AFL stars' secret perks as extra payments revealed (Herald-Sun)

[one-eyed]

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 Frank 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 Dick 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

[Owl]

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.

[Smokey]

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.

[Owl]

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..

[Mr Magic]

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? 

[Smokey]

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.

[Mr Magic]

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??

[Smokey]

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.

[Mr Magic]

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.

[Smokey]

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.

[Penelope]

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.

[mightytiges]

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

[Infamy]

I don't see it as a big deal, he's going to get sponsorships anyway.

[Mr Magic]

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.

[Smokey]

The salary cap is dead IMO, long live the salary cap.

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.