TALKS between the AFL and the AFL Players Association took place on Thursday as preparations for a new collective bargaining agreement gather pace.

Both parties remain coy about their respective positions as they set a framework for negotiations, but discussions will heat up soon.

The AFLPA has a board meeting scheduled for the middle of next week, while the AFL develops an investment strategy that satisfies the players but also addresses, among other things, financial health of the clubs, infrastructure, community football, the women's league and multicultural academies.

The current CBA, an agreement outlining pay rates and conditions between the players and the AFL, ends on November 1, but parties remain hopeful that agreement can be reached before the end of the season.

AFL.com.au has provided this guide to the upcoming CBA negotiations outlining what is at stake and key questions to be resolved:

What is the state of play?

Carving up the pool of money that largely comes from the $2.5 billion broadcast rights money that runs from 2017-2022 is the central issue for the AFL in 2016.

Where previous negotiations with the players have happened in isolation from other investment areas, the AFL wants to determine its investment plans for clubs, players, infrastructure, the women's league, community clubs, fan growth and the competition in one hit.

The AFLPA has been waiting for the AFL to provide detailed revenue projections before it starts the negotiations, and has become impatient that figures it expected in March have not yet come to light.

On the flipside, the AFL is keen to see exactly what the AFLPA puts forward as a starting point.

What do players earn under the current CBA?

In 2015, the average annual income of 718 listed players was around $300,000, with players receiving a gross total income of $220.5 million.

Clubs argue that a high percentage of available funds go to the top 10 players and the middle-tier of players are being squeezed, earning incomes well below $300,000 a season.

Under the current CBA, each club must pay at least 95 per cent of the total player payments (TPP) – otherwise known as the 'salary cap' – which sits at $10,368,980 per club for 2016.  Players can also share $1,022,000 per club under the Additional Services Agreement (ASA) for things such as appearances at corporate sponsor functions.

Some clubs have been developing contracts beyond 2016 for players based on an expected rise of eight per cent in the first season with similar rises in subsequent years but the exact nature of any rise remains to be seen. 

What will be the main focus of negotiations?

The AFLPA wants future TPP to be based on a percentage of total revenue earned by clubs and the AFL. That largely consists of the broadcast money but also money brought in via corporate sponsorships, gate receipts and memberships.

The AFL resisted this in the previous negotiation and has not made its position clear as yet when it comes to this negotiation. 

In pragmatic terms even if the principle were agreed to, there would be significant compliance costs and discussion around what revenue should be included in the total revenue figure. For example, would government grants or gambling revenue be excluded?

AFLPA CEO Paul Marsh managed to achieve a percentage of revenue model for Australian cricketers, although the number of players and contract terms are different to the AFL.  

What percentage of revenue do the players want?

That remains a closely-guarded secret, but 27 per cent of total AFL and club revenue has been bandied about. The AFLPA wanted 25 per cent during the last negotiations.

Although exact figures are difficult to calculate, particularly in relation to the AFLPA demands, the AFL's total revenue for 2015 was $506 million, with total club revenue to be included also.

So is this all just about a pay rise for players?

No. Neither the players nor the AFL are seeing the negotiations through such a narrow lens.

Both the players and the AFL want players have world-class working environments, while there is a desire from both sides to put aside significant amounts of money for players after their short-lived careers as AFL players is over.

The Players Retirement Fund is one area that players are keen to boost significantly from the $14 million set aside in 2016. The industry is also aware of issues relating to mental health and wellbeing, concussion, post-career development as well as education and training that need funding.

Players are also keen to ensure the competitive balance policy has its intended effect, giving all players an equal chance to win a flag regardless of which club drafts them.

Will the Free Agency criteria change?

The AFLPA would like to reduce the minimum eligibility criteria for free agents from eight to six years, arguing that players are more likely to move to poorer-performing clubs if they have more time to turn around the fortunes of those clubs.

Clubs will fiercely resist such a move, with many believing strong clubs have been the main beneficiaries of the introduction of free agency.

Some other options are likely to be discussed, such as players becoming eligible after eight years of continuous service with more than one club, whether compensation remains in its current form and whether a system can be devised that helps players who aren't playing regular senior football to move freely to the club of their choice.

Some club officials have also argued that players should not have a say in which club they are traded, but the AFLPA will not budge on this issue.

The AFL view remains that more time is needed before free agency's real effect can be properly assessed.

Will the Illicit Drugs Policy be re-negotiated as a part of the next round of CBA negotiations?

The Illicit Drugs Policy won't be on the table and will be given time to work. The AFL has defended the policy and is in lockstep with the players on the issue.

Some clubs have argued recently that players should be help more accountable for actions that bring clubs into disrepute and potentially put sponsorships at risk.

What about compensation for players who suffer career-ending injuries?

Under current rules, players are eligible for payouts if the career-ending injury happens in the final year of a player's contract.

The players are understood to consider this an anomaly and want the clause expanded so players are still eligible for compensation if the injury occurs in the penultimate year of the player's career.

There is also awareness that retirements due to concussion may increase in the future and compensation deliberations may need to take into account varying circumstances around this issue.

Players want such protection in the CBA because they are not eligible for worker's compensation except in extraordinary circumstances.

Is strike action possible?

It remains unlikely, but in any industrial negotiation it is possible.

AFLPA CEO Paul Marsh has said such action would be an absolute last resort, while AFL football operations manager Mark Evans said it would be ludicrous to discuss such a prospect before negotiations even begin.

Prominent player manager Craig Kelly expressed his position in relation to strike action at a recent AFL Player Agents conference saying he didn't think it should be considered.

Players could, if they chose, use other levers, such as withdrawing from AFL-sanctioned events, questioning support for competitive balance policies such as the draft and salary caps or pulling out of representative games, like the International Rules Series. 

What other matters are likely to be considered?

• Many clubs will argue for drafted players to be locked into a standard three-year contract rather than the current two. The third-year contract of in-demand players has grown significantly during the current CBA, so players will be reluctant to take that possibility away while clubs want to lock draft picks in longer to help with player retention. It could be attractive to some players though as it gives them an extra season to prove their worth.
• ASA conditions may be changed. Under the current CBA players can share in a set amount ($1,022,000 in 2016) for promotional work but clubs vary in the amount players are paid even if the appearance is similar. This is a potential discussion to standardise payments across clubs for ASA appearances.
• Some clubs would like the TPP and ASA payments to roll into one, absorbing much of the red tape and approval processes that take so much administration time.
• List sizes will not expand but the classification of players may change, with rookies being abolished or their ability to be selected in the senior team changing. Some clubs would like to see active and inactive lists popular in American sport.
• An incentive could be created to reward players prepared to fulfil more media duties and make more player appearances than others. Player access remains an issue for the media with the 'open media' policies in American sports often used for comparison. However American sportspeople rarely grant one-on-one interviews so common in AFL.

When will a new agreement be finalised?

No-one knows, but parties remain optimistic a deal can be finalised before the end of the season.