One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on February 25, 2010, 03:03:45 AM
-
Clinton Casey and Tiger property deals had to be added on the end of this story for effect ::)
AFL stars' secret perks as extra payments revealed
* Michael Warner
* Herald Sun
* February 25, 2010
THE AFL last night conceded 114 players were paid more than $2 million outside the league salary cap by club associates last season - and insisted it was all legal.
Chris Judd and Gary Ablett were already known to be pocketing substantial third-party sums, but after inquiries from the Herald Sun, the AFL admitted another 112 had been beneficiaries of extra payments involving club officials and sponsors.
The secret deals - classified as "employment and independent agreements" - ranged from less than $10,000 to more than $200,000, and fell outside AFL-approved marketing allowances, known as Additional Services Agreements.
Revelations of the payments came as league bosses this week promised to bolster their policing of third-party arrangements to protect the integrity of the salary cap.
Geelong president stuff Costa yesterday defended payments made from his private business empire to Ablett.
And Costa said the Cats might need to find new non-football income for Ablett to fend off a lucrative offer from the Gold Coast.
AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson revealed last night several third-party payments had been blocked because they failed to stack up as "bona fide commercial value" deals.
"Players across the competition were paid $144 million last year, so you are talking about less than 1.4 per cent of the total money paid to players," Anderson said.
"They involve people connected to the football club ... and are policed strictly by (AFL investigations manager) Ken Wood.
"It's not an issue that has got out of hand, but it's one that we need to make sure doesn't get out of hand. There are genuine commercial opportunities that players can take up."
The AFL came clean on the extent of the payments after Carlton chief executive Greg Swann called radio station SEN to defend Judd's "environmental ambassador" role with cardboard giant Visy.
Visy is owned by the family of the late Blues president idiot Pratt.
Cash payments from Visy to Judd - believed to be at the upper end of the third-party agreements - come on top of his $1 million-a-season Carlton pay packet and were a key factor in the Blues luring him from West Coast.
"Chris Judd is not the only bloke. There are a lot of them. We're not Robinson Crusoe there," Swann said.
Ablett is the face of Costa's coastal property development business and is paid to do promotional and marketing work for the company.
Costa said the deal had been ticked off by the AFL.
"The AFL can more than see the value that I am getting out of it," he said.
"The service that the company is getting from the player has got to add up commercially in the eyes of the AFL, and they run a pretty strict department down there. In relation to Gary, it absolutely passes the test."
Asked if such private deals could help keep Ablett at Geelong, Costa replied: "Whatever we can come up with in the way of genuine support along those lines would be a great help in keeping Gary.
"Because there is no doubt, with our salary cap restrictions and the number of good players we've got, we can't match the Gold Coast offer as a straight club payment. So we'd have to have enough support activity, but it would have to be absolutely genuine and I stress that."
Judd's duties as an environmental ambassador include providing green tips for the AFL Record and appearing at Visy staff functions.
His image is also used on a cardboard jigsaw puzzle
The third-party deals revealed by the AFL do not include private investments such as the controversial property deal involving former Richmond president Clinton Casey and four Tiger players at Torquay.
Anderson refused to name the 114 players, but he said not all clubs were involved.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-stars-secret-perks-as-extra-payments-revealed/story-e6frf9ix-1225834081183
-
It doesn't matter what colour shellac you put on it and how many coats of lacquer.....you still can't polish a turd! Its just blatant bs after market payments to poach a player or retain a player. The most disgusting point in fact IS the example of Judd who WAS poached from another club and no doubt wooed with these ridiculous Visy payments. So basically the AFL is telling us that unless you have a multi millionaire benefactor with his own massive business to retain players with bribes or poach stars with bribes, then your shafted. Nice going, very equitable.
-
It doesn't matter what colour shellac you put on it and how many coats of lacquer.....you still can't polish a turd! Its just blatant bs after market payments to poach a player or retain a player. The most disgusting point in fact IS the example of Judd who WAS poached from another club and no doubt wooed with these ridiculous Visy payments. So basically the AFL is telling us that unless you have a multi millionaire benefactor with his own massive business to retain players with bribes or poach stars with bribes, then your shafted. Nice going, very equitable.
While I agree wholeheartedly Owl, the issue is that you can't prevent a player from earning income from another source - to do so would be illegal and the AFL tread a very very fine line with the players in regards to the overall impact and restrictions of the salary cap. If someone wants to pay a player to promote their product then the AFL have no legal recourse to say no, and if that 'someone' happens to be an influential member of the player's club then so be it. One thing the AFL can't control is the personal business dealings of anyone, nor should they ever be allowed to.
-
I understand that but the point is that it was quite obvious that Visy was connected with the club and with the trade deal for example.
Its dirty. There has to be degrees of separation to make it at least look respectable, they didn't even pretend..
-
While I agree wholeheartedly Owl, the issue is that you can't prevent a player from earning income from another source
You should absolutely be able to if that source has any connection with their football club.
Otherwise the entire 'salary cap' is a complete farce.
Quite frankly I am disgusted by this revelation by the AFL and cannot believe they expect us to swallow it and move on.
Level playing field? >:(
-
While I agree wholeheartedly Owl, the issue is that you can't prevent a player from earning income from another source
You should absolutely be able to if that source has any connection with their football club.
Morally yes, legally not in a pink fit. The only reason the draft and salary cap works is by the good grace of the playing group - legally if one player took the AFL to court over this then they would win.
Otherwise the entire 'salary cap' is a complete farce.
Quite frankly I am disgusted by this revelation by the AFL and cannot believe they expect us to swallow it and move on.
Level playing field? >:(
I'm not going to argue at all in a moral sense, although it is a level playing field in the sense that any player and any club has the right to sign their players up to these types of deals if they can arrange them. The AFL have walked a tightrope on this with the Players Association for years and have been very lucky so far that no disgruntled player has seen fit to challenge it in court.
-
although it is a level playing field in the sense that any player and any club has the right to sign their players up to these types of deals if they can arrange them.
Level?
That's funny. Where does it $top??
-
although it is a level playing field in the sense that any player and any club has the right to sign their players up to these types of deals if they can arrange them.
Level?
That's funny. Where does it $top??
How is it not level when every club and every player has the ability to do it? It is a legal impossibility to prevent this.
-
How is it not level when every club and every player has the ability to do it?
Because some teams will be able to offer more dollars (financial backers etc.).
The salary cap was put in place to create an even playing field. Outside of that is not, nowhere near it.
-
How is it not level when every club and every player has the ability to do it?
Because some teams will be able to offer more dollars (financial backers etc.).
The salary cap was put in place to create an even playing field. Outside of that is not, nowhere near it.
Please understand MM I'm debating from a legal standpoint here, not a moral one. Morally I agree with you completely. But from a purely legal and 'opportunistic' perspective it is a completely level playing field. Every club and every player have the right to source these deals but as we both know, realistically that isn't going to happen. But having said that, it is probably less unfair than some clubs traveling interstate more than others or some having home grounds that they control the revenue from or some having access to blockbuster games year in year out. I have less of an issue with the AFL and Player's Association having a tacit agreement to allow extraneous income opportunities if the process is transparent and accepted by all than I do by the inequities created by the AFL over home grounds, interstate travel or blockbuster games - that's where your real uneven playing field exists.
-
These sort of deals will happen no matter what. If you try to restrict them all you will do is push them further underground and have no control at all.
I once worked with a bloke who coached an amateur side (1st division) to a premiership. That night the club president took him out to the car park, drew a line in the gravel and bet him $10k that he couldn't jump over the line.. There's ways around everything.
-
So much for the salary cap when you've got Costa openly admitting they are in search of new third-party cash deals outside of the salary cap to help convince Ablett to stay .
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/desperate-cats-cast-wide-net-for-extra-ablett-cash/story-e6frf9jf-1225834523463
-
I don't see it as a big deal, he's going to get sponsorships anyway.
-
I don't see it as a big deal, he's going to get sponsorships anyway.
Couldn't care less if Ablett gets a job selling for example Gatorade but they should not be allowed extra sponsorship dollars with direct connections to the club. If Gatorade sponsor Geelong he does any promotion work for them for nix because they are a club sponsor. If they are not connected he gets paid.
The salary cap is dead IMO, long live the salary cap. :P
-
The salary cap is dead IMO, long live the salary cap. :P
That's the thing though MM, nothing has changed. These opportunities have existed since the salary cap came in to being and football (sport) being what it is, only the best players are going to get offered them at any point. The AFL has much more control and exposure to each club's finances and operations so any opportunities have to come from a totally independent source (on paper) and in almost all cases these sources will have to present some form of business case to justify some of the expenditure so there has to be some perceived benefit. The challenge for each club is to source these opportunities through the board members and coterie-type contacts of the club so that they can be used to secure the best players. The salary cap is alive and it works in that it keeps a lid on salaries across the entire competition preventing an open slather buyout of the league's best players - success in sourcing external opportunities for your marquee players is what will help separate the better clubs from the worse.
-
The challenge for each club is to source these opportunities through the board members and coterie-type contacts of the club so that they can be used to secure the best players.
The challenge?
The salary CAP was put in place to create equality. The salary CAP is there to cap salaries of players is it not? :-\
Once third party backers come into play, equality goes out the window.
The rich clubs (ie those with more third party dollars) will attract the best player$. There is no CAP on what they can or can't offer.
Once you step outside the CAP, the dam bursts and we get situations like the Judd/Visy where Carlton pay him a wage inside the CAP and a wage outside of it. They can do this without affecting what their other players are earning.
Is it any wonder Judd wanted to go to Carlton?
THE CAP IS DEAD!
-
The challenge for each club is to source these opportunities through the board members and coterie-type contacts of the club so that they can be used to secure the best players.
The challenge?
The salary CAP was put in place to create equality. The salary CAP is there to cap salaries of players is it not? :-\
Once third party backers come into play, equality goes out the window.
The rich clubs (ie those with more third party dollars) will attract the best player$. There is no CAP on what they can or can't offer.
Once you step outside the CAP, the dam bursts and we get situations like the Judd/Visy where Carlton pay him a wage inside the CAP and a wage outside of it. They can do this without affecting what their other players are earning.
Is it any wonder Judd wanted to go to Carlton?
THE CAP IS DEAD!
I disagree. I believe the cap is alive and working. The cap works across the whole competition and manages to keep a very good lid on what players are allowed to earn by playing football. You can't tell a player that he is not entitled to earn money outside of playing football - it's not fair and not legal. So for those players that can source external earning opportunities then more power to them, and for the clubs who are able to assist in securing these deals for their players then well done to them. There are many reasons why players shift clubs and are attracted to one or the other - the challenge, yes challenge, is for our club to work harder than the rest to identify and broker as many of these deals as it can to make us more attractive to other players. Nothing wrong with it. Remember, in most of these cases the extra money is being funded by corporate organisations who have strict fiscal responsibilities to shareholders and regulatory authorities - they aren't going to chuck money around willy nilly to every Tom idiot and Harry, only those that they can see and justify a perceived benefit.
-
You can't tell a player that he is not entitled to earn money outside of playing football
This is where I fundamentally disagree. I believe you can veto their earnings if it is connected to the football club. Outside of that, no issue.
Brown paper bags are simply now going over the table as opposed to under it and the salary cap has become a complete sham.
-
Its not like Geelong & Carlton are the only clubs that can do it. We can too when we want/need to and I suggest have done so in the past.
I don't think any sponsor pays a club enough to have any player they want from the team as the face of their company. That's an agreement that needs to be made with the player.
I mean we have all the players go and do appearances at idiot Smith, but you don't see any of them replacing idiot's face.
-
I mean we have all the players go and do appearances at idiot Smith, but you don't see any of them replacing idiot's face.
Are our players paid extra outside of their salaries for DS work? Advertising etc..
My guess is that they aren't but I'd be interested to know.
-
The third party faux employment horse crap creates a new system where clubs who do not have massive pull with cashed up 'benefactors' cannot retain let alone attract elite talent. It is uncompetitive as it introduces outside resources that are not available to all parties in equal measure. The game really is turning to poo, it has been for some time but these things are pushing it over the edge for me. Who could watch the Gold Coast cash whore team and feel any pride in a bunch of stuffing mercs like that playing in their poxy tip top bread jumpers?
-
Fines threat over deals
* Jon Ralph and Mark Stevens
* From: Herald Sun
* February 27, 2010
THE AFL last night warned clubs of "massive" penalties if they cultivated outside payments to help keep marquee players.
League operations manager Adrian Anderson said any corporate cash paid to players that investigator Ken Wood could prove to have been initiated by the club would be counted under the salary cap.
"If the club co-ordinates or arranges a payment for a player, they go into the salary cap," Anderson said.
"If we discover payments outside the cap that haven't been disclosed, we'll come down very heavily on that.
"The penalties . . . include taking away draft picks, taking away premiership points, massive financial sanctions and even sanctions that go beyond those."
Anderson was speaking on 1116 SEN after comments by Geelong president stuff Costa in the Herald Sun this week regarding efforts to keep Brownlow medallist Gary Ablett at Skilled Stadium.
Costa said the club was chasing businesses to sign Ablett to commercial deals that would help reduce the gap between the reported $1.5 million a year on offer from Gold Coast FC and what Geelong could afford under its salary cap.
It is understood AFL powerbrokers were gobsmacked by Costa's comments.
Geelong's head of football Neil Balme yesterday said on radio SEN that the president was off the mark and ill-informed on the issue.
The Herald Sun on Thursday revealed 114 players received
$2 million last year in payments from parties associated with their club but counted outside the cap after assessment by Wood. One player earned more than $200,000 through the deals.
Carlton captain Chris Judd's environmental ambassadorship with Visy, owned by the family of former president idiot Pratt, and Ablett's promotional deal with Costa's coastal property development company are among related-party contracts that passed AFL scrutiny.
Western Bulldogs president David Smorgon yesterday said payments like those to Judd and Ablett was "a worrying trend".
"It does put an onus on the AFL to make sure that they're all legitimate and perfectly in order and that's something I'm sure all clubs will be looking at to ensure the AFL are being fair across the board," Smorgon said.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/fines-threat-over-deals/story-e6frf9if-1225834974267
-
It is understood AFL powerbrokers were gobsmacked by Costa's comments.
The Herald Sun on Thursday revealed 114 players received
$2 million last year in payments from parties associated with their club but counted outside the cap after assessment by Wood. One player earned more than $200,000 through the deals.
This is damage control but the Pandora's box has been thrown wide open by HUN investigations and the AFL's comments earlier this week.
The AFL power brokers are sending mixed messages to everyone by saying some are ok ala Judd/Ablett but others aren't.
There was black and white previously that the salary cap was not to be breached but now the waters are so muddied that they only have themselves to blame for comments such as those by Costa.
Just stupid!
-
The bottom of that article is very interesting..
None of Melbourne, North Melbourne, the Bulldogs or Richmond are believed to have many players with third-party arrangements.
So how on earth is this a level playing field when Judd/Visy is allowed to occur?!
Now Gale says Richmond is exploring third party means in order to keep Cotchin from going to GC17?
This AFL bulldust :rollin makes me furious. Equality has flown out the window & THE SALARY CAP IS DEAD.
-
Besides the bulldogs, none of those clubs have too many players that warrant outside payments. They also probably still have room to move within their salary cap to icrease certain players payments if they wish. Not too sure about Footscray on this one though.
The interesting thing here is the supposed crackdown on club initiated extra payments, yet the AFL approved such deals involving business run by the presidents of Carlton aand Geelong. Hmmmmmmmmmm.
Is the story of of Ablett being offered a Macca's franchise on the gold coast substantiated or just rumor? If true, I wonder who the AFL decree to have initiated that one.,
This sort of thing has been going on for a long time, at all levels of the sport. When the players were still semi professional, ie had outside employmeny it was rife. But it goes on everywhere at all levels. Top players at lower league clubs get well paid jobs with presidents and other supporters businesses. You see adds in the papers asking for footballers often stating that employment is available You can be pretty sure that these employment opportunities are only for decent footballers.
It's really nothing new or exclusive.
On the level playing field issue, it is, in the terms that all clubs have the same opportunity. As with anything in a capitalist system, in theory it is a level playing filed, but the reality is some will do better than others for various reasons. As long as money is involved you will never have a truly level playing field.
-
Rogue traders behind secret deals
* Mark Stevens
* Herald Sun
* March 01, 2010
CLUBS chasing third-party deals to retain their stars risk destroying the integrity of the competition, Bulldogs chief Campbell Rose warned.
Rose said it would be "mischievous" if rivals were approaching backers to arrange payments outside the salary cap for their players.
"The integrity of this competition relies on the integrity of the whole salary cap and the Collective Bargaining Agreement," Rose said.
"If that's going to be flaunted by boards actively pursuing ways in which they can remunerate their players outside the salary cap, you might as well not have a cap, you might as well not have a Collective Bargaining Agreement.
"You might as well throw the whole thing out."
Rose urged the AFL to take a tough stance.
"If this is not dealt with it will destroy the integrity of the salary cap and CBA," Rose said.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/rogue-traders-make-secret-deals/story-e6frf9jf-1225835348995
-
Rogue traders behind secret deals
* Mark Stevens
* Herald Sun
* March 01, 2010
CLUBS chasing third-party deals to retain their stars risk destroying the integrity of the competition, Bulldogs chief Campbell Rose warned.
Rose said it would be "mischievous" if rivals were approaching backers to arrange payments outside the salary cap for their players.
"The integrity of this competition relies on the integrity of the whole salary cap and the Collective Bargaining Agreement," Rose said.
"If that's going to be flaunted by boards actively pursuing ways in which they can remunerate their players outside the salary cap, you might as well not have a cap, you might as well not have a Collective Bargaining Agreement.
"You might as well throw the whole thing out."
Rose urged the AFL to take a tough stance.
"If this is not dealt with it will destroy the integrity of the salary cap and CBA," Rose said.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/rogue-traders-make-secret-deals/story-e6frf9jf-1225835348995
I just scream out laughing at the hypocrisy of people like this. Who does he thinks he is to tell a player they can't earn an income outside of playing football? I wonder how he would handle being told he is not allowed to earn an income outside of his salary as Bulldogs CEO - say as a board member of an external company, or paid mentor to some startup's junior CEO?
There is no problem until clubs get involved by dictating terms of employment, methods of payment etc etc. As long as the club has no input further than introducing the player to the opportunity then there is nothing wrong with it - legally, ethically or morally - and the salary cap and all the benefits it brings stands a far better chance of being successful if players are allowed to exist financially outside of football. If they remove this opportunity then watch free agency kick in after a legal challenge by a disenfranchised player and then watch the integrity of the competition disintegrate.
-
From the way I understand it all players are actually employees of the AFL, rather than their respective clubs. That is how the AFL gets around restraint of trade legislation without having free agency.
The big problem with these outside payments is how do you determine who initiated the action. By Benny Gale coming out and asking if any sponsors/supporters want to offer cotchin something to keep him, has the club initiated any deal that occurs. I think the AFL need to put down some guidlines/rules for such things to allow for total tranparency
-
From the way I understand it all players are actually employees of the AFL, rather than their respective clubs. That is how the AFL gets around restraint of trade legislation without having free agency.
The big problem with these outside payments is how do you determine who initiated the action. By Benny Gale coming out and asking if any sponsors/supporters want to offer cotchin something to keep him, has the club initiated any deal that occurs. I think the AFL need to put down some guidlines/rules for such things to allow for total tranparency
Yeah, I agree about rules and guidelines Al, but policing who initiated contact is an impossibility, especially given that many of these deals will be initiated by club connections (board members, coterie groups etc). I just don't see any issue as long as it is payment for services rendered outside of playing football or doing promotional/employment type work for the club. If a business wants to spend money paying a player then it will almost always have a fiscal responsibility to someone/something to ensure that this money is 'well spent' and if the payment stacks up to scrutiny by the shareholders, auditors, ASIC, ATO and the AFL then to me it's as fair as it can possibly be. Thinking it can be any fairer is a pipe dream. I see the issue as not being one of complaining about the situation but rather working our butts off to make sure it becomes a plus for our club, a point of difference in our operations, player perception and longevity.
We have had external education programs in place for our players in the past - how about sourcing paid part time roles within the areas of the player's individual studies that work in with their football time commitments? That way it is available to every player, not just the marquee type, and it becomes a selling point to every player that comes to our club - "Richmond will assist me by providing educational and financial opportunities that will enable me to face a future after football with skills and confidence" - the player learns new skills and gets paid to reinforce the learning, on top of his AFL contract. That's just an example of how pro-active thinking by making the situation a positive could work for us - other clubs with attitudes like Campbell Rose's moaning will wither and die on the vine because they choose to be negative and reactive. We will never get back to a position of power, respect and success in this competition unless we embrace each and every situation as a potential for improvement and opportunity.
-
I wonder how he would handle being told he is not allowed to earn an income outside of his salary as Bulldogs CEO - say as a board member of an external company, or paid mentor to some startup's junior CEO?
You'd be surprised how many executive contracts stipulate that you can't do exactly what you have suggested.
Rose's concerns are bang on the money. The AFL has opened Pandora's box and are struggling to close it.
-
I wonder how he would handle being told he is not allowed to earn an income outside of his salary as Bulldogs CEO - say as a board member of an external company, or paid mentor to some startup's junior CEO?
You'd be surprised how many executive contracts stipulate that you can't do exactly what you have suggested.
Anything is controllable by a contract that someone enters into of their own free will. The trouble with that in regard to professional sportsmen is that by the very nature of the job they will have a much shorter period of earning capacity and as such need to be allowed to earn what they can from whatever sources they can while they can. Executive employees can move from the same job to the same job to the same job for the rest of their lives if they wish and are not necessarily hamstrung by signing contracts that might contain such a clause - professional sportsmen have no such luxury, they need to make hay while the sun shines because their 'employability' as a sportsman is finite and in many many cases very short-lived for so many different reasons, most of them outside the control of the sportsman. And in the case of the AFL players, they have collectively agreed to a deal with the AFL where they will live within the restrictions of the salary cap for the good of the game (an extremely generous gesture in my opinion) but have secured a trade off in the form of permissible external income sources. Don't forget, the AFL have not changed or introduced any new rule here - this ability to secure such income has been available all the time. And the salary cap has been working very well with this rule in place. The only thing that has changed is that suddenly the public is aware of it and has had their sensibilities offended because of their ignorance. The real thing that threatens the integrity and success of the salary cap is the removal of the very thing you complain about.
-
AFLPA puts support behind third-party payments
afl.com.au
By Ben Broad Mon 01 March, 2010
AFL PLAYERS’ Association boss Matt Finnis says he fully supports any third-party payments made to players outside the salary cap - particularly if that extra money is paid to promote AFL football.
“We think it’s an important right that players ought to have”.
“We’ve got to remember that when you talk about 114 agreements, that can include an agreement for Luke Hodge or Adam Goodes to have a sponsorship with Puma, to wear Puma boots, which players have done forever.
“But if those companies are also sponsors of the club, it gets classified as an independent agreement.”
“You might have a player who has a separate contract to appear on The Footy Show at Channel 9 or it may be to appear on the Channel 7 news in Perth … it then gets classified as an independent agreement,” he said.
“Most of these agreements are separate agreements between a player and a third party which actually is about using that player to promote the game.
Full article at:
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/90034/default.aspx
-
I wonder how he would handle being told he is not allowed to earn an income outside of his salary as Bulldogs CEO - say as a board member of an external company, or paid mentor to some startup's junior CEO?
You'd be surprised how many executive contracts stipulate that you can't do exactly what you have suggested.
Anything is controllable by a contract that someone enters into of their own free will. The trouble with that in regard to professional sportsmen is that by the very nature of the job they will have a much shorter period of earning capacity and as such need to be allowed to earn what they can from whatever sources they can while they can. Executive employees can move from the same job to the same job to the same job for the rest of their lives if they wish and are not necessarily hamstrung by signing contracts that might contain such a clause - professional sportsmen have no such luxury, they need to make hay while the sun shines because their 'employability' as a sportsman is finite and in many many cases very short-lived for so many different reasons, most of them outside the control of the sportsman. And in the case of the AFL players, they have collectively agreed to a deal with the AFL where they will live within the restrictions of the salary cap for the good of the game (an extremely generous gesture in my opinion) but have secured a trade off in the form of permissible external income sources. Don't forget, the AFL have not changed or introduced any new rule here - this ability to secure such income has been available all the time. And the salary cap has been working very well with this rule in place. The only thing that has changed is that suddenly the public is aware of it and has had their sensibilities offended because of their ignorance. The real thing that threatens the integrity and success of the salary cap is the removal of the very thing you complain about.
Some good points.
Like I have stated previously I have no problem with INDEPENDENT earning of players through third party means so long as there is not a direct conflict on interest with their club of choice ala Judd/Pratt. There should be no involvement with companies that executive staff of the football club are directors or senior executives of.
-
Like I have stated previously I have no problem with INDEPENDENT earning of players through third party means so long as there is not a direct conflict on interest with their club of choice ala Judd/Pratt. There should be no involvement with companies that executive staff of the football club are directors or senior executives of.
I am agreeing with you MM (believe it or not) ;) in some way but I do feel the players as individual people have the right to earn what they can legally when they can - the same basic right that you and I covet. We both know that under the counter deals are going to happen in football clubs and there is nothing short of imposing Big Brother-esque measures that anyone can ever do about that. But I believe in the salary cap system we have in place and I think that its one of the biggest strengths that our code has going for it. I also think that we can allow the players to earn that extra income without seriously or adversely compromising the salary cap. If Judd had come to Richmond and was also employed as the face of idiot Smith then we wouldn't be complaining - I have a fair idea we would all be justifying his position and backing the club. It probably all comes down to what Al mentioned about setting rules and guidelines - as long as its a fair compromise and protects the players as well as the code then the AFL can legislate to it's hearts content but we have to be very mindful of protecting the player's position because without their support we (the code) will really be screwed.
-
It probably all comes down to what Al mentioned about setting rules and guidelines - as long as its a fair compromise and protects the players as well as the code then the AFL can legislate to it's hearts content but we have to be very mindful of protecting the player's position because without their support we (the code) will really be screwed.
Sound fair. The AFL has to show a fair bit more decisiveness on this issue whatever they do though than they have to date.
-
Clubs are permitted to pay players up to $8.55 million in 2010 - $7.95 million TPP, $555,000 ASA - with third-party arrangements of unrestricted amounts.
Last season, the highest third-party figure was $200,000, believed to be Chris Judd's deal with Visy.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/new-rules-the-right-way-to-go/story-e6frf9ox-1225835861138
-
The AFL has to show a fair bit more decisiveness on this issue whatever they do though than they have to date.
Agree. Make the rules/guidelines public so they don't invite so much innuendo and uninformed debate. People aren't stupid and if AFL would spell things out honestly, clearly and up front then they probably wouldn't have a reputation on a par with most politicians.
-
Geelong CEO Brian Cook in damage control after Costa opened his mouth
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/cats-ceo-brian-cook-corrects-stuff-costa/story-e6frf9jf-1225836083383
-
Last season, the highest third-party figure was $200,000, believed to be Chris Judd's deal with Visy.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/new-rules-the-right-way-to-go/story-e6frf9ox-1225835861138
Anyone else still confused as me? :P
From Mike's article the AFL says:
The key factor to be incorporated into beefed-up guidelines asks "whether the arrangement was arranged, suggested, co-ordinated, facilitated or encouraged by the club or any of the club's agents, or the club or any of its agents had any involvement whatsoever in the arrangement".
Under the guidelines - old and new - a club must not facilitate extra payments outside the TPP.
Well what about the Judd scenario with Visy/Pratt who was president of Carlton at the time?
It was entirely instigated by the club and a big reason Judd is at Carlton!!
Surely there is no more obvious breach of what they are suggesting than this?
If they are fair dinkum about this, Judd's $200,000 should be included in Carlton's cap immediately.
-
Last season, the highest third-party figure was $200,000, believed to be Chris Judd's deal with Visy.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/new-rules-the-right-way-to-go/story-e6frf9ox-1225835861138
Anyone else still confused as me? :P
From Mike's article the AFL says:
The key factor to be incorporated into beefed-up guidelines asks "whether the arrangement was arranged, suggested, co-ordinated, facilitated or encouraged by the club or any of the club's agents, or the club or any of its agents had any involvement whatsoever in the arrangement".
Under the guidelines - old and new - a club must not facilitate extra payments outside the TPP.
Well what about the Judd scenario with Visy/Pratt who was president of Carlton at the time?
It was entirely instigated by the club and a big reason Judd is at Carlton!!
Surely there is no more obvious breach of what they are suggesting than this?
Too grey I reckon MM. As we discussed earlier, this should be set in stone (as to what constitutes "facilitation" and the role/responsibility of club personnel with potential conflicts of interest) so it can be obvious if a rule has been broken. We all know that the Visy deal was instigated by Carlton through the agency of it's then president but the AFL will have a hard time proving anything if it was all done verbally by Pratt and documented entirely on Visy letterhead, as Pratt could then reasonably have claimed to have acted representing his company, not the club. Without meeting minutes, emails, letters or any other documentation linking the club then it would be nigh on impossible to prove who Pratt was representing when the offer was made - regardless of what we 'know' to be the truth. That's why we need clear and unambiguous rules in place - to maintain credibility and compliance - because the guidelines mentioned in the article when taken at face value, are at odds with the AFL's decision to allow the Visy/Judd deal.
-
That's why we need clear and unambiguous rules in place - to maintain credibility and compliance
They sure do. They're a ways from that atm.
-
As long as outside contracts must be honoured regardless of what club the players is at then I feel it is fine. The AFL would have to ensure this is the case if they want 3rd party payments to be truly fair.
Stripes
-
As long as outside contracts must be honoured regardless of what club the players is at then I feel it is fine.
Sorry Striper, I've read that 4 times and I don't understand what you're trying to say. Can you please clarify it?
-
Cotton On boss Nigel Austin could save Geelong star Gary Albett from the Gold Coast
Michael Warner
From: Herald Sun March 03, 2010
The Herald Sun can reveal Ablett's management is negotiating a lucrative third-party deal with Cotton On, the fashion giant run by media-shy Geelong identity Nigel Austin.
Austin, 39, last year rocketed to No. 8 on the annual BRW Young Rich List with a fortune put at $156 million.
Sources say a deal between Ablett and Austin's 500-store international clothing chain could be worth as much as $300,000.
Austin is a keen Geelong supporter and his company has a corporate box at Skilled Stadium.
Full article at:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/cotton-on-boss-nigel-austin-could-save-geelong-star-gary-albett-from-the-gold-coast/story-e6frf9jf-1225836293268
-
It's all legal and within the rules but when a player can potentially earn as much as the average player does outside the cap through these third-party deals it's effectively allowing that club to hold onto another player it would need to let go of if a strict salary cap was enforced.
As for the club officially saying it's not involved but unoffically telling potential sponsors they need to contact the player's manager to get the deal done - it's all becoming a bit of a farce :-\.
-
The AFL is going to have to employ people specifically to keep tabs on these things, to make sure that the players are actually doing something for these payments etc.
-
The AFL is going to have to employ people specifically to keep tabs on these things, to make sure that the players are actually doing something for these payments etc.
While I agree 100% Al, I can just imagine Adrian Anderson sitting in a rubbish bin with just his beady little eyes peeking out - very Maxwell Smart-ish!! :lol
-
:lol :lol
-
Wow, Costa has totally stuffed up Geelongs integrity to act in an ethical manner to almost Carlton levels.
Damage control indeed.
-
Wow, Costa has totally stuffed up Geelongs integrity to act in an ethical manner to almost Carlton levels.
Damage control indeed.
Not his fault.
The AFL has been so flaky with their policing of this re the Judd example that I can certainly empathsise with his views.
Don't blame Costa, blame the AFL's inconsistencies.
-
As long as outside contracts must be honoured regardless of what club the players is at then I feel it is fine.
Sorry Striper, I've read that 4 times and I don't understand what you're trying to say. Can you please clarify it?
What I was trying to say was that if a contract is to be truly considered outside the salary cap it needs to go with a player where-ever he plays. So if Judd was to secure a lucrative deal with VISY yet moves to Collingwood, he would retain the sponsorship regardless. The AFL would have to ensure this was the reality and sign off on any contracts a player receives while partaking in the system.
Just my take
Stripes
-
What I was trying to say was that if a contract is to be truly considered outside the salary cap it needs to go with a player where-ever he plays. So if Judd was to secure a lucrative deal with VISY yet moves to Collingwood, he would retain the sponsorship regardless. The AFL would have to ensure this was the reality and sign off on any contracts a player receives while partaking in the system.
Fair point. However clubs rorting the system could just step around that by renewing 'third-party' contracts on a year by year basis.
As for the club officially saying it's not involved but unoffically telling potential sponsors they need to contact the player's manager to get the deal done - it's all becoming a bit of a farce :-\.
Certainly is.
-
What I was trying to say was that if a contract is to be truly considered outside the salary cap it needs to go with a player where-ever he plays. So if Judd was to secure a lucrative deal with VISY yet moves to Collingwood, he would retain the sponsorship regardless. The AFL would have to ensure this was the reality and sign off on any contracts a player receives while partaking in the system.
Fair point. However clubs rorting the system could just step around that by renewing 'third-party' contracts on a year by year basis.
As for the club officially saying it's not involved but unoffically telling potential sponsors they need to contact the player's manager to get the deal done - it's all becoming a bit of a farce :-\.
Certainly is.
Interesting take MM - good call too. When it's all said and done the only way to make it fair is to up the salary cap and include any third party sponsorships inclusive to the players salary. Very hard to police though whichever way you look at it and may be seen as a violation of players rights. The AFL needs to stop turning a blind eye to such issues, like they have repeatedly done with the Tanking fiasco, and find a solution here or risk compromising the competition. The AFL's unbending focus is to bring in the two new clubs so while that is high on the priority list, they will continue to ignore such issues to the detriment of the poorer clubs I fear.
Stripes
-
What I was trying to say was that if a contract is to be truly considered outside the salary cap it needs to go with a player where-ever he plays. So if Judd was to secure a lucrative deal with VISY yet moves to Collingwood, he would retain the sponsorship regardless. The AFL would have to ensure this was the reality and sign off on any contracts a player receives while partaking in the system.
Fair point. However clubs rorting the system could just step around that by renewing 'third-party' contracts on a year by year basis.
As for the club officially saying it's not involved but unoffically telling potential sponsors they need to contact the player's manager to get the deal done - it's all becoming a bit of a farce :-\.
Certainly is.
Interesting take MM - good call too. When it's all said and done the only way to make it fair is to up the salary cap and include any third party sponsorships inclusive to the players salary. Very hard to police though whichever way you look at it and may be seen as a violation of players rights. The AFL needs to stop turning a blind eye to such issues, like they have repeatedly done with the Tanking fiasco, and find a solution here or risk compromising the competition. The AFL's unbending focus is to bring in the two new clubs so while that is high on the priority list, they will continue to ignore such issues to the detriment of the poorer clubs I fear.
Stripes
Only problem is that this would pretty much rule out any player making an income outside of football. Its the only way you could police it and will never happen. They'd create themselves a massive legal issue if they even tried.