AFLW bitter pay war: Leaked email to players exposes bitter fall out with AFLPA chief
An email from AFLPA boss Paul Marsh to AFLW players lays bare how bitter the ongoing pay war is with the chief slamming those who voted against, warning the 2020 season may not happen and pay may be withheld. READ THE EMAIL IN FULL.
AFLW
Don't miss out on the headlines from AFLW. Followed categories will be added to My News.
An explosive email sent by AFL Players’ Association boss Paul Marsh has laid bare the bitter war that has divided AFL Women’s players and their union, with the chief lashing a breakaway group for a week of drama.
In the leaked missive sent to all AFLW players on Sunday, Marsh warned that the 2020 pre-season may not ever begin and that players may not be paid, claiming the public nature of the stalemate could hinder the players’ ability to negotiate a new deal.
He slammed the group that led a charge against the deal – which garnered 30 per cent of the playing group’s support to take down the collective bargaining agreement vote – for what he described as an orchestrated campaign to “undermine” and “weaken” the union.
He claimed the players “were not united” and accused the group opposed to the deal of conducting “an aggressive and damaging PR campaign” against the AFLPA that he said “cut to the core” of its staff.
“Rather than respond to the various accusations made about us during the week, we made a decision to focus on continuing to work on the deal and the many daily issues we deal with on behalf of all players,” the AFLPA chief executive wrote.
“It is now important that I address what has occurred this week. I want to make the point that the AFLPA has 38 staff who passionately work for our current and past female and male players every day, taking up issues that are rarely popular with the industry, public or media, but we do so because we care deeply about our members and their rights.
“The accusations made about us this week have cut to the core of every person that works for the AFLPA as the accusations unfairly question our values, ethics, and the purpose with which we go about our work for the players.”
Players against the proposed deal have concerns surrounding the length of the season and clarity on the deal, and are seeking greater representation in negotiations.
They also said they had felt pressured to agree to the deal.
Almost a third of players opposed the offer, with Marsh affirming that he believed the 70 per cent in favour had indicated “that a strong majority of players support the deal, which we believe in and have recommended as a good and fair deal”.
MORE NEWS:
AFLW pay dispute: AFLPA forced to extend deadline as players fail to receive voting link
AFLW draft hopeful Tahlia Hickie opens up on the condition that nearly cost her a shot at the draft
AFLW CBA: Players vote down proposal on pay, conditions, Chloe Molloy calls for unity
But he said there were “no guarantees” as to where things progress from here.
“We have a divided playing group with a strong majority in favour of the proposed deal but an important section of the playing group not in favour,” Marsh wrote to players.
“The division of the playing group is very publicly known inside and outside the industry. Unless we unite the playing group we will find it very difficult to negotiate effectively for AFLW players.
“The AFL has made it clear to us that the deal we have presented to players is its final offer.
“If we seek to re-open negotiations it is important for us to note that there are no guarantees as to what outcome will be reached, when and if pre-season will start and when and if players will be paid for 2020 and beyond.”
He said that 10 AFLW clubs had supported the vote in the majority, with four clubs majority opposed, including one club that saw less than 10 per cent of its players back the deal.
Marsh also sought to remind players that “we could have entered into the CBA on players’ behalf without taking this to a vote” but that he considered the voting process as “critical that all players have the opportunity to have their voices heard”.
Marsh said this morning he hoped that meeting with players to discuss their concerns would be the first step. He said it was not yet at the point where the deal would have to be renegotiated.
“This is not about going and necessarily trying to change peoples’ minds,” he said on SEN.
“It’s about going and talking to them and hearing them and seeing where this plays out. It could result in a deal that looks different ... some of this could be that players don’t completely understand some of the details. It’s going to come back to us getting out there and trying to work with the players.”
Player representatives from the group - which includes Carlton star Darcy Vescio and Geelong defender Meg McDonald - had asked the association on Friday for an independent scrutineer to assess the vote results, and for confidentiality of votes to be assured.
But Marsh said he needed “to set the facts straight”.
“We have been accused of not running a transparent process, and of not sharing various details about the proposed deal (including salaries and season length),” he wrote to players.
“This is difficult to comprehend given the two very detailed proposals we have provided to players and the numerous meetings and phone calls we have had with players.
“We tried to call all players this week to give them the opportunity to ask any questions of us about the deal.
“Many took this opportunity up, but many did not return our calls. The opportunity was, however, provided.”
He said the union had been accused of not running a legitimate voting process.
“This is completely inaccurate and directly questions the integrity of our organisation,” he wrote.
“Every player has had the chance to vote, and if players notified us that they hadn’t received our voting link because of incorrect details, overseas travel or emails going into junk, we have rectified this and allowed them to vote beyond the deadline.
“We have been accused of “attacking our own members” and pressuring our members to accept an “unfair deal”. Again this is completely false. We have provided all players the opportunity to see the proposed deal, ask any questions of the AFLPA about it and then individually vote on it.”
He lashed the group for “comments and behaviour that has played out in the media over the week” and accused the group of actions he declared “undermine the ability for us to play our role on behalf of the collective players”.
He also accused the group of sending emails and text messages as “purely a strategy to generate negative media outcomes, rather than a genuine desire to communicate”.
“We raise these in the hope that these actions will cease so that we can do our job for the players and as part of this start repairing the divide in the playing group that has become apparent and is growing,” he wrote.
FOOTY NEWS
AFL pushing hard for pre-season trade period
Mick McGuane’s ultimate AFL trade period club-by-club guide
“We have held various meetings with players and provided significant amounts of information in the aim of informing, educating and ensuring players have all the transparency they need. Unfortunately what has continually happened is that this information has been provided to the media and then used against the AFLPA as part of a concerted PR campaign to undermine the AFLPA, which weakens us and the playing collective.”
He also claimed that the “leaking” of the proposal had meant “the AFL and media now have our high level industrial relations strategy”.
“This will impact our ability to negotiate effectively,” he wrote.
The AFLPA is seeking meetings with disenchanted players this week – particularly at the club that produced the lowest number of players in favour of the deal – in an effort to determine “the barriers to the deal and what steps if any we can take to resolve them”.
“We will continue trying to work through this process as efficiently as possible given the serious concerns of many players regarding the proximity of pre-season start dates and the uncertainty that surrounds this,” Marsh wrote.
“At this stage there continues to be no agreed contracts for players to sign, meaning all players must wait until this is resolved.”
Originally published as AFLW bitter pay war: Leaked email to players exposes bitter fall out with AFLPA chief