Remove this Banner Ad

Geelong rorting the system

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Does it matter?
Nike are also a much, much, much bigger company, and would have deals with players, advertising deals and ambassadorial roles etc. Sydney eyes one of them: Nike helps it along. What’s the difference.

Lol, you can't see a problem with the Cats-Cotton On-B Smith situation, because a sports brand who sponsors a sports team and sportsmen might do the same thing.

How about just front up and admit it stinks.
 
Last edited:
Lol, you can't see a problem with the Cats-Cotton On-B Smith situation, because a sports brad who sposors a sports team ad sportsmen might do the same thing.

How about just front up and admit it stinks.

Yeah sorry, I’d rather discuss it with people who don’t have voodoo dolls of Jason Snell framed on their wall.

Back to your draft party.
 
here is the official heirarchy of AFL have's to have-not's, if you're ever wondering why this happened to this club but not that, if you're ever wondering why X got suspended but Y got off, anything and everything, consult the table

Geelong
Melbourne
Collingwood
West Coast
Sydney
Brisbane
Richmond
Hawthorn
Carlton
Bulldogs
Gold Coast
West Sydney
Essendon
North Melbourne
Fremantle
St. Kilda
Adelaide
Port Adelaide
At the very least you still have Kenny doing whatever he does there. :thumbsu:
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

It's a shame people tend to veer towards the conspiratorial rather than utilizing logic. For mine, if he gets another contract after 2026, and it's a lower value...then we can start talking about 'rorts.' As it stands though, Scott is contracted until 2026, which took place before this latest announcement...long before.

I honestly think it means that he'll be handing over to Rahilly come end of 2026 - and he's already taking steps towards his post-coaching career.

Let's revisit this if/when he gets a new contract. For now, we can't rort the soft cap because his contract is already built in for the next 2 years.

The optics aren't fantastic, but logic dictates that this is an outside venture and doesn't change the current amount being paid by Geelong...as it's already a contractual obligation.
Logic dictates that a head coach has only time for 1 job and 1 hat. Any extra media commitments are on behalf of the club & club sponsors.

Imagine if a politician had a side job consulting with party donors or offering services. It’s a rort the AFL signed off on it but they are worse than any single club.
 
What experience does Chris Scott have in finance? Were there any other candidates for the job? Was the position advertised?

Also, in what ways specifically are Geelong a really well run club?


Sent from my iPad using BigFooty.com
 
Lol, you can't see a problem with the Cats-Cotton On-B Smith situation, because a sports brad who sposors a sports team ad sportsmen might do the same thing.

How about just front up and admit it stinks.
Have a go at Cotton on then...

Smith was out of contract, and before he did his ACL was clearly told he would not be getting the amount of inside mid time he wanted. Then after recovering from his ACL he was told he would not be selected. Who can be surprised he wanted out, and who can be surprised Geelong was interested in the talented midfielder?

The same WB posters who declared WB will be better off without Smith are now crying foul. And old Mediocrity, always quick to join in any anti-Geelong thread, salivating over this one. So predictable!

Loyalty goes both ways.
 
Have a go at Cotton on then...

Smith was out of contract, and before he did his ACL was clearly told he would not be getting the amount of inside mid time he wanted. Then after recovering from his ACL he was told he would not be selected. Who can be surprised he wanted out, and who can be surprised Geelong was interested in the talented midfielder?

The same WB posters who declared WB will be better off without Smith are now crying foul. And old Mediocrity, always quick to join in any anti-Geelong thread, salivating over this one. So predictable!

Loyalty goes both ways.
The same loyalty and respect shown by WB in thanking Macrae and Daniels for their services but ignores Smith’s contribution to the team …yet they sook and complain over his exit
 
Geelong are the most dodgy afl club in a very long time.

They should be seen as Manchester city. A club being funded and proped up by evil forces.

Where their wins don't count

and the teams were on drugs just like the managers when they played
 
Have a go at Cotton on then...

Smith was out of contract, and before he did his ACL was clearly told he would not be getting the amount of inside mid time he wanted. Then after recovering from his ACL he was told he would not be selected. Who can be surprised he wanted out, and who can be surprised Geelong was interested in the talented midfielder?

The same WB posters who declared WB will be better off without Smith are now crying foul. And old Mediocrity, always quick to join in any anti-Geelong thread, salivating over this one. So predictable!

Loyalty goes both ways.

Uncontracted 26yo Liam Baker gets Richmond a pick that will end up around 16.

Ucontracted 24yo Bailey Smith gets Bulldogs a pick that will end up around 20 with a tiny rd 2 upgrade, maybe making the whole transaction worth about pick 19.

If Geelong paid a fair price for him, and there wasn't the spectre of Cotton On making payments to Smith on Geelong's behalf, then no problem. But neither of those conditions have been met. So we can understand why Bulldogs would be annoyed and why the rest of the competition is looking on saying wtf is happening here, this is a bit of a game changer.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

I think you're all missing the dodgiest link. Smith clearly getting paid here in untraceable grimace coin

Screenshot_20241024_084306_Instagram.jpg


Tax evasion thrown into the mix now too!
 
Logic dictates that a head coach has only time for 1 job and 1 hat. Any extra media commitments are on behalf of the club & club sponsors.

Imagine if a politician had a side job consulting with party donors or offering services. It’s a rort the AFL signed off on it but they are worse than any single club.
It brings to mind the Secret Herbs and Spices for compo: what exactly is the AFL's criteria for this shit?

It would be far easier to just have a blanket rule: no new payments from sponsors to players or other members of their household, barring pre-existing arrangements prior to recruitment, or full-time jobs.

No 'brand ambassador' bullshit. No throwing money at your wife to plug shit on Instagram.
 
Uncontracted 26yo Liam Baker gets Richmond a pick that will end up around 16.

Ucontracted 24yo Bailey Smith gets Bulldogs a pick that will end up around 20 with a tiny rd 2 upgrade, maybe making the whole transaction worth about pick 19.

If Geelong paid a fair price for him
Just because West Coast decided Liam Baker was worth p16, doesn't mean we're obligated to throw extra to the Dogs.
 
Does it matter?
Nike are also a much, much, much bigger company, and would have deals with players, advertising deals and ambassadorial roles etc. Sydney eyes one of them: Nike helps it along. What’s the difference.
Nike sponsor hundreds if not thousands of sportspeople and teams- cotton on sponsor what one? A business sponsors and pays a player from another club, while he is playing for said other club and guess what he leaves and goes to club who effectively have already been paying him ha ha- seems legit. Anyway I don’t give a enough shits to continue this discussion- just funny Geelong supporters can be so blinded - they kinda like their coach some weird thing about be so much more high and mighty than everyone else, funny really.
 
Uncontracted 26yo Liam Baker gets Richmond a pick that will end up around 16.

Ucontracted 24yo Bailey Smith gets Bulldogs a pick that will end up around 20 with a tiny rd 2 upgrade, maybe making the whole transaction worth about pick 19.

If Geelong paid a fair price for him, and there wasn't the spectre of Cotton On making payments to Smith on Geelong's behalf, then no problem. But neither of those conditions have been met. So we can understand why Bulldogs would be annoyed and why the rest of the competition is looking on saying wtf is happening here, this is a bit of a game changer.
I think this says much, much more about West Coast than Geelong
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

OK, point I was making is that Smith was neither an unrestricted nor a restricted free agent, so either a trade had to be done or he walked into the Draft. You cannot compare that scenario with Baker as different rules applied
How?

Baker was not a free agent. Baker was out of contract. So he would have walked to the draft if a trade couldn't be done.
 
It brings to mind the Secret Herbs and Spices for compo: what exactly is the AFL's criteria for this shit?

It would be far easier to just have a blanket rule: no new payments from sponsors to players or other members of their household, barring pre-existing arrangements prior to recruitment, or full-time jobs.

No 'brand ambassador' bullshit. No throwing money at your wife to plug shit on Instagram.
Yep, or just include it in the soft cap if it comes from a former sponsor, current sponsor or future sponsor.

Adam Simpson owns 2 Hungry Jacks stores, do you recon he got some good deals on those at the time?
 
Yep, or just include it in the soft cap if it comes from a former sponsor, current sponsor or future sponsor.

Adam Simpson owns 2 Hungry Jacks stores, do you recon he got some good deals on those at the time?
How do you know who your future sponsor is?

Also if you're getting player sponsorships in the cap you're basically banning them. I'll let you pitch that to the AFLPA
 
What a coincidence ;)

And I really don't like it when it's a senior coach or player. It's not like they are sacrificing income like a new assistant or a Cat B rookie.
Yep,
The other solution is to make everything public once you hit a certain threshold, say 500k. Everything going to an individual that is in a salary cap or soft cap above 500k combined is public. Dodgy deals could be seen as not in the cap, therefore lead to scrutiny.
 
How do you know who your future sponsor is?

Also if you're getting player sponsorships in the cap you're basically banning them. I'll let you pitch that to the AFLPA
Have 3-5 year rule and put the old deal into the current year’s cap. It would make it a lot harder to rort.

Maybe exclude sponsors who are sports sponsors or promotional in nature & the players are doing the work in photo shoots etc. eg. Nike

It’s the ones like a Finance company which seem a huge stretch.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Geelong rorting the system


Write your reply...

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top