Not a Geelong narrative Rob but my own personal view/opinion of which I'll repeat again. If you have your top players/leaders at a club prepared to sign long term contracts for their club under there true market value (referring Selwood, Hawkins, Dangerfield) then it sets a precedence to all other players at club but even moreso when a player from another club may consider playing at club, as they will know that there is a 'monetary standard set' by club which greatly assists and helps formulate a on-going competitive playing list, which is the opposite when your top players are wanting market price value. There is no way, if Cameron comes to Geelong, he will be on a long term contract of a greater value that what he would receive from other clubs nor will he be on more money than Selwood, Hawkins or Dangerfield, so when a player considers coming to Geelong they understand this caveat but they also realise by playing there part from a monetary prospective, it gives the club a better opportunity of growing and being more competitive in the future, the rest we leave upto Wells who for many years has been the best in the business and in whom we trust. Amazingly, Wells has had only had one pick under top 10 in draft in past 16 years and along with Cook are the two most important people at club.That's the Geelong produced narrative sure, and as a supporter I can see why you're rehashing it.
But we're all just outsiders to the club, what actual evidence is there that what you said is true? We don't know what these players are really getting paid, and if they are paid outside the cap then it's in their interest too to promote this idea that they're all getting paid unders.
The AFL needs to come out and say what is done to ensure the integrity of the salary cap. Of concern is most breaches are self reported, and those that aren't are from whistleblowers. Has an AFL audit *ever* identified a serious salary cap breach?
If not, is that because AFL audits are Mickey mouse?