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

[Smokey]

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.

[one-eyed]

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

[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.

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.

[Smokey]

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 Dick 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.

[Mr Magic]

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.

[one-eyed]

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

[Smokey]

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.

[one-eyed]

Geelong CEO Brian Cook in damage control after Costa opened his mouth

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/cats-ceo-brian-cook-corrects-frank-costa/story-e6frf9jf-1225836083383

[Mr Magic]

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?

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.

[Smokey]

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?

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.

[Mr Magic]

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.

[Stripes]

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

[Mr Magic]

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?

[one-eyed]

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

[mightytiges]

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  .