One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on April 03, 2008, 10:29:15 PM
-
Hutchy just said it on the footy show :-\
-
Salary cap implications is more the worry :help
-
Now ,how long as steve wright been at RFC for ?? Where is Rogerd3 when you need him ?
-
Relates to Ben Holland staying at RFC instead of heading to Adelaide.
Holland's writ:
Adelaide offered 1.33m over 3 years.
Richmond offered 800k over 3 years
So he's suing for the difference - $530k
He's also suing Casey for failure to pay him:
* $180k in land before sale
* other property development opportunities
* allow him to be the podiatrist at Casey's retirement home facilities
* Share parcels in Casey company
RFC said they are aware. Legal advisors to investigate. Have notified AFL and will pass on legal advice to AFL once available.
Garry Lyon questioned about the salary cap implications :-\
-
Yeah end of 2001 when he was thinking of going to Adelaide.
In Summary According to Ben Holland
Crows offered 1.33 mill
Tigs offered $800K and to make up the rest to add up to Adel deal was offered land 180K
interests in Casey's business as well as having a regular gig as a podiatrist
at Casey's aged care facilities. None of this accord to Holland was ever received yet he is adamant this was spoken of and implied in a meeting with Casey at Crown in 2001. So whether true or not the stigma attatched to our club from previous admins still haunt us. May have salary cap repercussions? :o
To add insult to injury rd 4 2002 in Perth vs Freo he did his knee and was out for 12 months. In hindsight we should have let him go. :banghead
-
Now ,how long as steve wright been at RFC for ?? Where is Rogerd3 when you need him ?
Mark Brayshaw was CEO at the time. We're talking about the end of 2001.
-
The mismanagement of this footy club by previous admins if indeed this is all true is absolutely staggering. It ssems just about every admin has left the Tigers worse off than what they were when they initially arrived.
Casey has alot to answer for even now 5 yrs after his departure from the club.
-
It's a Supreme Court hearing, they won't be able to tell any porkies like they might in an AFL investigation.
If there's been any no good happening here, it'll all come out - not everyone will be prepared to perjure themselves to protect the club.
-
One thing that you can say about the Holland brothers - they got the maximum amount of income out of their football careers ;D
Ben was looked after in a number of ways - from what was on the show tonight it's unclear if the claim represents salary cap irregularities. He was given access to financial training via work opportunities that were certainly of benefit but it was work so also probably outside salary cap.
Not a good look though.
ps - We had Gasper under attack from Freo at the time - I think.
-
And I'll just get in early here and state that Terry Wallace has nothiing to do with this lol
-
One thing that you can say about the Holland brothers - they got the maximum amount of income out of their football careers ;D
Ben was looked after in a number of ways - from what was on the show tonight it's unclear if the claim represents salary cap irregularities. He was given access to financial training via work opportunities that were certainly of benefit but it was work so also probably outside salary cap.
Not a good look though.
ps - We had Gasper under attack from Freo at the time - I think.
Rumour had it Gaspar was being offered a McDonals or Hungry Jacks franchise at the time in order to go back to WA and sign for Freo. :shh
-
It's a Supreme Court hearing, they won't be able to tell any porkies like they might in an AFL investigation.
If there's been any no good happening here, it'll all come out - not everyone will be prepared to perjure themselves to protect the club.
does it matter? we can admit to promising to pay him in court but it doesnt matter as we didn't pay him so cannot be done for cheating..
-
Gasper got the same financial work experience that Holland got - but it was real work and as far as I understood it was ok. Not a freebie, just an opportunity.
-
One thing that you can say about the Holland brothers - they got the maximum amount of income out of their football careers ;D
Ben was looked after in a number of ways - from what was on the show tonight it's unclear if the claim represents salary cap irregularities. He was given access to financial training via work opportunities that were certainly of benefit but it was work so also probably outside salary cap.
Not a good look though.
ps - We had Gasper under attack from Freo at the time - I think.
Rumour had it Gaspar was being offered a McDonals or Hungry Jacks franchise at the time in order to go back to WA and sign for Freo. :shh
And a few are and were tied up with Boost Jiuce stores :shh :shh :shh :shh
-
The mismanagement of this footy club by previous admins if indeed this is all true is absolutely staggering. It ssems just about every admin has left the Tigers worse off than what they were when they initially arrived.
Casey has alot to answer for even now 5 yrs after his departure from the club.
Surely you didn't need any reminding of the cancer that was the Casey years? >:(
-
One thing that you can say about the Holland brothers - they got the maximum amount of income out of their football careers ;D
Ben was looked after in a number of ways - from what was on the show tonight it's unclear if the claim represents salary cap irregularities. He was given access to financial training via work opportunities that were certainly of benefit but it was work so also probably outside salary cap.
Not a good look though.
ps - We had Gasper under attack from Freo at the time - I think.
Rumour had it Gaspar was being offered a McDonals or Hungry Jacks franchise at the time in order to go back to WA and sign for Freo. :shh
And a few are and were tied up with Boost Jiuce stores :shh :shh :shh :shh
You have a mouth and a half :help
-
One thing that you can say about the Holland brothers - they got the maximum amount of income out of their football careers ;D
Ben was looked after in a number of ways - from what was on the show tonight it's unclear if the claim represents salary cap irregularities. He was given access to financial training via work opportunities that were certainly of benefit but it was work so also probably outside salary cap.
Not a good look though.
ps - We had Gasper under attack from Freo at the time - I think.
Rumour had it Gaspar was being offered a McDonals or Hungry Jacks franchise at the time in order to go back to WA and sign for Freo. :shh
And a few are and were tied up with Boost Jiuce stores :shh :shh :shh :shh
You have a mouth and a half :help
You are a moron!
They actually serve behind the counter on occassions ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead
-
Boost Juice franchises have had their moment in the sun haven't they?
-
Now ,how long as steve wright been at RFC for ?? Where is Rogerd3 when you need him ?
i think your time line is a bit out of whack Jackstar.
-
Now ,how long as steve wright been at RFC for ?? Where is Rogerd3 when you need him ?
i think your time line is a bit out of whack Jackstar.
::) he night have to run for cover now though
-
Now ,how long as steve wright been at RFC for ?? Where is Rogerd3 when you need him ?
i think your time line is a bit out of whack Jackstar.
::) he night have to run for cover now though
?...unfortunately as he is the current CEO he will be answerable for past deeds done by that bloke who called himself a President.
-
*cough*
Errr but clearly since we didnt pay him for any of it we didnt exceed the salary cap. :lol
Well thats my take and Im sticking with it. :rollin
But seriously it's Casey's personal offer and I dont think it will implicate RFC.
-
Didn't pay him so it doesn't matter.
Begs the question on Browny though. Is that the reason he left a struggling club like Footscray and came to a successful club like Richmond. ???
-
well l'm not going to comment on this until all the documents are lodged to the supreme court & know the full story, l heard of these types of contracts many times before & its common practice & has been for many of years
it could be a simple non payment issue as long as its documented in the players contract it would be within the salary cap & could be nothing more than a broke club not being able to meet its player payments
then it would be sorted out between the 2 parties with the AFL being involved & solved
for all we know it could have been lodged to the courts previously & the player involved has waited for the club to become wealthy again so he can claim whats owing enough said, so dont go jumping out of your tiger skins yet be calm :thumbsup
Carlton with Frazer Brown breached the salary cap & were proscecuted but that dont mean RFC have done the same until it comes out
-
*cough*
Errr but clearly since we didnt pay him for any of it we didnt exceed the salary cap. :lol
Well thats my take and Im sticking with it. :rollin
But seriously it's Casey's personal offer and I dont think it will implicate RFC.
wrong
if both parties are agreeable to payment, its part of the salary cap & classed as payment within the players contract even if no money or benefits have changed hands. ? of the football club is offering it under the banner of the RFC to a player under their banner & the club is liable for his actions
-
*cough*
Errr but clearly since we didnt pay him for any of it we didnt exceed the salary cap. :lol
Well thats my take and Im sticking with it. :rollin
But seriously it's Casey's personal offer and I dont think it will implicate RFC.
wrong
if both parties are agreeable to payment, its part of the salary cap & classed as payment within the players contract even if no money or benefits have changed hands. ? of the football club is offering it under the banner of the RFC to a player under their banner & the club is liable for his actions
But wouldnt be like Richard Pratt and his "Judd came to Carlton to do business with Chris Judd" type of arrangement though which is apparently legal? THe football club didnt offer it, Casey did, thats the significant part of it.
However I see the link that you make as well but without any real substantial information at this point of how it was offered we're playing pin the tail on the donkey for now.
-
But wouldnt be like Richard Pratt and his "Judd came to Carlton to do business with Chris Judd" type of arrangement though which is apparently legal? THe football club didnt offer it, Casey did, thats the significant part of it.
However I see the link that you make as well but without any real substantial information at this point of how it was offered we're playing pin the tail on the donkey for now.
yes it could be a simple agreement between the 2, but Player has launched action on both parties which ties the 2 together the CLUB & ?
if its writtern into the contract it could be well within the salary cap as the club was going bust, it could be nothing but simple non payment & now the club has money the player can ask to be paid upto 15 years of court documents lodged
until them document & a press release its pin the tail on the donkey :lol
Pratt & Judd would be a job offer which is legal, you can have a job playing football & also be a electrician & work for your club president under his company banner as long as his paying taxes he can have 10 jobs & play football, but only has to declare to the league what his football club is paying him. he can earn a million $$$ elsewhere its no-one buisness as long as Mr Tax gets his share
-
But wouldnt be like Richard Pratt and his "Judd came to Carlton to do business with Chris Judd" type of arrangement though which is apparently legal? THe football club didnt offer it, Casey did, thats the significant part of it.
However I see the link that you make as well but without any real substantial information at this point of how it was offered we're playing pin the tail on the donkey for now.
yes it could be a simple agreement between the 2, but Player has launched action on both parties which ties the 2 together the CLUB & ?
if its writtern into the contract it could be well within the salary cap as the club was going bust, it could be nothing but simple non payment & now the club has money the player can ask to be paid upto 15 years of court documents lodged
until them document & a press release its pin the tail on the donkey :lol
Pratt & Judd would be a job offer which is legal, you can have a job playing football & also be a electrician & work for your club president under his company banner as long as his paying taxes he can have 10 jobs & play football, but only has to declare to the league what his football club is paying him. he can earn a million $$$ elsewhere its no-one buisness as long as Mr Tax gets his share
Well lets hope Casey's podiatry job offer was very rewarding and whatever else relates to RFC keeps us under the cap for that year. :thumbsup :lol
-
Dutchy says he met Casey and Spud at Crown and that he has the promises in writing.....
According to the statement, the inducements were offered at a meeting with Casey and Frawley on October 6, 2001, at Koko's restaurant at the Crown Casino and that the "opportunities" were later "confirmed in writing on or about 16 October, 2001", a copy of which Holland says he possesses.
----------------------------------
Holland sues over Tiger deal
Thomas Arup | April 4, 2008 | The Age
VETERAN Melbourne player Ben Holland is suing his former club, Richmond, and former Tiger president Clinton Casey for lost "business and investment opportunities" that he claims he never received in a 2001 agreement that may have breached the AFL salary cap.
In a statement of claim filed in the Supreme Court of Victoria, dated September 27, 2007, Holland also alleges similar "opportunities" were offered to other Richmond players and officials "including business opportunities in property developments with which Casey was directly and indirectly involved such as the Sandhurst project".
The statement says that in October 2001, Casey, a property developer, in the presence of then Tigers coach Danny Frawley, offered inducements that would compensate him for the $530,000 difference between a contract offered by Adelaide, also in that month.
The allegations, which were raised on Channel Nine's The Footy Show last night, may mean Richmond contravened AFL salary cap regulations, for which the club can be fined and lose draft picks and premiership points.
According to the statement, the inducements were offered at a meeting with Casey and Frawley on October 6, 2001, at Koko's restaurant at the Crown Casino and that the "opportunities" were later "confirmed in writing on or about 16 October, 2001", a copy of which Holland says he possesses.
The Age last night tried to contact Casey. He is believed to be overseas and could not be reached. AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou said late last night that he "had no reaction".
Richmond said in a statement issued last night: "No formal claim has been served upon the club. RFC is currently awaiting legal advice in respect of these matters and we have notified the AFL of these claims.
"Once legal advice has been received this information will be made available to the AFL."
In early October 2001, Richmond offered the out-of-contract Holland $800,000 over three years. Shortly afterwards, the Crows offered him $1.33 million over three years.
In the statement of claim, Holland alleges that Casey offered the following "business and investment opportunities" to compensate him for the monetary difference between the two offers:
■ Involvement in a Sandhurst property development in which Holland would be allocated selected blocks of land for $180,000 before the land was released for sale to the public, plus similar opportunities in other property developments.
■ An arrangement for Holland to provide podiatry services — Holland is a qualified podiatrist — at aged care facilities in Victoria in which Casey was involved.
■ An arrangement for Holland to acquire a large parcel of shares in a particular company whose shares were expected to increase.
Holland finished sixth in the Tigers' 2001 best and fairest count in a season where Richmond finished third.
Holland injured his knee in April 2002 and was cut from the Tigers' list in September 2003 and subsequently traded to Melbourne on the basis that Richmond would pay Holland the difference between the two contracts for season 2004.
Holland maintains the business and investment opportunities never eventuated, apart from $4000 in podiatry services.
He is suing for $530,000, which he claims is the difference between the Adelaide offer and the one he accepted at Richmond.
Casey quit as the president of Richmond Football Club at the end of 2005 to concentrate on his business, the Casey Group, which develops property including luxury aged-care facilities. Casey and his wife Leslie founded the company in 1988.
The case has similarities to that of former Carlton duo Stephen Silvagni and Craig Bradley, who, at the urging of the club, came forward with information about promised monetary entitlements outside the salary cap, which were never paid.
In 2002, Carlton was fined $987,000, disqualified from receiving priority picks and barred from the first two rounds of the national draft for two years.
Speaking on The Footy Showlast night, Richmond forward Matthew Richardson said he was never offered "opportunities" by Casey, nor had he heard of the allegations until yesterday afternoon.
With SAMANTHA LANE
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/holland-sues-over-tiger-deal/2008/04/03/1206851113196.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
-
Sorry for being cynical but what a nice little retirement nestegg for someone in their final year of AFL :whistle.
Maybe the club should countersue for only receiving 1 good year in return out of 8 while on our list lol.
The biggest shock for me is the Crows were willing to pay him $1.3m over 3 years :o.
Let's not forget Freo at the same time this was going on offered Gas $700k per year to go home despite them knowing it would take them well over the salary cap. I didn't see them lose any draft picks for that ::).
What a disaster that post 2001 offseason was :banghead. We could have had Sugar in a direct swap for Holland instead of trading out of the top 10 and giving up Torney as well the following year plus being forced to pay part of Dutchy's salary at Melbourne :scream.
-
If there is any better indication that we are where we are because of Casey & Fraudly then that should be the cherry on the pie!
TW and March are looking like saviours now ;D
Stripes
-
If there is any better indication that we are where we are because of Casey & Fraudly then that should be the cherry on the pie!
TW and March are looking like saviours now ;D
Stripes
Stripes, why dont you include Miller , Steve Wright and others ?
Can tell you similar deals have been done with other players in recent times as well.
And I wouldnt think that Terry Wallet would have anything to do with contracts etc . he has enough problems trying to coach and to get his leadership group pointed in the right direction and not on walls of police stations.
-
Stripes, why dont you include Miller , Steve Wright and others ?
Can tell you similar deals have been done with other players in recent times as well.
Be careful with your comments Jackie....unless you have absolute proof don't post it here...
I don't feel like being sued at this time.... :thumbsup
-
Actually in hindsight and it is a wonderful thing.....
Should have let Benny Holland head across the border..... $1.3 mil you've got to kidding ;D
If we are going to point fingers
.... where does this whole saga leave Mark Brayshaw? He was our CEO at the time and now sits on the board of another AFL CLub
RFC having a press conference at 10.00 am this morning
-
Now ,how long as steve wright been at RFC for ?? Where is Rogerd3 when you need him ?
you idiot
jack massaging the facts as usual
-
Stripes, why dont you include Miller , Steve Wright and others ?
Can tell you similar deals have been done with other players in recent times as well.
Be careful with your comments Jackie....unless you have absolute proof don't post it here...
I don't feel like being sued at this time.... :thumbsup
No probs with that, its common knowledge that players had been offered shares in Boost Juices around town,
-
Stripes, why dont you include Miller , Steve Wright and others ?
Can tell you similar deals have been done with other players in recent times as well.
Be careful with your comments Jackie....unless you have absolute proof don't post it here...
I don't feel like being sued at this time.... :thumbsup
No probs with that, its common knowledge that players had been offered shares in Boost Juices around town,
luckily for you its also common knowledge that everything you say is crap
-
Seems odd that he's just bringing it up now. $1.33m from Adelaide - he must be dreamin'
-
it happened 7 yrs ago
should be ancient history but holland obv is just being a king size dh
he was overrated overpaid and hopeless
as TA has already suggested, if the afl investigate this, they must investigate carlscum, pratt, judd and twiggles
this is all just fos and holland should jump off the west gate
-
LMAO@ All u old moles gaggling on about this issue.
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
-
Stripes, why dont you include Miller , Steve Wright and others ?
Can tell you similar deals have been done with other players in recent times as well.
Be careful with your comments Jackie....unless you have absolute proof don't post it here...
I don't feel like being sued at this time.... :thumbsup
No probs with that, its common knowledge that players had been offered shares in Boost Juices around town,
luckily for you its also common knowledge that everything you say is crap
It pointless even debating anything with you anymore MORON.
You have no idea, you last post just proves it.
You are just a complete imbecile blaisee.
Go and walk into the boost juice in bourke street melbourne and see it being owned and managed by a recently retired ex player.
Try the one at Brighton as well, there are numerous stores.
-
Stripes, why dont you include Miller , Steve Wright and others ?
Can tell you similar deals have been done with other players in recent times as well.
Be careful with your comments Jackie....unless you have absolute proof don't post it here...
I don't feel like being sued at this time.... :thumbsup
No probs with that, its common knowledge that players had been offered shares in Boost Juices around town,
luckily for you its also common knowledge that everything you say is crap
It pointless even debating anything with you anymore MORON.
You have no idea, you last post just proves it.
You are just a complete imbecile blaisee.
Go and walk into the boost juice in bourke street melbourne and see it being owned and managed by a recently retired ex player.
Try the one at Brighton as well, there are numerous stores.
I dont doubt that Jack but I also dont see how thats relavant to this issue.
They have and are working for Boost as you say, and that, I'm sure is how it would be claimed that get their "shares". That's a separate legal entity to RFC and so it wouldnt implicate under the salary cap.
-
"■ An arrangement for Holland to acquire a large parcel of shares in a particular company whose shares were expected to increase."
Expected by who? That just isn't reality.
-
The embarrasing thing about the whole issue is that Ben Holland was rated so highly.
-
From the Age article he finished 6th in the B&F in a year that we played in a prelim final - but he fell away after that.
-
Press conference is on at 11am. SEN will be taking it.
SEN had some contracts lawyer talking to KB and Greg Denham this morning and he didn't seem to think we had a problem because Holland was never paid. He also said this could take 1-2 years in the courts :P.
-
Steven Wright at the press conference....
* No claim has been served on the club. So only are aware what's been said.
* Holland is no longer with the club so brought in the lawyers.
* So far these are only accusations. They believe based on talking with people these accusations are without foundation and we will vigorously defend them. Accusation not what was claimed (?).
* Notified AFL and they are full aware.
* Haven't spoken to Clinton but he's aware.
* We won't be getting into hypotheticals about salary cap issues.
* Surprised this came up 3 weeks ago given how long ago it was.
KB seems to think this has been festering for a while and now this is the next step.
-
From the Age article he finished 6th in the B&F in a year that we played in a prelim final - but he fell away after that.
A sweetner maybe?
I don't remember how well he played, but they could have fluffed up his B&F finish to use in their favour.
-
As someone who dabbles in the stockmarket, i want to know how i can get a guarantee that my shares will go up lol. When someone finds the financial advisor who guarantees returns ... please pass on there number. Greatly appreciated.
Secondly, he admits he got work $4000 worth or work as a podiatrist - so he did get some.
The rest of it is between him and Casey as far as im concerned.
-
From the Age article he finished 6th in the B&F in a year that we played in a prelim final - but he fell away after that.
A sweetner maybe?
I don't remember how well he played, but they could have fluffed up his B&F finish to use in their favour.
Holland wanted out. In fact for 2 days he was off to Adelaide before Holland changed his mind. IIRC at the time Spud said he had a chat to convince him to stay (loyalty and all that).
So much for Spud saying the club should move on from the time he was there ::).
-
get stuff.ked holland. he was such a pathetic footballer and now he probabaly seeing the money dry up and he wants a piece of his pie.
loser.
we will lose the game of footballer this week cause of this crap. much like last week we r mentally weak and this stuff will take attention away from winning the game of football
-
As someone who dabbles in the stockmarket, i want to know how i can get a guarantee that my shares will go up lol. When someone finds the financial advisor who guarantees returns ... please pass on there number. Greatly appreciated.
Secondly, he admits he got work $4000 worth or work as a podiatrist - so he did get some.
The rest of it is between him and Casey as far as im concerned.
True Ramps. Players are allowed to work and invest outside provided it's done at market value that can go either up or down. I wonder how Carlton and Judd "VISY's environment ambassador" are feeling.
Demetriou was interviewed about 30 mins again he said he thought this issue was dead and buried 6 years ago.
Geez some of these callers on SEN have no idea. "What did Sam Butler do at Richmond?" :wallywink
-
If the idiot made these promises, why didnt he just pay up so it wouldnt be public?
Because he is a clueless tool.
How many people on here voted for Casey as President? Too many
-
Steven Wright at the press conference....
* So far these are only accusations. They believe based on talking with people these accusations are without foundation and we will vigorously defend them.
You would be seriously peeved if you were Wright. You get the club back on a sound and stable financial path and yet we're still dealing with issues from our moronic past administrations 7 years later :banghead.
And as WP mentioned what about then CEO Mark Brayshaw. Where was he? Casey and Spud are no longer involved any AFL club yet he's now a board member at North.
-
From the Age article he finished 6th in the B&F in a year that we played in a prelim final - but he fell away after that.
A sweetner maybe?
I don't remember how well he played, but they could have fluffed up his B&F finish to use in their favour.
IIRC he actually had a good year. I seem to remember it was the year he went from the forward line to CHB and looked like he had found his niche.
-
If the idiot made these promises, why didnt he just pay up so it wouldnt be public?
Because he is a clueless tool.
How many people on here voted for Casey as President? Too many
Not I said the fly. I was extremely vocal in the push to remove him and his board, and it took me a fair while to be convinced that the vote to install an existing board member as our new president and keep many of the same board members was the right choice. I have come around now but it was only based on their performance over the next few seasons that they regained the respect in my eyes.
And with people like Casey, Brayshaw and Frawley steering the ship for that extended period, is it no wonder that it has taken the new administration such a long time to 'right the ship'? A cancer on the club was the Casey years - aaargghh, don't get me started on those fools again!
-
Nor me - also didn't vote for Football Manager to go on the board :thumbsup
-
i didn't but i would be surprised if anyone did.
what an idiot. 2 much money that bloke and the club r still paying for it.
credit where credit is due steve wright has done a great job.
this could really stuff us up this could.
here we r bagging carlton for being cheaters bla bla bla and i hope it doesn't come back to bite us on the arse
-
have no hesitation in saying I voted for the Casey ticket as the alternative was... well it wasn't a credible alternative IMV
BTW The current board is the Casey ticket minus Casey ;D and they have done a great job in the last couple of years ... dare I say it ....FACT :rollin
-
If the idiot made these promises, why didnt he just pay up so it wouldnt be public?
Because he is a clueless tool.
How many people on here voted for Casey as President? Too many
l can tell you l never voted for Casey
-
Tigers to defend against Holland claims
April 4, 2008 - 1:16PM | The Age
Richmond says claims made by former player Ben Holland that he is owed $530,000 by the Tigers are "without foundation" and that it will "vigorously defend" the allegations.
Holland has launched a Supreme Court writ against Richmond and former Tigers president Clinton Casey over what he claims are unpaid payments, dating from a contract he signed with the club in 2001.
Holland claims he was offered incentives on top of an $800,000, three-year contract he signed with the Tigers to keep him at the club and resist a $1.33 million offer to join Adelaide for three years, in allegations that may include salary cap breaches.
He claims he was offered incentives including $180,000 worth of land, other property development opportunities, share parcels in a company run by Casey and the right to work as a podiatrist at an aged care facility owned by Casey.
The Nine Network on Thursday night reported Holland said those offers were made in a combination of written, oral and implied forms, but were never met.
But Richmond chief executive Steven Wright said no claim had been served on the club.
"So all we are aware (of) is what's listed in his statement of claim, which was broadcast last night," Wright said on Friday.
Wright said Richmond had asked their lawyers to investigate the matter, but insisted the club would defend itself.
"At the moment they are allegations and the preliminary advice we have received is that they are without foundation and we will vigorously defend those allegations," he said.
Wright refused to respond to questions over whether the club might have breached the salary cap.
"I'm not going to get into hypotheticals on salary caps," he said.
"Our information is that we'll be defending the allegations and if we defend them successfully there's no issue."
Holland left Richmond at the end of 2003 and now plays for Melbourne.
Casey was president of Richmond from 2000-05, and is reportedly overseas at the moment.
Wright said Richmond had notified the AFL of the situation and would keep the league updated.
He admitted the timing of Holland's writ was not good given Richmond wanted to focus on playing Collingwood at the MCG on Sunday.
A spokeswoman for the Victorian Supreme Court said a writ had been issued in October, with Holland as the plaintiff and Casey and Richmond as the two defendants.
However, no action has yet been taken on the matter and no court date has been set.
A spokeswoman for the Victorian Supreme Court said a writ had been issued in October, with Holland as the plaintiff and Casey and Richmond as the two defendants.
However no action has yet been taken on the matter and no court date has been set.
http://news.theage.com.au/tigers-to-defend-against-holland-claims/20080403-23jy.html
-
For those of you who didn't vote for him, why didn't you tell us your concerns at the time?
Smug pricks lol
I voted for the Casey ticket.
As WP said in words to the effect, it was a no brainer at the time and they've done a pretty good job in turning the finances of the club around.
-
Ben Holland IMV was a good player for Richmond
if it wasn't for him doing his knee badly he would be still at the club today
he was the one being moved all over the ground trying to patch up our problems when the chips were down cause more highly paid players wern't pulling there weight
he served well going forward & kicking goals, had good hands, he defended the best he could
Backline / Forward line some players get ticked off & you cant blame them for losing faith in the club & some of his teammates
l would back Ben Holland any day as a footballer :thumbsup he was built like a freakin racehorse & his a top bloke
shoot me down for saying this but his getting shafted at Melbourne & should have walked away from that club a few years ago but he couldnot get back in the door at Tigerland & as a supporter l would have let him back in
let the bullets fly :(
-
have no hesitation in saying I voted for the Casey ticket as the alternative was... well it wasn't a credible alternative IMV
BTW The current board is the Casey ticket minus Casey ;D and they have done a great job in the last couple of years ... dare I say it ....FACT :rollin
Its a fact when there is a premiership cup in the cupboard. Not wooden spoons.
Its disingenuous to say you voted for the current board. You voted for Casey and Miller, both of whom are entirely discredited
Come on MT, put your hand up
-
Ben Holland IMV was a good player for Richmond
if it wasn't for him doing his knee badly he would be still at the club today
he was the one being moved all over the ground trying to patch up our problems when the chips were down cause more highly paid players wern't pulling there weight
he served well going forward & kicking goals, had good hands, he defended the best he could
Backline / Forward line some players get ticked off & you cant blame them for losing faith in the club & some of his teammates
l would back Ben Holland any day as a footballer :thumbsup he was built like a freakin racehorse & his a top bloke
shoot me down for saying this but his getting shafted at Melbourne & should have walked away from that club a few years ago but he couldnot get back in the door at Tigerland & as a supporter l would have let him back in
let the bullets fly :(
And here lies the problem with the RFC.
Whether he was a good player can be debated. Whether he was worth $1.3m cannot.
We've been overpaying and overestimating servicable players as superstars for 10 years, and not making any progress on gthe ladder
-
Ben Holland IMV was a good player for Richmond
if it wasn't for him doing his knee badly he would be still at the club today
he was the one being moved all over the ground trying to patch up our problems when the chips were down cause more highly paid players wern't pulling there weight
he served well going forward & kicking goals, had good hands, he defended the best he could
Backline / Forward line some players get ticked off & you cant blame them for losing faith in the club & some of his teammates
l would back Ben Holland any day as a footballer :thumbsup he was built like a freakin racehorse & his a top bloke
shoot me down for saying this but his getting shafted at Melbourne & should have walked away from that club a few years ago but he couldnot get back in the door at Tigerland & as a supporter l would have let him back in
let the bullets fly :(
And here lies the problem with the RFC.
Whether he was a good player can be debated. Whether he was worth $1.3m cannot.
We've been overpaying and overestimating servicable players as superstars for 10 years, and not making any progress on gthe ladder
agreed. 2 many players have walked thru punt road on inflated pay packets when they are very average players.
stuff holland i hope he gets nothing. he has probably figured out that he is a poo footballer and money is running dry so better search for cash elsewhere.
loser
-
AFL launches Tigers probe
Adelaide Advertiser | April 04, 2008 01:00pm
THE AFL has launched an investigation into claims by former Richmond player Ben Holland that he is owed $530,000 by the Tigers. League boss Andrew Demetriou said today football operations manager Adrian Anderson would look into the issue.
"I've spoken to Adrian Anderson this morning and he'll speak to Ben Holland and obviously he'll speak to other relevant parties," Demetriou said.
Demetriou said he had been aware of the alleged deal since he met with Richmond and Holland in 2002 but thought it had been resolved.
"The issue back then was that he was being offered allegedly $1.3 million from Adelaide, so we have to ascertain whether that's true.
"And then he was offered a significantly less amount from Richmond and he decided to stay at Richmond."
Demetriou said he had then met with Holland and Richmond to discuss how Holland could be paid.
"The issue back then was, was there a way that, under the rules of the salary cap, whether Richmond Football Club could pay him any more - and the answer was no.
"That was the rules and that was the AFL's position as it would (be) for any player."
Demetriou said he was not aware of any alleged deals such as land and work offers for Holland.
"I had a meeting with Ben Holland and Mark Brayshaw who was the then CEO about this matter back when I was general manager of football operations and when they left my office I thought this was a dead issue," Demetriou said.
"I was surprised when it surfaced, I understand he's lodged a Supreme Court writ.
"If it's true, and he's got a writ which I'm sure based on my information from back then, Clinton Casey will contest - and then it's a matter for the courts."
However, if the claims were true, they would breach the AFL salary cap rules, he said.
"Yes it would be, you can't do that," he said.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/sport/afl/story/0,26547,23483544-5016212,00.html
-
Stuff it :gotigers
-
have no hesitation in saying I voted for the Casey ticket as the alternative was... well it wasn't a credible alternative IMV
BTW The current board is the Casey ticket minus Casey ;D and they have done a great job in the last couple of years ... dare I say it ....FACT :rollin
Its a fact when there is a premiership cup in the cupboard. Not wooden spoons.
Its disingenuous to say you voted for the current board. You voted for Casey and Miller, both of whom are entirely discredited
Come on MT, put your hand up
I think you mean me 1980 :thumbsup
I am putting my hand up - I voted for the Casey ticket. Not just Casey & Miller but the entire ticket. Dalton, Lord. March, O'Shanessy, the other lawyer bloke who's name I always forget and Mithen are the others BTW
I voted for that entire ticket because they were IMHO the best option for club at that time.
The fact is they all remain on board today and have done a good job.
Do I regret who I voted for back then? Nope
Edit: the lawyer bloke = Matthies
-
AFL launches Tigers probe
Adelaide Advertiser | April 04, 2008 01:00pm
"I've spoken to Adrian Anderson this morning and he'll speak to Ben Holland and obviously he'll speak to other relevant parties," Demetriou said.
Well I'm sure we all feel at ease now knowing Adrian A is on the case :rollin
-
...
However, if the claims were true, they would breach the AFL salary cap rules, he said.
"Yes it would be, you can't do that," he said.
...
lol. Wouldn't it just be typical Richmond if we got done for breaching the salary cap rules in an effort to keep ... BEN HOLLAND!!! :rollin
ROFLMFAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
AFL launches Tigers probe
Adelaide Advertiser | April 04, 2008 01:00pm
THE AFL has launched an investigation into claims by former Richmond player Ben Holland that he is owed $530,000 by the Tigers. League boss Andrew Demetriou said today football operations manager Adrian Anderson would look into the issue.
"I've spoken to Adrian Anderson this morning and he'll speak to Ben Holland and obviously he'll speak to other relevant parties," Demetriou said.
Demetriou said he had been aware of the alleged deal since he met with Richmond and Holland in 2002 but thought it had been resolved.
"The issue back then was that he was being offered allegedly $1.3 million from Adelaide, so we have to ascertain whether that's true.
"And then he was offered a significantly less amount from Richmond and he decided to stay at Richmond."
Demetriou said he had then met with Holland and Richmond to discuss how Holland could be paid.
"The issue back then was, was there a way that, under the rules of the salary cap, whether Richmond Football Club could pay him any more - and the answer was no.
"That was the rules and that was the AFL's position as it would (be) for any player."
Demetriou said he was not aware of any alleged deals such as land and work offers for Holland.
"I had a meeting with Ben Holland and Mark Brayshaw who was the then CEO about this matter back when I was general manager of football operations and when they left my office I thought this was a dead issue," Demetriou said.
"I was surprised when it surfaced, I understand he's lodged a Supreme Court writ.
"If it's true, and he's got a writ which I'm sure based on my information from back then, Clinton Casey will contest - and then it's a matter for the courts."
However, if the claims were true, they would breach the AFL salary cap rules, he said.
"Yes it would be, you can't do that," he said.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/sport/afl/story/0,26547,23483544-5016212,00.html
Ridiculous.
Surely the AFL cant act until the Court hands down its decision. That could severly prejudice the case on either side if the AFLs investigation is called before the supreme court.
Stay the stuff out if it for now AA.
:scream :-\
-
AFL launches Tigers probe
Adelaide Advertiser | April 04, 2008 01:00pm
"I've spoken to Adrian Anderson this morning and he'll speak to Ben Holland and obviously he'll speak to other relevant parties," Demetriou said.
Well I'm sure we all feel at ease now knowing Adrian A is on the case :rollin
thanks mate. after telling me that about AA, i feel so much better now.
is it just me or is this guy anderson a complete tool.
-
AFL launches Tigers probe
Adelaide Advertiser | April 04, 2008 01:00pm
"I've spoken to Adrian Anderson this morning and he'll speak to Ben Holland and obviously he'll speak to other relevant parties," Demetriou said.
Well I'm sure we all feel at ease now knowing Adrian A is on the case :rollin
thanks mate. after telling me that about AA, i feel so much better now.
is it just me or is this guy anderson a complete tool.
Seriously I dont know who I'd chose if I had to about Dimmy, Ando, or Gill running the joint.
Scary, :-\ :-X
-
have no hesitation in saying I voted for the Casey ticket as the alternative was... well it wasn't a credible alternative IMV
BTW The current board is the Casey ticket minus Casey ;D and they have done a great job in the last couple of years ... dare I say it ....FACT :rollin
Its a fact when there is a premiership cup in the cupboard. Not wooden spoons.
Its disingenuous to say you voted for the current board. You voted for Casey and Miller, both of whom are entirely discredited
Come on MT, put your hand up
Like WP I don't sway away from voting for the Casey ticket. Seriously the Big 4 ticket challenge or whatever it was called was a joke. They wanted to take us back to 1999 :help. I'm comfortable with my choice given the stability, long-term planning including improved and more facilities, and sound financial progress which hadn't existed at Punt Rd for 25 years prior to 2005. Sure this improved off-field position hasn't transferred to on-field yet but it was always going to be a long-haul going down the youth path from where we were.
And I did vote for the entire board. Although there were two 9 person tickets, we all could vote for individual candidates. 8 of those 9 are still there and Penny Haines >>> Casey. There's been no challenges (anyone would be silly challenging a $1 million profit).
Those who voted for the other ticket should also put their hand up for supporting Schwab and co who were also on the board along with Casey when these idiotic decisions were made.
-
If it was verbal lie
If anything was on paper, then show the proof of the actual payment going through, otherwise say they backed out of the agreement after discussing with whoever it was 'Vlad' ?
Somehow think Dutchovens has broken some type of unwritten law on keeping ur gob shut.
Hope the prik gets stiched up ... and after all isn't he also guilty of fraud in the same instance ???
Also being a fraudulant footballer - does that count and can we counter sue :rollin
-
AFL has the right to do a salary cap investigation, if they find that we had agreements with Holland that took us over the cap we are rooted.
Richmond has 1 strategy and that is
1) fight in the courts and delay everything
2) try and get everything past November of this year so there is no draft penaltys this year
3) trade every single player over the age of 25 thats worth anything
Why
because if the AFL finds us guilty they will take picks, and the penalties will be harsh.
DELAY DELAY DELAY & then
TRADE TRADE TRADE
If we are gonna get done, we may as well stock up with 12 kids in the draft to get us past the next 2 years.
-
According to SEN the latest is from Holland's lawyer and former manager:
Holland is willing to negogiate with the club and Casey
He first contacted the club in 2004
He issued the writ in October 2007 so has a year to act on it.
-
Sorry for being cynical but what a nice little retirement nestegg for someone in their final year of AFL :whistle.
Maybe the club should countersue for only receiving 1 good year in return out of 8 while on our list lol.
The biggest shock for me is the Crows were willing to pay him $1.3m over 3 years :o.
Let's not forget Freo at the same time this was going on offered Gas $700k per year to go home despite them knowing it would take them well over the salary cap. I didn't see them lose any draft picks for that ::).
What a disaster that post 2001 offseason was :banghead. We could have had Sugar in a direct swap for Holland instead of trading out of the top 10 and giving up Torney as well the following year plus being forced to pay part of Dutchy's salary at Melbourne :scream.
Don't apologise MT I'm with you and I fully concur and to make it all the more galling is that Holland did his knee in the rd 4 game against Freo and did not return till 2003.
-
Its disingenuous to say you voted for the current board. You voted for Casey and Miller, ....
Haha! The old "I'm bitter so you're stupid" argument. ;D ;) The board election was more than 3 years ago. You need to get over it.
Casey got the 3rd highest number of votes, so more hands will be going up than not. Mine's up.
I took my vote seriously and considered my options. I considered what I thought was best for my club on the information and profiles available. That ended up being the whole Casey ticket and I'm comfortable with it.
-
Ben Holland IMV was a good player for Richmond
if it wasn't for him doing his knee badly he would be still at the club today
he was the one being moved all over the ground trying to patch up our problems when the chips were down cause more highly paid players wern't pulling there weight
he served well going forward & kicking goals, had good hands, he defended the best he could
Backline / Forward line some players get ticked off & you cant blame them for losing faith in the club & some of his teammates
l would back Ben Holland any day as a footballer :thumbsup he was built like a freakin racehorse & his a top bloke
shoot me down for saying this but his getting shafted at Melbourne & should have walked away from that club a few years ago but he couldnot get back in the door at Tigerland & as a supporter l would have let him back in
let the bullets fly :(
Duck TM lol
I sum up Dutchy's career at Richmond as us pinching him from the grasp of a dying Fitzroy in 96 (IIRC Fitzroy draft him in 94 but he didn't come over). An inconsistent forward for 5 years before being switched to CHB in 2001 where he did have a very good year. Started 2002 slowly then did his knee in R4 and was way too slow when he came back in 2003 so he was offloaded. One good year in 8 so I wasn't sad to see him traded for pick 20.
-
Look I think that theres alot of hearsay at the moment, but I have just been listening to radio and they had interview with Andy Demetriou who was AFL Football Operations manager at the time and at the time he had a meeting with us and holland and Richmond were unable to go past there 800,000 offer on Holland. He (Demetriou) believed that when the parties left his office, everything had been dealth with. If this is the case and Holland got his $800+ then we have little room to manouvre if the club have paid extra monies or agreed to property deals on top.
Id suggest that RFC needs to be looking at every single such deal the club "may have had" and see if we were close to salary caps in any particular years where that may have been the case.
Richmond needs to delay any outcome past November and Richmond needs to offload senior players at the end of the season en masse in order to bring in as many youngsters as possible to cover for possible penalties down the track from the AFL if they find us Guilty.
-
Ridiculous.
Surely the AFL cant act until the Court hands down its decision. That could severly prejudice the case on either side if the AFLs investigation is called before the supreme court.
Stay the eff out if it for now AA.
:scream :-\
Dutchy's lawyer was his manager at the time so conflict of interests isn't obviously a concern in this case :-\.
-
everyone is intitled to their opinion of Dutchy but l liked him
if anyone ripped me off on a contract, l would be taking them to court also as would anybody who is promised a contract.
this is there living its a sport but thats there income its like going to work for nothing
Dont balme Dutchy for whats happening, he was offered to leave but RFC insisted he stay & be loyal
They offered him something they couldnot afford & have defaulted
now RFC & the supporters will suffer for a greedy buisnessman & his sidekick for bad trading which we all are used too
Nothing seems to change at Richmond & after the AFL go through the club looking at everything, the ghosts are going to come out to haunt us "shaky hands on pub taps" :shh
from what l was told the AFL will make a example out of us & have instructed a full investigation on the club
l fear the worst :'( :'( :'( :help
-
Dont balme Dutchy for whats happening,
He lodged the Supreme Court writ TMonk - so as the person who has gone to the courts I think he can take some blame. No one forced him.... he's made that choice
Just as an aside: I wonder if the writ will be withdrawn because of the publicity? They said he has 12 months to decide to do anything ....
-
Id suggest that RFC needs to be looking at every single such deal the club "may have had" and see if we were close to salary caps in any particular years where that may have been the case.
How retrospective should this be though. What if a player from the late 90s came out and claimed he was owed a Nissan which was outside the cap. I'm no legal wizz but I was under the impression certain civil claims have a 6 year limit. Hmmm submitting a writ in Oct 2007 would be right on the end of that 6 years.
Like I said it is very suss for a player in his final year of footy to finally start chasing money. Surely if any monies/contra were outstanding he would have known about it the day he was traded instead of waiting till 5 years later.
-
For those of you who didn't vote for him, why didn't you tell us your concerns at the time?
Smug pricks lol
I voted for the Casey ticket.
As WP said in words to the effect, it was a no brainer at the time and they've done a pretty good job in turning the finances of the club around.
Nothing smug about it, it was because I wasn't a member of this forum at the time. I can, if you're interested, post you the links to another forum and you will get the gist very quickly of my opinion and passionate level of my belief at the time. I felt we had no alternative but the alternative, and I think that one of the saving graces of the new board that eventually won the election was that it was not entirely made up of the Casey 'yes' men that had run the show for the proceeding 5 years - Casey went recruiting in an effort to shore up his position and there was some new blood voted on. As I said earlier, I didn't believe the new board had what it takes and I have been proven wrong fortunately. I have no problem admitting that.
-
Danny Frawley can help save this situation if he says that Holland was only ever offered the right to purchase propertys at market rates rather than being given them free or at discounts. If Casey only guaranteed Holland access to property that is as a developer you have 50 blocks and you have 250 buyers then 200 buyers miss out- if the only thing he guaranteed him was a guarantee of ability to purchase we will be ok. We could claim that if Holland didnt buy property or they havent increased in value then thats the risk you take in investment, the same goes for shares.
-
have no hesitation in saying I voted for the Casey ticket as the alternative was... well it wasn't a credible alternative IMV
BTW The current board is the Casey ticket minus Casey ;D and they have done a great job in the last couple of years ... dare I say it ....FACT :rollin
Its a fact when there is a premiership cup in the cupboard. Not wooden spoons.
Its disingenuous to say you voted for the current board. You voted for Casey and Miller, both of whom are entirely discredited
Come on MT, put your hand up
Like WP I don't sway away from voting for the Casey ticket. Seriously the Big 4 ticket challenge or whatever it was called was a joke. They wanted to take us back to 1999 :help. I'm comfortable with my choice given the stability, long-term planning including improved and more facilities, and sound financial progress which hadn't existed at Punt Rd for 25 years prior to 2005. Sure this improved off-field position hasn't transferred to on-field yet but it was always going to be a long-haul going down the youth path from where we were.
And I did vote for the entire board. Although there were two 9 person tickets, we all could vote for individual candidates. 8 of those 9 are still there and Penny Haines >>> Casey. There's been no challenges (anyone would be silly challenging a $1 million profit).
Those who voted for the other ticket should also put their hand up for supporting Schwab and co who were also on the board along with Casey when these idiotic decisions were made.
But to be fair MT, you need to put the whole thing in perspective. Its not correct to say that financial progress hadn't existed for 25 years - in fact the previous Daphne administration had put the club back on a very sound financial footing after a long period of mismanagement and decline but this position of strength was decimated by the spending excesses of the Casey team. Casey came to power on a promise of dynamic change, highlighting Daphne's shortcomings in producing success on the field and yet history shows that Daphne's era was more successful, both on and off field. Yes, I acknowledge that Schwab and the others that resigned were guilty of being a part of the Casey bungling but at least they had the fortitude to stand up and say this is no good. By forcing the election they dismantled Casey's power base and from that moment we started to turn things around.
-
Id suggest that RFC needs to be looking at every single such deal the club "may have had" and see if we were close to salary caps in any particular years where that may have been the case.
How retrospective should this be though. What if a player from the late 90s came out and claimed he was owed a Nissan which was outside the cap. I'm no legal wizz but I was under the impression certain civil claims have a 6 year limit. Hmmm submitting a writ in Oct 2007 would be right on the end of that 6 years.
Like I said it is very suss for a player in his final year of footy to finally start chasing money. Surely if any monies/contra were outstanding he would have known about it the day he was traded instead of waiting till 5 years later.
if your owed money by someone after taking them to court & they refuse to pay it or have no money, you can continue to take them to the court register for upto 15 years which l did to this unclever prick. l just let the interest mount up at 12% on 5k while he thought he got away with it & goes on with life
found out & proved his working & found out his got a house in his name now & a nice Honda car ;D so my solictor slapped him with a bankrupt notice ;D just to show him not to eff with me & that l'm his prick of misery :lol :lol :thumbsup
l find out the result next week it should be fun
Then l got another one who thinks his clever & going to try the same thing l got news for him
l'm also trying to get the law changed so that every car on the road in Victoria must be insured to be allowed to be driven on the road
l will fight hard to have this law brought in just like in the UK if your car is not insured it gets crushed :lol ;D wish me luck
-
everyone is intitled to their opinion of Dutchy but l liked him
if anyone ripped me off on a contract, l would be taking them to court also as would anybody who is promised a contract.
this is there living its a sport but thats there income its like going to work for nothing
Dont balme Dutchy for whats happening, he was offered to leave but RFC insisted he stay & be loyal
They offered him something they couldnot afford & have defaulted
now RFC & the supporters will suffer for a greedy buisnessman & his sidekick for bad trading which we all are used too
Nothing seems to change at Richmond & after the AFL go through the club looking at everything, the ghosts are going to come out to haunt us "shaky hands on pub taps" :shh
from what l was told the AFL will make a example out of us & have instructed a full investigation on the club
l fear the worst :'( :'( :'( :help
I am very good friends with the people he came to live with when he first came to Melbourne.
I've met him a few times and he appears to be a nice bloke. I've met his folks and his older brother and they seem like a great family. I have nothing against Ben personally, but am gobsmacked he would do something like this.
Thought he'd found his niche up back after many years competing with Richo on the forward line.
And was disappointed when he went to Melbourne.
If he's been screwed by Casey and co, maybe we deserve to pay.
But who pays? The supporters do.
And frankly, I don't think we deserve it after all the crap we've put up with.
So I won't be feeling too sympathetic with him if the AFL come down on us.
I think players are remunerated very nicely, and he should have set himself up financially after playing all these years and not have to resort to this money grab.
-
have no hesitation in saying I voted for the Casey ticket as the alternative was... well it wasn't a credible alternative IMV
BTW The current board is the Casey ticket minus Casey ;D and they have done a great job in the last couple of years ... dare I say it ....FACT :rollin
Its a fact when there is a premiership cup in the cupboard. Not wooden spoons.
Its disingenuous to say you voted for the current board. You voted for Casey and Miller, both of whom are entirely discredited
Come on MT, put your hand up
Like WP I don't sway away from voting for the Casey ticket. Seriously the Big 4 ticket challenge or whatever it was called was a joke. They wanted to take us back to 1999 :help. I'm comfortable with my choice given the stability, long-term planning including improved and more facilities, and sound financial progress which hadn't existed at Punt Rd for 25 years prior to 2005. Sure this improved off-field position hasn't transferred to on-field yet but it was always going to be a long-haul going down the youth path from where we were.
And I did vote for the entire board. Although there were two 9 person tickets, we all could vote for individual candidates. 8 of those 9 are still there and Penny Haines >>> Casey. There's been no challenges (anyone would be silly challenging a $1 million profit).
Those who voted for the other ticket should also put their hand up for supporting Schwab and co who were also on the board along with Casey when these idiotic decisions were made.
But to be fair MT, you need to put the whole thing in perspective. Its not correct to say that financial progress hadn't existed for 25 years - in fact the previous Daphne administration had put the club back on a very sound financial footing after a long period of mismanagement and decline but this position of strength was decimated by the spending excesses of the Casey team. Casey came to power on a promise of dynamic change, highlighting Daphne's shortcomings in producing success on the field and yet history shows that Daphne's era was more successful, both on and off field. Yes, I acknowledge that Schwab and the others that resigned were guilty of being a part of the Casey bungling but at least they had the fortitude to stand up and say this is no good. By forcing the election they dismantled Casey's power base and from that moment we started to turn things around.
I felt that both tenures still misguidedly equated profit to on-field success. Sure Daphne made small profits and after Neville Crowe got us back in the black but the fear of SOS still lingered over the club in its decision making. An attitude of it's better off being mediocre than making the tough decisions and taking a hit for the long-term good (a la promising action yet doing nothing after the disaster of R22 1998 and then signing up Daffy, Richo, Knights and Cambo to $$$ long contracts in 1999 which came back to bite the club especially with Daffy). Off-field sure the JDF was set up but boosting expenditure in key areas like improving facilities and recruiting was kept to a minimum so we kept our heads above water. We were also a laughing stock going through 4 coaches in 5 years that only Spud wanted to coach us. Casey on the other hand did increase expenditure. Problem was with money we didn't have hoping spending more money on the (dud) footy dept would pay dividends as it did in 2001 when we made the finals (3 years and a $3m loss later it obviously didn't). We finally have a board and more importantly a CEO who can deliver profits independent of on-field results (and thank god for that) and can stick to a long-term objective.
Politically the alternative ticket had the front running but they stumbled about and were indecisive allowing Casey with Miller's help to eventually trump them. The threat of a EGM and a takeover (no election) was poorly managed as the average member wanted their say in an election (there hadn't been one in years except for Cornel Sanders losing out to Matthies in 2003). Their publications were too handwavey and lacking in detail on how they would achieve targets. I still have their brochure somewhere and the first paragraph was a glowing endorcement of the state of the club in 1999. IMO it was embarrassing. They spent too much time being anti-Casey talking about the past rather than just focussing on the future. The fact they lost what should have been an unloseable election is a sad indictment on how poorly they managed their campaign. I'm glad they didn't get anywhere near the boardroom. I'm not unhappy either that Casey stood down a year later.
Anyway that's now ancient history and we all want what's best for the club in the future. They main thing now is to see what happens with Holland's writ and hope we don't get screwed at the draft table :-\.
-
Id suggest that RFC needs to be looking at every single such deal the club "may have had" and see if we were close to salary caps in any particular years where that may have been the case.
How retrospective should this be though. What if a player from the late 90s came out and claimed he was owed a Nissan which was outside the cap. I'm no legal wizz but I was under the impression certain civil claims have a 6 year limit. Hmmm submitting a writ in Oct 2007 would be right on the end of that 6 years.
Like I said it is very suss for a player in his final year of footy to finally start chasing money. Surely if any monies/contra were outstanding he would have known about it the day he was traded instead of waiting till 5 years later.
if your owed money by someone after taking them to court & they refuse to pay it or have no money, you can continue to take them to the court register for upto 15 years which l did to this unclever prick. l just let the interest mount up at 12% on 5k while he thought he got away with it & goes on with life
found out & proved his working & found out his got a house in his name now & a nice Honda car ;D so my solictor slapped him with a bankrupt notice ;D just to show him not to eff with me & that l'm his prick of misery :lol :lol :thumbsup
l find out the result next week it should be fun
Then l got another one who thinks his clever & going to try the same thing l got news for him
l'm also trying to get the law changed so that every car on the road in Victoria must be insured to be allowed to be driven on the road
l will fight hard to have this law brought in just like in the UK if your car is not insured it gets crushed :lol ;D wish me luck
Isn't it compulsory to have third party?!
-
Frawley denies Tigers cap rort
Sam Edmund | April 05, 2008 | Herald-Sun
FORMER Richmond coach Danny Frawley has admitted several Tigers players struck property deals with former president Clinton Casey. As the AFL launched as investigation into possible salary cap breaches by Richmond, Frawley said last night he was aware of his players buying property owned by Casey.
"Yeah I think I'm aware without giving specifics. The Torquay development down there may have been one," Frawley said.
"But to my knowledge, under my tenure, I have no inclination that the club was dealing outside the salary cap."
Former Richmond player Ben Holland is suing Casey and his old club for $530,000 in loss and damages.
He claims he was promised a range of business and investment opportunities he never received while at a Crown casino meeting with Frawley and Casey in late 2001.
Holland has issued a Supreme Court writ in which he alleges, among other things, that Casey offered him priority access to a $180,000 block of land at a Sandhurst development that he could re-sell for a large profit.
"Clinton proceeded to talk about business opportunities (at the meeting) and that's all they were, opportunities," Frawley told Triple M.
"There were no words like 'promise' or 'guarantee'. There was one word; 'opportunity'.
"I would put my hand on my heart and swear on my mothers grave that to my knowledge, the Richmond Football Club in my time did not deal outside the salary cap."
Holland's writ alleges the offers, made in late 2001, were designed to make-up the difference between an $800,000 three-year deal to re-sign with Richmond and a $1.33 million three-year rival offer from the Adelaide Crows.
AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou said the alleged offers to Holland, if proven true, would be in breach of the salary cap.
"If it's true . . . yes it would be, you can't do that," Demetriou said.
"It's a matter for the courts. We'll see where it goes."
Demetriou revealed he met Holland and then Richmond CEO Mark Brayshaw in his former role as football operations manager in late 2001 as the Tigers sought ways to make the difference between the Richmond and Adelaide offers.
"The issue back then was, was there a way that under the rules of the salary cap, whether Richmond Football Club could pay him any more ---- and the answer was no," he said.
Brayshaw yesterday told the Herald Sun he didn't believe the offers made to Holland broke salary cap rules.
"To my knowledge, no, but I'm on the board of the Kangaroos and I really don't want to comment," he said.
Richmond chief executive Steven Wright said the Tigers would defend the allegations.
In 2005 the AFL launched a major investigation into property investments involving players to ensure they weren't part of a strategy to get around the salary cap.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,23486643-19742,00.html
-
Extra incentives not new to footy
Mike Sheahan | April 05, 2008 | Herald-Sun
THERE were murmurings about Richmond and its innovative negotiating style each time it signed or re-signed a big name during Clinton Casey's tenure.
Ben Holland in 2001 when he suddenly aborted plans to join Adelaide, Kane Johnson, Nathan Brown and Troy Simmonds when they joined the Tigers from other clubs, Matthew Richardson and one or two others when they came out of contract.
The most popular version of the story had Casey inviting the player of the moment to join him in a helicopter ride.
The trip would take the party over a golf estate owned by the Casey group of companies somewhere within 90km of Melbourne, with the Richmond president inviting the player to nominate a block of land he fancied.
The player would be told he could purchase the land at a specific price before the subdivision went to the market.
According to folklore, if the land failed to realise the nominated price, Casey would make up the difference; if it went for more than the nominated price, which it inevitably would, the player would get the profit.
Ben Holland's explosive claims in a writ against Richmond and Casey (president from 2000-05) has given credence to the story.
Holland's allegation leaves the AFL no alternative but to undertake a thorough investigation.
The AFL has been aware of the rumours since 2001, but inquiries by Investigations Manager Ken Wood apparently led nowhere.
Now there's a current player suggesting a course of events that would seem to breach the provisions of the Total Player Payments (salary cap).
Holland, now at Melbourne, is understood to have lodged documents in October last year to beat the statute of limitations, apparently hoping they would sit there until he finished his career.
The story finally broke on the Footy Show on Thursday night.
Holland is claiming $530,000 in unpaid benefits, the difference between an offer from Adelaide late in 2001 and the verbal response from Richmond that kept him at Punt Road for a further two years.
He crossed to Melbourne after the 2003 season after 125 games for the Tigers in eight seasons.
Richmond has had legal advisers investigating the situation for several weeks and is understood to be confident it was not in breach of the TPP.
Casey, who is overseas, was advised of the substance of the story by Richmond official Greg Miller in a telephone call yesterday.
While Richmond obviously is the party in the spotlight and under pressure, surely Holland has left himself in a precarious position, too.
During his time at Richmond, he was required to sign the standard player contract and an accompanying statutory declaration that each and every benefit was listed in detail in the contract.
According to his writ, there were benefits not listed in the contract.
Whether Richmond is in trouble or not, the issue again puts the focus on benefits to players that may or may not be outside the TPP.
Why can't a club official in property offer a player a block of land below nominal market value if he so chooses?
After all, there are several clubs who facilitate specialist advice for players in the areas of property development and the stock market at discount rates. Or free.
How does a healthy discount on a block differ from favourable consideration in an allocation of new shares that duly go on the market at a healthy premium?
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/1,9191,23485845-19771,00.html
-
Holland demanded compensation in 2004
Caroline Wilson | April 5, 2008 | The Age
DISGRUNTLED former Tiger Ben Holland first wrote to Richmond demanding financial compensation in late 2004 while then-president Clinton Casey was battling a board challenge on the eve of an election.
The Age understands that Casey, believing that Holland or his management would go public with the allegation that the club had promised financial inducements to the player worth more than $500,000, forwarded the letter to the AFL.
The letter was dismissed by the league on the basis that AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou had already met Holland and then-Richmond chief executive Mark Brayshaw in a bid to convince the player Richmond had no room remaining in its salary cap.
League investigator Ken Wood had already cleared a series of property investments involving parcels of land and units at Torquay, Sandhurst and Laguna Keys recommended by Casey and taken up by players including Nathan Brown, Mark Coughlan and Kane Johnson, as well as former coach Danny Frawley and football manager Greg Miller.
Holland, who has lodged a Supreme Court writ against Casey and Richmond, which will be investigated again by the AFL in case of salary-cap ramifications, is suing for $530,000 — the difference, he claims, between what Richmond paid him over a three-year deal and what Adelaide offered him at the end of 2001 as part of the failed Kane Johnson deal.
But his manager Greg Griffin last night claimed that Holland would try to avoid the courts and resolve the issue via the AFL Players Association's grievance procedure.
Griffin also denied there was a salary-cap issue but that Holland, who had not wanted his claim made public before finishing his career with the Demons, had been a player "spurned". "I don't think it's a salary-cap issue," Griffin said from Adelaide last night. "There was a representation made by (Clinton) Casey that he would mentor Ben in a business sense.
"Nathan Brown was offered something similar two years later and revealed as much on The Footy Show. Preferential dealings happen regularly all the time in football. Mark Ricciuto has an interest in three hotels with Adelaide board member Peter Hurley.
"But Ben got injured and Casey found someone else to extend his largesse to. That's basically our claim. He went from being strongly desired by Richmond to not wanted. The word spurned comes to mind."
Should Holland's alleged letter from Casey, written on Richmond letterhead in October 2001, reveal under-the-table dealings, he could be deregistered, suspended or fined.
Griffin said Holland had taken notes following the meeting at Kokos with Casey and Frawley, which occurred after the player changed his mind and told Frawley, via teammate Duncan Kellaway, that he wanted to stay at Richmond.
Frawley told The Age: "There's two sides to every story. I, too, thought the issue had been put to bed and I had no knowledge of separate payments. It wouldn't be the first time a club has advised a player with business help and property opportunities."
Crows' sources indicated that the club offered the player significantly more than he settled upon at Richmond but added that the quoted figure of $1.33 million was exaggerated.
"The club has been vigorously defending any claims that it made any inducement to Ben Holland that was outside the salary cap," Tigers' president Gary March told The Age.
"I don't think Clinton (Casey) has ever denied that he offered financial inducements to players via third party business opportunities.
"He made those offers to players, officials and coterie members. Some chose to take them up with their own money.
"Those involving players have all been scrutinised by the AFL and they have all been above board."
Tigers' chief executive Steve Wright told a news conference yesterday that the claims would be vigorously defended.
It is believed that the club, to protect itself, will distance itself from Casey during that defence if it is required.
Casey was overseas last night but also was preparing to deny the Holland claims.
March said the timing of the story was disappointing for the club. "I have apologised to the football department and the coaches and the players because it's a distraction they don't need."
Demetriou said on 3AW yesterday: "I had a meeting with Ben Holland and Mark Brayshaw, who was the then-CEO, about this matter back when I was general manager of football operations, and … I thought this was a dead issue.
"… The issue back then, was he was being offered, allegedly, $1.3 million for Adelaide? So we have to ascertain whether that's true and then that he was then offered a significant amount less for Richmond.
"Well, because the issue back then was, you know, was there any way that the Richmond Football Club pay him any more and the answer was no."
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/holland-case-clear-in-2004/2008/04/04/1207249463486.html?page=fullpage
-
From ...Top dogs cannot chain the game
Patrick Smith | April 05, 2008 | The Australian
Could also have done without Ben Holland. His Supreme Court writ against Richmond and former president Coolum Casey is a tad awkward. He has basically claimed the Tigers agreed to pay him outside the salary cap.
It is all a bit stop-start. Demetriou, when he was football operations manager in 2001, spoke to Holland and Richmond officials. Demetriou claims Holland agreed to play for Richmond for $800,000 and knocked back Port Adelaide's offer of $1.3million.
When he left the Tigers in 2004, Holland wrote to the club saying the Tigers owed him heaps. Heard nothing more from Holland until the Supreme Court writ. Nothing like a little bit of alleged salary-cap rorting in your 150th year.
The AFL seems pretty comfortable with the matter. Richmond's preliminary investigation suggests the club doesn't have a case to answer. There is a difference between networking and salary-cap rorting. That probably will be Casey's defence.
Here was a businessman offering business opportunities. Happens at every club. It is a fine line. When trying to keep a player, a club will throw up a lot of scenarios. Holland has to prove Richmond offered him not an opportunity but a guarantee.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23486267-12270,00.html
-
I felt that both tenures still misguidedly equated profit to on-field success. Sure Daphne made small profits and after Neville Crowe got us back in the black but the fear of SOS still lingered over the club in its decision making. An attitude of it's better off being mediocre than making the tough decisions and taking a hit for the long-term good (a la promising action yet doing nothing after the disaster of R22 1998 and then signing up Daffy, Richo, Knights and Cambo to $$$ long contracts in 1999 which came back to bite the club especially with Daffy). Off-field sure the JDF was set up but boosting expenditure in key areas like improving facilities and recruiting was kept to a minimum so we kept our heads above water. We were also a laughing stock going through 4 coaches in 5 years that only Spud wanted to coach us. Casey on the other hand did increase expenditure. Problem was with money we didn't have hoping spending more money on the (dud) footy dept would pay dividends as it did in 2001 when we made the finals (3 years and a $3m loss later it obviously didn't). We finally have a board and more importantly a CEO who can deliver profits independent of on-field results (and thank god for that) and can stick to a long-term objective.
Politically the alternative ticket had the front running but they stumbled about and were indecisive allowing Casey with Miller's help to eventually trump them. The threat of a EGM and a takeover (no election) was poorly managed as the average member wanted their say in an election (there hadn't been one in years except for Cornel Sanders losing out to Matthies in 2003). Their publications were too handwavey and lacking in detail on how they would achieve targets. I still have their brochure somewhere and the first paragraph was a glowing endorcement of the state of the club in 1999. IMO it was embarrassing. They spent too much time being anti-Casey talking about the past rather than just focussing on the future. The fact they lost what should have been an unloseable election is a sad indictment on how poorly they managed their campaign. I'm glad they didn't get anywhere near the boardroom. I'm not unhappy either that Casey stood down a year later.
Anyway that's now ancient history and we all want what's best for the club in the future. They main thing now is to see what happens with Holland's writ and hope we don't get screwed at the draft table :-\.
I'm not going to disagree with anything you said. The election was certainly poorly managed by the rebels and in hindsight the reason was most likely that they weren't any more capable than the incumbent board. But at least the action of forcing the issues into the open and holding the election brought Casey's shortcomings to the top for everyone to analyse. I think if I am honest with myself, the main reason I was so vehemently anti-Casey was the thought that if he remained in control for any longer (and I'm talking a short time) then we wouldn't have had a club left to support. And the election did force him to bring in new faces (Casey's attempts were nearly as amateurish as Schwab's - it was almost like 'rent-a-board') that eroded his powerbase, signalling the end of his 'reign'. Anyway, as you say, it's all history now but I felt I needed to respond when another poster suggested that no-one was prepared to stand up at the time - I most certainly did and thankfully my fears were largely proved unfounded.
:gotigers
-
i think i believe spud, only query is whether casey dealt directly with holland which i doubt.
it looks good for us to be cleared and holland to look like more of an idiot than he already does.
i don't like him at all. i mean why now does he decide to come out and claim for damages?
money drying up at melbourne pal so he needs to source income elsewhere.
-
Id suggest that RFC needs to be looking at every single such deal the club "may have had" and see if we were close to salary caps in any particular years where that may have been the case.
How retrospective should this be though. What if a player from the late 90s came out and claimed he was owed a Nissan which was outside the cap. I'm no legal wizz but I was under the impression certain civil claims have a 6 year limit. Hmmm submitting a writ in Oct 2007 would be right on the end of that 6 years.
Like I said it is very suss for a player in his final year of footy to finally start chasing money. Surely if any monies/contra were outstanding he would have known about it the day he was traded instead of waiting till 5 years later.
if your owed money by someone after taking them to court & they refuse to pay it or have no money, you can continue to take them to the court register for upto 15 years which l did to this unclever prick. l just let the interest mount up at 12% on 5k while he thought he got away with it & goes on with life
found out & proved his working & found out his got a house in his name now & a nice Honda car ;D so my solictor slapped him with a bankrupt notice ;D just to show him not to eff with me & that l'm his prick of misery :lol :lol :thumbsup
l find out the result next week it should be fun
Then l got another one who thinks his clever & going to try the same thing l got news for him
l'm also trying to get the law changed so that every car on the road in Victoria must be insured to be allowed to be driven on the road
l will fight hard to have this law brought in just like in the UK if your car is not insured it gets crushed :lol ;D wish me luck
Isn't it compulsory to have third party?!
unfortunately MT its not & thats where the law needs changing
maybe we should remove part of this thread MT & put it into decussions so l can tell you more
l dont want to go right off topic :thumbsup
-
have no hesitation in saying I voted for the Casey ticket as the alternative was... well it wasn't a credible alternative IMV
BTW The current board is the Casey ticket minus Casey ;D and they have done a great job in the last couple of years ... dare I say it ....FACT :rollin
Its a fact when there is a premiership cup in the cupboard. Not wooden spoons.
Its disingenuous to say you voted for the current board. You voted for Casey and Miller, both of whom are entirely discredited
Come on MT, put your hand up
Like WP I don't sway away from voting for the Casey ticket. Seriously the Big 4 ticket challenge or whatever it was called was a joke. They wanted to take us back to 1999 :help. I'm comfortable with my choice given the stability, long-term planning including improved and more facilities, and sound financial progress which hadn't existed at Punt Rd for 25 years prior to 2005. Sure this improved off-field position hasn't transferred to on-field yet but it was always going to be a long-haul going down the youth path from where we were.
And I did vote for the entire board. Although there were two 9 person tickets, we all could vote for individual candidates. 8 of those 9 are still there and Penny Haines >>> Casey. There's been no challenges (anyone would be silly challenging a $1 million profit).
Those who voted for the other ticket should also put their hand up for supporting Schwab and co who were also on the board along with Casey when these idiotic decisions were made.
Didnt Schwab and co resign from the board because idiotic decision were being made, were made by Casey without board approval?
Yes.
Casey was doing deals, running the club on his own, and ignoring the board. Deals like the one Holland is suing about.
I voted against them because I didnt want Miller on the board because he is a dud, was a dud at North and nearly bankrupted them as interim CEO, and as our player development has shown since Miller, we have a crap list.
And you cant sack him now he is on the board.
Miller as football director has loaded our player list full of non starters like Meyer, and nobodies like JON, and now the talk is about 2011 thanks to this tool.
-
Its disingenuous to say you voted for the current board. You voted for Casey and Miller, ....
Haha! The old "I'm bitter so you're stupid" argument. ;D ;) The board election was more than 3 years ago. You need to get over it.
Casey got the 3rd highest number of votes, so more hands will be going up than not. Mine's up.
I took my vote seriously and considered my options. I considered what I thought was best for my club on the information and profiles available. That ended up being the whole Casey ticket and I'm comfortable with it.
I'll get it over it when we're playing finals mate.
Until then, a simple case of I told you so.
Stuck with Miller for life thanks to the conscientious masses lke yourself.
For those that voted for Casey and Miller, dont have a go at Holland. Because this is the way Casey did business.
-
For those that voted for Casey and Miller, dont have a go at Holland. Because this is the way Casey did business.
I haven't had a go at Holland. I don't know what happened, so how could I?
You seem to think you do.
Why don't you enlighten me with your actual facts of how Casey did business with Holland in this particular case?
You must know or you wouldn't be having a go at people who voted for Casey on the basis of Holland's claim.
Out of interest, what has Miller got to do with this? He wasn't even at the club when the meeting took place. ???
-
I voted against them because I didnt want Miller on the board because he is a dud, was a dud at North and nearly bankrupted them as interim CEO, and as our player development has shown since Miller, we have a crap list.
Only your opinion on Miller rather than fact. :sleep
I got one piece of good info out of that. I've always wondered who the 199 people that voted for Brian Dungey were. Only 198 more to go.
-
out of interest does anyone actually believe holland is talking the truth?
i mean it sounds like a bit of heresay which is very hard to prove i would've thought.
-
you know what I reckon
I reckon jack and dutchy have alot in common . :shh
-
Can't link the story but get a hold of Chip Le Grand's piece in the Saturday Oz.
After reading it you might as well close this thread.. Holland's claim is exactly what Frawley stated, an opportunity, never a promise or guarantee.
As the goal Umpire would say 'All Clear".
-
you know what I reckon
I reckon jack and dutchy have alot in common . :shh
How could you compare a disgruntled ex-employee/footballer with Jack ?
:rollin
You're really stretching reality there, Blaisee lol ;)
-
Can't link the story but get a hold of Chip Le Grand's piece in the Saturday Oz.
After reading it you might as well close this thread.. Holland's claim is exactly what Frawley stated, an opportunity, never a promise or guarantee.
As the goal Umpire would say 'All Clear".
Cheers Bateman :cheers. Here's the article ....
---------------------------
Dinner pitch key to lawsuit
By Chip Le Grand
April 05, 2008
BEN Holland makes an unlikely victim. For 13 years, he has played football for a living. He has been paid well. Some would say too well. Within football circles he is depicted as a mercenary more interested in the colour of money than the colours of his club.
Yet Holland says his lawsuit against the Richmond Football Club and former club president Clinton Casey is more about principle than money. Put simply, Holland claims Clinton made promises in the heat of contract negotiations he never kept.
"They have enticed me to stay by dangling a carrot and they haven't delivered the goods," Holland said. "People made promises and representations. I know for a fact I am not the only one out there that it has happened to. I have had calls from other players. Clubs have to be more accountable for what they say to entice players to stay."
When Holland was hot, there was nothing Richmond wouldn't say or do to keep him. Once he was shot, that commitment snapped as quickly as the cruciate ligament inside his left knee.
When Holland told Richmond on the eve of the 2001 trade period that he had accepted a $1.33 million offer to play for Adelaide for the next three years, such was coach Danny Frawley's volcanic reaction that Holland's manager, Greg Griffin, feared for his life.
Richmond could pay Holland no more than $800,000 over the same period, due to salary-cap restraints, but Frawley and Casey, in a desperate bid to keep him, made one last pitch during a dinner with Holland and his father, John, at a Japanese restaurant.
What was said at that dinner is now the subject of Holland versus Clinton Casey and the Richmond Football Club. A writ has been lodged before the Victorian Supreme Court. Casey and Richmond are waiting to be served. If the case proceeds to trial, it will come down to who to believe.
On October 6, 2001, four men shared a meal and struck a deal. Ben and John Holland swear certain promises were made. Richmond insists they were not.
The promises in question are documented in copious notes taken by the Holland family but not confirmed in writing by the club. They include an opportunity to buy land and shares. Holland further his podiatry business at aged care facilities operated by Casey. Casey would advise Holland's business interests and investments.
According to Holland, the message was clear: "It was, you are not going to be at a loss by staying at the Richmond Football Club. Clinton Casey is a very successful businessman and he can help you out with financial advice and business opportunities. He was going to be like a financial planner."
Whatever Casey said, Richmond got its man. By Monday morning, Holland re-signed. Adelaide football manager John Reid was flabbergasted. Mark Brayshaw, Richmond's then chief executive, heralded the triumph of loyalty over lucre.
Quipped Griffin: "You have got a player who suddenly takes $530,000 less as a consequence of a coffee at Koko's? It must have been a pretty good coffee."
All Holland received in addition to his agreed salary was $4000 in podiatry services. He claims he was never given the opportunity to buy a block of land in Casey's Sandhurst development or to buy shares. Nor was he ever "mentored" by Casey.
"I would have gone to Casey's office once a month demanding to get involved in these projects," Holland said. "They were always coming but never came through. Other players got parcels of land at Sandhurst. I wanted to get involved but it never eventuated. Nothing ever happened."
Had Holland stayed fit and played good football for the next three years, things might have worked out. Instead, his prospects altered dramatically at Subiaco Oval on April 21, 2002, when his left knee buckled in a marking contest.
"He missed the best part of 2002 and when he came back in 2003 it was pretty clear he wasn't a priority in the eyes of Richmond," Griffin said. "I think it was just a case of Casey and Richmond determining there were other players more worthy of being given the commercial opportunities Ben had been promised."
Holland was traded to Melbourne at the end of the 2003 season, since when, his grievance against Casey has been an open secret.
In 2004, he threatened Casey with legal action. That same year, then AFL football operations manager Andrew Demetriou quizzed Holland and Brayshaw on whether his contract with Richmond breached the salary cap. The case re-emerged on Thursday night, when the Nine Network's The Footy Show obtained a copy of Holland's writ. Griffin said the writ was lodged to keep the case within statutory time limits. Richmond and Casey won't be served until the end of this season, when Holland retires as an AFL player.
Richmond chief executive Steven Wright said the club would contest the claim.
"The preliminary advice we have received is they are without foundation and we will vigorously defend those allegations," he said.
It is not clear whether a successful lawsuit will have salary-cap implications for Richmond. Demetriou is concerned it might and has instructed football operations manager Adrian Anderson to investigate the claims. Griffin and Holland believe the undertakings given by Casey don't breach the salary cap.
"The AFL has been aware of the fact for a long time that various club presidents try to create business opportunities and financial opportunities for marquee players," Griffin said. "This has happened 100 times. The difference this time is it didn't happen."
Holland will win no friends at AFL House by pressing his claims. He also appears to have several holes in his case.
The first is the lack of written evidence. The Holland family notes, although detailed, were taken after the fact.
Richmond has found no record of a commercial commitment from Casey to Holland in its 2001 board minutes and Garry Cameron, the only current director serving then, has told president Gary March the issue was never discussed at board level.
In the absence of other documents, Griffin will lean heavily on a letter from Casey to Holland dated October 16, in which he makes non-specific promises to "identify business opportunities" for Holland.
The second hole the fact that Holland and Brayshaw, when questioned at the time about the contract by Demetriou, said that no deal had been struck outside the salary cap.
"When they left my office I thought this was a dead issue," Demetriou said on Melbourne Radio 3AW yesterday.
AFL investigator Ken Wood has subsequently completed an audit of property deals involving Richmond players. In all cases, the players paid market price for the land parcels in question.
The third hole the fact that Holland's case has been in limbo for the best part of four years, is, despite Griffin's explanation for the timing of the writ. Griffin tried to settle the case through correspondence with Casey in 2004, but no further action appears to have been taken until late last year.
Frawley, Brayshaw, Casey and almost the entire board have left the club in the intervening years.
Holland confirmed his meeting with Demetriou but insisted his claims were never properly examined by the AFL.
"Andrew was interested in third-party payments," he said. "The representations made by Richmond were more about investment opportunities and business opportunities."
He denied exhuming an old grievance against Casey.
"I am not just pushing this now. I have been pushing it from the moment Casey first made his representations. It has been there constantly for the past six years.
"It is not really against the Richmond Football Club. It is about the representations they made through Clinton Casey. I am still very fond of the footy club. I just want to hold them accountable for what they say."
http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,23488173-23211,00.html
-
you know what I reckon
I reckon jack and dutchy have alot in common . :shh
How could you compare a disgruntled ex-employee/footballer with Jack ?
:rollin
You're really stretching reality there, Blaisee lol ;)
I am not disgruntled at all. Moi , GET OVER IT!
Not my fault the RFC is what it is.
For what is worth, I voted for the current board and am now spewing that I did :chuck
If I knew what I know now, never in a ""milllion years "" would I have voted for them
-
Its disingenuous to say you voted for the current board. You voted for Casey and Miller, ....
Haha! The old "I'm bitter so you're stupid" argument. ;D ;) The board election was more than 3 years ago. You need to get over it.
Casey got the 3rd highest number of votes, so more hands will be going up than not. Mine's up.
I took my vote seriously and considered my options. I considered what I thought was best for my club on the information and profiles available. That ended up being the whole Casey ticket and I'm comfortable with it.
I'll get it over it when we're playing finals mate.
Until then, a simple case of I told you so.
Stuck with Miller for life thanks to the conscientious masses lke yourself.
For those that voted for Casey and Miller, dont have a go at Holland. Because this is the way Casey did business.
me and 1980 agreeing, wooooooo
Totally agree
-
i actually agree with Ben Holland , reckon he has case , knowing what goes on at footballl clubs
-
the key question is what is the appropriate response, the club deep down in there hearts would know what was agreed and they would know if Holland has a chance of winning his case. For mine, if the club believes that theres a chance we could lose this case and therefore suffer draft penalties and financial penalties on top from the AFL other than court damages, the club should be making plans of basically cutting back the list even of the senior players so the club can bring in 10 to 12 kids at the end of this year. From what I read Holland doesnt intend to serve the court papers until september anyway. In September and October we need to trade what we can picks.
-
i actually agree with Ben Holland , reckon he has case , knowing what goes on at footballl clubs
of course you do.
you have a lot in common ;)
-
For what is worth, I voted for the current board and am now spewing that I did :chuck
If I knew what I know now, never in a ""milllion years "" would I have voted for them
Like what?
-
have no hesitation in saying I voted for the Casey ticket as the alternative was... well it wasn't a credible alternative IMV
BTW The current board is the Casey ticket minus Casey ;D and they have done a great job in the last couple of years ... dare I say it ....FACT :rollin
Its a fact when there is a premiership cup in the cupboard. Not wooden spoons.
Its disingenuous to say you voted for the current board. You voted for Casey and Miller, both of whom are entirely discredited
Come on MT, put your hand up
Like WP I don't sway away from voting for the Casey ticket. Seriously the Big 4 ticket challenge or whatever it was called was a joke. They wanted to take us back to 1999 :help. I'm comfortable with my choice given the stability, long-term planning including improved and more facilities, and sound financial progress which hadn't existed at Punt Rd for 25 years prior to 2005. Sure this improved off-field position hasn't transferred to on-field yet but it was always going to be a long-haul going down the youth path from where we were.
And I did vote for the entire board. Although there were two 9 person tickets, we all could vote for individual candidates. 8 of those 9 are still there and Penny Haines >>> Casey. There's been no challenges (anyone would be silly challenging a $1 million profit).
Those who voted for the other ticket should also put their hand up for supporting Schwab and co who were also on the board along with Casey when these idiotic decisions were made.
Didnt Schwab and co resign from the board because idiotic decision were being made, were made by Casey without board approval?
Yes.
Casey was doing deals, running the club on his own, and ignoring the board. Deals like the one Holland is suing about.
I voted against them because I didnt want Miller on the board because he is a dud, was a dud at North and nearly bankrupted them as interim CEO, and as our player development has shown since Miller, we have a crap list.
And you cant sack him now he is on the board.
Miller as football director has loaded our player list full of non starters like Meyer, and nobodies like JON, and now the talk is about 2011 thanks to this tool.
That was their excuse but Schwab and Welsh were on the board for what 5 years. IIRC Schwab was in his 6th year. It doesn't take 5 years to figure out how someone else operates. They also were on the board that approved the large contract boosts for Holland and Gas at the end of 2001 so they aren't innocent either as far as poor decisions go or did they sit on the board doing nothing for 5 years. Then they ran. Glad them and Casey are all gone.
Miller could have been challenged for his spot on the board at the end of last year as his 3-year term was up. So he could have been tossed off. However nobody did challenge.
-
I felt that both tenures still misguidedly equated profit to on-field success. Sure Daphne made small profits and after Neville Crowe got us back in the black but the fear of SOS still lingered over the club in its decision making. An attitude of it's better off being mediocre than making the tough decisions and taking a hit for the long-term good (a la promising action yet doing nothing after the disaster of R22 1998 and then signing up Daffy, Richo, Knights and Cambo to $$$ long contracts in 1999 which came back to bite the club especially with Daffy). Off-field sure the JDF was set up but boosting expenditure in key areas like improving facilities and recruiting was kept to a minimum so we kept our heads above water. We were also a laughing stock going through 4 coaches in 5 years that only Spud wanted to coach us. Casey on the other hand did increase expenditure. Problem was with money we didn't have hoping spending more money on the (dud) footy dept would pay dividends as it did in 2001 when we made the finals (3 years and a $3m loss later it obviously didn't). We finally have a board and more importantly a CEO who can deliver profits independent of on-field results (and thank god for that) and can stick to a long-term objective.
Politically the alternative ticket had the front running but they stumbled about and were indecisive allowing Casey with Miller's help to eventually trump them. The threat of a EGM and a takeover (no election) was poorly managed as the average member wanted their say in an election (there hadn't been one in years except for Cornel Sanders losing out to Matthies in 2003). Their publications were too handwavey and lacking in detail on how they would achieve targets. I still have their brochure somewhere and the first paragraph was a glowing endorcement of the state of the club in 1999. IMO it was embarrassing. They spent too much time being anti-Casey talking about the past rather than just focussing on the future. The fact they lost what should have been an unloseable election is a sad indictment on how poorly they managed their campaign. I'm glad they didn't get anywhere near the boardroom. I'm not unhappy either that Casey stood down a year later.
Anyway that's now ancient history and we all want what's best for the club in the future. They main thing now is to see what happens with Holland's writ and hope we don't get screwed at the draft table :-\.
I'm not going to disagree with anything you said. The election was certainly poorly managed by the rebels and in hindsight the reason was most likely that they weren't any more capable than the incumbent board. But at least the action of forcing the issues into the open and holding the election brought Casey's shortcomings to the top for everyone to analyse. I think if I am honest with myself, the main reason I was so vehemently anti-Casey was the thought that if he remained in control for any longer (and I'm talking a short time) then we wouldn't have had a club left to support. And the election did force him to bring in new faces (Casey's attempts were nearly as amateurish as Schwab's - it was almost like 'rent-a-board') that eroded his powerbase, signalling the end of his 'reign'. Anyway, as you say, it's all history now but I felt I needed to respond when another poster suggested that no-one was prepared to stand up at the time - I most certainly did and thankfully my fears were largely proved unfounded.
:gotigers
Yep smokey whatever the cause the club was better off having an all position open election. The members finally got to have a say instead of the club being the plaything of an elite few while the rest of us and the club itself was screwed.
-
out of interest does anyone actually believe holland is talking the truth?
i mean it sounds like a bit of heresay which is very hard to prove i would've thought.
If there is any truth then Holland would be deregistered himself. Gives a reason why he didn't want this to come out until he finished AFL football.
Listening to Kennett earlier today he reckons a 10-20% discount on market rates is a fair enough transaction by a club but if it got out to 50% then it would be suss. Even if we are found innocent all this could cause the proverbial to hit the fan as all clubs offer things on the side. It's a very grey area. What exactly is an "opportunity" and what's a salary cap breach. Going by the media reports today, which most put us in the clear, the club will argue it offered Holland commerical opportunities which isn't a salry cap breach provided it's a realistic commerical transaction. Shares go up and down, land can also go down (although not over the past 5 years) and players are allowed to work.
The biggest news today is Adelaide saying the 1.33m statement is an exaggeration and they are not going to go back over the past. So where does that leave Holland's claims? Did Adelaide promise something they couldn't deliver like we found out later Freo did with Gas.
-
Miller could have been challenged for his spot on the board at the end of last year as his 3-year term was up. So he could have been tossed off. However nobody did challenge.
True - but it doesn't make it right - nobody wants to call it now because it would be disruptive and basically put Miller in an untenable position.
-
i actually agree with Ben Holland , reckon he has case , knowing what goes on at footballl clubs
of course you do.
you have a lot in common ;)
You wouldnt know, pointless arguing with an imbecile like you Blaisee
-
I dont think that Holland has a leg to stand on in this case.
There is no written confirmation of what is alleged to have taken place, no doubting that it probably did but i think Holland has been screwed by Casey. He wouldnt be the first and wont be the last. Its his fault for not involving his manager.
Bend over and take it where the sun dont shine Benny Boy :lol
-
the timing of holland leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.
its just came at a time when his career is all but over.
he needs to understand that every club does it but he is the idiot who doesn't have the proof in writing.
he is a tool in my book, stuff him
yeah casey said this case said that. well show us the proof.
-
I voted against them because I didnt want Miller on the board because he is a dud, was a dud at North and nearly bankrupted them as interim CEO, and as our player development has shown since Miller, we have a crap list.
Only your opinion on Miller rather than fact. :sleep
I got one piece of good info out of that. I've always wondered who the 199 people that voted for Brian Dungey were. Only 198 more to go.
Wouldnt matter to you if Ronald McDonald was running the club. You're an apologist no matter how many wooden spoons we rack up.
You said the same apologies for Danny Frawley that you now make for Miller. You prpbaly still think he was a good bloke that didnt deserve to ger sacked
If it were just my opinion Miller is a dud, why has March reduced his responsibilities?
Because our list hasnt developed on par with other clubs under Miller's tenure.
Voting for him was a disaster. At least the nobodies would not have meddled in player recriuitment and development.
-
For what is worth, I voted for the current board and am now spewing that I did :chuck
If I knew what I know now, never in a ""milllion years "" would I have voted for them
Like what?
Like Hawthorn are a top 4 side and may play in a GF this year.
Is that not enough for you?
Or are you happy with the current timeline of your grandkids watching the next Richmond premiership?
-
have no hesitation in saying I voted for the Casey ticket as the alternative was... well it wasn't a credible alternative IMV
BTW The current board is the Casey ticket minus Casey ;D and they have done a great job in the last couple of years ... dare I say it ....FACT :rollin
Its a fact when there is a premiership cup in the cupboard. Not wooden spoons.
Its disingenuous to say you voted for the current board. You voted for Casey and Miller, both of whom are entirely discredited
Come on MT, put your hand up
Like WP I don't sway away from voting for the Casey ticket. Seriously the Big 4 ticket challenge or whatever it was called was a joke. They wanted to take us back to 1999 :help. I'm comfortable with my choice given the stability, long-term planning including improved and more facilities, and sound financial progress which hadn't existed at Punt Rd for 25 years prior to 2005. Sure this improved off-field position hasn't transferred to on-field yet but it was always going to be a long-haul going down the youth path from where we were.
And I did vote for the entire board. Although there were two 9 person tickets, we all could vote for individual candidates. 8 of those 9 are still there and Penny Haines >>> Casey. There's been no challenges (anyone would be silly challenging a $1 million profit).
Those who voted for the other ticket should also put their hand up for supporting Schwab and co who were also on the board along with Casey when these idiotic decisions were made.
Didnt Schwab and co resign from the board because idiotic decision were being made, were made by Casey without board approval?
Yes.
Casey was doing deals, running the club on his own, and ignoring the board. Deals like the one Holland is suing about.
I voted against them because I didnt want Miller on the board because he is a dud, was a dud at North and nearly bankrupted them as interim CEO, and as our player development has shown since Miller, we have a crap list.
And you cant sack him now he is on the board.
Miller as football director has loaded our player list full of non starters like Meyer, and nobodies like JON, and now the talk is about 2011 thanks to this tool.
That was their excuse but Schwab and Welsh were on the board for what 5 years. IIRC Schwab was in his 6th year. It doesn't take 5 years to figure out how someone else operates. They also were on the board that approved the large contract boosts for Holland and Gas at the end of 2001 so they aren't innocent either as far as poor decisions go or did they sit on the board doing nothing for 5 years. Then they ran. Glad them and Casey are all gone.
Miller could have been challenged for his spot on the board at the end of last year as his 3-year term was up. So he could have been tossed off. However nobody did challenge.
Yep. A good thing that they're all gone.
Except for Miller. And he needs to be called on setting us backwards in the footy dept.
Surely by now its accepted even on this board that at best he is not the savior everyone thought he'd be, and at worst he set the club list back even further in that all of a sudden JON and Meyer will have us playing good footy in 2011
-
i actually agree with Ben Holland , reckon he has case , knowing what goes on at footballl clubs
of course you do.
you have a lot in common ;)
You wouldnt know, pointless arguing with an imbecile like you Blaisee
imbecile?
At least I am not a deadset liar. :thumbsup
-
Holland's cautionary tale
Caroline Wilson | April 6, 2008 | The Age
BEN Holland, in the words of his manager, is a player spurned. In the eyes of some members of the media, he could prove the missing link to alleged subtle and systematic salary-cap cheating at Richmond during Clinton Casey's presidency.
But on all of the evidence presented to date, surely there is also a very strong case arguing that Ben Holland is a bitter footballer nearing the end of his career and demanding money for next to nothing?
Holland has presented himself as a cautionary tale. Having sued his former president Casey and former club Richmond for $530,000, his case should send a warning not to footballers who settle for significantly less money to stay at their club but instead to players who believe they will succeed in business or anything involving finances simply because they are a footballer.
Casey clearly made undertakings to Holland. According to the player, he was "going to be like a financial planner". You would hope for Holland's sake that the notes he took after that coffee at Koko restaurant at Crown and the subsequent letter Casey sent him provided more concrete monetary promises than that.
Richmond, as it turns out, could have been a frontrunner among AFL clubs in making available share and property packages, some which have proved successful for players and some which have not. But the AFL investigated those deals and cleared them, just as they have cleared Chris Judd's third-party deal with Carlton president Dick Pratt.
Remember when Tony Lockett retired and believed he had been promised a massive lump of retirement money from the AFL as part of his Sydney contract? And then when the AFL actually demanded he do some significant ambassadorial work for the money, Lockett spat the dummy and became bitter and twisted with the game?
It is true that Holland was promised podiatry opportunities via Casey but that they never amounted to much does not seem to be Casey's fault. The player worked briefly as a podiatrist in one of Casey's aged-care facilities but it was not a job he was keen to continue, given that he worked for a brief period of time, earning only $4000.
In fact, it is staggering to believe that Holland has chosen to say some embarrassing things. He was quoted in The Australian yesterday bleating: "Other players got parcels of land at Sandhurst. I wanted to get involved but it never eventuated. Nothing ever happened."
Our memory of those land sales is that plenty of potential buyers, including some Richmond players and officials, turned up on the day they became available and purchased accordingly. Did Holland expect his financial mentor Casey would drive him there or even buy the land for him with Casey's cash?
Certainly, if Casey promised the latter, then both he and Richmond are in a great deal of trouble. But the AFL, the players' association and Griffin all deny a salary cap issue at this stage.
No, this ageing player's story reeks of yet another footballer who has failed to take responsibility for bad decisions, injury and his subsequent struggles with form.
If the basis of Holland's case is as it appears — that Casey promised to identify business opportunities and did not — then his claim looms as a tough one to prove because it takes two to tango.
Hopefully, for Holland's sake, he is not simply another player, despite all of the off-field opportunities provided nowadays from the players' union via the AFL, who struggles to pay his own bills.
Holland's gripe from this recent passage of football history offers a cautionary lesson, too, for all clubs and specifically Richmond — not that the Tigers need to be told again — about the mistakes a club can make when it believes it is on the brink of greatness.
Richmond finished third in 2001 but was smashed by both grand finalists Essendon and Brisbane Lions during September, particularly in the midfield at the Gabba. Rather than concede it had gone as far as it could with that group of players, it took short cuts, picking up the likes of Paul Hudson and Greg Stafford — albeit in exchange for Nick Daffy and some cash.
One reason Ben Holland never made it to Adelaide is because the Kane Johnson trade — where Richmond was to receive Johnson a year earlier than it eventually did along with at least one draft pick — fell through when Johnson significantly lifted his price at the death-knell. So Holland would have had to place himself at the mercy of the pre-season draft.
Brendon Gale, who will now try to resolve his old teammate's issue via the association's grievance procedure, left the Tigers in some bitterness because the money going to players like Holland had squeezed him out financially. Paul Broderick also retired that year.
Gale's bitterness was short-lived but the loss of those two club leaders was another nail in the coaching career of Danny Frawley and the leadership at Richmond has never truly recovered.
And Gale? He is just another in a long list of Tigers who remains a successful player in the football world but no longer at Tigerland.
Richmond looks likely to survive allegations of salary-cap rorting but it would do well to take some extra wisdom from this unsavoury story.
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/hollands-cautionary-tale/2008/04/05/1207249552448.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
-
I voted against them because I didnt want Miller on the board because he is a dud, was a dud at North and nearly bankrupted them as interim CEO, and as our player development has shown since Miller, we have a crap list.
Only your opinion on Miller rather than fact. :sleep
I got one piece of good info out of that. I've always wondered who the 199 people that voted for Brian Dungey were. Only 198 more to go.
Wouldnt matter to you if Ronald McDonald was running the club.
On the contrary, it seems it wouldn't matter to you if Ronald McDonald was running the club when you'd vote for Brian Dungey over the likes of Rob Dalton and Maurice O'Shannassy with the profile information available at the time. And just because you don't like Greg Miller.
-
For what is worth, I voted for the current board and am now spewing that I did :chuck
If I knew what I know now, never in a ""milllion years "" would I have voted for them
Like what?
Like Hawthorn are a top 4 side and may play in a GF this year.
Is that not enough for you?
Or are you happy with the current timeline of your grandkids watching the next Richmond premiership?
You must be confused.
The Richmond board have nothing to do with Hawthorn and you're not Jackstar. :)
Jackstar, I'm interested in finding out what you know now that makes you regret voting for the current board.
-
For what is worth, I voted for the current board and am now spewing that I did :chuck
If I knew what I know now, never in a ""milllion years "" would I have voted for them
Like what?
Like Hawthorn are a top 4 side and may play in a GF this year.
Is that not enough for you?
Or are you happy with the current timeline of your grandkids watching the next Richmond premiership?
You must be confused.
The Richmond board have nothing to do with Hawthorn and you're not Jackstar. :)
Jackstar, I'm interested in finding out what you know now that makes you regret voting for the current board.
Point 1/ couldnt see the point leaving Frawley go on for so long, as he did . bad move, stability ? CRAP
Point 2/ Amazed that they have given Wallace a 5 year contract on what ?? Terry has turned the club to a "" mates " club. How on earth do you explain Wayne Johnston getting the job as the runner, seriously :banghead Monkhurst over Steve Alessio ?? Steve was there for 3 years and got moved sideways for Monkey, please. Its no secret that Wallet and Monkey are good friend outside footy. Jim Jess put his hand up to help out at Punt road, Wallet still hasnt returned his call, FACT.
Point 3/ At least the alternative ticket at the time had "" footy people"" involved. Unfortunately the current board tookm advice from Greg Miller on football matters. Wouldnt think the rest of the board would have much idea on whats going on "" footy wise "" Especially when are long serving board member stated last week that we had WON 3 of our last 5 games, he was including the practice matches against Melb and Swans, I peeed my self, could this bloke be for real :banghead
Point 4/ The recuiting over the past 3 years has been extremely poor, I am sick and tired of posters on here sticking up for the club as saying , oh they will get better as the get older, they must not watch other clubs as all clubs introduce first year players who do have immmediate impact, If Miller has anything to do with the recuiting at RFC, we are in trouble, he hasnt got much idea I am afraid. he hangs his hat on Wayne Carey, big deal. Hawks recuiting has been excellent.
We recuit a dual Under 18,s best and fairest who are senior coach cannnot get tom play well, goes to Port and guess what :banghead
Point 5. There is an unhealthy friendship between current President and Coach. I dont think that you would see the president giving the coach advice at half time during a game at any other club, yes, it has happened. Would think if Wallet goes, march goes as well, Way too friendly for my liking
-
Jackstar, I'm interested in finding out what you know now that makes you regret voting for the current board.
Point 1/ couldnt see the point leaving Frawley go on for so long, as he did . bad move, stability ? CRAP
Point 2/ Amazed that they have given Wallace a 5 year contract on what ?? Terry has turned the club to a "" mates " club. How on earth do you explain Wayne Johnston getting the job as the runner, seriously :banghead Monkhurst over Steve Alessio ?? Steve was there for 3 years and got moved sideways for Monkey, please. Its no secret that Wallet and Monkey are good friend outside footy. Jim Jess put his hand up to help out at Punt road, Wallet still hasnt returned his call, FACT.
Point 3/ At least the alternative ticket at the time had "" footy people"" involved. Unfortunately the current board tookm advice from Greg Miller on football matters. Wouldnt think the rest of the board would have much idea on whats going on "" footy wise "" Especially when are long serving board member stated last week that we had WON 3 of our last 5 games, he was including the practice matches against Melb and Swans, I peeed my self, could this bloke be for real :banghead
Point 4/ The recuiting over the past 3 years has been extremely poor, I am sick and tired of posters on here sticking up for the club as saying , oh they will get better as the get older, they must not watch other clubs as all clubs introduce first year players who do have immmediate impact, If Miller has anything to do with the recuiting at RFC, we are in trouble, he hasnt got much idea I am afraid. he hangs his hat on Wayne Carey, big deal. Hawks recuiting has been excellent.
We recuit a dual Under 18,s best and fairest who are senior coach cannnot get tom play well, goes to Port and guess what :banghead
Point 5. There is an unhealthy friendship between current President and Coach. I dont think that you would see the president giving the coach advice at half time during a game at any other club, yes, it has happened. Would think if Wallet goes, march goes as well, Way too friendly for my liking
Point 1 - You knew about this before you voted for the current board, not since. ???
Frawley was gone.
Point 2 - You knew about this before you voted for the current board, not since. ???
Wallace already was hired for 5 years.
Point 3 - You knew about this before you voted for the current board, not since. ???
It was clear who was running for each ticket.
Point 4 - You knew Miller was involved in recruiting and the football department when you voted. ???
It was all the talk at the time.
Yep, his actual recruiting in the last 3 years wasn't known then. :) Fair enough if that is a reason. Not that I agree.
Point 5 - Yep, that's something you didn't know then that you do now. :)
Only your opinion that there is an unhealthy friendship between the coach and president but fair enough if that is a reason.
So, that covers what you now know about Miller's recruiting and March's relationship with Wallace since voting the whole board.
What about the others? Would you have not voted for them now you know this?
Does the financial turnaround of the club since the election come in for your consideration anywhere in your spewing about voting for the current board?
-
Its wasnt as transparent then as it is now.
Miller has been involved for how many years.?
If the new board did get in, there was a clause Re Wallet ,might find in regards to current contract?
Also the current board s blinded due to the Miller factor.
The longer Miller is there the more cracks apppear I am afraid.
As for the relationship between , Coach and President, wouldnt see Jeff Kennett or Frank Costa in the rooms at half time talking to the coach ,would you ? WTF
-
i actually agree with Ben Holland , reckon he has case , knowing what goes on at footballl clubs
of course you do.
you have a lot in common ;)
You wouldnt know, pointless arguing with an imbecile like you Blaisee
imbecile?
At least I am not a deadset liar. :thumbsup
Well I arent either, Glad to see you have admitted your an imbecile. I hope the mediaction and treatments have some positive affect on your illness there Blaisee. Lets hope you can get to attend a few games later on in the year. All the best and get well soon you imbecile. :thumbsup
-
Like what?
[/quote]
Like Hawthorn are a top 4 side and may play in a GF this year.
Is that not enough for you?
Or are you happy with the current timeline of your grandkids watching the next Richmond premiership?
[/quote]
How on earth do you explain Wayne Johnston getting the job as the runner, seriously :banghead Monkhurst over Steve Alessio ?? Steve was there for 3 years and got moved sideways for Monkey, please. Its no secret that Wallet and Monkey are good friend outside footy. Jim Jess put his hand up to help out at Punt road, Wallet still hasnt returned his call, FACT.
Point 4/ The recuiting over the past 3 years has been extremely poor, I am sick and tired of posters on here sticking up for the club as saying , oh they will get better as the get older, they must not watch other clubs as all clubs introduce first year players who do have immmediate impact, If Miller has anything to do with the recuiting at RFC, we are in trouble, he hasnt got much idea I am afraid. he hangs his hat on Wayne Carey, big deal. Hawks recuiting has been excellent.
We recuit a dual Under 18,s best and fairest who are senior coach cannnot get tom play well, goes to Port and guess what :banghead
very interesting points jack. so true my friend.
if u had to judge us on our recruiting, you say its been nothing short of pathetic. i see only one superstar and one really good player in the making.
foley and king.
lids was a given at pick 1 so i wont include him and tambling. look im sorry i dont see it yet. ill decide in 6 months time.
the rest i see sugar as a waste of time, tuck as average, raines as below average. reiwvoldt i see as a mistake. JON i wont even bother commenting cause its a waste of my time. meyer. list goes on.
just once i want to see us pick up a defender at pick 70 who turns out to be a gun. every other team seems to find them while we seem to find all the duds.
it just baffles me how some of u on here actually defend miller.
miller is poo. what has he found for us. ill tell u nothing!!
ill be so glad to get rid of this tool who has brought this club to the bottom again
-
Jackstar, I'm interested in finding out what you know now that makes you regret voting for the current board.
Point 1/ couldnt see the point leaving Frawley go on for so long, as he did . bad move, stability ? CRAP
Point 2/ Amazed that they have given Wallace a 5 year contract on what ?? Terry has turned the club to a "" mates " club. How on earth do you explain Wayne Johnston getting the job as the runner, seriously :banghead Monkhurst over Steve Alessio ?? Steve was there for 3 years and got moved sideways for Monkey, please. Its no secret that Wallet and Monkey are good friend outside footy. Jim Jess put his hand up to help out at Punt road, Wallet still hasnt returned his call, FACT.
Point 3/ At least the alternative ticket at the time had "" footy people"" involved. Unfortunately the current board tookm advice from Greg Miller on football matters. Wouldnt think the rest of the board would have much idea on whats going on "" footy wise "" Especially when are long serving board member stated last week that we had WON 3 of our last 5 games, he was including the practice matches against Melb and Swans, I peeed my self, could this bloke be for real :banghead
Point 4/ The recuiting over the past 3 years has been extremely poor, I am sick and tired of posters on here sticking up for the club as saying , oh they will get better as the get older, they must not watch other clubs as all clubs introduce first year players who do have immmediate impact, If Miller has anything to do with the recuiting at RFC, we are in trouble, he hasnt got much idea I am afraid. he hangs his hat on Wayne Carey, big deal. Hawks recuiting has been excellent.
We recuit a dual Under 18,s best and fairest who are senior coach cannnot get tom play well, goes to Port and guess what :banghead
Point 5. There is an unhealthy friendship between current President and Coach. I dont think that you would see the president giving the coach advice at half time during a game at any other club, yes, it has happened. Would think if Wallet goes, march goes as well, Way too friendly for my liking
Point 1 - You knew about this before you voted for the current board, not since. ???
Frawley was gone.
Point 2 - You knew about this before you voted for the current board, not since. ???
Wallace already was hired for 5 years.
Point 3 - You knew about this before you voted for the current board, not since. ???
It was clear who was running for each ticket.
Point 4 - You knew Miller was involved in recruiting and the football department when you voted. ???
It was all the talk at the time.
Yep, his actual recruiting in the last 3 years wasn't known then. :) Fair enough if that is a reason. Not that I agree.
Point 5 - Yep, that's something you didn't know then that you do now. :)
Only your opinion that there is an unhealthy friendship between the coach and president but fair enough if that is a reason.
So, that covers what you now know about Miller's recruiting and March's relationship with Wallace since voting the whole board.
What about the others? Would you have not voted for them now you know this?
Does the financial turnaround of the club since the election come in for your consideration anywhere in your spewing about voting for the current board?
Your better off Private messaging me.
Not going to post on here, takes too long and I am willing to tell you everything :thumbsup
-
I voted against them because I didnt want Miller on the board because he is a dud, was a dud at North and nearly bankrupted them as interim CEO, and as our player development has shown since Miller, we have a crap list.
Only your opinion on Miller rather than fact. :sleep
I got one piece of good info out of that. I've always wondered who the 199 people that voted for Brian Dungey were. Only 198 more to go.
Wouldnt matter to you if Ronald McDonald was running the club. You're an apologist no matter how many wooden spoons we rack up.
Close, it was Ranald McDonald and it was the 'New Magpies' in the mid 1980's. ;D
-
'Investment' deals not smart practice
Thomas Arup | April 6, 2008 | The Age
TOP player manager Dan Richardson would have advised Ben Holland differently if the former Tiger had been his client in the wake of revelations Holland had sued his former club.
Richardson, who works for Elite Sports Properties, tells his clients not to accept any contract offers where investment opportunities are part of a package, he said yesterday.
And AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson told The Sunday Age the league had no objections to investment deals being included in contract negotiations, as long as they were declared within the salary cap.
Holland is suing former Richmond president Clinton Casey and the Richmond Football Club for $530,000 over "investment opportunities" — the amount being the difference between Richmond's three-year offer and one he says was offered by Adelaide.
Richardson said players, like private citizens, should be free to make commercial investments but the practice became a grey area when part of contract negotiations.
"It is not something that I've experienced very often …" he said.
"It is certainly not an area that we would advise players they should go near … As a general rule, players are paid a salary … Why on earth you would accept a lower salary based on the return of an investment somewhere else down the track, I don't know."
According to the writ lodged in the Supreme Court last year, the "opportunities" included the offer to purchase land in a Sandhurst property development before it went on the market, a share portfolio that "was expected to rise in value" but didn't and work as a podiatrist — Holland is a qualified podiatrist — in Casey's aged-care homes.
Holland, now with Melbourne, was quoted in The Australian newspaper on Friday saying he felt a "carrot was dangled" in his face to keep playing at Richmond and he felt cheated by Casey's promises.
"People make promises and representations. I know for a fact I am not the only one out there that it has happened to. I have had calls from other players. Clubs have to be more accountable for what they say to entice players to stay," Holland said.
Anderson said yesterday that an audit of all player investments was underway by AFL investigations manager Ken Wood.
"The main concern is that we have is to ensure players aren't being paid outside the salary cap. The salary cap is fundamental to the evenness of the competition," he said.
"What we want to make sure is that the salary cap is not being defeated by payments which are disguised as investments."
AFL Players Association president Brendon Gale refused to comment on the specifics of the Holland case but said yesterday: "I think it is very important from an administrative point of view, I think it is very important for a club, I think it is very important for players that if promises are made or undertakings are given, whether that is clubs or players or other people, that people and parties are accountable for those."
Expert advice indicates that if there are to be recriminations against Richmond for salary-cap breaches and for Holland to successfully claim the $530,000 sum that he says is owing, he must prove:
■That Casey made promises that the investments would increase in value and help to bridge the difference between the Richmond and Adelaide offers, and
■That the value of the "opportunities" was below normal commercial rates and not declared in the salary cap.
In 2004, Holland and Mark Brayshaw, then Richmond chief executive, met Andrew Demetriou, then AFL football operations manager, to discuss any salary-cap implications of the deal. Holland and Brayshaw told Demetriou they believed the deal did not breach salary-cap regulations and Demetriou believed the matter was closed, he said on radio on Friday.
Later, an investigation by Ken Cross found that the property Casey offered to other Richmond players at the time was sold at market value.
Holland said in a statement on Friday he hoped the claim could be settled through the players' association grievance tribunal. That process would require the voluntary involvement of Casey.
Casey is out of the country and could not be reached for comment.
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/investment-deals-not-smart-practice/2008/04/05/1207249552445.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
-
Does the financial turnaround of the club since the election come in for your consideration anywhere in your spewing about voting for the current board?
That reminds me of the old doctor joke
"The operation was a success but unfortunately the patient died"
-
Does the financial turnaround of the club since the election come in for your consideration anywhere in your spewing about voting for the current board?
That reminds me of the old doctor joke
"The operation was a success but unfortunately the patient died"
Best comment I have read for ages,
-
I voted against them because I didnt want Miller on the board because he is a dud, was a dud at North and nearly bankrupted them as interim CEO, and as our player development has shown since Miller, we have a crap list.
Only your opinion on Miller rather than fact. :sleep
I got one piece of good info out of that. I've always wondered who the 199 people that voted for Brian Dungey were. Only 198 more to go.
Wouldnt matter to you if Ronald McDonald was running the club.
On the contrary, it seems it wouldn't matter to you if Ronald McDonald was running the club when you'd vote for Brian Dungey over the likes of Rob Dalton and Maurice O'Shannassy with the profile information available at the time. And just because you don't like Greg Miller.
Because Miller was the deciding factor.
When the vote was going against Casey, Miller joined his ticket.
Because Miller doing this got Casey up.
Because Miller joined the Casey ticket because he was given similar "investment" opps to Holland. Torquay is on the public record.
Didnt Casey also give Miller the merchandising deal at RFC? Another side deal between Casey and Miller. How many side deals did these guys have?
Miller works for himself. I would have voted for you before giving that greedy ___ the keys to the club.
Which is exactly what you did, and which excatly why we are where we are now.
Struggling in Wallace's 4th year as coach with a list that wont ever make it to a final
-
1980 I like your post.
You post is correct.
Miller does own the company that supplies the merchandise for the membership packages.
He was given a similar investment.
Also Boost Juice stores with players as well ;)
-
Miller does own the company that supplies the merchandise for the membership packages.
First up you out of date in 2008 Jack - they went through a different company this year
2ndly, he doesn't own the company you speak of he has a minor stake in it. All fully declared as per ASIC law in the clubs annual accounts ::) FACT
It is important to get the FACTS right ;D
-
Miller does own the company that supplies the merchandise for the membership packages.
First up you out of date in 2008 Jack - they went through a different company this year
2ndly, he doesn't own the company you speak of he has a minor stake in it. All fully declared as per ASIC law in the clubs annual accounts ::) FACT
It is important to get the FACTS right ;D
Well we are clutching at straws arent we? Obviously somebody "'kicked up"" about he supplying the merchandise for a number of years.
And to be a part or minor stake holder still means he gained profit from this. FACTS are the he made some sort of profit out of this.
Facts are that if the ""alternative ticket "ever got in, Miller was the first backside out the door.. I wonder why
-
Well we are clutching at straws arent we? Obviously somebody "'kicked up"" about he supplying the merchandise for a number of years.
Facts are Jack if you are going to make sweeping statements claiming they are based on facts - you need to make sure the facts you are quoting are correct. So know I was not clutching at straws I was just stating facts.
How it is obvious that someone "kicked up" about the previous arrangement? Got any fact to back this up or are you just summising?
Facts are that if the ""alternative ticket "ever got in, Miller was the first backside out the door.. I wonder why
Facts are they didn't get in so it is a mute point now some 4 years later.
-
FACTS are its a conflict of interest anyway.
Dont worry, he wont be there at years end.
Its a joke he is on the board I might add. ::)
-
Miller does own the company that supplies the merchandise for the membership packages.
First up you out of date in 2008 Jack - they went through a different company this year
2ndly, he doesn't own the company you speak of he has a minor stake in it. All fully declared as per ASIC law in the clubs annual accounts ::) FACT
It is important to get the FACTS right ;D
They went through Miller's company in the year of the election, and that's the relevant year for this discussion.
When Miller was appointed, we all thought it very clever that his income was supplemented by Casey side deals to make up the difference.
Ben Holland style.
The merchandising contract was just one.
Lucky for us because Miller has done such fantastic work in player recruitment and list management. Look how well our list is going.
While we've been waiting for Miller to turn us into the dual premiership North he claims credit for, the Hawks, Dogs, Roos and everyone else bar Carlton has gone years ahead of us.
So maybe the voting choices werent great, but here's how this one turned out. It cabn soon be argued that we are not better off in wallace's 4th year than we were in Frawleys 4th.
WTF has gone wrong!!!! Who is responsible if its not the Miller elected to the board
-
Only one thing I disagree with on that - are we ahead of Carlton?
Who do we have to compare with Judd, Stevens, Murphy, Fevola, Gibbs and now Kruezer?
-
Only one thing I disagree with on that - are we ahead of Carlton?
Who do we have to compare with Judd, Stevens, Murphy, Fevola, Gibbs and now Kruezer?
not for long mate they are streets ahead of us.
what about carazzo, thornton, waite. forgot about them have u
miller is a dead man walking. if he doesnt get the chop expect the spoon 2 more yrs in a row
-
According to FC, Clinton Casey is back in Oz and was quoted tonight as saying he is disappointed with Holland. Holland didn't take up opportunites himself available to him and Casey met with Demetriou and the AFL at the time and all opportunities were at the players own risk and ticked off by the AFL.
-
of course he would say that cause he aint going to say he reneged on a promise cause the AFL will have us for breach
-
of course he would say that cause he aint going to say he reneged on a promise cause the AFL will have us for breach
True TM. I just posted what was said. The way the media have gone off the story makes me think the club is in the clear. Who would have thought Caro would be defending Casey lol.
-
haha mate played what wringles caro said on the phone to me say Holland was a useless footballer :rollin :rollin
she whines at anyone who opens there mouth about her she can talk Ooops l better be careful she reads this stuff :shh :lol ;D
-
Family support
Carley Jellett | April 16, 2008 | The Age
NICK Holland yesterday spoke in support of his brother, Ben, who is involved in a Supreme Court battle with former club Richmond and its former president, Clinton Casey, over alleged unpaid entitlements and investment opportunities.
"I am certainly there at the moment supporting him. The good thing is he's got the support of the AFL Players Association now," he said. "It looks like it is heading towards the grievance council … (it) shows how good the AFL Players Association has become for the players."
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/family-support--the-hollands/2008/04/15/1208025192826.html
-
This was mentioned again in the Herald-Sun today
Ben Holland declared fit, but reluctant to play
Mark Stevens | July 17, 2008
BEN Holland has not appeared on Melbourne's injury list for several weeks, but he isn't playing either.
It is becoming increasingly obvious the veteran has played his last AFL game
.....
News broke in April that Holland was suing the Tigers and former president Clinton Casey for $530,000 in loss and damages.
He issued a Supreme Court writ in which he claimed he was promised a range of business and investment opportunities that he never received.
Holland alleged he and Casey had a verbal agreement that he would benefit from the deals as an incentive to keep him at Punt Rd.
Complete article at:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,24032132-19742,00.html
-
Family support
Carley Jellett | April 16, 2008 | The Age
NICK Holland yesterday spoke in support of his brother, Ben, who is involved in a Supreme Court battle with former club Richmond and its former president, Clinton Casey, over alleged unpaid entitlements and investment opportunities.
"I am certainly there at the moment supporting him. The good thing is he's got the support of the AFL Players Association now," he said. "It looks like it is heading towards the grievance council … (it) shows how good the AFL Players Association has become for the players."
Nick Holland was asked about what's the latest on Ben Holland's case against Richmond on SEN today by a caller. He said it's still before the grievance council and undergoing mediation.
-
This guy is a leech...
-
Lol @ he is gunna get jack - what a loser
-
Tigers' court date looms for Ben Holland
Sunday Herald Sun
James Campbell
October 19, 2008
RICHMOND Football Club and its former president, Clinton Casey, face the Supreme Court after negotiations broke down in a case brought by former Tiger Ben Holland.
The former Richmond and Melbourne player, who retired at the end of this season, is suing the Tigers and Mr Casey for $530,000 - money he claims they offered him to stay at the club but never paid.
Holland began proceedings in the Supreme Court in October 2007, but the case was on hold while the AFL Players' Association tried to resolve the dispute.
Papers were finally delivered on Friday October 3 -- the last day allowed under the Supreme Court's rules.
"Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of AFL Players' Association we were unable to resolve the dispute," Holland's lawyer Greg Griffin said.
Holland has alleged in court documents that in 2001 Mr Casey promised him "business and investment opportunities" worth $530,000 -- the difference between the $800,000 Richmond was offering him for a three-year contract and the $1.3 million that Adelaide had offered him to move to their club.
Holland re-signed with Richmond in 2001, but in 2003 the club traded him to Melbourne.
The case could be bad for Richmond because the money Holland is alleging he was promised was outside the AFL's salary cap rules.
Club spokeswoman Judith Donnelly said they would "vigorously contest the allegations".
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24516451-11088,00.html
-
Lol @ he is gunna get jack - what a loser
How can you be so sure???
i cant stand him and his brother either. you should hear him defending his hack of a brother on sen.
Loser
-
a promise isn't even worth the air it floats away on......
stuff u Dutchie u fu cken dud.
-
This guy is a leech...
He couldn't make it as a true footballer. So now he's doing his best to make money for nothing and drag someone down with him.
A typical South Australian. I have met heap and quite a few whinge at the drop of a hat. But not all of them.
-
Lol @ he is gunna get jack - what a loser
How can you be so sure???
i cant stand him and his brother either. you should hear him defending his hack of a brother on sen.
Loser
Caro was pretty definite that Holland has no case. He didn't make any effort himself to take up real estate opportunities so only has himself to blame IIRC.
-
Can anyone confirm if this fiasco has been settled. Rumour has it he got $50,000 from us and that its been signed of by the AFL ie. In terms of salary cap breaches. If that is the case then I think this is a good result for us, 50k isnt gonna wreck our club, and we get of on any salary cap issues as well. Anyway confirmation would be good.
-
Hopefully it's a $50,000 gold dildo inserted in just the right place.
(Did I just say that? Was that me? :-[ )
-
Hopefully it's a $50,000 gold dildo inserted in just the right place.
(Did I just say that? Was that me? :-[ )
:ROTFL LOL RROFO couldn't have said it any better myself
-
yes confirmed in today's paper - the Hun page 10 of the sports liftout - Hutchies Column. Quotes Gary march confirming it's been settled (before Xmas) and that it cost the tigers $50k
excellent result for the Club :clapping
-
id like to think that CC may cover this off...seeing he was at the wheel of all this melodrama ::)
-
id like to think that CC may cover this off...seeing he was at the wheel of all this melodrama ::)
Well the article does say that the $50k is the RFC component and that the total settlement is supposedly a 3 figure sum - CC is mentioned and the way I read it he is the main payer
-
Here's the full article (it's not on the web so I typed it out)
-------------------------
Holland row settled
By CRAIG HUTCHISON
Edition 1 - FIRST SUN 11 JAN 2009, Page S10
* RICHMOND and former president Clinton Casey have avoided a potential court battle, settling their legal dispute with former forward Ben Holland.
Holland, 31, has received what is believed to be a six-figure out-of-court settlement from the Tigers and their former president.
It's understood the club brokered a settlement after mediation and has forked out as little as $50,000 to end the dispute
The AFL also signed off on the settlement to avoid any salary cap ramifications.
Tigers president Gary March this week confirmed the matter had been finalised.
``We're very pleased we can put it behind us and all move forward,'' March said.
The dispute spilled over when Holland began proceedings to sue the Tigers and Casey through the Supreme Court in October 2007, claiming he was owed more than half a million dollars.
He claimed that in 2001 Casey promised him $530,000 in business and investment opportunities if he stayed with the Tigers instead of accepting from Adelaide.
The amount was the difference between an $800,000 contract offered by Richmond compared with a $1.3 million offer from the Crows.
The controversial deal could have had salary cap ramifications.
Talks broke down in October, but the Tigers stepped in. ``We met for mediation before Christmas and resolved it amicably,'' March said.
The settlement comes at the end of a busy time for Holland.
Now retired, he was involved in a fracas with former Demons' teammate Nathan Carroll after a drinking session at the end of 2008 which lead to Carroll's exit from the Demons and calls to ban Mad Monday celebrations.
-
I would've thought that if we could be assured that people like Ben Holland copped what they deserved on Mad Monday, the might encourage them rather than have them banned. Nathan Carroll saved his career highlight for his last Mad Monday as a Demon.
-
id like to think that CC may cover this off...seeing he was at the wheel of all this melodrama ::)
Well the article does say that the $50k is the RFC component and that the total settlement is supposedly a 3 figure sum - CC is mentioned and the way I read it he is the main payer
good deduction there WP ::)
-
The main thing out of this is our salary cap is fine thanks to Andy D's involvement then and now and we can now move on free of the ghosts of the past.
-
The main thing out of this is our salary cap is fine thanks to Andy D's involvement then and now and we can now move on free of the ghosts of the past.
this is what happens when you do the right thing by city hall, we got them out of a jam on cousins, they are reciprocating now, hopefully they allow our sponsorship to go through as well.
-
Have a peek at the whinge-fest by Blues fans over this lol :nopity
http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=843027#p843027
-
How do they read that god awful forum. Are they all blind or something? ???
-
How do they read that god awful forum. Are they all blind or something? ???
LOL, what shocking fonts, if they weren't blind before going on that forum they soon would be after a few days on there
-
We admitted we broke the rules, yet we were hit with the full force of the "law".
What utter crap :rollin
Was that after the first, second or third time Carlton deliberately rorted the system and were caught :lol. If it wasn't for O'Reilly and Silvagni blabbing the Blues would've kept on cheating the salary cap :nopity. The funny this is they've now got back the same attitude that resulted in them getting stung the first time. Hmmm good old Judd as "environmental ambassador" of VISY :whistle.
-
If anyone wants a history lesson on Carlton's disgraceful past, it's all here.
http://footystats.freeservers.com/Special/Diary-carltoncrisis.html
-
If anyone wants a history lesson on Carlton's disgraceful past, it's all here.
http://footystats.freeservers.com/Special/Diary-carltoncrisis.html
Friday, August 30, 2002
Carlton board member STEPHEN KERNAHAN has thrown his support behind coach WAYNE BRITTAIN as speculation over TERRY WALLACE intensifies – Brittain is contracted for another season – Carlton and Elite Sports Properties, the management group representing Wallace, have denied any discussions have taken place ...
A lucky escape for Plough :yep.
-
Healy, Taylor and Mike on 3aw just now want the AFL to investigate this and the four players involved again. They're not happy it was settled out of court.
Would be about the 3rd time the AFL has Mike but still not good enough for you ::).
-
hehe, someone needs to throw some hot grease on that prick.
-
Healy, Taylor and Mike on 3aw just now want the AFL to investigate this and the four players involved again. They're not happy it was settled out of court.
Would be about the 3rd time the AFL has Mike but still not good enough for you ::).
LOL@ the media.
We just signed up Cotch and they are all in meltdown.
Healy and Mike =aah the old Richmond haters.
-
Here's the full article (it's not on the web so I typed it out)
-------------------------
Holland row settled
By CRAIG HUTCHISON
Edition 1 - FIRST SUN 11 JAN 2009, Page S10
* RICHMOND and former president Clinton Casey have avoided a potential court battle, settling their legal dispute with former forward Ben Holland.
Holland, 31, has received what is believed to be a six-figure out-of-court settlement from the Tigers and their former president.
It's understood the club brokered a settlement after mediation and has forked out as little as $50,000 to end the dispute
The AFL also signed off on the settlement to avoid any salary cap ramifications.
Tigers president Gary March this week confirmed the matter had been finalised.
``We're very pleased we can put it behind us and all move forward,'' March said.
The dispute spilled over when Holland began proceedings to sue the Tigers and Casey through the Supreme Court in October 2007, claiming he was owed more than half a million dollars.
He claimed that in 2001 Casey promised him $530,000 in business and investment opportunities if he stayed with the Tigers instead of accepting from Adelaide.
The amount was the difference between an $800,000 contract offered by Richmond compared with a $1.3 million offer from the Crows.
The controversial deal could have had salary cap ramifications.
Talks broke down in October, but the Tigers stepped in. ``We met for mediation before Christmas and resolved it amicably,'' March said.
The settlement comes at the end of a busy time for Holland.
Now retired, he was involved in a fracas with former Demons' teammate Nathan Carroll after a drinking session at the end of 2008 which lead to Carroll's exit from the Demons and calls to ban Mad Monday celebrations.
lmao at those who said it was all rubbish & that he get nothing, eat poo
Shows how stupid & a badly run football club Richmond really has been over the last 10 years
Letting Holland go to another club & we payed dearly in the end again.
There are more ugly deals that will be payed out behind closed doors to players who stayed to get rich & gave nothing what they were worth ;D would have been better paying Ottens what he wanted lol