Roast Some rorts are ok

[40yearBLUE]

According to that nasty publication the HUN, 114 players including Judd via Visy and GAJ via Costas private company, were paid additional money outside of approved marketing deals (Judd and Abletts deals are apparently approved so maybe its 112 additional players.)

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...ayments-revealed/story-e6frf9ix-1225834081183

This all started apparently because SEN was having a rip at Judds payments, so Swann rang in to defend the Judd payments and to point out that there are many other players receiving additional payments, forcing the AFL to make an announcement.

Notwithstanding my opinion about player payments, it would seem that what cost us draft picks less than a decade ago, and contributed to our prolonged stay at the bottom of the comp, it seems that not only is the practice as widespread (or more so) as it was when we were penalized, and I doubt there will be similar punishments handed out ever again.

Its a joke.

 

[Go_Blues!]

According to that nasty publication the HUN, 114 players including Judd via Visy and GAJ via Costas private company, were paid additional money outside of approved marketing deals (Judd and Abletts deals are apparently approved so maybe its 112 additional players.)

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...ayments-revealed/story-e6frf9ix-1225834081183

This all started apparently because SEN was having a rip at Judds payments, so Swann rang in to defend the Judd payments and to point out that there are many other players receiving additional payments, forcing the AFL to make an announcement.

Notwithstanding my opinion about player payments, it would seem that what cost us draft picks less than a decade ago, and contributed to our prolonged stay at the bottom of the comp, it seems that not only is the practice as widespread (or more so) as it was when we were penalized, and I doubt there will be similar punishments handed out ever again.

Its a joke.

Not sure it is a joke; I think the AFL seriously regrets the decision they made with respect to Carlton and the precedent that it set. From that moment they had no option but to ignore all but the most blatant of salary cap cases, else the club that infringed be brought to its knees. Even Carlton, as diminished as it was, was only just able to survive the impacts of that decision so many other clubs would have gone into administration. I think that the AFL has got the right balance between using the salary cap to limit the escalating spending on football departments of the weaker clubs and uses the trading rules to limit player movements to stronger clubs but not necessarily limiting the earning potential of the stars at those stronger clubs. When free-agency comes in, the AFL will need to re-address this balance.

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

I still think the roles they play are pretty fair however.

Judd / Ablett are essentially movie stars in Melbourne and Geelong respectively. Imagine how much it would cost to lure someone of equal stature in the community to promote a product, any product in Melbourne.

Tim Cahill / Nicole Kidman are probably as recognisable within the state - and they wouldn't even bother turning up for the sub-$300,000 figure that the article suggests.

Maybe this is where these deals and agreements differ from those 'back in the day'. Where our players were just being given property and the like without any tangible contribution to the company.

I do agree with the sentiment however - the AFL basically, after making us the whipping boy, had to legalise or formalise these types of agreements upon noticing how widespread they truly were. Also realising that they couldn't do what they did to us without losing a few teams to insolvency along the way.

 

[invinciBlues]

The slavery cap is bullshit anyways. Just some magical invention to keep the weaker clubs competitive and alive when the reality is 10 clubs in Victoria is unsustainable.

20 years on and the weak clubs are still the weak clubs relying on the "distribution scheme" which allegedly compensates for the draw. Which is just another way of saying "we recognise that no one rocks up to your matches, so we'll just even out the earnings with the stronger club who do have a supporter base that rock up to matches".

 

[pansies]

The slavery cap is bullshit anyways. Just some magical invention to keep the weaker clubs competitive and alive when the reality is 10 clubs in Victoria is unsustainable.

20 years on and the weak clubs are still the weak clubs relying on the "distribution scheme" which allegedly compensates for the draw. Which is just another way of saying "we recognise that no one rocks up to your matches, so we'll just even out the earnings with the stronger club who do have a supporter base that rock up to matches".

What can be forgotten with this sentiment is that those weak teams rely just as much on the strong teams as the strong teams rely on the weak ones. Yes you are right in saying that the weak teams need the financial support that the stronger teams can provide however without those weak teams there would be no competition. The AFL currently need 8 games a week and have the foresight to see that they will need 9 games a week to sustain the competition for the future.

So it is important that we keep those weak teams and keep them competitive otherwise we end up with predictive results like the EPL.

 

[HBF]

Given that all 114 deals that players have outside of their football payments have been ticked off by the AFL, I don't see where the issue is. Seems to me the Hun have picked up another non-story, and decided to run with it. Really cannot wait for the H&A season to start, and we can get on with real footy stories.

 

[agro]

Lets not start calling the Judd - Visy deal as the pioneer on these so called rorts.

Rotten Ron Evans - had his grubby hands all over the:

- Lloyd.com and Hird.com deals

and what was with Hird's cosy deal at JB Were his own office and only showing up there about half a day a fortnight (earning big six figures!!!)

30 year blue really - me thinks you are a bit "Melveyesque".

 

[40yearBLUE]

Lets not start calling the Judd - Visy deal as the pioneer on these so called rorts.

Rotten Ron Evans - had his grubby hands all over the:

- Lloyd.com and Hird.com deals

and what was with Hird's cosy deal at JB Were his own office and only showing up there about half a day a fortnight (earning big six figures!!!)

30 year blue really - me thinks you are a bit "Melveyesque".

I have no idea what your post means, but usually use of rolleyes signifies sarcasm which in turn signifies some kind of derision of my post. I cannot see what you disagree with though. We copped a blow that would have closed down many other clubs, for a rort that many other clubs were doing, as you point out with the bogus bombers website deals, and now it seems even more clubs are doing it and none of them will even be questioned about it let alone fined a cool mil and be banned from the next 2 drafts. I think my OP is quite valid. And what is Melveyesque?

 

[GoBlues!]

According to that nasty publication the HUN, 114 players including Judd via Visy and GAJ via Costas private company, were paid additional money outside of approved marketing deals (Judd and Abletts deals are apparently approved so maybe its 112 additional players.)

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...ayments-revealed/story-e6frf9ix-1225834081183

This all started apparently because SEN was having a rip at Judds payments, so Swann rang in to defend the Judd payments and to point out that there are many other players receiving additional payments, forcing the AFL to make an announcement.

Notwithstanding my opinion about player payments, it would seem that what cost us draft picks less than a decade ago, and contributed to our prolonged stay at the bottom of the comp, it seems that not only is the practice as widespread (or more so) as it was when we were penalized, and I doubt there will be similar punishments handed out ever again.

Its a joke.

30YB - I suppose the subtle difference now is that players are allowed to earn income outside of playing football as long as the job is legit and its declared.

Back in the late 90's and early 2000's a few teams were hiding payments outside the salary cap. I can vaguely recall Essendon fessed up to this practice and were let off by the afl, whereas Big Jack denied Carlton had done anything wrong, got caught out and sent us to footy oblivion for 5 years.

Btw what does GAJ do for Costa - sell fruit?

 

[Dramoth]

30YB - I suppose the subtle difference now is that players are allowed to earn income outside of playing football as long as the job is legit and its declared.

Back in the late 90's and early 2000's a few teams were hiding payments outside the salary cap. I can vaguely recall Essendon fessed up to this practice and were let off by the afl, whereas Big Jack denied Carlton had done anything wrong, got caught out and sent us to footy oblivion for 5 years.

Btw what does GAJ do for Costa - sell fruit?

These apples are shinier and smoother than my head

 

[40yearBLUE]

30YB - I suppose the subtle difference now is that players are allowed to earn income outside of playing football as long as the job is legit and its declared.

Back in the late 90's and early 2000's a few teams were hiding payments outside the salary cap. I can vaguely recall Essendon fessed up to this practice and were let off by the afl, whereas Big Jack denied Carlton had done anything wrong, got caught out and sent us to footy oblivion for 5 years.

Btw what does GAJ do for Costa - sell fruit?

A Scam is still a scam GB. My point is that this shows the AFL's heavy handedness for what it was, and that we have emerged from it is testomony to our strength. Just imagine for a moment that it had happened to say North. I doubt they would have survived it.

I agree with an earlier poster, the one positive you could draw from this, besides our clubs resilience, is that at least the AFL now knows they cannot act like that ever again, passing penalties that reach years into the future of a club is very very dangerous.

The penalty they should have imposed should have been loss of premiership points for the following season or perhaps following 2 seasons. That would have given the AFL the look of authority and not imperiled the ongoing viability of the club. I have no issue with the AFL calling what we did wrong, it was, or imposing a penalty even though there were and still are a million (pun intended) ways for clubs to get around the rule and they did and still are doing that, but if that is and was the case the penalty must reflect that. Otherwise you end up looking hypocritical years later when it emerges that the penalty you imposed was ineffective. Where can they go from here, toughen their stance and run a club out of business? Or do as they are now, and pretending that todays infractions are completely different to ours.

 

[Keyza]

It is very apparent that Carlton are the whipping boys of the AFL. Whenever tanking gets talked about, it is Carlton that is brought up, not Melbourne or any other club.
Salary cap rorting-only Carlton is mentioned. Melbourne was $1 mill over the cap in one season and was paying Garry Lyon and David Schwartz under the table payments for many seasons. Fremantle got a compensation draft pick for losing Jeff White to them. They got a slap on the wrist and we almost got penalised out or existence for much lesser breaches.
Essendon didnt fess up and got caught and got a similar slap on the wrist and also got away with the famous .com rort.
Carlton did admit to breaching the salary cap, as did most clubs, but stupidly continued to do so.
The reason we got caught was a payment to Stephen O'Reilly when he was delisted with a year to go on his contract, the payment was only for $115,000, the AFL deemed this to be a net figure so the actual amount was $220,000 in their eyes. The club got him to sign a stat dec saying he had been paid out and this document was our undoing, as O'Reilly showed it to Ken Wood.
The AFL do not want to find any clubs in breach of the cap as they know they will have to come down heavily on them, so they chose to ignore it now. Richmonds famous "investment opportunities" rorting will be overlooked and they ticked off on Ben Hollands payment that was agreed to after he took the club to court.
Now these 3rd party payments are being talked about and sure enough Judd and Visy are brought up. Now that we know there are 114 players receiving payments you have to ask this, they cant be doing a very good job as noone knows what companies they are supposedly representing. At least everyone knows Judd/Visy so he is doing his job.
I am sick to death of the constant Carlton bashing, by radio, Caro and in particular the HUN.

 

[40yearBLUE]

You are almost completely right Keyza.

I dont think the AFL has an ongoing anti Carlton attitude then or now, but at the time of all this, Jack was getting up a few noses and the AFL seemed stacked with Essendon people (Samual and Evens) and that looks now to have been a massive block of pro Essendon anti Carlton power. So much so that it looked to all the world like Samual was pursuing Dick for hidden reasons and as long a bow as it might sound, this anti Carlton sentiment may have pervaded his thinking.

Nor do I subscribe to any anti Carlton sentiment in the press, it is purely coincidental, and scandal driven, the names are irrelevant, so long as the story is juicy.

But I totally agree with the rest of your post, and the AFL now have no choice but to ignore what was enough of a crime 10 years ago as to almost run us out of business with the severity of the penalty. Now it seems the issue is not even worth an investigation.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...xtra-ablett-cash/story-e6frf9jf-1225834523463

In fact Geelong today are spruiking for more cash sponsors to help them hold on to Gazza. What a slap in the face that must now be to the AFL, not only are they rorting the system they arent even going to hide it from you any more! Cop that AFL!

 

[Keyza]

You are almost completely right Keyza.

I dont think the AFL has an ongoing anti Carlton attitude then or now, but at the time of all this, Jack was getting up a few noses and the AFL seemed stacked with Essendon people (Samual and Evens) and that looks now to have been a massive block of pro Essendon anti Carlton power. So much so that it looked to all the world like Samual was pursuing Dick for hidden reasons and as long a bow as it might sound, this anti Carlton sentiment may have pervaded his thinking.

Nor do I subscribe to any anti Carlton sentiment in the press, it is purely coincidental, and scandal driven, the names are irrelevant, so long as the story is juicy.

But I totally agree with the rest of your post, and the AFL now have no choice but to ignore what was enough of a crime 10 years ago as to almost run us out of business with the severity of the penalty. Now it seems the issue is not even worth an investigation.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...xtra-ablett-cash/story-e6frf9jf-1225834523463

In fact Geelong today are spruiking for more cash sponsors to help them hold on to Gazza. What a slap in the face that must now be to the AFL, not only are they rorting the system they arent even going to hide it from you any more! Cop that AFL!

I have to disagree with you about the anti Carlton sentiment in the press. As you are from Gosford maybe you dont always hear what is being said about Carlton on talk back radio. SEN just this morning had a field day rubishing Carlton about the cost of todays NAB challenge match against Brisbane. Kevin Batlett was saying we shouldnt be charging anyone to get in and talk back callers were saying the same. Someone from Carlton rang the station to say that the AFL puts the prices on these games and not the club hosting the match. He apologised to Carlton for giving them a hard time. This is an example of what i mean. It is constant and relentless.

 

[NTBlue]

Back in the late 90's and early 2000's a few teams were hiding payments outside the salary cap. I can vaguely recall Essendon fessed up to this practice and were let off by the afl, whereas Big Jack denied Carlton had done anything wrong, got caught out and sent us to footy oblivion for 5 years.

Other posters may have much more knowledge than me, but I thought that there were claims of rorting back in the 1970's when at least one club were allegedly paying exhorbitant salaries to players who were employed in club positions such as groundsmen at their home ground.

 

[40yearBLUE]

Other posters may have much more knowledge than me, but I thought that there were claims of rorting back in the 1970's when at least one club were allegedly paying exhorbitant salaries to players who were employed in club positions such as groundsmen at their home ground.

Another common rumor in the 90's was when trying to attract a mature player or resign a mature player, they would offer employment to the wife of the player at some ridiculously high salary for the position and then the wife would not be required to turn up.

 

[Jimthegreat]

Law of the land, trade practices act, allows for any person to be employed and paid by a company as that company sees fit. As much as the AFL likes to think itself the law of the land it's actually not and it's why they signed off on such deals.

 

[OZBomb]

People have been calling into SEN ever since Judd came to Carlton claiming we where illegally paying Chris Judd, and I imagine Greg Swann got as sick of it as I have.

How much would Visy have to pay a celebrity the equivalent of Chris Judd to promote their business if he wasn't an AFL player? Exactly what he's being paid now, it's the reason it was approved by the AFL. Why should Visy be commercially disadvantaged by being an AFL club sponsor?

 

[40yearBLUE]

The 2 posts above highlight to me exactly why the salary cap penalty regime the AFL embarked on were ultimately useless and heavy handed. There are so many holes in the policy that it beggars belief that the AFL ever thought they could effectively police what monies ended up in players pockets.

For example, as dodgy as we pretend the Richmond land deals would have been if the players involved had of actually made money from them, who can say that a player that was lured to a club on the promise of a legitimate salary of $x and then told but we can double that for you by involving you in deals and then it actually does pay off, what is illegal, outside the rules, etc about that? As has happened, like any investment there were genuine risks that the deal would not pay off, but if they do how can the profits ever be counted in a salery cap?

This whole idea is a joke. The only thing we were guilty of was that we hid the payments but made no pretense of the payments at the time. Now we hide them in a way that cannot ever be proven or we call them something they are not, or we pay them in such a way as to be so ambiguous as to pass any scrutiny. The one thing we dont do anymore is we dont hide the practice (we have both learned from our mistakes and realize that if done properly they dont need to be hidden).

So I reiterate my OP claim that the AFL acted so obviously heavy handedly that they now have nowhere to go with it. Its over as an issue, no club will ever be charged with this again, but players will continue to be paid whatever a club thinks they need to pay them, one way or another, to get them to or keep them at a club.

 

[doulls headband]

They are not rorts - this is a rort. Got this yesterday morning - Source Gold Coast Football Club - Memorandum of understanding has been signed sealed and delivered - Bryce GIBBS will go to Gold Coast next year - Carlton Football Club will receive pick 2 and one of their kids. Have now had this confirmed by someone close to the coaching panel at CFC! Disgusting!

 

[coryne]

They are not rorts - this is a rort. Got this yesterday morning - Source Gold Coast Football Club - Memorandum of understanding has been signed sealed and delivered - Bryce GIBBS will go to Gold Coast next year - Carlton Football Club will receive pick 2 and one of their kids. Have now had this confirmed by someone close to the coaching panel at CFC! Disgusting!

lmfao, what a load of crap on SOOO many levels !!!!!!!!!!


1) Gibbs is UNCONTRACTED so IF he was going to the GC17 then it would be as an uncontracted player, thus no compensation from the GC17 let alone #2 and a kid

2) Swann said a week or 2 ago that Gibbs contract extension was almost complete

3) Gibbs and his father have both said he will be a 1 club player

4) Gibbs just moved his gf to Melbourne. How likely is it she would be happy moving twice in under 12 months.



If you said he was going over as an uncontracted player I might have believed you, but not in a trade when the GC17 don't have to trade for him ................


Oh and the fact that this is your 1 and only post ......................

 

[Keyza]

They are not rorts - this is a rort. Got this yesterday morning - Source Gold Coast Football Club - Memorandum of understanding has been signed sealed and delivered - Bryce GIBBS will go to Gold Coast next year - Carlton Football Club will receive pick 2 and one of their kids. Have now had this confirmed by someone close to the coaching panel at CFC! Disgusting!

coryne summed it up.
why would GC17 give up pick 2 AND a player for an uncontracted player? They would simply just take him not give up draft picks.
Either Greg Swann is lying, he said on radio a few weeks ago that Gibbs' contract was almost done, or Gibbs and his manager are playing games going through the charade of a contract negotiation.

 

[Silvagnis]

They are not rorts - this is a rort. Got this yesterday morning - Source Gold Coast Football Club - Memorandum of understanding has been signed sealed and delivered - Bryce GIBBS will go to Gold Coast next year - Carlton Football Club will receive pick 2 and one of their kids. Have now had this confirmed by someone close to the coaching panel at CFC! Disgusting!

Ytoojae board...

Someone with a junior footy fetish would probably say yes if they're willing to give us Darling and Toy for Gibbs...

 

[40yearBLUE]

Anyway, back on topic, the AFL have issued stern warnings (LMAO) as a result of Costa's comments regarding finding corporate sponsors to help keep GAJ from being lured north by the AFL's sorry, GC's bag of money.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/fines-threat-over-deals/story-e6frf9if-1225834974267

What else were they gonna say. They are threatening draft pick losses and premiership points and massive fines....and even more.....They are toothless tigers now all they can do is bluster and blubber. What a pathetic joke they are becoming on the issue. The horse has well and truly bolted.

 

[celtic_pride]

Anyway, back on topic, the AFL have issued stern warnings (LMAO) as a result of Costa's comments regarding finding corporate sponsors to help keep GAJ from being lured north by the AFL's sorry, GC's bag of money.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/fines-threat-over-deals/story-e6frf9if-1225834974267

What else were they gonna say. They are threatening draft pick losses and premiership points and massive fines....and even more.....They are toothless tigers now all they can do is bluster and blubber. What a pathetic joke they are becoming on the issue. The horse has well and truly bolted.

Mate the whole SC was a joke years ago, when Brisbane and Sydney won premierships by having an extra one million dollar in their salary cap for 'player retention/living allowance' and extra picks in the list for Rookies etc.

Now Eddie Mcguire has done a lot of things wrong, but he was totally spot on with his fight to get rid of those clubs salary cap and player concessions.

And it will get worse now that GC17 have also have an 'marquee player' bonus, which means if they sign a high profile player, such as Gary Ablett Jnr, his contract will not come under GC17's salary cap ...

It's a joke, and it's not Geelong or any other club's fault at all, it's the AFL and their damn over-zealous approach into strengthing the expansion markets, which is hurting the other clubs, especially the victorian clubs.

The only thing Costa should be guilty of is of being brutally honest and yes there is a very massive chance Ablett will go to GC17 (especially as Nafan Ablett is playing up there)