Newsflash: Essendon found guilty of salary cap breach

pazza

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Posts
31,476
Likes
5,414
Location
Hoppers Crossing
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Liverpool
So..we somewhat eagerly await the decision of the exact penalty Essendon are destined to receive for this, using Demetriou's words, minor indiscretion.

The premiership points idea is an interesting one, as it would virtually result on the on-field performance of the side being down on what it would normally be (then again losing 3 wins for the season may just make the players so damn fired up, they will go out and probably win the other 19....much like Canterbury did in the NRL this year).

It's pretty much a given that Essendon will be fined somewhere in the $100000-$150000 range. Maybe not enough who knows, but, it could have a major influence on whether we lose players or not (if the rumours of Solomon wanting an extra $100000 are to be believed). Perhaps losing a player of Solomon's quality could be punishment enough, if you are looking at it from that perspective.

Basically, wish the AFL bloody well hurry up and announce it, one way or another.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

MarkT

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 1, 2001
Posts
32,669
Likes
33
Location
Melb
AFL Club
Collingwood
Originally posted by Deej
Premiership points in conjunction with a monetary fine would be the best answer in my opinion. With Essendon Collingwood Adelaide West Coast etc you'd fine them more obviously, but the chances of a financially challenged club like the doggies breaking the cap are nearly none anyway so I doubt your example would ever happen. I think a formula should be struck that includes a clubs financial performance over the last 5 years and uses those figures to devise a maximum fine without putting a club out of business.
Freo and Melb. have both had multiple breaches and neither could pay a large fine. I also have a problem with fining rich clubs more. Do you take more points of "better teams"? The one thing that does have to be apparnent is consistancy - as you yourself have said. Same crime, same punnishment has to be observed.
Originally posted by Deej
Regardless, I still think draft picks should never be touched under any circumstances. They are just too important to to many innocent parties associated.
But if you are kept up by cheating you should be held down as a result. IMO it is the perfectly appropriate penalty. In any case, if the penqalty isn't very severe it wil not be a deterent. As it is the directors who sign false stat dec's can be prosecuted. IMO that is another avenue that should be explored. Perhaps handing the AFL file over to prosecutors may keep directors more honest. Club directors would be suject to rules of evidence and prosecution. That is a whole lot more of a big deal than an AFL enquiry headed by a bunny that may well have come from your club to begin with.
 

Joffaboy

Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 4, 2000
Posts
33,496
Likes
51,501
Location
The Bay
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
NO Saints
Originally posted by Deej
And another thing, the AFL fast-tracked Carlton's investigation to get those draft picks off us and now a year later it turns out Essendon broke the cap and probably shouldn't have had a lot of involvement in last year's draft either, and so if Essendon broke the cap it is possible StKilda broke it too, and Collingwood, and Adelaide, and Port, and who knows maybe every club broke it and shouldn't have been included in this draft, but nope the Saints got Goddard, North got Wells, and you all know the rest. See this was our point, you just don't know until every club is thoroughly investigated like we were WHICH WAS PROMISED BUT HAS NOT HAPPENED. Nope, the way it happened is the AFL bulldozed through our punishment to get us in last years draft. It's just a pity they haven't shown the same enthusiasm for every club that's all.

And yet everyone was portraying us to be whinging bleating twits with no leg to stand on.

Hmmm....
St.Kilda went over the salary Cap by way of injury payments in 2002, this documented and they were fined. They are not repeat offenders like Essendon and Carlton. Carlton are recidivist salary cap cheats and deserved to have their draft pickes taken off them in 2002. However not in 2003, that is way too harsh for a club struggling with their list.

BUT

Essendon are also recidivist Salary cap cheats. They need to be treated harshly for their recidivism. They can afford paltry fines, but they need to be penalised draft picks AGAIN.

I tend to agree that draft pick penalties are draconian, but i believe that they should be used when the Essendons and Carltons of the world flagrantly disregard the rules of the competition - not once - but REPEATEDLY.

However I would temper my opinion by way of again saying Carltons penalties were too severe in bans in two years drafts.

But then again I am just a Carlton kicker, what would i know
:rolleyes:
 

MarkT

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 1, 2001
Posts
32,669
Likes
33
Location
Melb
AFL Club
Collingwood
Joffa, we are talking about football clubs not lemmings here. These clubs have some survival instinct that has seen them survive a lot including the great depression. The player payments isn't even what puts clubs into financial difficulty anyway. IMO you are making baseless assumption that are not born out in AFL history. I have said this quite a few times in these debates but the plain fact is that as it stands now a number of clubs are not sustainable and most of them can never change that fact because they are regulated to a maximum of 1 premiership every 16 years.
 

MarkT

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 1, 2001
Posts
32,669
Likes
33
Location
Melb
AFL Club
Collingwood
Just on penalties for cap breaches, what about a cap reduction equal to three times the excess times two years for each year of a breach with a one game points penalty for each $25k over the cap.
 

Deej

Cancelled
Joined
Jun 27, 2001
Posts
6,108
Likes
2
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory
Originally posted by Joffaboy
St.Kilda went over the salary Cap by way of injury payments in 2002
2 of Carlton's 3 priors last year were breaches due to miscalculated injury payments. They are part of what you and others describe as habitual rorting. Not really an apt description, is it. But didn't stop everyone getting in a few kicks.
 

MarkT

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 1, 2001
Posts
32,669
Likes
33
Location
Melb
AFL Club
Collingwood
Originally posted by Deej
This sounds ok, cap reduction can't work with players on contracts already signed.
It can work because clubs always have a number of players out of contract. It means they have to cull if they can't reduce wages. It forces a playing disadvantage as a result of an unfair player advantage they had in exceeding the cap. It also means they can't juggle payments as easily to delberately dud the system.
 

Joffaboy

Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 4, 2000
Posts
33,496
Likes
51,501
Location
The Bay
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
NO Saints
Originally posted by MarkT
Joffa, we are talking about football clubs not lemmings here.
We are talking about multi million dollar institutions here.

These clubs have some survival instinct that has seen them survive a lot including the great depression. The player payments isn't even what puts clubs into financial difficulty anyway.

Survival instincts has nothing to do with it, the world is a little different from the depression days. The AFL has been transformed into a financial heavyweight. It take approximately 20mill to run a footy club, that is close to $320 mill to run the clubs a year. That is substaintial turnover in anyones book.

Player payments would eventually kill off clubs. Player payments would blow out with no cap, just like it did in the 80's and the exact reason the AFL commission was formed. Even powerhouses like Richmond and Collingwood almost went under due to flagrant overspending.

IMO you are making baseless assumption that are not born out in AFL history.

There has always been a draft and a Salary in AFL history. Since the Commission was formed in fact, so history is no guide in this instance. Just plain financial realities.


I have said this quite a few times in these debates but the plain fact is that as it stands now a number of clubs are not sustainable and most of them can never change that fact because they are regulated to a maximum of 1 premiership every 16 years.

Well IMO and in the opinion of the AFL commission this is incorrect. The sum of the whole is greater than the parts in the AFL. The AFL has worked out that it would cost more in lost revenue to kill a club than it does to prop a club up. Simple maths Mark. The commission gets what it is able to regarding revenue, it has been astonishingly successful since it has come on board. Only one club merged one relocated, and 5 brand new fully operational (well Freo is another argument) AFL clubs with three of these winning flags.

This regulated 16 team comp has dramatically expanded revenue and the game itself to all parts of the country. IT is in great overall financial health.

However. Deregulate, and all that has been achieved by the sum of the whole will be destroyed by the clubs who believe they are greater than the sum.

Do so at your own peril. And remember Mark, if a club goes down the legal course to challenge the AFL, and my wild doomsayer, end is nigh, prognosis of the comp is accurate, there is no unscrambling the egg. Once the AFL comp is farked it is farked for ever.
 

Deej

Cancelled
Joined
Jun 27, 2001
Posts
6,108
Likes
2
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory
Originally posted by MarkT
It can work because clubs always have a number of players out of contract. It means they have to cull if they can't reduce wages. It forces a playing disadvantage as a result of an unfair player advantage they had in exceeding the cap. It also means they can't juggle payments as easily to delberately dud the system.
As long as the draft picks are not touched I guess it could work, it'd force the offending club to trade a star player or two for untried kids in an attempt to get tpp's down. But if the drfat picks were taken away also, the issue of minimum number of players on the list would come into play.
 

Joffaboy

Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 4, 2000
Posts
33,496
Likes
51,501
Location
The Bay
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
NO Saints
Originally posted by Deej
2 of Carlton's 3 priors last year were breaches due to miscalculated injury payments. They are part of what you and others describe as habitual rorting. Not really an apt description, is it. But didn't stop everyone getting in a few kicks.
So that one instance of the Saints being over the cap equates to all the times Carlton have been over the cap does it? As you said yourself it was part of the habitual rorting of the cap by Carlton.

Interesting how you neglected to mention that the Saints were penalised for the breach, as they deserved to be. If the Saints had continually rorted the cap like Carlton they would deserve the same treatment.

That is my whole flaming argument, for christs sake. If Essendon are guilt of flagrant habitual rorting why are they not treated as harshly as Carlton.

Try keeping up with the argument and quit with the paranoia and persecution complex. To you everyone who says anything critical of squeky clean Carlton is a farking Carlton kicker. Cant you see who tiresome and ridiculous this constant incantation of yours is?

I dont need to kick Carlton, I really only care what happens to my club, I care about carlton as much as the other 15 opposition clubs, no more or less.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Deej

Cancelled
Joined
Jun 27, 2001
Posts
6,108
Likes
2
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory
I first and foremost care about a fair and equitable process for all AFL clubs to operate in. If that isn't possible, I'll gladly vote for Carlton to voluntarily fold from the competition.
 

MarkT

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 1, 2001
Posts
32,669
Likes
33
Location
Melb
AFL Club
Collingwood
Originally posted by Joffaboy
Survival instincts has nothing to do with it, the world is a little different from the depression days. The AFL has been transformed into a financial heavyweight. It take approximately 20mill to run a footy club, that is close to $320 mill to run the clubs a year. That is substaintial turnover in anyones book.

Player payments would eventually kill off clubs. Player payments would blow out with no cap, just like it did in the 80's and the exact reason the AFL commission was formed. Even powerhouses like Richmond and Collingwood almost went under due to flagrant overspending.
Survival instinct has everything to do with it. That is what will prevent clubs from running themselves into the ground. Sure it isn't the '70's any more but the increased size and financial aspect has been met by increased professionalism and sophistication. Clubs aren't run by armatures and Mr. Popular ex players any more. The financial scale in any case is relative. Has much really changed in relative terms? If anything the scope for a nimble and innovative management team is greater than it has ever been. To assume, as many do, that a '70's North scenario is impossible forevermore is wrong IMO unless we continue as is, in which case it is impossible by design.

Player payments did not send clubs broke in the 80's. That is a big misnomer. Which clubs went broke due to player payments being too high? Take my club. We got into strife. First of all we were able to get out of strife because the survival instinct saw to it that we addressed the issues and made appropriate spending cuts. Sure we had more resources than most but that just saw us urinate more against the wall than most so we had a deeper hole to dig ourselves out of. Secondly and regardless of the first point, it was not player payments that saw us in trouble. It was poor management that saw poor decisions made. Most significantly was spending on transfer fees. That was the real issue. Bloody mindedness was the driver as it was with Richmond. Frankly we and Richmond got what we deserved and we did not deserve protection from ourselves. Now take your club. A period of terrible management dragged your club into court. To put it down to player payments is very misleading.

Apart from all that, the VFL, as an entity, drove club insolvency by virtue of its grip on revenue raising and its distribution policy. First was ground rationalisation. Not a bad idea in principle but when you set your sights on elimination of the viability of a club like South to ensure the rationalisation can begin and get the added bonus of Sunday live football beamed into Melbourne while the Victorian State Government won't allow Sunday senior footy, let alone live coverage of it, you have the beginnings of financial ropes to bind clubs. Anyway, I am digressing now as usual.
Originally posted by Joffaboy
There has always been a draft and a Salary in AFL history. Since the Commission was formed in fact, so history is no guide in this instance. Just plain financial realities.
So what do base your assumption on then?
Originally posted by Joffaboy
Well IMO and in the opinion of the AFL commission this is incorrect. The sum of the whole is greater than the parts in the AFL. The AFL has worked out that it would cost more in lost revenue to kill a club than it does to prop a club up. Simple maths Mark. The commission gets what it is able to regarding revenue, it has been astonishingly successful since it has come on board. Only one club merged one relocated, and 5 brand new fully operational (well Freo is another argument) AFL clubs with three of these winning flags.
But that is a completely unrelated issue. I agree in the theory of synergies Joffa. that has nothing to do with regulation or deregulation. There are a lot of issues in your few lines there from start up clubs and their prompted success to growth of the competition that has resulted in part from that success to where we are v where we could be to one club in Melbourne surviving v a new club in another location al-la swapping Fitzroy and south for Port and Sydney.

We could debate all these issues but they are completely separate to the overriding operational systems and rules such as equalisation etc. You assume that everything we have now is a result of how we operate. What about everything we don't have now then? How can you take all the positives and put them down to the AFL and how it is run without either looking at the negatives or looking at what we might be with more vision and self interest dominated club governance?

I'll share one opinion of mine for free Joffa.
i have no problem in principle with Communism as an economic theory. the ideas are wonderful. The problem is that it is applied to humans and it cannot work. Humans are governed by survival instincts which include self interest. As a result they will never be fully motivated by the common good. Therefore communism cannot fully work. We have seen in practice time and again. What we also unfortunately see time and again is the political control that communism brings because without it the system would not be adhered to. Once you get into that territory is all downhill. What we have in the AFL is a case study in socialism (not really communism) with some innovative flair and capitalism allowed but in a controlled sense. What we get is AFL control and a lack of accountability. It is a familiar story. Even if you believe this is not really the case, ask yourself what people make of inconsistent tribunals, salary cap breaches etc. I doubt the AFL really has agenda's to let Collingwood off lightly at the tribunal because they are scared of Eddie or to grind Carlton into the dirt because they hate a former president of theirs in spite of the fact they now have a former AFL high flier at Carlton or there is a conspiracy to help Collingwood make money with blockbusters. However a large part of perception is reality and even if none of it is true, a lack of openness and accountability is a massive issue and it has a significant damaging effect.
Originally posted by Joffaboy
This regulated 16 team comp has dramatically expanded revenue and the game itself to all parts of the country. IT is in great overall financial health.
Again, what does that have to do with how it has been done. Every high profile sport in the world has done the same with revenue. It's the time we live in. AFL has outperformed other Australian sports with market growth but I could just as easily argue they have a superior product so they should have done so.
Originally posted by Joffaboy
However. Deregulate, and all that has been achieved by the sum of the whole will be destroyed by the clubs who believe they are greater than the sum.

Do so at your own peril. And remember Mark, if a club goes down the legal course to challenge the AFL, and my wild doomsayer, end is nigh, prognosis of the comp is accurate, there is no unscrambling the egg. Once the AFL comp is farked it is farked for ever.
Of course there is Joffa. Fitzroy and South Melbourne could have been saved. If the worst did happen then the clubs would likely do something IF you are correct about the sum of the parts etc. In any case, they could be levied to provide a bailout fund, we could leave TV revenue in central control, and we could do lots of things to provide safeguards. If a club goes under now there is absolutely no guarantee of any bailout as it is.

I have to agree that the probability of a poorly managed club going under or being faced with a longer period of underperformance is increased in a deregulated system. I have never said that isn't the case. The opportunity to raise your own bar, as hawthorn did in the 70's/80's/90's is there for the taking though.


We’ve probably done all this to death far too many times. Neither of us will convince the other and neither of us can prove any of the hypotheticals. I will just make one final point and you can have the last word or leave it at that if you like. Ask yourself why evolution occurs. There are basic underlying fundamental forces or truths in nature – albeit that we may or mat not be right in what we assume them to be. Whether it is God in some form or whether it is nothing more or less than the particles that make up the universe, evolution is driven by forces that the AFL deny and try to halt. Why doesn’t it work in politics, economics or anything else? Self interest and survival of the fittest breeds improvement.
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Posts
1,145
Likes
9
Location
Uncooked
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Coventry City
These cap investigations are not solely based in the internet scam the Bombers are pleading all 'Oh we didn't know' about. There is an additional merchandising inquiry concerning Lloyd aswell.
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Posts
1,145
Likes
9
Location
Uncooked
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Coventry City
Andy Hippo-crite-eo will find that Lloyd's addional payments were 'nowhere near as bad as Carltons', and anyway, Mathew deserves extra money as he is an honest boy who pleaded with his teamates to take pay cuts, so he could have more.
 

marcuz

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Posts
9,606
Likes
179
Location
Bannockburn
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys,Notre Dame
I hope our next president makes sure none of this **** happens again...im getting ****en sick of it. Time to grow up at windy Hill. They have done a great job turning our club into a financial monster. But stuff like this takes away from the good work they have done
 

morgoth

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Posts
18,801
Likes
5,049
Location
Beaumaris
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
In the business world it would be said that Essendon are dabbling in the grey areas of the salary cap rules. Problem is, there really is no grey, it is black and white. Put simply if the payment is in any way linked to the players role as a player for thier club, it should be included in the cap.

I would suggest the laywers have been having to much say at Windy Hill. Lawyers always think they can outsmart the system.
 

Deej

Cancelled
Joined
Jun 27, 2001
Posts
6,108
Likes
2
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory
Originally posted by marcuz
I hope our next president makes sure none of this **** happens again...im getting ****en sick of it.
Now you are beginning to sort of understand how we carlton folk felt in getting rid of Elliott and the gang.

One big ddifference though is you won't be subjected to the scrutiny of the media like we were.

Andy Demitriou surely is the double standards corruption king!
 

marcuz

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Posts
9,606
Likes
179
Location
Bannockburn
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys,Notre Dame
As much as it hurts me to say it deej...im beginning to agree with you...a couple of articles have been written and thats all. I hope whatever the penalty is that we cop it on the chin and make sure we never..ever **** around with the cap. The essendon hirachy should be concentrating on catching collinwoods membership and making sure that we stay strong on field rather than try and outsmart the afl and themselves by coming up with interesting ways to circumvent the salary cap.
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Posts
1,145
Likes
9
Location
Uncooked
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Coventry City
Originally posted by marcuz
I hope our next president makes sure none of this **** happens again...im getting ****en sick of it. Time to grow up at windy Hill. They have done a great job turning our club into a financial monster. But stuff like this takes away from the good work they have done
Nice call Marcuz, and it's for the supporters of the club involved that $hit like this is really punishing. it is assumed that you as a supporter are somehow responsible for the inept actions of the administrators.

But, cheating is cheating and if the same rules of penalty do not apply in this instance then it says the AFL have no professional consistency and were vindictive in their excecution of Carlton last year. It raises also suggestions of panic amongst the AFL commission, pertaining to threats of court action and thier knowledge that the cap would fail before a judge.
 

marcuz

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Posts
9,606
Likes
179
Location
Bannockburn
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys,Notre Dame
I think it was stated earlier by somebody that the afl was scared off by legal action. Essendon has a big chequebook and doesnt seem afraid to use it. I have no doubt that this is why the afl is so quiet. I would be embarrased as a club supporter if we did go to court....cop the punishment and clean the slate
 

Deej

Cancelled
Joined
Jun 27, 2001
Posts
6,108
Likes
2
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory
Originally posted by marcuz
cop the punishment and clean the slate
I think that's pretty much what Collo did with Carlton last november, copped it on the chin, saw BJ and Wells go to other clubs, and we've now moved on. Despite some protests from certain quarters, if I thought about it I probably agree not taking legal action was the best move for the long term interests of the club. Others might disagree.
 

anduril

All Australian
Joined
Sep 15, 2003
Posts
763
Likes
0
Location
melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
carlton
The only club that has ever had the power and the balls to take on the AFL is Carlton......remember the TV rights etc etc....Elliot in the end lost his farken way and cocked everything up,but don't forget that for a while there in the nineties he was the SOLE voice for the Victorian clubs.....why do you think the Vic Presidents always have their yearly meetings at Princes Park? make no mistake carlton deserved a shellacking but the penalties far outweighed the crime......don't forget also Carlton had the AFL screwed over the Williams suspension (itself a blatantly shocking finding) only to be over turned in the Supreme Court....there are many other instances,some of which cannot be mentioned here.....the bottom line is....Essendon will NOT cop a severe smack.....the AFL were biding their time and when the moment came they were harsh on Carlton in the most vindictive manner......they don't have those acrimonious feelings toward Windy Hill so all you Bombers kickers out there hoping they get a severe serve...it will not happen..........one more thing......very few clubs in the AFL could survive a 900k fine and two yrs loss of draft picks....AND then send their membership to a record level as well as remain cashed up.....we'll be back:D soon
 
Top Bottom