There are rules in place but it's the way in which the AFL allows them to be interpreted. There is no longer any transparency involved in the type of marketing a player is supposed to be carrying out or whether the remuneration for the work is appropriate. Chris Judd is receiving how many 100's of 1,000's for doing exactly what?

From what Smorgon has said, there's some sort of 'marketing' cap which is in addition to the salary cap.

If there's a cap, does it matter what the nature of the work is?

Unless you argue that because some Clubs can't find sponsors to utilise this 'marketing' payment, it will create an inequality that is different to that which enables rich teams to pay 100% of the cap, buy the best facilities, pay most for staff, and so on then I don't see the issue.

I think the AFL will have to look at the rules relating to player availability for medical testing in drafts. It seems ridiculous that the system enables clubs to have ready access to medical tests for young draftees but someone like Ball is able to avoid having to make himself available.

Surely the AFL has to look at this. Here is a bloke entering the market - and giving one buyer considerably more relevant information than he is giving all the others. There might be an argument to say that he shouldn't have to talk to the market - but how can he claim that he is not manipulating the market when he only makes potentially vital medical information available to the purchaser of his choice?

I think the footy public should push the AFL to explain why young draftees have to undertake AFL- approved medicals when mature-aged players do not.

Having said that - it would be nice if Mr Ball's season was ruined by injury!

i have a friend who is an accountant for one of the AFL clubs in melbourne...she said all media appearances don't come under the salary cap. so if they get onto the footy show etc...then that doesn't count towards the salary cap.

From what Smorgon has said, there's some sort of 'marketing' cap which is in addition to the salary cap.

If there's a cap, does it matter what the nature of the work is?

Unless you argue that because some Clubs can't find sponsors to utilise this 'marketing' payment, it will create an inequality that is different to that which enables rich teams to pay 100% of the cap, buy the best facilities, pay most for staff, and so on then I don't see the issue.

Rogue, am I reading you right in saying that you seem to have no problems whatsoever with what the filth and LB (or, more accurately, Paul Connors) have done, nor with attempts on the part of established players & their managers to manipulate the draft? Just interested.

Surely the AFL has to look at this. Here is a bloke entering the market - and giving one buyer considerably more relevant information than he is giving all the others. There might be an argument to say that he shouldn't have to talk to the market - but how can he claim that he is not manipulating the market when he only makes potentially vital medical information available to the purchaser of his choice?

I think the footy public should push the AFL to explain why young draftees have to undertake AFL- approved medicals when mature-aged players do not.

Having said that - it would be nice if Mr Ball's season was ruined by injury!

You're a cruel man Hoopla. He is already ruined by injury -get over not getting Luke Ball -he is crocked and gets hit in the head and bleeds because he is too slow.

From what Smorgon has said, there's some sort of 'marketing' cap which is in addition to the salary cap.

If there's a cap, does it matter what the nature of the work is?

Unless you argue that because some Clubs can't find sponsors to utilise this 'marketing' payment, it will create an inequality that is different to that which enables rich teams to pay 100% of the cap, buy the best facilities, pay most for staff, and so on then I don't see the issue.

The issue is not the $ amounts involved but rather whether the payment for marketing is actually a genuine payment for which real services are provided. WJ is right when he says that there's no transparency involved.

Rogue, am I reading you right in saying that you seem to have no problems whatsoever with what the filth and LB (or, more accurately, Paul Connors) have done, nor with attempts on the part of established players & their managers to manipulate the draft? Just interested.

That's a bizarre inference to draw from the post you quoted! How did you come to that conclusion?

The post you quoted doesn't mention or refer to Luke Ball or Collingwood at all. If you check the thread you'll see it's a reply to WJ's comment on the Visy/Judd deal.

As I've already said in this thread, I think the issue of access to medical information should be addressed by the AFL, and posted regarding this a few days back on Demonology. Since you're interested, I have no problem with Ball not talking to Melbourne of other Clubs (as I mentioned in a similar thread on Demonology).

The issue is not the $ amounts involved but rather whether the payment for marketing is actually a genuine payment for which real services are provided. WJ is right when he says that there's no transparency involved.

If every Club has a - for example - $500K marketing cap, I don't see that the AFL should be deciding on whether the sponsor is getting value for money.

For example, if Carlton has Visy pay Judd $500K for six events a year, and Melbourne has our major sponsor pay their star(s) $500K for attending events every fortnight, where's the significant difference that impacts on the competition?

As an aside, I think Visy has got a heap of exposure with Judd and his 'environmental role', regardless of what he's actually doing. They couldn't buy the press coverage they've received with the money they're paying him.

Regardless of what the players are required to do, all clubs are allowed to supplement the ability to reward players via the sponsorship cap. As I said, I think the issue is only whether this 'sponsorship/marketing cap' is significantly more unequal than other inequalities, not whether the sponsor is getting value for money.

If every Club has a - for example - $500K marketing cap, I don't see that the AFL should be deciding on whether the sponsor is getting value for money.

How do you know that every club has a set marketing cap? If this "cap" is a set amount but set aside for "marketing", why have it at all? They might as well just have an all embracing salary cap in that case. It doesn't sound right or smell right to me.

If it can be proven Collingwood were permitted to do a medical check on him but other clubs weren't then it's draft tampering in my opinion.

Not speaking to clubs is fine, but giving one club access to a medical and not others gives that club a clear unfair advantage in making an assessment on a player, no matter if he's Luke Ball or some unknown kid from the bush.

It's all moot though because really who cares? Luke Ball kicks the footy about 38 metres with a good headwind and looks like a deer in the headlights when he's got the footy.

How do you know that every club has a set marketing cap? If this "cap" is a set amount but set aside for "marketing", why have it at all? They might as well just have an all embracing salary cap in that case. It doesn't sound right or smell right to me.

There is a report and an Op Ed in today's Age from Caroline Wilson that third party payments to players are (finally) coming under scrutiny and that they are a concern to the AFL particularly in the light of the introduction of free agency. While it's not stated, this indicates that there is indeed no set limit on such payments. It will be interesting to see what the AFL does now and whether it has the guts to state the bleeding obvious - that schemes like the Vi$y amba$$ador$hip are nothing more than a $cam with a capital $. The trouble is that it's probably too late because the Blues have gotten away with it for two years now in the case of Judd and others, a lot longer.

How do you know that every club has a set marketing cap? If this "cap" is a set amount but set aside for "marketing", why have it at all? They might as well just have an all embracing salary cap in that case. It doesn't sound right or smell right to me.

Smorgan mentioned it in an interview with James Brayshaw on MMM Radio around the time Smorgan was involved in nutting out an improved stadium deal.

Brayshaw was talking up the prospects of Clubs like North and WB, but Smorgan mentioned that there were still significant inequalities, including what I've referred to as the marketing cap.

Smorgan was hopeful that Mission would pony up the dosh so that the WB could take advantage of this extra payment.

I can't answer the last question as I don't speak for the AFL, but they're responsible for plenty of odd rules so I don't see that it being odd is a persuasive reason for believing it doesn't exist.

Smorgan mentioned it in an interview with James Brayshaw on MMM Radio around the time Smorgan was involved in nutting out an improved stadium deal.

Brayshaw was talking up the prospects of Clubs like North and WB, but Smorgan mentioned that there were still significant inequalities, including what I've referred to as the marketing cap.

Smorgan was hopeful that Mission would pony up the dosh so that the WB could take advantage of this extra payment.

I can't answer the last question as I don't speak for the AFL, but they're responsible for plenty of odd rules so I don't see that it being odd is a persuasive reason for believing it doesn't exist.

That makes no sense on Smorgan's behalf.

Let's use made-up numbers for the sake of clarity. If the doggies want to do this, instead of Mission paying them $1.5 mil over 2 years for sponsorship, Mission just pay the doggies $1.2 mil for the sponsorship and pay $300K to doggies players for marketing. The doggies essentially get paid the same by Mission, but that money is allocated to circumventing the salary cap.

There is a report and an Op Ed in today's Age from Caroline Wilson that third party payments to players are (finally) coming under scrutiny and that they are a concern to the AFL particularly in the light of the introduction of free agency. While it's not stated, this indicates that there is indeed no set limit on such payments. It will be interesting to see what the AFL does now and whether it has the guts to state the bleeding obvious - that schemes like the Vi$y amba$$ador$hip are nothing more than a $cam with a capital $. The trouble is that it's probably too late because the Blues have gotten away with it for two years now in the case of Judd and others, a lot longer.

Oh dear. The only way to monitor the clubs payments are to have the clubs put under surveillance on all sponsorship deals and TPP; have an independant auditor of the AFL entrenched at every AFL club, that the clubs are answerable to, and in turn these independants are only answerable to the AFL.

That makes no sense on Smorgan's behalf.

Let's use made-up numbers for the sake of clarity. If the doggies want to do this, instead of Mission paying them $1.5 mil over 2 years for sponsorship, Mission just pay the doggies $1.2 mil for the sponsorship and pay $300K to doggies players for marketing. The doggies essentially get paid the same by Mission, but that money is allocated to circumventing the salary cap.

Smorgan's comments make perfect sense - he was hoping Mission would tip in some more dosh.

I don't imagine that the WBs are in a financial position to tell Mission to take some of the Club's money and give it to a player or three instead.