Geelong rorting the system

[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.