Geelong rorting the system

[Elixuh]

Very short-sighted of you. You've got to picture the hilarity when the AFL 'investigation' gives Scott the all-clear. That's when the hand-wringing from our opposition supporting friends will reach a beautiful crescendo. I'm expecting you front and centre after some of your ripping trade period whines. Don't disappoint us now!

I was so upset about the Lions doing pick swaps during the trade period, you're right

 

[STPer18]

I was so upset about the Lions doing pick swaps during the trade period, you're right

Clayton Oliver thread says hello. That was some serious self-induced Geelong-related humiliation.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Seems like one of these dumb things that the AFL get themselves into knots over when it’s actually bloody easy to fix.

Under the salary caps, payments from club sponsors should be treated the same as payments from the club.

I mean it’s pretty bloody obvious these payments / “jobs” are only there because of the footy club, and are contingent on them. This company isn’t making Scott “chief of leadership” or wherever it is if he isn’t Geelong coach. It’s an extension of his footy work.

Same goes for Cotton On employing players or their wives, or Visy employing Judd. It goes into the cap just like club payments do.

 

[Elixuh]

What happens if Geelong gets a Thursday night game next year but Scotty has some work to catch up on at the office and can't get away to attend the game. Who coaches?

 

[tropicaltiger]

Now now... We don't know for sure.

They did come down on the Blues that one time to force them to move to Marvel after all.

Would be glorious if Scott's fat self indulging scone was the straw that broke the camels back and forced the AFL to finally step in.

But unfortunately we all know they'll just politely ask Steve Hocking to stop making it so obvious and it will be business as usual handing out farms, tractors and pubs for the cost of a pack of sultanas down at the Cattery.

 

[SSSSSS]

Thanks for posting that, now I'm craving some Town and Country Pizza .

They couldn't pay me $10000 to eat that shite.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

If the AFL let this slide than other clubs should definitely do it with their coaches with club sponsors.

I think you might be surprised to find they do. Or do you think Luke Beveridge is actually a university professor?

 

[CatToTheFuture]

I'm personally giving each player $500k.

Only $500k? Brisbane must be pretty desirable, I had to give all the cats players $750k each

 

[HairyO]

Had a bit of a think about this. In order to sway a player the offer would need to be many hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions over the life of the contract. That is costly.

But with the AFLW you'd surely need a fraction of the money. So you could be finding $100k a year jobs for 10 top players and create a super team for not a huge cost.

Im sure a couple of AFLW players have had this happen, but what is stopping a big club just going to town on these sorts of deals? Could do the same with coaching groups as well.

The AFL promotes the McClelland Trophy as the combined AFL and AFLW trophy so it helps the AFL team as well.

Or would the AFL actually get serious if the AFLW became the home of the rort (unless Geelong does it of course)?

 

[Pistol Night]

Honestly what kind of role title is the “Chief” of something.

Head of leadership yes. Director of leadership yes.

But chief, come on that’s made up.

You might cop a ban for this kind of slander..

 

[Toffee Lion]

I understand this is a Cats pile on thread but my takeaway from the Tom Morris tweet is the further incompentence from AFL house.

How can you sign off on it and then backtrack to feign ignorance. Either way it's a bad look for the AFL more than Geelong.

 

[HairyO]

Seems like one of these dumb things that the AFL get themselves into knots over when it’s actually bloody easy to fix.

Under the salary caps, payments from club sponsors should be treated the same as payments from the club.

I mean it’s pretty bloody obvious these payments / “jobs” are only there because of the footy club, and are contingent on them. This company isn’t making Scott “chief of leadership” or wherever it is if he isn’t Geelong coach. It’s an extension of his footy work.

Same goes for Cotton On employing players or their wives, or Visy employing Judd. It goes into the cap just like club payments do.

How do you draw the line with coterie groups who arent sponsors but contribute millions of dollars to the club/players without ever signing a bit of paper?

It really needs to be sponsors and members. But then do you get super dodgy coterie groups who arent even members of the club but everyone knows they are basically running the show?

This is why the AFL needs to see tax returns for players and coaches. Its the only way to have any integrity in the caps.

 

[HairyO]

I want to know how brisbane is paying

Neale
Dunkley
McLuggage
Andrews
Rayner
Bailey
Berry
Daniher (who is still owed money)
Charlie Cameron
Dayne Zorko
Hipwood

And that's before i even include adding
Big O
Starcevich
Doedee
Ashcroft x 1 and soon to be 2
Fletcher
Lohmann

If they manage to maintain everyone i'd be putting real close eyes on how that is fitting everyone into the cap.


About half of those guys have signed monster deals and yet somehow no one is leaving?
How is that possible? A Rolls Royce midfield, stars in the forward line, AA backmen and no one seems to be leaving?
Curious, very curious.

Seems abundant how many players are driving brand new Hyundais too, i hope that's all covered in the cap?

I wonder if there are many $1 farms or $1 pubs being bought in the Greater Brisbane Area. Probably be some highly recognisable names on the certificates.

I think you might be surprised to find they do. Or do you think Luke Beveridge is actually a university professor?

Clarko has studied sporting organisations around the world and has post-graduate degrees. He would easily be qualified to teach a number of subjects at universities. I dare say Beveridge would too, as many clubs are doing this.

But even so, it should be looked at given they are a sponsor.

I do wonder about Scott being a finance wiz who is leading a team of financial types. Or does Scott have a post-graduate degree in Finance or something else which makes him qualified? Maybe spending 15 years playing football and 15 years coaching football makes you a leader in the finance world. And he for sure would be sought after by many financial firms around the world, not just the one which by chance is a sponsor.

 

[hawkman]

I understand this is a Cats pile on thread but my takeaway from the Tom Morris tweet is the further incompentence from AFL house.

How can you sign off on it and then backtrack to feign ignorance. Either way it's a bad look for the AFL more than Geelong.

If Geelong weren't so public about nothing would have happened. The AFL don't care about this stuff unless it goes public

 

[Bald]

Far be it for me to defend the Cats but this definitely seems like a bigger issue for the AFL than it does Geelong.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

I understand this is a Cats pile on thread but my takeaway from the Tom Morris tweet is the further incompentence from AFL house.

How can you sign off on it and then backtrack to feign ignorance. Either way it's a bad look for the AFL more than Geelong.

AFL are just responding to club backlash.

It would be genuinely hard to compete for the limited supply of good coaches as it is and the soft cap is supposedly there to make good coaches move to bad teams. But here we see a good coach being more marketable outside of his coaching and blunting the effect of the soft cap.

The real brain bender is whether Scott would be considered a good coach if he wasn't with Geelong, how much of his coaching is Lappin backing him up, off field administration supporting him, and a playing group that is willing to stay together and attract trade in talent? The message is that taking a job at a struggling club is bad for your career and that makes it hard for a club trying to land a saviour.

I think lining up Geelong over something that's within the rules here is solving the wrong problem. There needs to be additional coaching resources for struggling clubs. The solution I would put forward is to give every club that finishes outside the 8 a minimum wage development coach on a 2 year contract, and giving two to any who finish bottom 4. Outside soft cap of course. 2 years in a row in the bottom 4 means you'd have 4 extra development coaches kicking around the next year, finish 9th-14th the next year and you're down to 3 extra etc

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Well he did give up his entire salary and worked for free during COVID so that the club could keep staff members …. I think the club would be comfortable with him taking on a second job

He did take his salary off the books so Geelong could gain an advantage by having more support staff and coaches than other clubs is obviously what you mean.

 

[Slime Roy]

AFL are just responding to club backlash.

It would be genuinely hard to compete for the limited supply of good coaches as it is and the soft cap is supposedly there to make good coaches move to bad teams. But here we see a good coach being more marketable outside of his coaching and blunting the effect of the soft cap.

The real brain bender is whether Scott would be considered a good coach if he wasn't with Geelong, how much of his coaching is Lappin backing him up, off field administration supporting him, and a playing group that is willing to stay together and attract trade in talent? The message is that taking a job at a struggling club is bad for your career and that makes it hard for a club trying to land a saviour.

I think lining up Geelong over something that's within the rules here is solving the wrong problem. There needs to be additional coaching resources for struggling clubs. The solution I would put forward is to give every club that finishes outside the 8 a minimum wage development coach on a 2 year contract, and giving two to any who finish bottom 4. Outside soft cap of course. 2 years in a row in the bottom 4 means you'd have 4 extra development coaches kicking around the next year, finish 9th-14th the next year and you're down to 3 extra etc

Image what Morris & Co would be prepared to pay to land a "financial expert" that had actually won the "AFL Coach Of The Year Award?"
Now That'd be a good investment.

 

[CharacterFirst]

My douche-O-meter reading is off the charts

View attachment 2154016

And you like Tampon Tim!

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

 

[CharacterFirst]

Honestly what kind of role title is the “Chief” of something.

Head of leadership yes. Director of leadership yes.

But chief, come on that’s made up.

Its deeply racist against First Nations people of the Americas.

Shame and deplatform anyone who even mentions the word!!!!

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Seems like one of these dumb things that the AFL get themselves into knots over when it’s actually bloody easy to fix.

Under the salary caps, payments from club sponsors should be treated the same as payments from the club.

I mean it’s pretty bloody obvious these payments / “jobs” are only there because of the footy club, and are contingent on them. This company isn’t making Scott “chief of leadership” or wherever it is if he isn’t Geelong coach. It’s an extension of his footy work.

Same goes for Cotton On employing players or their wives, or Visy employing Judd. It goes into the cap just like club payments do.

I think throwing a blanket over it and saying no to any role outside of coaching or playing is unfair and harsh.

The devil is in the details really.

Chris Scott is getting an offer because he has built an exceptional brand over a 14 year coaching career, not just because he is with the club. He has opportunities through hard work and excellence, so to say it’s just due to being there as a coach is wrong. You have to be heavily marketable and successful for a company to want you, which is credit to him or the player.

So if it’s a legitimate role… I assume it is since the AFL ticked it off initially, then I assume he is doing some role on a consulting style basis or even looking towards life after footy.

So if the two criteria are met:
1) legitimate role
2) reasonable remuneration for said role and status
3) been approved of by AFL

Then what is the issue with a coach exploring his career potential??

People tend to forget coaches and players are people with jobs and families just like any other person in society.

They have every right to maximize their career potential and skills while they are working. No different to you and me

 

[The_Reaper]

I think throwing a blanket over it and saying no to any role outside of coaching or playing is unfair and harsh.

The devil is in the details really.

Chris Scott is getting an offer because he has built an exceptional brand over a 14 year coaching career, not just because he is with the club. He has opportunities through hard work and excellence, so to say it’s just due to being there as a coach is wrong. You have to be heavily marketable and successful for a company to want you, which is credit to him or the player.

So if it’s a legitimate role… I assume it is since the AFL ticked it off initially, then I assume he is doing some role on a consulting style basis or even looking towards life after footy.

So if the two criteria are met:
1) legitimate role
2) reasonable remuneration for said role and status
3) been approved of by AFL

Then what is the issue with a coach exploring his career potential??

People tend to forget coaches and players are people with jobs and families just like any other person in society.

They have every right to maximize their career potential and skills while they are working. No different to you and me

If Chris Scott leaves Geelong after the finals and signs up with the Bulldogs. Does he get the offer?

 

[geelong_crazy26]

If Chris Scott leaves Geelong after the finals and signs up with the Bulldogs. Does he get the offer?

I would assume so. Unless you think coaching the dogs makes you a less successful coach and marketable figure

 

[blueboy25]

If Chris Scott leaves Geelong after the finals and signs up with the Bulldogs. Does he get the offer?

He could take on the role of Chief of leadership at Mission Foods or whoever sponsors the doggies these days.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I think throwing a blanket over it and saying no to any role outside of coaching or playing is unfair and harsh.

The devil is in the details really.

Chris Scott is getting an offer because he has built an exceptional brand over a 14 year coaching career, not just because he is with the club. He has opportunities through hard work and excellence, so to say it’s just due to being there as a coach is wrong. You have to be heavily marketable and successful for a company to want you, which is credit to him or the player.

So if it’s a legitimate role… I assume it is since the AFL ticked it off initially, then I assume he is doing some role on a consulting style basis or even looking towards life after footy.

So if the two criteria are met:
1) legitimate role
2) reasonable remuneration for said role and status
3) been approved of by AFL

Then what is the issue with a coach exploring his career potential??

People tend to forget coaches and players are people with jobs and families just like any other person in society.

They have every right to maximize their career potential and skills while they are working. No different to you and me

Nobody’s saying no to the role. He can do what he likes and so can the sponsor.

But if it’s a club sponsor the payments go in the salary cap. It’s such an obvious loophole for abuse that all clubs will attempt.