Visy Poach: chickens coming home

[Kong]

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.

No, they state between 92 and 96; meanwhile another independent source states that there were no breaches in 1993.

Essendon won premierships between 1992 and 2001. Do you see how this works?

I should ask the Blueseum authors, though they're probably already on here.

 

[Ant85]

Interesting thread, although I don't think anyone in the industry is surprised Carlton is still cheating and with the AFL's blessing.

It's the only way they can be competitive.

 

[Kong]

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.

I like how you ignored my posts, waited for somebody else to do the talking, then chimed in, albeit still incorrectly.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2003-09-16/former-carlton-star-williams-in-150000-tax-probe/1479338

 

[Tas]

No, they state between 92 and 96.

I should ask the Blueseum authors, though they're probably already on here.

They probably got confused because there was an amnesty in 93 for the clubs that came clean.

 

[Terex8]

They probably got confused because there was an amnesty in 93 for the clubs that came clean.

Correct.

All bar 6 clubs came to the AFL & opened up their books in 1993. The AFL gave the clubs that were over (there was 1 or 2) a pardon as there was an amnesty period in 1993. Essendon weren't one of these clubs & their books were only investigated when the ATO did a seperate investigation from the AFL.

 

[Kong]

.....whiiiich, found breaches in 1992, and 1994-1996.

 

[Richo83]

Wombles, the guy who claimed that Foley had only played a handful of good games in his career, is now trying to deny that Essendon cheated in 1993 when they clearly did.

As for the op, as people have said, remove 3rd party deals and only allow sponsorships. Very simple.

 

[Tas]

.....whiiiich, found breaches in 1992, and 1994-1996.

http://www.statutorydeclarations.co...-articles/1998/11/27/new-twist-in-dons-probe/

This article specifically covers the 1993 year as well.

 

[Kong]

Wombles, the guy who claimed that Foley had only played a handful of good games in his career, is now trying to deny that Essendon cheated in 1993 when they clearly did.

Clearly?

Can you substantiate that?

 

[Kong]

http://www.statutorydeclarations.co...-articles/1998/11/27/new-twist-in-dons-probe/

This article specifically covers the 1993 year as well.

All that article states is that there was an investigation into that period, nowhere does it say we were found guilty of breaches in 1993.

 

[Old Spice]

Again, I'm not having a go at Collingwood or Eddie. They just did the best for their club. As he should.

But let's dispense with this notion that it is stout yeoman legions of Collingwood fans who have made the club the financial powerhouse.

It was Eddie McGuire, a very skilled operator, a man who ran Channel 9 for a while, a man with great contacts, who turned the ship around, and his key decision was lobbying for Friday nights - every club lobbies for games in certain timeslots - when his club had ignored them for nearly 15 years.

Obviously a fan of the Jedi mind trick and the great man view of history. Because it was Eddie, he could have formed a team of Oompa Loompas and gotten them Friday night games. Because he was Eddie. Not because Eddie was Prez of an already powerful football club.

Still, bodes well for North if you can just find yourself an ubermensch 'or very skilled operator' like we did.

 

[bobsyouruncle]

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.

How many ASA deals are counted inside the salary cap? I think you missed my point completely. If you want to critisize the Judd deal then you better look at every player that has an agreement outside the salary cap to which there are over 100.

 

[bobsyouruncle]

So based on that:

Average third party deal: less than $20k
Judd third party deal: over $200k

Yeah, nothing dodgy there.

Here is a thought. Look up the definition of average.
Yes ok Judd's deal might be slightly higher than most, but I would be willing to bet there would be a couple other players on close to that.

Also people seem to have this perception that $200k is a lot of money. Wake up, $200k per year for the most talked about player in a national competition to be the face of your product? Thats small potatoes.

Once again, if there is a problem with ASAs, then look at every one's deals.

 

[Rob]

Here is a thought. Look up the definition of average.
Yes ok Judd's deal might be slightly higher than most, but I would be willing to bet there would be a couple other players on close to that.

You reckon? Cos I don't. There's only $1.8m in third party payments left once you take Judd's out.

And I think the media would have cottoned on to other deals in that range by now. I'd be surprised if there were any others in the 6 figure range, let alone close to Judd's.

Also people seem to have this perception that $200k is a lot of money. Wake up, $200k per year for the most talked about player in a national competition to be the face of your product? Thats small potatoes.

Once again, if there is a problem with ASAs, then look at every one's deals.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that Judd's Visy deal is market value?

There are plenty of elite footballers that are the face of a product (although it's disputable Judd is the face of Visy). If even $100k was the going rate, there would be $10m in third party deals. Think about the number of ads and appearances you see footballers part of. Judd's one deal, just one, is 10% of the total payments made to all footballers by club sponsors.

Market value my arse.

 

[laminex]

One has to wonder at how big a brown paper bag did Pratt send Wood's way to get the green light for the Judd deal and if such deals like it are not acceptable has Carlton been told they will have to modify their TPP to fit Judd's salary in legally.

Kids

 

[MagpieJoel]

Tell me, if you disagree with my analysis, did Collingwood suddenly develop an interest in playing as many Friday nights as possible all of a sudden in the late 90s and early 00s?

WTF does this have to do with the OP?

 

[Big Kahuna Boot]

..short memories.. ..when it was revealed that there were a heap of 3rd party deals in effect, Gazza's at geelong was a bit more than Judd's at blues.. ..enter GCS, and Costa blabbed on radio that they could hold Gazza, they'd just organise a new 3rd party deal with even more cash on offer.. ..AFL got antsy, Costa got muzzled.. ..and no geelong fresh 3rd party deal came forth.. ..a year later, same scenario with dee's and Scully.. ..dee's make noises about a 3rd party deal, again AFL gets antsy and this time they "ban" 3rd party deals..

..it's an AFL backed program to ensure their expansion clubs get who they want.. ..and that's all this is.. ..Blues aren't doing anything dodgey since it was available to all clubs to do [prior to expansion period], and many clubs did indeed take advantage of this AFL sanctioned 'loop-hole'..

..Judd's deal is nothing different to other 3rd party deals in effect, it's just now with Gazza at GCS, Judd's the only 'name' to sell papers with in regards to this topic..

 

[MagpieJoel]

.....why all the....dots.....?

 

[MISFITS]

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.

We are getting a little off the topic.
North did pioneer AFL night football. However the VFA pioneered night football in the 80's.
The tv rights are championed by the tv networks, not Colingwood.
In the NFL(from which the draft, sallery cap and fundamental sporting structure of the AFL is now based upon) you will find the 49ers and Raiders have a monopoly over nightime prime time tv.
Atleast 1(sometimes both) receive a weekly night time tv fixture while other teams get blackouts.!
In the NRL the Dragons, Sea Eagles and Broncos receive the lucretive prime time night time viewing over other teams.
Collingwood are the AFLs cashcow.!
With tv networks folking out more and more money for tv rights, you will continue to see networks dictating what they want to show.
The issue is one to take up with A.Demitriou. Not Eddie or 'Collingwood Leeches'.!

 

[Old Spice]

How many ASA deals are counted inside the salary cap? I think you missed my point completely. If you want to critisize the Judd deal then you better look at every player that has an agreement outside the salary cap to which there are over 100.

No one is saying there aren't deals outside the salary cap, they have a name and are called Additional Services Agreements. They are entirely legal and open for any club to utilise up the value of 573k a year.

What we are talking about with the Judd Visy deal is an outside agreement worth 200k per annum which is both outside the salary cap and ASA. No other club has access to this type of arrangement.

 

[Big Kahuna Boot]

No one is saying there aren't deals outside the salary cap, they have a name and are called Additional Services Agreements. They are entirely legal and open for any club to utilise up the value of 573k a year.

What we are talking about with the Judd Visy deal is an outside agreement worth 200k per annum which is both outside the salary cap and ASA. No other club has access to this type of arrangement.

..incorrect.. ..plenty of other clubs did indeed have access to these kind of 3rd party deals, both before Judd's visy deal and after.. ..right up until the expansion teams started poaching players.. ..this is NOT a carlton thing, but an AFL thing..

 

[Old Spice]

..incorrect.. ..plenty of other clubs did indeed have access to these kind of 3rd party deals, both before Judd's visy deal and after.. ..right up until the expansion teams started poaching players.. ..this is NOT a carlton thing, but an AFL thing..

Lordy. Yes, everyone has access to the same outside agreement structure, which is the AS and is valued @ 573k per year.

I repeat, we all have access to that, but...wait for it. Carlton has access to this same amount of money PLUS ANOTHER 200K.

Read the link in the OP.

 

[Doro]

Lordy. Yes, everyone has access to the same outside agreement structure, which is the AS and is valued @ 573k per year.

I repeat, we all have access to that, but...wait for it. Carlton has access to this same amount of money PLUS ANOTHER 200K.

Read the link in the OP.

But Anderson said today the rule was changed to ensure integrity of the salary cap.

"What the salary cap is about is what the club pays to a player, or what the club arranges for a player," Anderson said.

"In order to protect that, Ken Wood has tightened up the circumstances of these sorts of deals.

"If we allowed associates of clubs to pay players – any time they were at risk of losing a player, to pay extra money to that player to stay at the football club – then the salary cap becomes meaningless."

Anderson said the Demons were free to use the additional services agreements, as well as its normal salary payments, to entice Scully to stay.

"(Melbourne) is not being thwarted (in its bid to retain Scully) they have ability in their salary cap and ASA , a special marketing allowance, to pay a player like Tom Scully up to his market value should they so wish.


This is one of the key points in this argument. Judd, whether the OP likes it or not, is one of the most marketable commodities in the game. When the deal was signed he could have been payed the same amount from a less carlton connected company than Visy and no one would raise an eyebrow. Because Pratt wanted him to front his company as well, its still being scrutinised. FWIW if their cracking down on outside payments , lets start having a look at player sponsorships as well ( the integrity of the game is at stake after all)

http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/membership/playersponsorship/tabid/10918/default.aspx