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.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

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

Nobody’s saying no to the role. He can do what he likes and so can the sponsor.

But if it’s a club sponsor the payments go in the salary cap. It’s such an obvious loophole for abuse that all clubs will attempt.

 

[Strange Cat]

You do all realise he’s been doing this for years with Morris Finance with the AFL’s blessing with the only thing being changed now is his job title

Much ado about nothing and I have no doubt where all the noise is coming from

 

[longdonkey]

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.

I'm probably more fond of Head, than Chief or Director

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Nobody’s saying no to the role. He can do what he likes and so can the sponsor.

But if it’s a club sponsor the payments go in the salary cap. It’s such an obvious loophole for abuse that all clubs will attempt.

Why should a non AFL role be an AFL finance?? Sounds silly.

The AFL has ticked off on it and he has done it for years apparently. Bit of a silly media beat up.

If anyone wants to hire brad Scott and pay him lots of money for a role then go for it. Most organizations wouldn’t have any interest in doing such for a coach. Most are just lucky to be in their roles

 

[longdonkey]

What happens if Geelong gets a Thursday night game next year but Scotty has some work to catch up on at the office and can't get away to attend the game. Who coaches?

Do you want to have a lend of Hinkley? Hinkley & Butters for a future 3rd.

 

[longdonkey]

I wonder if there are many $1 farms or $1 pubs being bought in the Greater Brisbane Area. Probably be some highly recognisable names on the certificates.



Clarko has studied sporting organisations around the world and has post-graduate degrees. He would easily be qualified to teach a number of subjects at universities. I dare say Beveridge would too, as many clubs are doing this.

But even so, it should be looked at given they are a sponsor.

I do wonder about Scott being a finance wiz who is leading a team of financial types. Or does Scott have a post-graduate degree in Finance or something else which makes him qualified? Maybe spending 15 years playing football and 15 years coaching football makes you a leader in the finance world. And he for sure would be sought after by many financial firms around the world, not just the one which by chance is a sponsor.

Tom Browne works in finance now. Think you'll find that competence is only a "nice to have" in that world. Mates, Insider knowledge and trading is better.

 

[perplexed]

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

Is he shifting to part-time coaching? If not, as long as any income he receives from this club sponsor counts under the soft cap it is fine.

 

[caveman72]

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.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Why should a non AFL role be an AFL finance?? Sounds silly.

The AFL has ticked off on it and he has done it for years apparently. Bit of a silly media beat up.

If anyone wants to hire brad Scott and pay him lots of money for a role then go for it. Most organizations wouldn’t have any interest in doing such for a coach. Most are just lucky to be in their roles

It’s so obviously ripe for rorting that I don’t understand how you can’t see it, unless it’s wilful.

You can’t have club sponsors paying players and coaches and not include it in the salary cap.

Obviously the sponsors can just pay (for example) $300k for their $500k worth of sponsorship value, and direct $200k to a player or coach via “employment”.

The amounts simply have to be included in the club’s TPP (players) or soft cap (coaches) figures. It’s a simple solution.

And yes, that includes family members.

It’s such a simple and obvious concept.

 

[FootyLad0]

I wonder if there are many $1 farms or $1 pubs being bought in the Greater Brisbane Area. Probably be some highly recognisable names on the certificates.



Clarko has studied sporting organisations around the world and has post-graduate degrees. He would easily be qualified to teach a number of subjects at universities. I dare say Beveridge would too, as many clubs are doing this.

But even so, it should be looked at given they are a sponsor.

I do wonder about Scott being a finance wiz who is leading a team of financial types. Or does Scott have a post-graduate degree in Finance or something else which makes him qualified? Maybe spending 15 years playing football and 15 years coaching football makes you a leader in the finance world. And he for sure would be sought after by many financial firms around the world, not just the one which by chance is a sponsor.

Scotty took courses with Harvard. He is most likely actually looking at post career stuff.
He's had a role with Morris for years, the only difference is he got a new role.