Should a salary-cap cheat be in the HOF?

[The Old Dark Navy's]

"The AFL had proof on the secret trust accounts and moneys that had gone on to others well before we encouraged those two icons of the club to make sure they put on the table the issues . . . we had to make sure that we did clear the decks.

I like the bolding of the key words here JD. Can I play too? Let's try that same quote again.

The AFL had proof on the secret trust accounts and moneys that had gone on to others well before we encouraged those two icons of the club to make sure they put on the table the issues . . . we had to make sure that we did clear the decks.

Hmm, now is he suggesting the trust accounts and moneys went to others there? Is he suggesting that because the AFL already had evidence against the club in regards to 'others' that it was better to bring out the SOS/Braddles issue as well to clear the decks?

Maybe we should look at what he didn't say. He didn't say that the AFL already had evidence regarding Silvagni and Bradley. He didn't say that the trust accounts belonged to Silvagni and Bradley.

SOS went to the AFL because Collo convinced him it would help the club. Why? Beacause the AFL already had PROOF - "well before" he came forward.

The AFL already had PROOF about a payment to Stephen O'Reilly. How? Because they got wind of it and O'Reilly provided the evidence of the trust accounts. Silvagni and Bradley went forward because we were already getting done for O'Reilly and we figured it better to not have any more skeletons in the closet.

He was busted - pure and simple. A guilty plea got him off - but he knew he was busted.

He didn't plead guilty, he wasn't on trial. He merely volunteered information that the AFL previously knew nothing about.

 

[Murray]

I like the bolding of the key words here JD. Can I play too? Let's try that same quote again.

The AFL had proof on the secret trust accounts and moneys that had gone on to others well before we encouraged those two icons of the club to make sure they put on the table the issues . . . we had to make sure that we did clear the decks.

Hmm, now is he suggesting the trust accounts and moneys went to others there? Is he suggesting that because the AFL already had evidence against the club in regards to 'others' that it was better to bring out the SOS/Braddles issue as well to clear the decks?

Maybe we should look at what he didn't say. He didn't say that the AFL already had evidence regarding Silvagni and Bradley. He didn't say that the trust accounts belonged to Silvagni and Bradley.

The AFL already had PROOF about a payment to Stephen O'Reilly. How? Because they got wind of it and O'Reilly provided the evidence of the trust accounts. Silvagni and Bradley went forward because we were already getting done for O'Reilly and we figured it better to not have any more skeletons in the closet.

He didn't plead guilty, he wasn't on trial. He merely volunteered information that the AFL previously knew nothing about.

Now THAT is the best spin I have ever heard

 

[JeffDunne]

I like the bolding of the key words here JD. Can I play too? Let's try that same quote again.

The AFL had proof on the secret trust accounts and moneys that had gone on to others well before we encouraged those two icons of the club to make sure they put on the table the issues . . . we had to make sure that we did clear the decks.

Hmm, now is he suggesting the trust accounts and moneys went to others there? Is he suggesting that because the AFL already had evidence against the club in regards to 'others' that it was better to bring out the SOS/Braddles issue as well to clear the decks?

Maybe we should look at what he didn't say. He didn't say that the AFL already had evidence regarding Silvagni and Bradley. He didn't say that the trust accounts belonged to Silvagni and Bradley.

The AFL already had PROOF about a payment to Stephen O'Reilly. How? Because they got wind of it and O'Reilly provided the evidence of the trust accounts. Silvagni and Bradley went forward because we were already getting done for O'Reilly and we figured it better to not have any more skeletons in the closet.

He didn't plead guilty, he wasn't on trial. He merely volunteered information that the AFL previously knew nothing about.

LOL - that's a good one ODN.


So if the trust accounts weren't for them - who are these "others" you speak of. Do you mean you suspect others of cheating?

Now where would you get that idea from?

 

[Deej]

Still the denial. Here's a quote from Collo :

"The AFL had proof on the secret trust accounts and moneys that had gone on to others well before we encouraged those two icons of the club to make sure they put on the table the issues . . . we had to make sure that we did clear the decks.
(http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/02/1059480604997.html )

So I take it SOS didn't know about these "secret trust" accounts? Fair dinkum - you can't be serious?

SOS went to the AFL because Collo convinced him it would help the club. Why? Beacause the AFL already had PROOF - "well before" he came forward.

He was busted - pure and simple. A guilty plea got him off - but he knew he was busted.




Another quote for you Deej :

“If one club wants to really cheat, absolutely cheat and rort and be dishonest, they deserve everything they get.”
(http://carltonfc.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=114782 )

You're banging on and on about the same thing JD, and it's still wrong.

1. I'm quite sure Silvagni knew exactly what was paid to him from Carlton. However, what was declared to the AFL as part of the club's lodgement of the details of it's TPP's is hardly something he'd have any sort of exact knowledge of.

2. You might as well have quoted Ron Evans himself, the bloke who said that cheating was cheating and under no circumstances would it be tolerated in any way shape or form by the AFL in the future, and that this punishment was a benchmark and should go out as a warning against any club that chooses to cheat the cap in the future. Not long after making that comment they gave 4 times repeat offender Essendon, a club he is a former president of and which broke the salary cap under his reign, a slap on the wrist for breaking the salary cap.

JD give up the obsessive anti-carlton crusade, it's old news and sooooo bloody boring.

 

[Silvagnis]

Secretly taking money is illegal.
That's how Norm Gallagher was nailed

Collingwood recently received any HIH money from Brad Cooper?
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/07/17/1026898865820.html

The commission - into the the group's failure - was told the sponsorship deal might have been in breach of fiduciary duty if it was knowingly connected to another deal signed on the same day involving Mr Cooper's purchase of HIH's 47 per cent stake in a security company founded by Mr Cooper, Home Securities International.
");document.write("

http://www.bandt.com.au/news/3f/0c00f33f.asp

There has also been suggestion that the sponsorship was used to help Brad Cooper (a former director of the Collingwood Football Club and a HIH associate) and Eddie McGuire secure positions on the club board.

Colllingwood this week refuted the claims.

"Any inference that the timing of the payment was influential to the outcome of the club's election in 2000 is without foundation and completely incorrect," the Collingwood statement said.

 

[Deej]

Collingwood recently received any HIH money from Brad Cooper?
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/07/17/1026898865820.html

http://www.bandt.com.au/news/3f/0c00f33f.asp

See how easy it is to infer stuff when you play the guilt by association game?

I wonder what we could dig up about the saints if we could actually be bothered enough by them..

 

[JeffDunne]

Deej, this thread is not about Essendon. It's not about Collingwood and it's not about St Kilda.

It's not about indiscretions by people that haven't been inducted in the HOF. It's not even about the people who were previously admitted.

It's about SOS - and whether someone involved in cheating is worthy in the HOF given the selection criteria.

Get over the persecution complex.

 

[Silvagnis]

Under the selection criteria he qualifies for the Hall Of Fame, end of story.There are less deserving names in there than Silvagni who used to kick opposition players when they were down. Is that integrity?

 

[Deej]

Persecution complex - ha. Predictable comeback considering your history. Joffaboy would've called me obsessed by the saints just because i mentioned them. Textbook smokescreen bs.

You're obsessed JD, the HOF issue isn't your priority it's just your barrow to reignite your obsession. Get over it, it really is boring.

 

[Murray]

Collingwood recently received any HIH money from Brad Cooper?
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/07/17/1026898865820.html

http://www.bandt.com.au/news/3f/0c00f33f.asp

Agreed.

The law applies equally to both issues.

That knacked your argument, didn't it?

 

[Silvagnis]

No, Silvagni still qualifies for the Hall of Fame according to the criteria.
There are other former champions who would have done worse things than Ablett and are in the Hall of Fame.It's a thread started by JeffDunne_Magic and it's not to be taken seriously, just like St Kilda the new power of the AFL.

 

[SurreyBlue]

Why am I not surprised that you started this thread JD.

 

[JeffDunne]

Persecution complex - ha. Predictable comeback considering your history. Joffaboy would've called me obsessed by the saints just because i mentioned them. Textbook smokescreen bs.

Need I quote the number of times you've tried to take this thread off topic?

Deej, you accept SOS because you want to blame JE for all the clubs sins. I understand that - but it doesn't make it right.

 

[inyourcool]

JD, if you feel so strongly about the legitimacy or eligibility of Stephen's induction into the HOF, have you bothered to draft a letter or email to the AFL, or more specifically the group responsible for allowing inductees to voice your concerns? Do you think you would receive much support at AFL House?

It is easy to point one's finger from a distance and criticise people for actions they took in their lives. I am sure someone as morally flawless and ethically correct as you are would have acted differently if confronted with the circumstances Stephen did. Not that anyone here really even has any indisputable facts about what was discussed or what occurred.

It's OK folks, JD thinks Stephen shouldn't be inducted into the HOF. He is entitled to his opinion.

 

[Deej]

Need I quote the number of times you've tried to take this thread off topic?

Deej, you accept SOS because you want to blame JE for all the clubs sins. I understand that - but it doesn't make it right.

This thread is about kicking carlton JD, it's not about the HOF at all.

If it was about the HOF then you'd be focused on debating the criteria of the HOF, not banging on about Carlton's salary cap indescretions.

 

[JeffDunne]

This thread is about kicking carlton JD, it's not about the HOF at all.

If it was about the HOF then you'd be focused on debating the criteria of the HOF, not banging on about Carlton's salary cap indescretions.

I have a problem with HOF selection process and their definition of "integrity".

That is the point of this thread.

The problem I have is that the HOF should be in recognition for service to the game. No prob's with administrators, coaches and players all being recognised for outstanding service to the game. There are plenty of awards and acknowledgment of players achievements, but the HOF is supposed to represent service to the sport.

Given that, I have a real problem with someone that participated in cheating being in the HOF. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. It just happens this cheat played for Carlton.

 

[Silvagnis]

So Hird,Sheedy,Lyon,Stynes, should be all be thrown out of the Hall of Fame or ineligible because of the club administration? If this was Robert Harvey who we were talking about or the Sook the losers would have flooded this thread and crashed the server.

 

[MarkT]

You may have a problem with the HOF but no one believes you aren't also doing what Deej said.

For the sake of the argument though, using the SOS example:

I have absolutely no doubt SOS and others knew perfectly well they were party to salary cap rorts. If you accept SOS has an average level of intelligence at least then he would clearly understand why payments were made in the form they were and what it all meant. That doesn't make him a mass murderer though and it doesn’t IMO make his character of sufficiently questionable standing to invalidate his on field exploits.

I also have absolutely no doubt there were more rorts than disclosed. None whatsoever. Nevertheless, it's done and dusted now and SOS deserves to be in if he is a TOC member. To argue otherwise is just silly and akin to arguing J-walkers should be locked up because they break the law and laws are laws. That's the sort of analytical nonsense this whole Ablett scenario has thrown up.

The Ablett scenario is quite a bit simpler than some of the rubbish analysis would have people believe. Another person died as a result of what he did. It's the consequences that make all the difference in his case. That's how life and the law work.

Personally I think Ablett should be in but it is a valid debate since the AFL itself holds itself out to be a community leader and force for good. Whether it should do that or not is another matter and whether it is marketing or conscience related is another debate again.

 

[Dave]

The Ablett scenario is quite a bit simpler than some of the rubbish analysis would have people believe. Another person died as a result of what he did.

It's not that simple either, unless you believe the girl bears no responsibility for her own actions.

 

[Jars458]

It's not that simple either, unless you believe the girl bears no responsibility for her own actions.

That's true.

But he was reckless as to whether she died or not

Personally I think they have to take out character and integrity as criteria. They are just far too subjective.

I think the argument that the time is now right is complete rubbish though. What he has done has not changed and really time passing will not change that at all. So if someone believed he was not worthy last year, I can't see how its any different this year.

Ablett should be in there and any criteria other than playing criteria should be removed.

 

[MarkT]

Dave I am a big believer in personal responsibility myself but that's another issue in many ways. Personally I don’t it should be illegal to take anything you want to take. It ii your call what you do to yourself.

If she was there and participating in whatever freely then it was her call and the consequences, however tragic are at the very least, partly a result of her own actions and choice. That doesn't invalidate the debate about Ablett's character or the change the fact that what he did resulted in a death any more than a willing passenger in a drunk drivers cart that is killed absolves the driver of responsibility. The driver gets home in one piece and he's scott free. he gets pulled over and he's a drink driver and gets a fine and loses his right to drive for a while. He crashes and the passenger dies and it's an entirely different story. The crime was essentially the same action but the results change the lot of the driver significantly.

Of course it isn't all that simple. We sit here and try and comment on complex legal and moral issues like we have a clue. Everybody's got an opinion as they say. Clues are thin on the ground though. All I have is opinions and dare say that’s true for just about everyone here.

 

[Deej]

I have a problem with HOF selection process and their definition of "integrity".

That is the point of this thread.

Ok that's fine, but you're hardly taking the sword to Ablett in it are you? That and the fact you're harping on carlton's salary cap indescretions suggest to me you have something else on your mind.

You know it could just as easily be argued that what SOS was involved in and what Ablett was involved in are about as far apart as scratching someone's skin is to letting off a nucleur weapon in downtown melbourne. One guy is getting paid for doing a job and hasn't broken any law of the state or country, the other was involved in the death of a woman.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Now THAT is the best spin I have ever heard

Merely following the exact quote as JD thought he was doing. It is amazing how something in spin when it is contrary to your own opinion. Still, if you have the facts Murray, feel free to share them.

 

[JeffDunne]

The Ablett situation is completely different no doubt. Both though are questions of personal integrity. One personal, one professional.

What SOS did is not a serious crime in the grand scheme of things, but it certainly is in the context of the sport and sportsmanship. Match fixing wouldn't result in anyones death either. Should we overlook that too?

Taking a steriod is not a serious offence under the law. To take it to gain a competitive advantage is in the administration of sport.

It staggers me some people (MarkT/Deej) cannot tell the difference.

 

[Deej]

The Ablett situation is completely different no doubt. Both though are questions of personal integrity. One personal, one professional.

What SOS did is not a serious crime in the grand scheme of things, but it certainly is in the context of the sport and sportsmanship. Match fixing wouldn't result in anyones death either. Should we overlook that too?

Taking a steriod is not a serious offence under the law. To take it to gain a competitive advantage is in the administration of sport.

It staggers me some people (MarkT/Deej) cannot tell the difference.

Actually i think you're the one who has a lack of perspective JD.