Roast Cheating Filthy Power Found Guilty, Fined $100k, Club Facing Financial Ruin

What should the penalty be?


  • Total voters
    118

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

The problem with fines as a penalty is that apart from the soft-cap fines, it's all monopoly money that goes around in circles.

The 2023 soft cap is $7.2 million such that $50k amounts to a .7% reduction in the soft cap arising from this fine.

While it's hard to work out what the "right" punishment in terms of soft cap is (particularly given the offence their punishing could make it counter-productive if clubs can employ less doctors etc). I would have thought if the entire $100,000 was in the soft cap, being approx 1.4% it might feel about right.
 
What a joke the AFL are and once again the hand out mentality permeates Power - wait 10 years and see how much the AFL are sued for by Allir and Jones [who looked more out of it than Amy Winehouse late on a Saturday]


what a farce, in a time where Owen Wright has just released a book on head injuries, John Barnes is a shadow of who he was, the Hawks lad early retirement, players being suspended for weeks on potentially dangerous tackles leading to head knocks the Filth blatantly ignore protocol in their attempt to cheat with not one but two players and they get a $100,000 fine which ultimately the AFL will pay.

it’s a poor joke.
 
Independent doctors shouldn’t make a difference. The Port doctor made a mistake. Independent doctors make mistakes.

You would only advocate for independent doctors if you accepted that ports doctor was influenced by the club.
You don't have to accept that the doctor was influenced by the club, just that it's a perception, something people could reasonably infer.

It's why, for example, the English FA has barred certain referees with known club allegiances from reffing games involving "their" club. They're not implying that the ref would be biased, just that it removes the perception of bias from the equation.
 
The problem with fines as a penalty is that apart from the soft-cap fines, it's all monopoly money that goes around in circles.

The 2023 soft cap is $7.2 million such that $50k amounts to a .7% reduction in the soft cap arising from this fine.

While it's hard to work out what the "right" punishment in terms of soft cap is (particularly given the offence their punishing could make it counter-productive if clubs can employ less doctors etc). I would have thought if the entire $100,000 was in the soft cap, being approx 1.4% it might feel about right.
Only means something if you are already at 100% of the cap.


I doubt Port are.



AFL will just contra the fine with an increase in Port's funding.


The amount of money is headline grabbing. But in reality won't affect Port at all.



The real message is that the AFL does not care about concussion enough to truly sanction a club if it breaches, for a second offence.



On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Only means something if you are already at 100% of the cap.


I doubt Port are.



AFL will just contra the fine with an increase in Port's funding.


The amount of money is headline grabbing. But in reality won't affect Port at all.

On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Precisely. Like when a player gets fined for wrestling. They never actually pay the fine. It's entirely fictitious.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

You don't have to accept that the doctor was influenced by the club, just that it's a perception, something people could reasonably infer.

It's why, for example, the English FA has barred certain referees with known club allegiances from reffing games involving "their" club. They're not implying that the ref would be biased, just that it removes the perception of bias from the equation.

A professionally run league compared to a provincial farmers league.
 
That's a welfare club punishment
Yes, as others have said, the AFL effectively ends up paying the fine. Here's what's not clear to me:

$50,000 of the fine will be included in Port Adelaide's football department soft cap, with the remainder to sit outside the cap unless the club commits a similar breach of concussion protocols before the end of the AFL and AFLW seasons in 2024.

So, does the fine take the form of an actual transfer of $ from Port to the AFL, or is it a reduction in their soft cap without any $ changing hands, or is it both? I'm guessing it's both i.e. "you give us $50K and your soft cap is reduced by $50K, you don't get to pay it from any other source".

And what about the other $50K, which "sits outside the cap"? Does that mean they pay another $50K now, from any source they choose, and if they offend again they cop a $50K reduction in soft cap without any money changing hands, because that has already happened?

As for the "welfare club" thing - So, every club gets a handout from the AFL every year, some more than others for various reasons. OK. I'm wondering when that amount is determined, and when it is paid. Because you could avoid the "welfare club / AFL effectively paying the fine" thing by saying "OK, your handout was going to be $X million next year, we're going to reduce that by $100K". That would maybe remove the need to specify it comes from the soft cap, but it only works if you have transparency about what the handout amount was going to be, before the fine. Given that knowing / publishing the handout amount in advance seems unlikely, specifying that it comes from the soft cap is probably a reasonable solution.
 
Last edited:
Only means something if you are already at 100% of the cap.


I doubt Port are.

AFL will just contra the fine with an increase in Port's funding.

The amount of money is headline grabbing. But in reality won't affect Port at all.

The real message is that the AFL does not care about concussion enough to truly sanction a club if it breaches, for a second offence.

Yep. It's like me fining my son $2 of his pocket money but then buying him a Hot Wheels car anyway.
 
The real message is that the AFL does not care about concussion enough to truly sanction a club if it breaches, for a second offence.

On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app
Yep.

Just imagine if Nick Daicos cops a head knock early on in a GF. Collingwood would be better off continuing to play him without doing the assessment. A fine is nothing if it helps you win a flag.
 
Yep.

Just imagine if Nick Daicos cops a head knock early on in a GF. Collingwood would be better off continuing to play him without doing the assessment. A fine is nothing if it helps you win a flag.
Craig McCrae appears to have some integrity though. GF or not, I couldn't see Collingwood pull off a move like that. They are a much better run club than Port with much higher standards both on-field and off-field.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Roast Cheating Filthy Power Found Guilty, Fined $100k, Club Facing Financial Ruin

Back
Top