AFL stars' secret perks as extra payments revealed

[The Falcon Strike]

That's their justification.


WTF?

I said earlier the vast majority of these deals are above board - I used the example of clothing/boot manufacturers using players.



I don't see anyone other than VISY queueing to pay that sort of money.

For the little amount Judd does for $200K (do we know that's the amount?) - I would imagine he could easily fit in 4-5 such roles.

As opposed to all of those hours Tiger Woods spent stitching shoes and hand crafting golf clubs for his millions.

You can't equate time to value. Who knows if he is worth $200k - i'd imagine the most high profile sportsman in the most successful sport in the country is probably worth $200k.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

For those of you still trying to justify these sort of deals, read again these comments by Frank Costa :



That in a nutshell is the issue with these deals.

The whole point of the salary cap is to create the environment he is trying to circumvent.

He admits that another club can pay him under the cap more than Geelong can, so to compensate they are going to have to create some "support activity".

No different to what Carlton & others did in the 90's and no different to what Carlton were penalised for.

Sure Judd & Ablett might have to attend the odd meet and greet and have their picture taken, but other than that it is a contract given by a club president through a 3rd party solely designed for the purposes of avoiding the cap.

The AFL endorse this sort of cheating because they started it!

While I baulked at Costa's comments as they seem designed to almost challenge the official stance and be right out in the open, there is a technicality here.

They are not designed to get around the cap unless they are effectively a payment for doing nothing. If Costa's company gets value from having Ablett on board, then he is getting paid for what he is doing for the company, not for playing for Geelong, which is covered by his existing player contract. There is a difference between getting around the cap and offering other earning avenues to prevent you moving.

All comes down to fair and reasonable value. Once you see players earning as much from these deals as they do from playing, then we might have an issue.

 

[JeffDunne]

Your overall intent might be a shot at the AFL JD, but you are very much accusing Judd of being nothing but a mercenary in essence, while trying to make your point. I'm just adding balance to that opinion.

There is a reason why I'm an advocate of free agency - it allows players to realise their earning potential under the constraints of a salary cap.

Personally I don't see wanting to earn your right whack as being a mercenary.

The issue I have with these deals is not what they earn, it's the AFL's inability to grasp the basic principles of the system they modelled their rules on. They don't believe in equalisation, they believe in manipulation.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

While I baulked at Costa's comments as they seem designed to almost challenge the official stance and be right out in the open, there is a technicality here.

They are not designed to get around the cap unless they are effectively a payment for doing nothing. If Costa's company gets value from having Ablett on board, then he is getting paid for what he is doing for the company, not for playing for Geelong, which is covered by his existing player contract. There is a difference between getting around the cap and offering other earning avenues to prevent you moving.

All comes down to fair and reasonable value. Once you see players earning as much from these deals as they do from playing, then we might have an issue.

I think you've nailed it on the head there.

The eagles flew in Wirrpanda's family when he was first recruited to make sure he was as settled and comfortable as possible. Where and how does this get caught up in the salary cap?

If eddie had got judd's girlfirend a gig on 9 and he went to collingwood everyone would be up in arms. As it stands she got a job at 7.

So commercially she was viable for a media career - if it happened to be a at 9 - it would have been an uproar - at 7 it's ok. it's hypocrisy.

Edit: There was a Richmond player who was promised a job as a podiatrist - how is this different to a media deal or an advertisement deal?

 

[JeffDunne]

All comes down to fair and reasonable value.

No it doesn't, not if you believe in a salary cap. If the fundamental reason a player has a contract because he plays for a particular club, then it must be included in the cap. It is all about measuring their football income.

The salary cap is designed so teams like Gold Coast can raid players like Gary Ablett.

That is the point of it.

Geelong have a team chock full of players that would have high salary demands. Gold Coast have none.

Do people understand the reason we have a cap?

I'm really starting to wonder.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

No it doesn't, not if you believe in a salary cap. If the fundamental reason a player has a contract because he plays for a particular club, then it must be included in the cap. It is all about measuring their football income.
.

The fundamental reason they have a deal is because they are idolised and are recognisable and that has currency.

It's why Chris Judd has a Visy deal and Jeff Garlett doesn't. Same club.

If what you are saying is correct - why don't Carlton just sack Judd from the Visy job and increase his salary by $200k.

Then they can appoint Brad Fisher as the new Visy representative (as he has time) and reduce his salary by $200k. If it's so contrived - then that should be easy to do.

it shouldn't matter - as the fundamental reason Fisher has the job is he plays for Carlton right?

 

[Orangewhip]

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.

Again, you forgot to add, 'in my opinion', little Jeffy.

 

[ReluctantLion]

These sort of deals have traditionally been the domain of the Vic clubs, although there are rumours of other deals going down over the years - Pavlich in the early 2000's when he was considering moving to Port, and Wanganeen (before Port joined AFL) are two that spring to mind (although neither is confirmed).

It was a couple years ago I heard from a player that even though a non-vic club had offered him a larger package (under the cap), he still would have been a couple hundred K worse off to leave Vic.

I'd suggest that Adelaide and West Coast would also be up there with the powerful Victorian clubs.

Back in the mid nineties Ben Hart (Fitzroy supporter and his old boy was at the time the Fitzroy scout for South Australia) was sounded out by Fitzroy and offered the captaincy if he'd come over.

From what I was told Ben Harts wife was subsequently offered a well paid job with Toyota after Ben stayed put.....

 

[JeffDunne]

The eagles flew in Wirrpanda's family when he was first recruited to make sure he was as settled and comfortable as possible. Where and how does this get caught up in the salary cap?

The cost should be included. It would be for NFL players.

If eddie had got judd's girlfirend a gig on 9 and he went to collingwood everyone would be up in arms. As it stands she got a job at 7.

There is a very big difference here. One, Eddie doesn't own channel 9. He might have thought he did but he doesn't. Two, Judd's girlfriend does not play for Collingwood.

Using the extreme example that her contract included a clause that Judd must play for Collingwood (which would never happen), then the value of her contract should be included in the cap.

It's the link to playing for a particular club that is the issue.

Further to that though, it's the lack of accountability when the president owns the company in question. Using your example, Eddie would be accountable.

 

[Furn]

Good luck with your project.

If these are "banned" then you will see players going to court for restraint of trade - and fair enough too.

Crap!

Restraint of trade is the most overused 3 words on this site.

Luke Hodge cant do ads for sportsbet because they are a competitor to a protected sponsor of the AFL. OMG restraint of trade.

I work for Coke and we cant bring in drinks that arent a Coke product to drink at work because it looks bad. Restraint of trade !!!!

My dad works in defence making missile guidance systems for anti ship missiles for an American company. Surely he can work for Iran or China part time or would that be restraint of trade ?

There are 10's of thousands of companies in Aus and around the world. Each club has about 5 sponsors and another 5-10 big companies owned by board members or fans.

To say that players cant work for these 15 odd companies while they play for that club is not restraint of trade. There are heaps of other companies not associated with the club they can work for.

Will Ablett still have his deal if he goes to GC ? Would Judd be at Visi if he played or Collingwood ?

Of course not. So if that is the case these deals should be stopped otherwsie just get rid of the cap and go EPL style and stop pretending.

 

[JeffDunne]

The fundamental reason they have a deal is because they are idolised and are recognisable and that has currency.

It's why Chris Judd has a Visy deal and Jeff Garlett doesn't. Same club.

If what you are saying is correct - why don't Carlton just sack Judd from the Visy job and increase his salary by $200k.

Then they can appoint Brad Fisher as the new Visy representative (as he has time) and reduce his salary by $200k. If it's so contrived - then that should be easy to do.

it shouldn't matter - as the fundamental reason Fisher has the job is he plays for Carlton right?

I think I should point out right about now that there are multiple Carlton players with Visy contracts. I've heard as many as 12 quoted but I don't know the exact number. Judd mentioned this when his contract became a media talking point (right after the hastily arranged Visy promotional gigs)

Now that probably answers most of your post but I might also point out that meeting Chris Judd's salary demands is always going to harder than the players you quoted.

FWIW, I'm sure if AFL player payments were made public it would be obvious that such ridiculous deals were done. i.e. a fringe player earning more than walk up starters.

Again, this is one of the key aspects of the NFL system that the AFL fail to grasp (the AFLPA for that matter too in realising that it allows players to realise their true value in the market)

 

[Woosh24]

[youtube]C-a7cSL7q7o[/youtube]

 

[The Falcon Strike]

The cost should be included. It would be for NFL players.


There is a very big difference here. One, Eddie doesn't own channel 9. He might have thought he did but he doesn't. Two, Judd's girlfriend does not play for Collingwood.

Using the extreme example that her contract included a clause that Judd must play for Collingwood (which would never happen), then the value of her contract should be included in the cap.

It's the link to playing for a particular club that is the issue.

Further to that though, it's the lack of accountability when the president owns the company in question. Using your example, Eddie would be accountable.

Eddie was CEO of Nine and was in charge of hiring and boning.

So we can now lure Franklin to WA and appoint his sister as the Netball liaison officer of West Coast and pay her $500k per annum?

It's not franklin - we wouldn't put it in the contract - so all is ok?

The accountability comes from the AFL - not the president - you have a gripe with the AFL - so for you this isn't sufficient - however how else is it done?

Completely do away with related party transactions altogether? It's not realistic - the sponsors and related parties are the most likely to choose that player. if Ablett left - of course he'll lose the deal - why would he use a Gold Coast footballer to market to a Geelong audience?

Whilst we are at it - let's ensure none of the players are sponsored by the AFL either for any of their promotions (like Daisy and DT last year) - beacuse that could be manipulated apparently.

It's a pretty level playing field - the big money and endorsements are going to go to a handful of elite players. I'd be staggered if any club couldn't get together alternative employment for 1 star.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

FWIW, I'm sure if AFL player payments were made public it would be obvious that such ridiculous deals were done. i.e. a fringe player earning more than walk up starters.

Again, this is one of the key aspects of the NFL system that the AFL fail to grasp (the AFLPA for that matter too in realising that it allows players to realise their true value in the market)

So player's personal finances should be made public so joe average like you and I can hold them to account?

We have an administration to do that - releasing it publically would be for titilation purposes only.

 

[Pessimistic]

I work for Coke and we cant bring in drinks that arent a Coke product to drink at work because it looks bad. Restraint of trade !!!!

.

How restrictive is that ? or is it just an obvious competitors products ?

 

[JeffDunne]

So player's personal finances should be made public so joe average like you and I can hold them to account?

No, just what they are paid by football.

The rest of their finances are their business.

We have an administration to do that - releasing it publically would be for titilation purposes only.

We have an administration that is prepared to bend and interpret the rules to "maimise revenue".

Why would you trust them to properly enforce the cap any more than you trust them to have a fair draw . . . or independent tribunal . . . etc. . . ?

Making player payments public actually suits most players. Ask the NFLPA if you don't believe me. They not only believe it but have proven it.

 

[JeffDunne]

Just on player payments, if player payments aren't public, how does anyone outside the club administration know if a player is in the top 10 earners at a club? (part of the free agency rules)

I doubt most players and their managers would even know themselves where they rank on the team list.

Once you start making rules like this then you really need to declare their salaries so everyone is playing on a level playing field in terms of information.

 

[SurreyBlue]

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.

The article in the 1st paragraph opens with this, yet we are all so obsessed with Juddy and Carlton that this is all we talk about.

 

[Furn]

How restrictive is that ? or is it just an obvious competitors products ?

Well its any beverage that isn't made by CCA, but theres so many products we make that aren't generally known as a Coke product such as Kirks, Glaceau. mother etc that even management lose track of what is and isn't a CCA product.

Obvioulsy a worker drinking a can of Pepsi while a client comes thorugh isn't going to go down well.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

No, just what they are paid by football.

The rest of their finances are their business.


We have an administration that is prepared to bend and interpret the rules to "maimise revenue".

Why would you trust them to properly enforce the cap any more than you trust them to have a fair draw . . . or independent tribunal . . . etc. . . ?

Making player payments public actually suits most players. Ask the NFLPA if you don't believe me. They not only believe it but have proven it.

Given the state of our game - i'd trust the administration a lot more than i would trust a system that would rely on the media to hold them to account.

Ultimately this is what it comes down to - you don't trust the independant arbiters to do their job. I don't have an issue with - they are the best placed to know what is commercial and what is fabricated.

I don't have my salary known publicly - is yours? - why should AFL players if they choose not to?

Have AFLPA released that stance? or is it fictional?

 

[Monkey King]

No surprises in this story. Even those fighting tooth and nail to keep their head buried deep in the sand, I am sure, were already aware of the extent of it.

I'd like to see one of the critics come up with a reasonable alternative for managing this situation though. Most present day players are at their lifetimes earning peak when it comes to sponsorship arrangements. To outright rob them, or overly restrict them from pursuing such opportunities in what is comparatively a low-paid sport at elite level is just a foolish option.

The AFL keeping tabs on player salaries to ensure there is no subsidising of salaries is a reasonable enough approach if you ask me; perhaps it requires more, so without stupid restrictions on earnings, what would that more be?

 

[Monkey King]

The Richmond players didn't actually receive any money ... Not really salary cap rorting if you didn't get anything, is it?

Umm... someone should probably tell you that a couple of the Carlton players over whom we were penalised for salary cap breaches were never actually paid. The deal itself is where the breach took place... regardless of actual payments.

 

[Hodgepodge]

I'd like to see one of the critics come up with a reasonable alternative for managing this situation though.

An independent body that evaluates the deals.

Oh, and don't tell me that's the AFL

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I work for Coke and we cant bring in drinks that arent a Coke product to drink at work because it looks bad. Restraint of trade !!!!

At least you have all the Coke line, bottled water, some juice IIRC and does your plant do Jim Beam & Coke cans or just some of them? I know the one up here in Brissie does ... god bless them.

Do you also get free drinks while on the job and one to take home? They do up here and so do visitors.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

An independent body that evaluates the deals.

Oh, and don't tell me that's the AFL

Don't be ridiculous. It's not a drug code. These rules are set by the AFL in the first place. Why on earth would they get an external agency to interpret AFL rules differently to the way the AFL themselves interpret them?

Oh I get it, independent means 'someone who agrees with me' in this context.