AFL stars' secret perks as extra payments revealed

[Pevers-Legend]

The deals are not the issue for me - it is the sum of money that is.

The amount paid should be based on industry standards - i.e. does anyone else get 200K (assuming this is correct) to be an environmental ambassador for a company who shows up to half a dozen functions a year?

If they can be paid legitimatley for their services, why is there an issue. It is when they are paid excessive amounts for little return that it is salary cap rorting.

 

[Gautama]

The Richmond players didn't actually receive any money - in fact they gave money to Casey in "investment opportunities" that would have been akin to insider trading, except that the properties didn't actually appreciate much at all - hence why Ben Holland was taking Casey to court, to try and get the money that he didn't receive. Not really salary cap rorting if you didn't get anything, is it?

Ha! It's not really surprising that Richmond can't even get rorting the cap right.

 

[ultimate hater]

can everyone stop trying to act like they are in mensa for their math's equations?

i.e. "if there are 114 ppl between $2mil, average is $17.5k, take out the $200,000 for judd and ablett, then the rest are getting 0.8% each blah blah blah..."

They released the figures for CASH payments only. As mentioned, there is no record for involvement like the Richmond/Casey property deal, which I'm sure there are PLENTY of...

Some players will be getting cash, these have to be submitted to the AFL regardless of how large or small the players are receiving. Whereas deals such as property/shares/business ties are not figured.

If someone like buddy franklin (just using his status here) is offered a 20% share in a pub or restaurant or some other type of business or dwelling worth $10mil (his share technically is worth $2mil), it is NOT listed with the AFL under cash payments as they are not receiving direct income but are apart of the business. If they were to sell their share, then yes, it would be listed.

There are plenty of deals going on in the AFL to get their players more money. I.e. buying a share in a business for 50% it's actual worth.

It's been going on for years and will continue to carry on.

The idiot before that said he had to sign a contract stating he wasn't allowed to have "another job" and that it should apply to all players in the AFL is a drongo. There are plenty of people out there have have a day job but also have shares in a business, mainly in hospitality. There are also people called "investors" who give other people money for their business in exchange for a stake in the company, but also have their own "9-5".

 

[snrub]

When a club is sponsored by a car company, you can guarantee a number of those vehicles will be seen in the staff car park and driven by the highest profile players.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

What about Cars? Sponsors give away cars to players - are these counted?

A 60K car is not something to sneeze at and I have been told one went to a player umming and arrring whether to leave his club for GC or not.

Should this be included in the cap?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The deals are not the issue for me - it is the sum of money that is.

The amount paid should be based on industry standards - i.e. does anyone else get 200K (assuming this is correct) to be an environmental ambassador for a company who shows up to half a dozen functions a year?

If they can be paid legitimatley for their services, why is there an issue. It is when they are paid excessive amounts for little return that it is salary cap rorting.

How can you cite industry standards for a star footballer being the public face of a company? The environment is a good selling point for a company like Visy and if a well recognised sportsmen is the face of it, how do you measure what that does for Visy?

Also, when people talk about Judd's role, they make flippant comments about 6 functions a year or a couple of articles or a jigsaw puzzle. First up, he has only been in the role for just over a year as it took a year to get the thing kickstarted. Secondly, it was always planned to use the new facilities at Visy Park to hold presentations for schools and the like in relation to environmental issues and Judd is to be involved in that. The role was an opportunity for Visy and Judd and is evolving over time.

 

[Pie eyed]

can everyone stop trying to act like they are in mensa for their math's equations?

i.e. "if there are 114 ppl between $2mil, average is $17.5k, take out the $200,000 for judd and ablett, then the rest are getting 0.8% each blah blah blah..."

They released the figures for CASH payments only. As mentioned, there is no record for involvement like the Richmond/Casey property deal, which I'm sure there are PLENTY of...

Some players will be getting cash, these have to be submitted to the AFL regardless of how large or small the players are receiving. Whereas deals such as property/shares/business ties are not figured.

If someone like buddy franklin (just using his status here) is offered a 20% share in a pub or restaurant or some other type of business or dwelling worth $10mil (his share technically is worth $2mil), it is NOT listed with the AFL under cash payments as they are not receiving direct income but are apart of the business. If they were to sell their share, then yes, it would be listed.

There are plenty of deals going on in the AFL to get their players more money. I.e. buying a share in a business for 50% it's actual worth.

It's been going on for years and will continue to carry on.

The idiot before that said he had to sign a contract stating he wasn't allowed to have "another job" and that it should apply to all players in the AFL is a drongo. There are plenty of people out there have have a day job but also have shares in a business, mainly in hospitality. There are also people called "investors" who give other people money for their business in exchange for a stake in the company, but also have their own "9-5".

I think it's relevant when a Carlton goose is claiming that Judd somehow now falls into the same category as 113 other players.

Mensa...lol. pretty simple maths really.

Personally I don't give a rats arse about Judds extra caricular payments only their misrepresentation by others.

 

[Blues_Man]

The difference between the Judd deal and the vast majority of the others is that Judd's was used as a carrot to get him to change clubs.

If the offer was made as part of signing on with Carlton, then it's him playing for Carlton that's the key determinate in having the contract.

i.e. he earns money from Visy to play football for Carlton

Trying to legitimise the deal with jigsaw puzzles is irrelevant - the fundamental reason he has the contract still remains that he plays football for Carlton. Therefore it shouldn't be allowed.

The same is true for some of these deals (would GA be used by Costa if he signed with GC?) but there are plenty that are genuine. If a clothing or boots sponsor uses a star player for promotional purposes it would count as a related party contract. If Nike sponsor a star player and he changes clubs, they are probably going to keep him on their books unless it breaches pre-existing club contracts.

Carlton supporters can point fingers all they like and come up with all the justifications in the world, but the Judd deal is essentially no different to what they did in the 90's.

The only difference now is that the AFL can't call them out on it because they do it too!

Once again your Carlton hatred has made you post some complete and utter garbage ...other posters have shot your pathetic argument down so no need for me to add anything more than to say , the whole premise of your post is completely inane and ludicrous .

 

[ultimate hater]

I think it's relevant when a Carlton goose is claiming that Judd somehow now falls into the same category as 113 other players.

Mensa...lol. pretty simple maths really.

Personally I don't give a rats arse about Judds extra caricular payments only their misrepresentation by others.

exactly, simple enough to not have it posted multiple times as if no-one else can work it out...

 

[teagueyubeauty]

How many of those 114 are directly from the president's company?

Please advise.

Well Podgey, we know of 2 as they have been confirmed. Both are through the presidents companies.

I'm not going to speculate on the rest because i don't know who they are.

And why do stop at Presidents, there's no difference between a president, a director, a committee member and most importantly where i think most deals would originate from would be the coteries. The deals shouldn't become fine just because the person offering the cash doesn't have the word president in front of their name.

At least we know what Judd does

 

[donbooger]

Ablett is in need of a payrise for his sterling work as ambassador for Costas Coastal property business. Somewhere in the line of 400 times inflation would be adequate compensation.

All the other players are obviously just dodging salary caps, cheats to a man.

 

[Madblue]

Wow..... So Juddy isn't the only one receiving these payments ? There are 113 others ? Is there enough eggs to go around all that is needed for peoples faces ??????

 

[teagueyubeauty]

Settle down Teaguey, one thing at a time.

You don't get it do you, they're pulling figures out of thin air with no idea on actual amounts.

The article you started this thread about states categorically "The AFL last night conceded 114 players were paid more than $2 million outside the league salary cap by club associates last season". That's not "no idea" - it's an exact number of players and a dollar amount rounded off by the Herald Sun.

Besides Ablett and Judd what are the other "112" doing for theirs

Well, I explained what the others are doing: ... if you take out the top 1/2 dozen or so of these blokes, charging at standard commercial rates for jobs like Riewoldt advertising suits, Barry Hall doing phone company campaigns, Daisy Thomas' Kid's Club at McDonald's, etc, you're getting a hundred or so guys bagging about $5,000 - $10,000 each, which is a very reasonable amount considering it includes private coaching clinics, sportsmen's nights and corporate speaking engagements, private functions, etc, etc.

it clearly states in the article that deals such as the Richmond one with Clinton CAsey and his property developments are not allowed under these extra payments. So please explain the situation of salary cap rorting at your pissant club And why aren't the bloody AFL doing anything about it?

The Richmond players didn't actually receive any money - in fact they gave money to Casey in "investment opportunities" that would have been akin to insider trading, except that the properties didn't actually appreciate much at all - hence why Ben Holland was taking Casey to court, to try and get the money that he didn't receive. Not really salary cap rorting if you didn't get anything, is it?

Haggard, have a look at the quote that you're getting some of these figures from:

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.

Notice anything ridiculously peculiar about that quote. I'll give you a hint, it starts with "The secret deals" and then goes on to pull figures out of thin air to make it a little more dramatic. Its either secret or its not. Which is it

 

[JeffDunne]

IMO - that is simply not true.

Judd didn't leave for more money irrespective of popular opinion - he could have got something very similar back here. WC would be able to manufacture the same commercial deals as anyone else.

It could have possibly been the carrot that made him choose Carlton - however i'm sure collingwood have enough commercial dealings to manufacture a deal - Eddie - could have got Judd (or his fiance) a media deal.

Regardless of the reason why he left, money was what made him choose Carlton.

The whole club seletion process was a sham. Chris is an even worse actor than Steven Segal (no wonder he's a fan).

Would Brett Lee get WeetBix sponsorship if he played for England?

Does cricket have a salary cap?

Would Kieran Perkins get Uncle Toby's sponsorship if he was a US swimmer?

Does swimming have a salary cap?

The club you play for is going to be a huge determining factor in which sponsorship you get. It simply wouldn't make sense for a Collingwood player to be an ambasador for Visy when the links between Carlton and Visy are so strong.

And hence why any properly constituted salary cap bans related party agreements.

Similarly - if SGIO want a personality - they are going to choose an Eagle - as the relationship is stong.

Perfect example why they should be banned. It allows the bigger clubs (in terms of exposure) to play to a different rule book.

Equalisation isn't about making all teams equal. It's giving all teams equal opportunity to succeed. If teams with the biggest supporter bases are allowed to leverage that natural advantage, why then even have a salary cap?

If Lexus want an AFL player - they are going to choose an allied player from Collingwood.

Edit: do we now question the sponsorship of Malthouse and Buckley from the Victorian govt due to the Wipe Off 5 campaign? they sponsored Collingwood as well - why would they then go and get a Carlton player for their advertisements?

Most club sponsorships include the use of players/coaches. In fact the standard player contract stipulates what a player's obligations are. There is also the additional services provision AFL clubs can use on players for marketing purposes. The intent of this is to allow players to be paid for the sort of work we are discussing here.

You can try and justify these sham arrangements all you like but they are in place for one reason only and that's to divert player payments outside the salary cap. Costa pretty well admits that in the article.

Why would Ablett sign at Geelong for near what GC offer if it includes 20+ hours work each week? Hell even 5 hours? Even worse, agreements that limit his ability to contract his services to others.

If you want a salary cap do it properly or don't do it all.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Wow..... So Juddy isn't the only one receiving these payments ? There are 113 others ? Is there enough eggs to go around all that is needed for peoples faces ??????

No, you are missing the gist of the sentiment here. $200k for Juddy and Junior, and the rest have apparently split it all equally bringing it down to amounts so insignificant they would have to be legit.

If the figures bandied about here have any merit at all, the first thing it does is get rid of the $700k pa claims by posters early on in the role. It also shows another high profile player at another club worthy of a similar amount while working for the president.

There could well be other players on amounts that would subsidise their income nicely, and then the bulk of other on small amounts for small roles.

I guess the point is that it isn't exactly a Carlton initiative, with the AFL overlooking a rort to help Carlton out. Options are open to all clubs as long as it passes scrutiny by the AFL.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Regardless of the reason why he left, money was what made him choose Carlton.

You forgot to add 'in my opinion'.

 

[Hodgepodge]

Well Podgey, we know of 2 as they have been confirmed. Both are through the presidents companies.

I'm not going to speculate on the rest because i don't know who they are.

And why do stop at Presidents, there's no difference between a president, a director, a committee member and most importantly where i think most deals would originate from would be the coteries. The deals shouldn't become fine just because the person offering the cash doesn't have the word president in front of their name.

It doesn't matter what their official role at the football club is, you're right. However in Pratt and Costa's case, and particularly in Pratt's, we see presidents who are fans of the club and have an interested that is beyond commercial.

The deals will always be regarded as suspect for this reason.

At least we know what Judd does

Actually, we don't. I'm sure VISY has covered it's loopholes though.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

How can you cite industry standards for a star footballer being the public face of a company? The environment is a good selling point for a company like Visy and if a well recognised sportsmen is the face of it, how do you measure what that does for Visy?

I think you can look at other marketing opportunities for sports stars and measure it - it would never be an exact science, but I think it would be pretty clear when someone is being over-paid as opposed to being paid a sum that is debatable i.e. possibly high, but also posisbly fair.

It comes down to what work they do and how much they should earn for that work. How can you expect to receive 6 figure sums for a few public appearances?

It is not just Judd. The whold Lloyd hird website issue 50K for a domain name - I don't think so and it was rightfully rejected.

 

[Belnakor]

you're getting a hundred or so guys bagging about $5,000 - $10,000 each, which is a very reasonable amount considering it includes private coaching clinics, sportsmen's nights and corporate speaking engagements, private functions, etc, etc.

private functions most of the time the player gets cash in hand, not declared. Dean Cox will show up at a function in Perth during the week for $500-$1000 cash and say a few words. Organised via the club but i mean how is anything policed. Seems bizarre that they have to report anything that isn't directly from the club.

 

[Haggard H]

Haggard, have a look at the quote that you're getting some of these figures from:

Notice anything ridiculously peculiar about that quote. I'll give you a hint, it starts with "The secret deals" and then goes on to pull figures out of thin air to make it a little more dramatic. Its either secret or its not. Which is it

I take it to mean that the AFL has stated the range of dollars as listed, but has refused to divulge the details of every "job" - all of which would be reasonable in a press release or statement. The HUN would then just use the term "secret deal" because it's guaranteed to inflame people and sell more papers.

But you make a fair point Teaguey - the AFL and Herald Sun (and all media outlets for that matter) have shot past used car salesman in the "to be trusted" department. Another couple of Gold Coast "secret deals" and they'll be overtaking politicians (unless Garrett, Conroy and Fitzgerald are anywhere near positions of responsibility).

 

[LFTWNG11]

Equalisation isn't about making all teams equal. It's giving all teams equal opportunity to succeed. If teams with the biggest supporter bases are allowed to leverage that natural advantage, why then even have a salary cap?

I agree. Lets force supporters to change teams so that all teams have the same amount of fans. We should also make sure all teams have a quota of fans who own big corporations, so therefore all teams can equally tap into these supporters finances. That way no-one can utilise the natural advantage of having a larger supporter base because that is so unfair.

I also think we should call the AFL, the new USSR.

 

[JeffDunne]

You forgot to add 'in my opinion'.

I usually don't add that when stating undeniable facts.

Tell me, why did Judd go to Carlton because of Richard Pratt (as he admitted)?

Money & access to power (= more money)

FFS, the guy admits to being a market junkie, that's a pretty strong indication of what helps motivate him. Money & lots of it.

 

[Swansujelly]

If the AFL is aware of it, why not release who get's what. I have no problem with players getting sponsorships, but being sponsored by a club president's company is taking the piss..

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I usually don't add that when stating undeniable facts.

So you should have added it then. You might want to look up the definition of the words 'undeniable' and 'facts'.

Tell me, why did Judd go to Carlton because of Richard Pratt (as he admitted)?

Could it be that Carlton had been down and out prior to the arrival of Pratt? Because Pratt had got Swann and Icke on board? Because Pratt was planning on building fantastic new facilities? Because there was renewed hope around the place which meant a greater chance of our better players wanting to stay?

I'd think it more suspicious if he wanted to go to the club when they were making no ground at all.

[quute]Money & access to power (= more money)

FFS, the guy admits to being a market junkie, that's a pretty strong indication of what helps motivate him. Money & lots of it.[/QUOTE]In your opinion.

 

[broden]

The difference between the Judd deal and the vast majority of the others is that Judd's was used as a carrot to get him to change clubs.

If the offer was made as part of signing on with Carlton, then it's him playing for Carlton that's the key determinate in having the contract.

i.e. he earns money from Visy to play football for Carlton

Trying to legitimise the deal with jigsaw puzzles is irrelevant - the fundamental reason he has the contract still remains that he plays football for Carlton. Therefore it shouldn't be allowed.

The same is true for some of these deals (would GA be used by Costa if he signed with GC?) but there are plenty that are genuine. If a clothing or boots sponsor uses a star player for promotional purposes it would count as a related party contract. If Nike sponsor a star player and he changes clubs, they are probably going to keep him on their books unless it breaches pre-existing club contracts.

Carlton supporters can point fingers all they like and come up with all the justifications in the world, but the Judd deal is essentially no different to what they did in the 90's.

The only difference now is that the AFL can't call them out on it because they do it too!

Wouldn't it be great if everything was fair and equitable Jeff?

The heathen/anti-Christ that is Carlton - It really grates on you doesn't it?

Just for once it'd be nice for everyone on here if you got off that soap-box of morality. The fact is nothing is equal - never has been, never will be. Just speak to the peasants in communist-China that look on with envy at their millionaire merchants in the big cities. Oh, I'm sorry, I know that you will point out that this is football not econmomics

Judd (also read Ablett and the other 112) are being payed legitimately via the salary cap as well as via marketing payments that are sanctioned by the AFL.

St. Kilda can do it as well if they wish (probably have and still are). Good on them.

But then again, it's not morally right is it Jeff. But as you will point out I am sure, Carlton have no morals. Of course Saint Kilda do don't they…..don't they? Perhaps you need to ask Barry Breen, Michael Roberts et al what they think of St.Kilda's morals when it comes to paying players correctly…..oh that's right, those players are still waiting aren't they..mmmmmm