SURPRISE was the over-riding emotion through the executive corridors of the AFL's Docklands headquarters on Thursday afternoon - and it had nothing to do with Lance Franklin's unscripted appearance on the training track for Hawthorn earlier that day.
 
Instead, what stopped the AFL management team in its tracks was the rejection by the AFLPA of the $1.144 billion pay deal put forward a fortnight ago as part of the negotiations for the new Collective Bargaining Agreement.
 
Mixed in with the surprise was genuine disappointment that the AFL's offer - which came with the express rider from League chief executive Andrew Demetriou that "there is no more money" - was rejected.
 
Demetriou stated clearly that the "no more money" line was fundamental to the AFL's role as manager of the ever-growing industry - in particular its role in providing some balance to the clubs, and game development.

"The record TV rights deal offered the chance to provide a legacy for all parts of the industry - players, clubs, the development of the game, supporters, facilities - and it's important that we strike a balance that enables us to do that," he said.
 
The AFL's negotiating team has been led by football operations manager Adrian Anderson and includes business affairs manager Andrew Dillon and integrity officer Brett Clothier.

AFLPA boss Matt Finnis, player relations manager Ian Prendergast and legal consultant Bernie Shinners have been negotiating for the players. 

The two representative groups met on Thursday morning, when the AFLPA declared the offer rejected.
 
In his days as a successful city lawyer, Anderson used to act for the AFLPA and he has an insight into how the players think; of course, it was Demetriou who negotiated the AFLPA's big leap forward in 1998, when CEO of the Players' Association.

The League is firmly of the view that the players have done well since the first CBA was drawn up in 1998, with the average salary for an AFL player increasing by 6.6 per cent per year in that time. It compares well with the 4.4 per cent of the general working populace.
 
These numbers put the AFL in unusually good stead in the court of public opinion. The public probably doesn't quite know what to make of it all, other than these negotiations have been stringing out for pretty much the whole season; and the money available to players like Tom Scully are bewildering to most.
 
It seems an eternity ago that the League came out with its initial $1.09 billion offer, one that the players sat on for three months before it was rejected. The AFLPA's reason was that it wanted a fixed percentage of the League's revenue.
 
After another AFL executive, Andrew Caterall, went and met with every club, that figure was ramped up to $1.144 billion, after which Demetriou emptied his pockets and declared there was nothing more to give.
 
As part of that deal, the players would receive an 11 per cent pay rise in 2012, followed by additional increases over the life of the agreement of five, three, three and three per cent per year.
 
Having viewed the revised offer, the AFLPA decided to drop its claim to a fixed percentage of the League's revenue. But in return it now wanted a three-year rather than a five-year deal, which it claims is the norm in most workplaces.
 
The players believe the AFL's revenue will grow substantially over the next five years, despite the TV rights and most sponsorship deals being locked in for that period.
 
The players want the chance to gain a cut from that revenue increase if it happens.

The key danger for the AFLPA is that the public will view their claim, and their rejection of the $1.144 billion offer, as an example of blatant greed. It might be worth Finnis and his members running their eye over the reaction from footy fans on social media sites. It's fair to say the support is not with the players at this stage.
 
"I completely reject that [we're being greedy]," Finnis said.

"I think the fact that the players have offered up a concession, which reduces their claim by over $40 over three years, is very significant. The players are being entirely reasonable here and are trying to reach an agreement with the league."
 
But in the end, the fans only want one question answered: is there going to be a strike?
 
"You'd have to ask them," was Demetriou's terse response. The bluntness of his reply symbolises the AFL's frustration with the process. This is clearly the AFL chief's most trying negotiation in his time with the League, a period that has included two record broadcast negotiations and the inclusion of two new clubs.
 
The AFLPA's position remains unclear on the matter of strike action; an hour after Demetriou spoke, Finnis said: "We do need to explore our options under Fair Work Australia."
 
As for what's next for the AFL executive, while their door is always open, they'll be seeking the counsel of the clubs when they meet on September 26 to discuss the next five years' worth of financial distributions.

The views in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of the AFL or its clubs