Richmond and the salary cap

[Whispering_Jack 30,581]

The revelations that three Richmond players are considering taking legal action against former Richmond President Clinton Casey over disputed property deals must be dealt with by the AFL (Former Richmond boss Clinton Casey denies salary cap breach).

"It has been widely discussed in football circles that the vast land holdings of Casey, president of Richmond from 2000 to 2005, were used by the Tigers to retain key players and lure others, raising suggestions of salary cap breaches."

While I'm not suggesting that the transactions necessarily constituted a breach of AFL rules, the implications behind this story require a full investigation by the AFL.

There have been too many stories coming out of the AFL lately on these sorts of incentives offered by business people associated with AFL clubs. We look on with dismay at the situation during trade week when certain well connected clubs seem to be offering deals left, right and centre and wonder how their salary caps can fit in the players whose names are being canvassed. These things are more easily understood if we know the player in question has been offered some sort of incentive like a cushy job with a company associated with a club official or a cheap block of land in a highly sought after residential development.

These things need to be investigated to ensure that the competition retains some semblance of integrity.

[AzzKikA 2,371]

Do you think this will make the AFL investigate or because they have such a large supporter base they will ignore it?

[montasaurus 0]

This sort of stuff has been going on for years. If I remember correctly as a part of our salery cap breaches a boat was purchased for a father of one of the players. I can't see how this is any different from the above or players being made the enviornment face for xxxxx or even realestate dealings. If the rules were in place and sever penalties inc suspension etc were in place, players may take a more conservative approach.

Another option is to have free agents but I don't think our comp really wants to go down that path.

Surely there should be similar rules to sharemarkets in relation to insider trading. Basically if you are a member of a football board, sponser, player or official etc etc you have a vested interest in the afl and thus should not be open to any trading with any other listed player or official without written consent of the AFL. really their salery cap is more a joke then ever and the gap has widened between the poorer and richer clubs more then ever IMO. Lets face it most players and certainly the ones in question are not short of money therefore if they want to do business outside of football they can do it OUTSIDE OF FOOTBALL!

[beelzebub 23,382]

A reality is that anyone...footballers alike are perfectly entitlld to third party business. Only if soe proof that any or all were a party of some clandestine conspiracy ( and I suppose most conspiracies are cladestine by nature..lol ) that you have any cause for suggesting this is untoward etc. Otherwise its a simple case of of commercial renegging...and to be dealt with by the civil courts and nothing to do with the AFL.Undoubtedly theres a fine line between "feathering' and normal commercial opportunites.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

If the third party business is a nexus to their AFL employment then it is the AFL business to investigate for salary cap issues.

If there are business matters that are outside the nexus of the AFL employment but occur between parties involved with one or more clubs and whose activities impact the standing or public perception of the AFL competition then it surely is the business and interest of the AFL notwithstanding what transpires in the legal system.

[JACKATTACK 17]

The revelations that three Richmond players are considering taking legal action against former Richmond President Clinton Casey over disputed property deals must be dealt with by the AFL (Former Richmond boss Clinton Casey denies salary cap breach).

These things need to be investigated to ensure that the competition retains some semblance of integrity.

And further to that, the media needs to start paying attention to it, until now there has been very little made of these issues.

IF it is going on (you would be naive to think otherwise) it must be stopped, noise needs to be made about it, the AFL must deliver a level playing field.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

And further to that, the media needs to start paying attention to it, until now there has been very little made of these issues.

IF it is going on (you would be naive to think otherwise) it must be stopped, noise needs to be made about it, the AFL must deliver a level playing field.

Whats that? Its never existed in the AFL and cant be delivered under the current format

[beelzebub 23,382]

heres a reality...where ever a football club exists..at any level..there is "something" going on. The AFL knows this perfectly well..its only when forced to do something that the AFL ever will. Which again calls to question OUR fessing up..a pointless gesture in hindsight.

Yes.. Casey was undoubtedly organsing 'things' but did so in a clever manner. It COULD be seen as just an opportunity to invest etc. By LAW you MUST be given any benefit of doubt even if that doubt in miniscule to the point of non existance.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

If those activities that bring an AFL Club into "disrepute" - then its in the AFL's interest and they may investigate further. I dont recall Ben Cousins actually breaking any drug laws. However his behaviour and other individual's behaviour at the Club resulted in suspensions, inquisitions and sackings. Damn reality!

[beelzebub 23,382]

again..the AFL ONLY did anything when it had no choice..otherwise it wil turn its back..thats the reality

[Guest hangon007]

Tigers are starting to make the AFL look like "idiots" on a weekly basis ... The Tigers are bent to the core with little regard for morals.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

again..the AFL ONLY did anything when it had no choice..otherwise it wil turn its back..thats the reality

A reality is that anyone...footballers alike are perfectly entitlld to third party business. Only if soe proof that any or all were a party of some clandestine conspiracy ( and I suppose most conspiracies are cladestine by nature..lol ) that you have any cause for suggesting this is untoward etc. Otherwise its a simple case of of commercial renegging...and to be dealt with by the civil courts and nothing to do with the AFL.Undoubtedly theres a fine line between "feathering' and normal commercial opportunites.

Nice back flip....that's the reality!

[beelzebub 23,382]

Nice back flip....that's the reality!

ok Einstein..please show the backfilp !!

The AFL will do nothing as its in its nature. . The AFL wil probably cite its a commercial nature outside of the salary implications..as in REALITY it can be construed that way.

But youre never one for seeing anothers valid point are you

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

ok Einstein..please show the backfilp !!

The AFL will do nothing as its in its nature. . The AFL wil probably cite its a commercial nature outside of the salary implications..as in REALITY it can be construed that way.

But youre never one for seeing anothers valid point are you

On one hand you are saying that footballers are entitled to third party business and unless there are issues of a non commercial nature they should be settled through the Courts and not involve the AFL.

I suggested that the AFL would be involved regardless whether there is a suspicion of the financial gain through the nexus of employment or bringing the game into disrepute.

Then you suggest that the AFL will do nothing by its nature. How do you that the AFL has not investigated this matter behind closed doors and found nothing untoward re salary cap but would definitely be interested in the public/media fallout if there is a messy protracted commercial legal battle between two parties involved with the one Club?

Always like a valid point when actually made Bub.

[beelzebub 23,382]

you have successfully validated my argument..how nice of you.

My point about the AFL not getting invlved is a broad brush and encompases everything the AFL likes to think its involved in.

The argument holds..( and thankyou again ). The AFL may or may not have done anything. But It does like to be seen to be doing things even when its not. Vlad and Boy Blunder often like to blow their litle trumpts so Iwould have thoguht the AFL would have made some sort of stance and associated statemtn. However it more so ever does this when it doesnt involve anything mirky or any real effort on its part. Its a master of cheap shots. In these instances where real leadwership is involved its often found hiding on a plane to somewhere else.

You are indeed correct in the notion that the AFL is all about Appearance as to Substance.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

you have successfully validated my argument..how nice of you.

My point about the AFL not getting invlved is a broad brush and encompases everything the AFL likes to think its involved in.

The argument holds..( and thankyou again ). The AFL may or may not have done anything. But It does like to be seen to be doing things even when its not. Vlad and Boy Blunder often like to blow their litle trumpts so Iwould have thoguht the AFL would have made some sort of stance and associated statemtn. However it more so ever does this when it doesnt involve anything mirky or any real effort on its part. Its a master of cheap shots. In these instances where real leadwership is involved its often found hiding on a plane to somewhere else.

You are indeed correct in the notion that the AFL is all about Appearance as to Substance.

I didn't validate it..more fool you for pandering to a cliched perception. I aware that the finance people at the AFL are low key and do get behind the scenes at the Clubs. You still haven't addressed whether the AFL has found anything untoward in the deal that would require investigation statement or comment. Rather you have trolled out your own biases. Well done.

[beelzebub 23,382]

I didn't validate it..more fool you for pandering to a cliched perception. I aware that the finance people at the AFL are low key and do get behind the scenes at the Clubs. You still haven't addressed whether the AFL has found anything untoward in the deal that would require investigation statement or comment. Rather you have trolled out your own biases. Well done.

as opposed to referring to a black hole of the AFL may or may not have done.. So you have no idea as to what transpires...but happy to allude to a nothing to prove an argument. Look in the mirror id suggest

[Rolling Stone 158]

These things need to be investigated to ensure that the competition retains some semblance of integrity.

Have a look at the AFL fixture and tell me whether there's any integrity involved in this competition.

[Bay Riffin 1,479]

more and more threads are becoming arguments betwen posters.

can you two blokes, Belze and Rhino, progress the topic or someone shut it down. If I wanted to listen to an argument I could go to my neighbours for that.

I know its the off season with little news, but please.

[the_russian 17]

more and more threads are becoming arguments betwen posters.

can you two blokes, Belze and Rhino, progress the topic or someone shut it down. If I wanted to listen to an argument I could go to my neighbours for that.

I know its the off season with little news, but please.

I concur, I often find myself turned off reading threads because of their 'i know more than you know' $hitfight

[beelzebub 23,382]

how stange.. a forum with differing opinions.. god forbid ..lol

we ve had our say...dont need argument nazis thansk guys

[montasaurus 0]

On a side note, what relationship does ian collins have with the AFL currently?

Surely some of the dealings b/w carlt$n, that catering co and the dome plus being a snr at afl head quaters would have had a lot of conflicting interests. I cannot believe that more of this have never been made. If you take a government official (i understand big difference with a private business like AFL) they have to be transperant. Lets face it the AFL govern a competion where most clubs have elected officials and really the same type of transperant dealings need to be seen.

[Guest JACKtheRIPPER]

how stange.. a forum with differing opinions.. god forbid ..lol

we ve had our say...dont need argument nazis thansk guys

mate your arguing with someone thats always correct, i dont know why you would bother.

[Bay Riffin 1,479]

Well, I like it.

Hey I should clarify - I do like a good argument, but not playing the man, where two guys just sarcastically try and pull apart the wording of their argument. It's only satisfying peoples egos

[Sir Why You Little 37,120]

Clinton Casey always came across as dodgy. Nothing would suprise me over this story.