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

[Mr Magic]

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!

[Smokey]

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 Dick and Harry, only those that they can see and justify a perceived benefit.

[Mr Magic]

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.

[Infamy]

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 Dick Smith, but you don't see any of them replacing Dick's face.

[Mr Magic]

I mean we have all the players go and do appearances at Dick Smith, but you don't see any of them replacing Dick'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.

[Owl]

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?  

[one-eyed]

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 Frank 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 Dick 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

[Mr Magic]

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!

[Mr Magic]

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  makes me furious. Equality has flown out the window & THE SALARY CAP IS DEAD.

[Penelope]

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.

[one-eyed]

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

[Smokey]

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.

[Penelope]

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

[Smokey]

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.

[Mr Magic]

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.