AFL stars' secret perks as extra payments revealed

[The Old Dark Navy's]

What exactly was I taking out of context? Your entire post was a 'victim' whinge.

It wasn't, but because of your lack of understanding and lack of objectivity, it suits you to dismiss it as such. You can not argue points JD, you just say things as though that is good enough to make it true. You obviously have an extremely high opinion of yourself and can not entertain being wrong.

You may have been talking about BF, but does it matter? Here, on the terraces, on talk back, Carlton supporters always play the 'victim' card. It's part of the whole arrogance persona you pride yourself on. Hell, read the interview Sticks did with Mike Sheahan recently - I almost burst into tears for the poor bastard reading that sob story.

More rhetoric. As for playing the victim card, haven't you admitted that you hate Carlton so much for trying to bury the Saints? You want to talk about victim mentalities, look no further.

Personal shots?!? I must have hit my mark.

No, it's been a while since I pointed out your shortcomings. Time to remind people.

Yes of course. The biggest such 'perk' was always going to get a run.

Should only be as a collective however.

Yeah of course.

Same reason as the cheating and now these 'perks' - Carlton's arrognace means they are more obvious than others. In fact you're sort of stupid enough to brag about it while doing it.

Brag about it? No more than any other team's who have a similar 'if you are going to complain,we may as well run with it' mentality, amongst a minority of supporters. You will see only the negative though.

Of course. You did it more than than other 15 clubs combined such was the level of rorting (and length).

It would be like talking about drug cheats and not mentioning Ben Johnson.

Of course but then you wouldn't get people suggesting it is no big deal because Johnson did it worse than the others and that is where the line is drawn and essentially that is what people are doing.

Every club cops it from opposition supporters regardless of who you are.

And every supporter will push back, relative to how much they are pushed.

FFS, even premiers have their success deminished by criticism.

Yes they do, so?

Carlton supporters I agree react more - but that's because you're one of the most precious supporter groups in world sport. One of the most arrogant too (even when you suck).

Boy, this arrogance really bothers you doesn't it? You want to see us bowed and broken huh?

What you should have said - if talking about Bigfooty - more reaction guarantees more action

Wrong. A simple look at the way these things unfolds makes a lie of this.

Surprised as a moderator you wouldn't have realise that?

On Bay 13 perhaps as that is the intent. Can you honestly say that if Carlton supporters stayed out of threads like this, that Carlton and Judd would not be the main discussion point? If anything, correcting some of the mistruths forces the ignorant to scamper off for a while.

 

[JeffDunne]

. . . haven't you admitted that you hate Carlton so much for trying to bury the Saints?

No actually I haven't.

I've said plenty of times though I don't hate Carlton - just the cheats and the supporters that love the fact they do.

You want to see us bowed and broken huh?

I've been watching it for near on a decade.

Can you honestly say that if Carlton supporters stayed out of threads like this, that Carlton and Judd would not be the main discussion point?

Ummm . . . no.

I think if you read my post again I make it pretty clear it would be and why.

Hence your preciousness . . .

Do you & your fellow Carlton mod really feel the obligation to defend Carlton in every bloody thread?

It wouldn't be so annoying if you didn't 1) start the 'what about your club posts' like your mate does EVERY time, 2) you didn't insist on posting rediculous hypotheticals that only the most biased of supporters would believe, 3) encourage the mindless trolls with (not so witty) one-liners & 4) turn every such thread into a personal slagging contest.

Do you work for the club or something? Can't see any other reason why you'd bother. Surely you don't think this helps debate on THIS site?

If anything, correcting some of the mistruths forces the ignorant to scamper off for a while.

i.e. take the thread off topic. Congrats.

One person is acting the troll here and it aint me!

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

No actually I haven't.

I've said plenty of times though I don't hate Carlton - just the cheats and the supporters that love the fact they do.

I distinctly remember you talking about a Carlton president saying something about the Saints a long time ago and how that influenced your thinking. I would take a bit of searching but I reckon it can be found.

I've been watching it for near on a decade.

You can't even remain consistent. You have watched us beaten and bowed for 10 years but are complaining about our arrogance. Yeah, that makes sense.

Ummm . . . no.

I think if you read my post again I make it pretty clear it would be and why.

Hence your preciousness . . .

Thus it isn't our reaction that causes the same issues to be brought up. They would be with or without us. In essence you are saying that these discussion threads are inevitable going to drift towards Carlton bagging threads, and if we have anything to say about it we are being precious. Perhaps you like having a shot at people that don't fight back?

Do you & your fellow Carlton mod really feel the obligation to defend Carlton in every bloody thread?

I don't and haven't. I will correct inconsistencies where I see them however.

It wouldn't be so annoying if you didn't 1) start the 'what about your club posts' like your mate does EVERY time,

Again, you just want free reign to complain about your pet peeve club without comeback. When somebody does argue based on their own club, your response is that they are being precious. It's sheer hypocrisy. You either gear up for a debate JD or walk away. Nobody here is going to let your walk over them.

2) you didn't insist on posting rediculous hypotheticals that only the most biased of supporters would believe,

If you can argue them JD, do so. For the most part you lack the capacity so end up dismissing them without forming an argument.

3) encourage the mindless trolls with (not so witty) one-liners & 4) turn every such thread into a personal slagging contest.

What's the difference? If I debate you seriously, I am precious or it is spin. If I use humour on you, I am encouraging trolls. The end result is always the same ... you complain about how the discussion is going. And yet we have the victim mentality ... go figure.

Do you work for the club or something? Can't see any other reason why you'd bother. Surely you don't think this helps debate on THIS site?

No, and I don't personally know anybody at the club. Does that help.

As to helping debate, how on earth does attacking the 'precious' supporter base at every opportunity help debate?

You give it and still fail dismally at being able to take it I'm afraid.

i.e. take the thread off topic. Congrats.

One person is acting the troll here and it aint me!

Look again.

 

[JeffDunne]

I distinctly remember you talking about a Carlton president saying something about the Saints a long time ago and how that influenced your thinking. I would take a bit of searching but I reckon it can be found.

Ian Collins (not president then) . . . yeah so what? I make no secret of the fact that I think he's a slimy piece of shit. Grand-daddy of all salary cap rorts.

What has that got to do with anything?

You can't even remain consistent. You have watched us beaten and bowed for 10 years but are complaining about our arrogance. Yeah, that makes sense.

Well, yeah . . . it doesn't make sense. That's sort of the point.

Are you seriously trying to tell me Carlton supporters haven't remained arrogant while collecting spoons?

Please tell me you're not trying to push that fairytale now?

In essence you are saying that these discussion threads are inevitable going to drift towards Carlton bagging threads, . . .

How is this thread bagging Carlton?

People are bagging the AFL for allowing the deal and bagging them for now suggesting it would be against the rules for another club to do it.

How on earth is that bagging Carlton?

 

[The Passenger]

Tricky situation isn't...

On one hand a player shouldn't be prevented from reaching his full earnings potential but on the other hand the fairness and equalisation of the compeititon (via the salary cap) needs to be retained.

there are numerous situations where the AFL should be able to step in;

1 - where a player who is getting outside payment is clearly getting underpaid by his club... i.e. franklin, judd, ablett, cox etc,. only have 250k going to their total player payments.

where this gets tricky: If a player, for whatever reason, claims he is not really bothered by money and plays for about half his market value but the AFL suspects outside payments but can't prove it

2 - a player's salary goes down steadily - i.e. 400k in 2010, 350k in 2011, 275k in 2012, whilst his outside payments steadily go up: 50k in 2010, 100k in 2011, 200k in 2012...

where this can get tricky is if a player is independtly (with club approval) seeking outside employment. I.e. through media work, modelling work, advertising work etc,. and in doing say realise they can help the club out. This is made even trickier by actually determining that the club has had no part in helping the player with attaining such work.

Also gets complicated in that a player's outside work may be stepping up and their profile getting larger but their on field displays getting worse hence getting paid less by the club - although unusual it's the case with Brett Lee. He was once Australia's highest paid cricketer yet wasn't in the test XI.

To be honest, if a player goes out and seeks additional income and is succesful in doing so, then i don't see a problem with that at all - but the onus should be on them to prove they have done so themselves - once again further complicated if they have done so but someone on the club board is a big shot at a media company they are working for, or owns a clothing brand they appears in their adverts for....

what happens if a Dale Begg Smith situation occurs?? fairly unlikely, but lets say Tom Scully is also a computer genius and dedicates a lot of his spare time and summer months to computer programming. he signs a contract in his third and fourth years for 250k and 300k respectively with the Demons, but mid way through it he writes a program that makes him a fortune and decides from his fifth year onwards to play for the Demons on minimum wage because he wants to help maximise their success and the money doesn't mean a thing to him due to the millions he is making elsewhere?? Or What if an AFL player wins the 30 million dollar oz lotto and does the same thing??

yes, extreme situations, but it's the extreme situations that sporting organisations spend the most time sorting out.

Another tricky issue is people saying that the payments are fine as long as if the player changes clubs the deal is still in place. i.e. the player is getting the payment for who he is - not because of the club he plays for. That's all well and good but becomes a bit tricky because marketing strategies play a part in this - hungry jacks are hardly going to have a fremantle player on their advertisments... or if nick naitinui was on all their advertisements this year, and was traded to Hawthorn, then they're probably not gonna want to keep him on the books. They're going to want a west coast player....

Very very muddy issue but in general i think if a bit of discretion and common sense is used their shouldn't be too many issues

 

[shifty mp]

The only way this works is IF there is transparency.

I dont trust the AFL to apply a set of secret agreements evenly for all teams, just look at the fixturing, some clubs do better than others.

I agree with Dogs CEO Campbell Rose:
Rose said his club would continue to toe the line.

"A number of our players are approached by individuals or companies, but we have to declare all those. They report them to us and we report them to the AFL," Rose said.

"We have individual car arrangements and promotional arrangements. But we have never gone out and spruiked our players to the commercial sector to try and find advantage so we can get around or breach the salary cap.

"Our books are straight down the line and diligent. We don't have anything to worry about."

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.

 

[JeffDunne]

Tricky situation isn't...

Actually there is nothing 'tricky' about it at all.

It's really no different to banning club officials and employess from gambling. Like with that, if you work for a club or hold a official position, or have an existing contract, you or you private company interests cannot have an outside contract with one of the club's players.

Ban that and problem solved.

People keep harping on about limiting a players income potential - but if Judd or Ablett are getting 'market' rates then the 'market' will pay them that anyway. Does anyone seriously believe this is the case?

For every legit deal you might knock on the head, you'll be knocking another 100 on the head that are designed to get around the cap.

Small price to pay for maintaining the integrity of the competition.

 

[Perry Pie]

It is tricky - and I can see several arguments that pull in different directions.
Ablett and Judd have "market" rates based on football. If they were lawyers or plumbers the football element of their "market" rate would be small, for PR the "market" value is based entirely on football value and should be covered by the salary cap.

In simple terms it depends on what someone does and if it is football related. However, there are rich sponsors who are willing to put players in non-football related "jobs" - head guy in charge of the photocopier - pay a fortune - not football related so outside the cap.

Hmmmm, what to do?

How about all non club earnings must be declared. Non club earnings count towards salary cap unless they are deemed to be non-football related. Specified jobs, eg PR/modelling/equipment promotion/groundsman at Vissy would be deemed 100% football. Other jobs may have "football" elements but not be totally football, could be 75% football, right down to 0% football related. Manged by an independent assessor from Collingwood to ensure fairness as to what should be in the cap and what should be out. (I can still see problems with control, audit and keeping in the cap for clubs).

 

[Hodgepodge]

How about you're not allowed to work for the president's company. Period.

 

[JeffDunne]

If Judd and Ablett are getting 'market' rates - then let somebody else in the market pay that amount.

You know, someone who isn't president of the club.

 

[Perry Pie]

If Judd and Ablett are getting 'market' rates - then let somebody else in the market pay that amount.

You know, someone who isn't president of the club.

They are getting "market" rates - but the "market rate" they get is based on football. If they were not top flight footballers they would have the same "market" rate as me or you (probably less as we are worth a fortune). The current concept of "market rate" is wrong and is serving to disgise player payments and bust the salary cap.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

JD that's all well and good, but for example lets say a company (with no affection for any club) wants to use an AFL footballer to market their product.

Which club do you think will they look to first? One with 20,000 members, or one with consistent media fawning and promotion?

Lets say Adam Cooney gets a sponsorship from a beer company to sell it's products. As a dogs player, he has extra attraction from maybe 100,000 people. So he gets 10k for doing it.

Over the off-season, he wants to go to a new team for whatever reason, and gets picked up by the Eagles. The beer manufacturer doesn't sell in WA.... = no renewal.

OR

Over the off-season, he wants to go to a new team for whatever reason, and gets picked up by the Magpies. The beer manufacturer doubles his sales, so doubles the contract.

Is that ok? If not, why not?

If so, the $$ involved change directly on the club involved. Why allow this and not other *ahem* "roles"?

========================

FWIW - I would remove the Salary Cap in it's entirety, have all players paid by the AFL itself, and clubs merely "trade" interest in the player, not negotiate salaries, etc. If the clubs aren't paying the bill, then there's no advantage to the big clubs. Considering the Salary cap is approximately equal to the AFL Distribution it should be simple enough.

Players contract for what they are worth - regardless of which club they are at.

 

[JeffDunne]

JD that's all well and good, but for example lets say a company (with no affection for any club) wants to use an AFL footballer to market their product.

Which club do you think will they look to first? One with 20,000 members, or one with consistent media fawning and promotion?

Lets say Adam Cooney gets a sponsorship from a beer company to sell it's products. As a dogs player, he has extra attraction from maybe 100,000 people. So he gets 10k for doing it.

Over the off-season, he wants to go to a new team for whatever reason, and gets picked up by the Eagles. The beer manufacturer doesn't sell in WA.... = no renewal.

OR

Over the off-season, he wants to go to a new team for whatever reason, and gets picked up by the Magpies. The beer manufacturer doubles his sales, so doubles the contract.

Is that ok? If not, why not?

If so, the $$ involved change directly on the club involved. Why allow this and not other *ahem* "roles"?

I bolded the key part.

If organisations have no connection with a club then they can pay the player what they like.

The issue re: the player's value based on the club they play for is why you need equity consistenly in all forms - including scheduling. If a player has a large media profile they'll sell their image regardless of the club. No doubt it's always going to be better to sell your image in a larger market but if you look at US sports it's often players from small market teams that become the leading stars and hence the leading national profile players.

The issue isn't how much players earn, it's how and why they earn it.

========================

FWIW - I would remove the Salary Cap in it's entirety, have all players paid by the AFL itself, and clubs merely "trade" interest in the player, not negotiate salaries, etc. If the clubs aren't paying the bill, then there's no advantage to the big clubs. Considering the Salary cap is approximately equal to the AFL Distribution it should be simple enough.

Players contract for what they are worth - regardless of which club they are at.

The salary cap is all you need if it's policed properly to save greed from itself. A competition like the AFL could be destroyed by a Dick Pratt type figure if spending was unrestrained. That's not a sledge on Dick, simply highlighting the one individual that would have the financial clout to create an environment where every other team went broke trying to remain competitive.

What AFL supporters lose sight of is that the cap isn't supposed to mean all clubs spend the same. It's in place to prevent the sort of out of control spending that can happen when sport becomes the play thing of billionaires. However that doesn't mean everyone should spend the same, it simply sets a limit for club spending on players if they want to us it. The 92.5% minimum is to satisfy a salary damand. It really has nothing to do with forcing clubs to remain competitive since we don't have a free player transfer market.

Personally I believe the cap should currently be much higher than it is. Too much money from football is sqandered on excessive spending that should be going to the players. Raise the cap to say $10M, properly enforced, remove the cap minimum, establish a decent free player market and all 16 teams would quickly become competitive.

 

[KnaveyBlue]

i'm tipping my club are going to have to come up with (if not already) some creative arrangements for buddy, rough, rioli etc

buddy.com, roughy.com, rioli.com - problem solved! (providing you have ex-clubmen in high positions at AFL house)

Worked for Essendon anyway!

 

[JeffDunne]

buddy.com, roughy.com, rioli.com - problem solved! (providing you have ex-clubmen in high positions at AFL house)

Worked for Essendon anyway!

It staggers me how many BF lemmings believe this myth,

Essendon didn't get away with it and were fined.

Can I ask, if it 'worked' why aren't they (& others) still doing it?

 

[Ant_]

The only way this works is IF there is transparency.

I dont trust the AFL to apply a set of secret agreements evenly for all teams, just look at the fixturing, some clubs do better than others.

I agree with Dogs CEO Campbell Rose:
Rose said his club would continue to toe the line.

"A number of our players are approached by individuals or companies, but we have to declare all those. They report them to us and we report them to the AFL," Rose said.

"We have individual car arrangements and promotional arrangements. But we have never gone out and spruiked our players to the commercial sector to try and find advantage so we can get around or breach the salary cap.

"Our books are straight down the line and diligent. We don't have anything to worry about."

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

Agree with that.

Stynes has chipped in as well.


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...p-secret-pay-row/story-e6frf9jf-1225835835334

"You hear there's $2 million . . . I'm not seeing it. What are these players doing? I'd love to see what they're doing for that money," Stynes said.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Ian Collins (not president then) . . . yeah so what? I make no secret of the fact that I think he's a slimy piece of shit. Grand-daddy of all salary cap rorts.

What has that got to do with anything?

My point is that at the time, you stated you had a hatred of Carlton ever since. Something to do with hoping we sank just like Carlton (or Collins) had hoped you sank.

Well, yeah . . . it doesn't make sense. That's sort of the point.

Are you seriously trying to tell me Carlton supporters haven't remained arrogant while collecting spoons?

They talk the talk, but I put it to you ... the club was surrounded by despair. There were no wins to celebrate, very little talent coming through to celebrate, and unlike when perennial strugglers are down, much joy and gloating from our opponents. You either walk away or you hold your head up and become resolute. I liken it to William Wallace in Braveheart recognising they were up against it, but defiantly baring his backside at the enemy. That's pride, not arrogance. There was an element of denial that this could happen to our club because we were spoon fed a diet of success for as long as we could remember, and borne out of this was a false bravado for the most part.

Please tell me you're not trying to push that fairytale now?

How is this thread bagging Carlton?

People are bagging the AFL for allowing the deal and bagging them for now suggesting it would be against the rules for another club to do it.

How on earth is that bagging Carlton?

It seems that everyone automatically assumes we are deliberately rorting the cap but with AFL approval. Of course they do not know how it is structured, what the AFL looked at, how Judd presented his case. You yourself said this was no difference to what we did in the 90s. So the discussion doesn't allow for the fact that the deal might be above board, just that it isn't and how it has to be stamped out.

Yes, the discussion does address AFL rules but it is based on the premise that they are allowing us to cheat. Not sure why we would take offense to that in the absence of any evidence.

 

[Papa Juggs]

The cap as we know it is dead.

What does "3rd party" even mean.

Clubs can just do deals with non football companies to get extra cash to operate outside the salary cap.

It's a joke.

Stop playing us all for fools and raise the cap. It's obvious the players think they are worth the extra and so does the AFL.

 

[shifty mp]

The cap as we know it is dead.

What does "3rd party" even mean.

Clubs can just do deals with non football companies to get extra cash to operate outside the salary cap.

It's a joke.

Stop playing us all for fools and raise the cap. It's obvious the players think they are worth the extra and so does the AFL.

Juggs you are right, problem is the clubs that are losing money today, do you want to increase the subsidy so they can play this game ... its an AFL problem, a credibility problem ... no way the press are going to push it, they love the FREE scones & a cuppa ... shame there are no real journos covering the AFL.

 

[KnaveyBlue]

It staggers me how many BF lemmings believe this myth,

Essendon didn't get away with it and were fined.

It staggers me that you're still using 'lemming' in every second post you make. There's plenty of other insults out there - broaden your horizons.

If they were doing something illegal and were fined, why were they not stripped of their picks too? After all they were repeat offenders much like we were.
Also the AFL were only ever able to prove around $70k worth of actual cap dodging at Carlton. I'm gonna take a punt and say Essendon "bought" Lloyd and Hird's "websites" for a lot more than that.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

If they were doing something illegal and were fined, why were they not stripped of their picks too? After all they were repeat offenders much like we were.

I'll stand corrected but I think the AFL fined them, not for the legality of the deal, but for failing to notify the AFL of the deal in the required timeframe. Not sure what happened as to the legality but it was canned so it must not have been kosher.