitled to long
service leave as many of them have a testimonial year
that should provide some financial reward.

[treespirit]

These guys are not normal employees. They get paid extremely well while they're working, then when it's over, it's over. Their compensation already takes into account their limited playing career. They also get held by the hand during and after their careers for the transition to post-AFL.

It may be the law, but for AFL players to claim it is greed, pure and simple.

A question - does LSL apply for other entertainers? Actors, etc.

[bricon]

A question - does LSL apply for other entertainers? Actors, etc.


Yep!

Even Ozzie Ostrich qualified for LSL! Many actors/entertainers/media personalities qualify for AND receive LSL payments. Contracted performers who have served the statutory period get it; some of them earn several million dollars per year. There are many people in this catagory, mainly employed (under contract) by full-time theatre and opera companies, TV and radio stations, newspapers, magazines etc. Those companies even provide for the LSL liabiliy in their accounts, as they are obliged to do under Australian Accounting Standards; many of these outfits are public companies/entities - their books are easily accessable should you wish to check further.

If they (employees) do the time they get paid LSL - INCLUDING some of the biggest names in Australia's arts/entertainment/media industry.