Visy Poach: chickens coming home

[All Australian]

That's fine - but the real issue is the way these payments are treated in respect to the Salary Cap. The "Judd" deal is an exception to the rule.

Anyway it will expire soon...then wait on how the AFL stuffs up free-agency.

THE AFL last night conceded 114 players were paid more than $2 million outside the league salary cap by club associates last season - and insisted it was all legal. Feb 2010 link.

 

[pies_this_year]

Oh look its anther Judd third party deal thread WoW!! and started by a Collingwood supporter...please

The obsession and jealousy is amazing, had any of your clubs had a deal in place like this, none of you would be complaining.


But by all means carry on, its great reading while i have my lunch

Jealous?

I'd prefer to still be in the hunt for our 2nd straight Premiership.

You can keep your overrated hack of a captain that fails your club when it matters most...

 

[Donstuie]

Essendon 1993

That's what has me confused about his post, because why would he talk about something Essendon did in a Carlton-bashing thread?

 

[Kong]

Essendon didn't breach the cap in 1993.

 

[Blueboys11]

Essendon didn't breach the cap in 1993.

Oh yes they did

In 1996, Essendon were fined a record $638,250 ($250,000 in back tax and penalties, $112,000 for draft tampering and $276,250 for breaching the salary cap regulations), forfeited their first, second and third round picks in the National Draft and were excluded from the 1997 rookie and pre-season drafts after a joint Australian Tax Office and AFL investigation found that they had committed serious and systematic breaches of the salary cap regulations totalling $514,500 between 1991 and 1996

 

[Zahki]

Essendon didn't breach the cap in 1993.

In 1996 Essendon was fined a then record $388,500 and ordered to pay a further $250,000 in back tax after an Australian Tax Office investigation into draft tampering revealed it had breached the salary cap by $514,500 between 1991-96.

Last time I checked 1993 was between 1991 and 1996.

 

[serenityNow]

Essendon didn't breach the cap in 1993.

hahahahahahaha


You should look at getting into stand up

 

[Kong]

Taken from Blueseum:

http://www.blueseum.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=19

Click for full size

http://www.blueseum.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=19

 

[Zahki]

Even assuming 1993 was the only year in that period they didn't breach the cap (how convenient) it would be naive to believe that breaching the cap in the years prior to and after the flag didn't have an effect on their 1993 success. Like if Collingwood give Dale Thomas a million bucks on the sly to stay with us, even if we don't win the flag this year surely that money, and keeping him at the club would have to play a large part if we won it the year after, even if there were no breaches in that particular year.

Basically you're splitting hairs.

 

[Old Spice]

If we hadn't been robbed of what we invented, our attendances and membership would have continued to grow as steadily as it did in the 90s.

Collingwood are leeches.

Were you robbed possibly because you couldn't step up to the plate and deliver decent crowds? Just a guess.

 

[Kong]

"Essendon didn't breach the cap in 1993".

Correct, Blueboys11, Zahki and serenityNow?

 

[Zahki]

"Essendon didn't breach the cap in 1993".

Correct?

According to an unofficial club wiki with no citations. You don't think theres any reason to question whether or not they breached in 1993 when they did in 92 and 94? The one year sandwiched in the middle of two cap breaches was the year Essendon coincidentally won the flag? Come on now.

Call me cynical but I think there's more liklihood of the AFL sweeping 93 under the carpet as a PR move to avoid having a club that breached the cap winning the flag in that year than there is of Essendon magically deciding no brown paper bag payments in that particular year when they did on either side.

 

[Old Spice]

The OP is a bit rich coming from a Collingwood supporter! You seriously don't think Daisy Thomas will be looked after with real estate and/or work when he retires due to staying at Collingwood. Pffft... Time to grow a brain, son

Yes, and we give everyone a magic unicorn once they retire.

 

[Kong]

According to an unofficial club wiki with no citations.

I wouldn't think Carlton fans would have any reason to lie here.

You don't think theres any reason to question whether or not they breached in 1993 when they did in 92 and 94? The one year sandwiched in the middle of two cap breaches was the year Essendon coincidentally won the flag? Come on now.

Call me cynical but I think there's more liklihood of the AFL sweeping 93 under the carpet as a PR move to avoid having a club that breached the cap winning the flag in that year than there is of Essendon magically deciding no brown paper bag payments in that particular year when they did on either side.

Two club greats retired after 1992 in Simon Madden and Terry Daniher. I'd imagine that would free up a significant amount.

After winning a flag, a club's player values generally go up, which would've contributed to the 1994-96 breaches. Players like Hird, Mercuri, Fletcher and later on Lloyd/Lucas were warranting bigger payments.

No conspiracy theory here, just basic logic.

 

[MaddAdam]

Essendon broke the cap between 1991 and 1996.

The year 1993 falls in this period.

FFS.

 

[Kong]

Again, I quote Blueseum:

Essendon breaches: 1992; 1994-1996.

1993 is not in that period.

 

[Terex8]

Essendon did breach the cap in 1993.

The AFL gave every club an amnesty period where the clubs would be pardoned if they admitted to the AFL their salary cap "overs". Essendon were one of the clubs that were found to be over the salary cap after they refused the amnesty.

Essendon was over the salary cap when it won its 1993 premiership. It would subsequently be fined and stripped of draft picks, but there was never any suggestion that the Dons should have their premiership taken away years later, when the rorts were uncovered

 

[Kong]

No, they breached it in 1992 and 1994, 95 an 96.

They also informed the AFL of its breaches, unlike Carlton.

 

[Buddy Magic]

@Old Spice 14:28 today... LOL that's quite funny, but ur the one dancing in the magic garden if u don't believe there's a bit going under the table down at pie land. And I'm not talking about Eddie and Bucks at dinner time. Keep dreaming, Sunshine!

 

[Terex8]

No, they breached it in 1992 and 1994, 95 an 96.

They also informed the AFL of its breaches, unlike Carlton.

You are pretty delusional, at best.

In 1996 Essendon was fined a then record $388,500 and ordered to pay a further $250,000 in back tax after an Australian Tax Office investigation into draft tampering revealed it had breached the salary cap by $514,500 between 1991-96

The ATO didn't make any reference into their findings that 1993 was exempt from this breach. You seem to be clinging to a poor grammar mistake on an unoffical website.

David Shaw (who was the president at the time) & Rod Evans have made clear references to the fact that Essendon were over the salary cap in 1993.

salary cap breaches, $250,000 for ATO tax and penalties, $175,000 for 1993 fringe benefit tax, $500,000 to the Dons Hall of Fame and $189,000 for a senior management restructure. Bomber CEO Peter Jackson said the 1993 profit had been ‘overstated’ by about $350,000 and there were some ‘inappropriate procedures’ that year.

 

[Kong]

I find it strange mistake to make.

When they could simply type "1991-1996", why would they accidentally type "1992; 1994-1996"?

Seems quite odd.

 

[teknodeejay]

Come on, the Judd deal is basically rorting the salary cap even though for some reason it was given the green light. Basically the club President was paying him out of his own pocket to supplement his salary from the club.

The AFL is not an even playing field even without these deals, and thats not even taking into account fixturing.

Brisbane, Sydney and now Gold Coast and GWS receive different sized salary caps than other teams. As much as I disagree with McGuire I backed him on his stance on this (even though his agenda was really against the Brisbane Lions they were playing in the Grand Finals those years).

The Judd-Visy deal is only the most publicized. Do you think GAJ is SOLELY paid out of the GC Salary Cap? Was Nathan Buckley completely paid by Collingwood? Was Matthew Richardson 100% paid by the Richmond salary cap? How about Lloyd at Bomberland? I'll wager a lot of clubs who have accessible cash have players looked after outside of the club. I'm not going to argue about that.

The point is, until the AFL actually make all clubs responsible for the same dollars, it's rich of them to stop this practice while they sanction it for other areas.

That's my opinion.

 

[Terex8]

I find it strange mistake to make.

When they could simply type "1991-1996", why would they accidentally type "1992; 1994-1996"?

Seems quite odd.

Ask the authors of "Bluesem".

There is copious amounts of articles online from official sources such as the ATO that the breaches occured in 1993.

 

[Blueboys11]

You are pretty delusional, at best.



The ATO didn't make any reference into their findings that 1993 was exempt from this breach. You seem to be clinging to a poor grammar mistake on an unoffical website.

David Shaw (who was the president at the time) & Rod Evans have made clear references to the fact that Essendon were over the salary cap in 1993.

lol

Always makes me laugh when Essendon claim the moral high ground, yet they are the only club with a tainted premiership next to their name.

 

[Blues_Man]

No, they breached it in 1992 and 1994, 95 an 96.

They also informed the AFL of its breaches, unlike Carlton.

Sounds like quite a lot of breaching going on there ..it wouldn't look good to point the finger at other clubs when yours looks to be a perrenial offender ...would it now ?


Breaching it in 93 taints that premiership .