Rumour Tales from the Henley Beach Cafe 2: Crows 2021 Rumours

[feenix67]

and again, keep trying to fake it until you make it

You’re not fooling anyone but yourself

fact is you said something dumb that you can’t erase away after the event

Ah I read back and I see where you're coming from.

When I said "Roo relinquishes the role and Balme takes over and reports to the board", what I meant was the role of Director of Football is removed, and Balme takes on the oversight of Footy and reports to the Board as a whole.

That aside, if you didn't respond as such a self righteous ********, I could have cleared that up for you 4 posts ago.

 

[Crowbots are dead]

18th, 15th, 17th, 11th, 8th, 6th, 3rd, 1st (2027)?

18th 15th 9th 8th 4th 1st ( 2025)

 

[footy4ever]

Don't know if Caro was the one who reported it but that quote was straight from his manager's mouth.

It also came out of Martin’s mouth, virtually repeating what he’d been promised in the way of making up the money by agreeing to a lesser amount but by having more opportunity to capitalise.

 

[GROTTO]

It also came out of Martin’s mouth, virtually repeating what he’d been promised in the way of making up the money by agreeing to a lesser amount but by having more opportunity to capitalise.

Wouldnt surprise if instead of Martin being paid, if his father in NZ was paid instead. Nice tax loophole.

 

[LoBu]

Is common in Melbourne. AFL players eat/drink for free at cafes/pubs, heavily discounted cars, inside intell on property deals etc etc

A lot have lost everything too, Melbourne full of blood suckers preying on high cash flow, low life experienced individuals (footy players).

On Pixel 3 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[1990crow]

that’s not true. Side deals are heavily regulated and there has never been any evidence that Dangerfield is the beneficiary of any such thing

Surely you're not that naive.

 

[Gtowncrow]

The AFL can only audit within their limited scope. Clubs know the rules and the AFL's limitations, so it's easy to get around. Even diverting club sponsorship funds to a player could pass muster if there was no evidence if club involvement and the sponsor could speak to the commercial reasoning behind the change.

Fair enough.
How invasive would you think the AFL powers of investigation might be.
I think club accounts would be on the table.
Sponsorships would be available as well as to where those funds have been allocated within the club accounts.
Declarations of conflict of interest between sponsors and players and their families might be required. (Apparently ((rumour)) Paddy's wife has a WELL paid job at a sponsor's business).
Lastly, would you think the AFL have in their player contracts any rights to audit players tax affairs upon request? Maybe this is standard practice and happens each year?
These are quite invasive and I have no knowledge about any of these points being correct. However, if I was a forensic accountant, I'd be interested in some of these. (You can probably tell I'm not a forensic accountant)

 

[jenny61_99]

Sounds a bit convenient.

But if someone else is paying the money to fill that slot, losing Optus is no big deal.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Why is it convenient? They announced earlier in the year that they weren’t continuing sponsorship.

 

[Geoffa32]

Why is it convenient? They announced earlier in the year that they weren’t continuing sponsorship.

Did they, if they did fair enough.


Personally don't care what is written on the jumper. As long as paid for, which is never an issue for us.


Thinking about Olsen saying someone is in place to take their place is indicative Tex's slur had nothing to do with Optus finishing the sponsorship early.

No way a company would commit $1m plus a year so quickly.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[FR0GGY]

Why is it convenient? They announced earlier in the year that they weren’t continuing sponsorship.

Not doubting you but I can’t remember you finding the article or quote stating this?

 

[Dudersaurus]

Personally don't care what is written on the jumper. As long as paid for, which is never an issue for us.

I do to a point. I'm very happy we don't have gambling sponsorship, and we don't need government underwriting (TAC, Quitline etc).

 

[1970crow]

Fair enough.
How invasive would you think the AFL powers of investigation might be.
I think club accounts would be on the table.
Sponsorships would be available as well as to where those funds have been allocated within the club accounts.
Declarations of conflict of interest between sponsors and players and their families might be required. (Apparently ((rumour)) Paddy's wife has a WELL paid job at a sponsor's business).
Lastly, would you think the AFL have in their player contracts any rights to audit players tax affairs upon request? Maybe this is standard practice and happens each year?
These are quite invasive and I have no knowledge about any of these points being correct. However, if I was a forensic accountant, I'd be interested in some of these. (You can probably tell I'm not a forensic accountant)

if memory serves, the AFL only have the right to review where a player has a separate agreement with a club sponsor that isn't part of the yearly cap. The AFL originally ticked off the Judd/Visy deal as it was technically within the letter of the rules. In reality the quantum was totally outrageous and I think it ended up needing to be adjusted to become more realistic in a commercial sense.

Again, using our scenario, there's nothing wrong with Balfours paying Tippett $50k to appear on ads. Until it's found out the $50k came from their previous package and we set the deal up. What powers the AFL have in terms of auditing an arrangement with an entity otherwise not involved with the AFC, I'm not sure. But restraining Laird from being the face of the local garden gnome manufacturer who has no other interest in AFL would be subject to legal challenge I'd have thought.

 

[Murray2503]

Olsen says Optus decided months ago to "re-direct" sponsorship $ to the national women's soccer team and we already have replacements signed up to be announced. Foodland extending for 3 more years too.

Sounds like the crows aren't woke enough for Optass.

 

[flashcrow]

Here is what Olsen said (12:44)

 

[Pick4To6]

Sounds like the crows aren't woke enough for Optass.

Nice subtle troll.

They decided months ago.

Once again, how ‘woke’ the club is had nothing to do with it, but you know best.

 

[1990crow]

Nice subtle troll.

They decided months ago.

Once again, how ‘woke’ the club is had nothing to do with it, but you know best.

Please provide evidence

 

[Pick4To6]

Please provide evidence

Are you calling John Olsen a liar?

 

[FR0GGY]

Are you calling John Olsen a liar?

He was a politician wasn’t he?

 

[Pick4To6]

He was a politician wasn’t he?

yes, we all know that.

Didn’t answer the question.

 

[FR0GGY]

yes, we all know that.

Didn’t answer the question.

Yes I’d say he’s a liar for sure.
No one has provided any proof the decision was made earlier despite people claiming it as fact.

 

[johnnypanther]

Please provide evidence

There was an article months ago (not specifically Crows related) - i think it was either in the financial media or technology media from memory - and it discussed Optus' performance and future and amongst it was a reference that they had reviewed their sports sponsorships and were getting out of existing sponsorships at the end of their contractual obligations (several clubs in wide range of sports were mentioned inc AFC to be affected) and that they would concentrate more on (i think they said) womens/girls sport and soccer.

 

[Pick4To6]

Yes I’d say he’s a liar for sure.
No one has provided any proof the decision was made earlier despite people claiming it as fact.

Then I think the onus is placed on you to prove this?

I’m taking his word. I don’t need any more evidence.

 

[FR0GGY]

Then I think the onus is placed on you to prove this?

I’m taking his word. I don’t need any more evidence.

I don’t need to, I’ll keep believing what I believe until I see evidence to the contrary.

 

[Pick4To6]

I don’t need to, I’ll keep believing what I believe until I see evidence to the contrary.

You sound like a highly trusting person.

 

[FR0GGY]

You sound like a highly trusting person.

Well the club hasn’t given me a lot of reason to build that over the last few years.
Hopefully that will change but it’s earnt not given.