"Systematic Salary Cap Cheating"

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: no

Originally posted by The Ewok
the rest of the lynch mob can see clearly

Like most reasonable lynch mobs do.

A word of warning though, don't go so fast at it that you stumble, set fire to yourself with your burning torch and lose your pitchfork up your arse!

 

[BluesPrez]

Originally posted by dockertor


What the????

Its ok to take pick 2 but not pick 1

Take off your navy blue glasses BP I think thats just wishful thinking.

No. 1 is the priority pick, no. 2 is the normal 1st round pick, pick 1 was untradeable.

Which is why we offered you pick 2 for Croad, McPhee and pick 5.

There, you could have got Wells, but you didn't take the trade...eh well.

Sour grapes...St Kilda can have him. And still finish 2nd last.

 

[dockertor]

Originally posted by BluesPrez


No. 1 is the priority pick, no. 2 is the normal 1st round pick, pick 1 was untradeable.

Which is why we offered you pick 2 for Croad, McPhee and pick 5.

There, you could have got Wells, but you didn't take the trade...eh well.

Sour grapes...St Kilda can have him. And still finish 2nd last.

Couple of points
we were never going to trade croad (could be a mistake but thats our risk)

Carlton loosing the picks was on the cards and I've even heard it suggested ,though theres no backing this up with any facts, that clubs may have been advised not to trade with you for them

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Originally posted by dockertor
Carlton loosing the picks was on the cards and I've even heard it suggested ,though theres no backing this up with any facts, that clubs may have been advised not to trade with you for them

Which if true means that the AFL had pre-empted the penalty before we got to defend the charges or before charges were even laid more to the point. This is one of the reasons we feel a little bit miffed. The AFL claim there is no substance to these rumours but it is easy to see how the football public have been conditioned by the media trial.

Of course, I am just whinging, complaining, making excuses and failing to take it on the chin so disregard me completely.

 

[saiak]

Originally posted by dockertor

Carlton loosing the picks was on the cards and I've even heard it suggested ,though theres no backing this up with any facts, that clubs may have been advised not to trade with you for them

I promised myself I wouldn't post on these threads which are just an easy way to troll about Carlton...but a quick response to this...

How could a trading period go ahead when the AFL told the clubs not to trade certain items? Doesn't that make a mockery of the whole system? It does, and we know who is making it a mockery! The same person who suggested putting back trade week, and that in itself shows that even the AFL have doubts as to whether they could take the picks after the draft has already begun!

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Though they seem to have got the confidence to follow it through after taking legal advice Saiak. The AFL are all over the shop on this. I'd be interested in seeing how we are fairly allowed to bring our list back up to the required number and bringing back disgruntled delistees and picks in the 80's doesn't even bring us to a point where we were last year with the list that finished on the bottom.

 

[liz]

Originally posted by BluesPrez


pick 1 was untradeable.

No it wasn't - unless the rules have been changed from last year when Freo traded the number 1 pick (also a priority pick) to Hawthorn.

 

[BluesPrez]

You see dockertor, that's the thing. If the AFL told clubs they shouldn't trade with us, then that's prejudicial to the investigation.

liz, pick 1 was the priority pick or so I was led to believe. Freo had pick 4 as well in the draft, so which one was the priority?

And how come the thing being reported in the papers was that Carlton had offered pick 2 for Croad, McPhee, pick 5? Dodgy reporting??

 

[dockertor]

As I said no basis in fact, but sorry BP I would call it less predjudicial than prudent caution given that blind freddy could see CFC's ship was holed and listing badley over this one.

Freo had priority pick 1 as they finished last with the magnificent record of 2-20, 2 other clubs also had priority picks that year having also won so few games that they qualfied for the handout that CFC are due this year. So Freo's first pick then becomes 4

Not dodgey reporting the offer was there from carlton. I could offer you 10 cents for your house but it wouldn't happen and niether would this deal. Croad is a contracted player who had no intention of leaving. You have to have the agreement of the player being traded if he has a contract.

 

[liz]

Originally posted by BluesPrez

liz, pick 1 was the priority pick or so I was led to believe. Freo had pick 4 as well in the draft, so which one was the priority?

Pick 1 was the priority and last year it was traded - that's how Hawthorn landed up with the first overall pick in the draft.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I think if you have a priority pick, you are unable to trade away both the priority pick and your first round pick.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by The Spornstar
I'd love them to investigate James Hird's "job" at JB Were (for which he has no qualifications) and Matthew Lloyd's website.

Me too. Do you know what Hird does at JBW? Thge last I heard on Lloyd's website was Ricky Nixon stating that no money had changed hands. Have you got alink to somewhere that says differently?

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Deej
You seem to have a fundamental problem with the process of reading written english and then interpreting the meaning of that written english.

The club cheated the cap. I'll say it again, the club cheated the cap. Again for you, in case you didn't understand Dave, the Carlton Football Club under the guidence of John Elliott cheated the salary cap of the AFL.

It is not ok. I'll say it again, it is not ok. Again for you Dave who has a problem understanding my written english, it is not ok that the Carlton Football Club cheated the salary cap.

Must have been a different deej who said:

"Let me explain a bit then...Brown and O'Rielly were paid outside the cap as an incentive for them to RETIRE!!! Not exactly cheating or buying success if your paying people to nick off now is it?"

Now what exactly have I mis-interpreted about Not exactly cheating?

My entire point is not directed at the severity of the punishment - throw the book at us by all means, we deserve it and I readily admit it! My overall point is simply that picks 1 and 2 just plainly should not be part of the penalty because it would compromise the integrity of a trading/drafting process that affects every single individual involved in the playing side of AFL football.

Not to mention mightily inconvenience your club. Of course you can be objective about that can't you?

No-one changes the rules of a game at half time, so why should that happen with the draft?

It has happened before as others have pointed out. Why should it be any different for your club?

Even Neil Balme and Mick Malthouse have publically commented that the picks should not be touched...clearly they are two people that, unlike your good self Dave, have thought about this logically and objectively without emotion, and have come up with an intelligent answer.

I see, so because they agree with you their arguments are logically and objective whereas those that disagree with you are not. Well done Deej26.

My reasoning on this is not emotional or illogical, it is simply this: Carlton have systematically cheated the cap. They've done it with a suspended sentence hanging over their heads and did not assist with the investigation until after the laying of charges had been announced and the board had changed. All that adds up to something that if proven to be true requires a significant penalty to send a message that this sort of thing is not to be tolerated and will not be rewarded. IMO that has to include the removal of the first two picks in this years draft, else the message is "cheat, lie, obstruct and get the first two picks in the draft anyway".

You can obfuscate about jacko etc being overseas at the time but the fact remains that had the people at your club had a shred of ethics within them they would have admitted the offences when the investigation started, as both Essendon and Melbourne did. That would have removed any possibility of the current situation occuring.

 

[Deej]

Originally posted by Dave


Must have been a different deej who said:

"Let me explain a bit then...Brown and O'Rielly were paid outside the cap as an incentive for them to RETIRE!!! Not exactly cheating or buying success if your paying people to nick off now is it?"

Now what exactly have I mis-interpreted about Not exactly cheating?

Carlton have (99.9% probably) cheated the cap, I never said they didn't, nor have I said we shouldnt be penalised.

 

[5CougarsThanks]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: no

Originally posted by The Spornstar


This is where penalties get silly and inconsistent. I would suggest that 1&2 are worth about 3 times what 16 and 32 are. If you look through past drafts, you would see that picks 1 and 2 would get you at worst a very very good player, at best a champion. 16 and 32 are nearing the lottery stage of the draft.

The draft IS a lottery. There is no guarantee as to the time span the player will play for or at what level he plays at. History shows that outside the first two picks there is a quality player waiting to be found. Of late picks 1 & 2 look to be stars in the making, but they are just 1 knee reco or and bad dose of Osti pubis from not realisong their potential for greatness.

'92
1- Drew Banfield
2 - Nathan Chapmab

48 - Jarrod Schofield
90 - Scott Burns

'93
1 - Darren Gasper
2 - Nigel Lappin

40 - Mathew Lappin
46 - David King

'94
1 - Jeff White
2 - Anthony Rocca

40 - Michael O'Loughlin
60 - Brad Scott
79 - Aaron Hamill
94 - Jade Rawlings

'95
1 - Clive Waterhouse
2 - Mathew Primus

27 - Kane Johnson
47 - Brent Harvey
75 - Clint Bizzell

'96
1 - Michael gardiner
2 - Chris Heffernan

28 - Jason Johnson
36 - Jonathon Hay
47 - Brett Montgomery
62 - Andrew Thompson
67 - Byron Pickett
84 - Brad Scott (Again)

'97
1 - Travis Johnstone
2 - Brad Ottens

31 - Simon Black
45 - Mathew Scarlett
73 - Beau McDonald
82 - Nathan Thompson

'98
1 - Des Headland
2 - Justin Longmuir

36 - Danny Jacobs
79 - Ray Hall

'99
1 - Josh Fraser
2 - Paul Hasleby

30 - Jonathon Brown
32 - Danny Giansiracusa
38 - Cameron Ling


'00
1- Nick riewoldt
2- Justin Koschitzke

34 - Ryan Lonie
67 - Greame John****

'01
1 - Luke Hodge
2 - Luke Ball

33 - David Rodan
48 - Simon Cox
54 - Ben Robbins

 

[MarkT]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: no

Originally posted by The Spornstar
This is where penalties get silly and inconsistent. I would suggest that 1&2 are worth about 3 times what 16 and 32 are. If you look through past drafts, you would see that picks 1 and 2 would get you at worst a very very good player, at best a champion. 16 and 32 are nearing the lottery stage of the draft.

As a statement of fact you are right. Picks 1 and 2 are as valuable as you can get. It is completely irrelevant though. You do not take that into account IMO. It's like saying 2 murderers should get different jail terms because one ahs a better job, higher income and more money because he will miss his life more than the one who is unemployed and sleeping on the street. It may true but they both murdered and the cases have to tried on their meriots with penalties appropriately given. Of course the fact the Carlton's breaches were long running, systematic, blatant and deliberate makes all that irrelevant anyway because they should get a much harsher penalty than anyone else in any case.

 

[BluesPrez]

Cougar,

Have to look at the fact that also a few of those are father/son selections (and hence 2nd round - 3rd round rule has changed for this year). Jonothan Brown is a case in point.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Deej
Carlton have (99.9% probably) cheated the cap, I never said they didn't, nor have I said we shouldnt be penalised.

No, you've been pushing to have a penalty as light as possible, which is entirely understandable, and then trying to justify why such stance is logical and objective, which is not.

 

[Smokin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: no

Originally posted by MarkT

As a statement of fact you are right. Picks 1 and 2 are as valuable as you can get. It is completely irrelevant though. You do not take that into account IMO. It's like saying 2 murderers should get different jail terms because one ahs a better job, higher income and more money because he will miss his life more than the one who is unemployed and sleeping on the street. It may true but they both murdered and the cases have to tried on their meriots with penalties appropriately given. Of course the fact the Carlton's breaches were long running, systematic, blatant and deliberate makes all that irrelevant anyway because they should get a much harsher penalty than anyone else in any case.

Amen!

These Carlton supporters can seem to distinguish between a penalty, and subsequent punishment. Sure, in these circumstances Carlton will be shafted, but that is no ground at all to argue little girls (like they are doing, and making pure idiots of themselves).

If a person is caught speeding gong X kilomtres over the limit, he is fined $100.

Regardless of his income, it is $100! So, a person on the dole is be forced to pay nearly 40% of his weekly wage on the exact same offense in which a millionaire would pay .001% of his weekly income.

The penalty must be consistant. However that penalty affects people as indivuals is not really relevant.

 

[franger]

OTHER WAYS TO PAY

What about clubs "investing in a business venture for the players. Does this come under the cap?
THings llke buying a maccas(Bell???), running websites( LLoyd, Campbell and Buckley, or invetsint in cafes. Or getting the players business to do work for the club ( investment advice, property holding, even carpentry. How is all this taken?