All contained in a neat article...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/the-list-of-club-salary-cap-breaches-is-long-as-the-adelaide-crows-await-their-fate/story-e6frf9io-1226515655156

I had forgotten about a number of these......

I was too young to remember 1999 but that looks like a severe whack!

All contained in a neat article...

http://www.heraldsun...o-1226515655156

I had forgotten about a number of these......

From 1994 to 2003 there were 9 breaches.

And here I was thinking our sh#t doesnt stink and we breached it in 1999.

Thanks for the great post jnrmac!

Ps, why do I feeling of deja vu? Carlton were the last breach, and got hit with the biggest fine. Doesn't set a good persuasive precedence for tanking.

• In 1987, Sydney were fined the maximum of $60,000 and forfeited their first round pick in the National Draft after a VFL investigation found that they had exceeded the salary cap by $1.15 million during the season.
  
• In 1992, Sydney were fined $50,000 after it was found that they had failed to disclose payments made to former player Greg Williams during the 1990 season; Williams was suspended for six matches and fined the maximum of $25,000 for accepting the payments.^[27]
  
• Hawthorn was fined $28,500 in 1992 for a minor breach in relation to benefit payments.
  
• Three clubs were fined for minor breaches in 1993: Melbourne ($13,450), Carlton ($9,750) and Footscray ($2,700).^[28]
  
• In 1994, Carlton were fined $50,000 after it was found that they had exceeded the salary cap by $85,000 during the 1993 season.^[29]
  
• In 1995, Sydney were fined $20,000 after key documents relating to player financial details and star full-forward Tony Lockett's contract details were lost in the post by club officials, forcing the club, who had won the last three wooden spoons, to scratch from the 1995 pre-season draft and play the season two players short.^[30] The club officials responsible were fired by the Swans one week later.
  
• 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.^[31]
  
• Ten other clubs were fined in 1996 for minor breaches in a crackdown following the Sydney incident the year before: Fitzroy, St Kilda and North Melbourne ($30,000 each), Richmond ($20,000), and Brisbane, Collingwood, the Western Bulldogs, Fremantle, Hawthorn and the West Coast Eagles ($10,000 each).
  
• In 1997, Port Adelaide was fined $50,000 for late lodgement of documents relating to the contract and financial details of five players.^[32]
  
• In 1998, the West Coast Eagles were fined $100,000 and forfeited their third round pick in the National Draft after it was found that they had exceeded the salary cap by a total of $165,000 during the 1997 and 1998 seasons.
  
• Geelong were fined $77,000 in 1998 and excluded from the 1999 pre-season draft after it was found that they had exceeded the salary cap by $154,000 during the 1997 season.
  
• Four other clubs were fined in 1998 for minor breaches after an AFL investigation: Collingwood ($47,500), Hawthorn ($45,000), Richmond ($21,000) and the Western Bulldogs ($5,300). Collingwood and Richmond were also excluded from the 1999 pre-season draft.^[33]
  
• In 1999, Melbourne were fined $600,000 and forfeited their first, second and third round picks in the National Draft for two years after it was found that they had committed serious and systematic breaches of the salary cap regulations totalling $810,000 between 1995 and 1998. Fremantle were handed Melbourne's first round pick for the 1999 National Draft as compensation for losing ruckman Jeff White to Melbourne.
  
• Two other clubs were fined in 1999 for minor breaches: Carlton ($43,800) and Geelong ($20,000); Carlton were also excluded from the 2000 pre-season draft.^[34]
  
• In 2000, Fremantle were fined $54,400 and excluded from the 2001 pre-season draft for a string of minor breaches. Fremantle's poor 2001 season (in which it won the wooden spoon) has been put down to this penalty.
  
• Four other clubs were fined in 2000 for minor breaches: North Melbourne ($35,000), Richmond ($10,000), Brisbane ($7,500), and Melbourne ($5,000).^[35]
  
• In 2001, Carlton were fined $125,150, forfeited their second and third round picks in the 2001 National Draft and were excluded from the 2002 pre-season draft after it was found that they had failed to disclose payments totaling $239,900 to captain Craig Bradley and incorrectly lodged an additional services agreement document during the 1998 and 1999 seasons.
  
• Three other clubs were fined in 2001 for minor breaches: Richmond and North Melbourne ($20,000 each) and Melbourne ($5,000).^[36]
  
• In 2002, Carlton were fined a record $987,500 and forfeited their priority picks in the National Draft, their first and second round picks in the National Draft for two years and were excluded from the 2003 pre-season draft after an AFL investigation found that they had committed serious and systematic breaches of the salary cap regulations totaling $1.37 million between 1998 and 2001; ruckman Matthew Allan was suspended for five matches and fined $10,000 for accepting undisclosed payments from club officials. Carlton struggled for seven years as it recovered both on and off the field from these significant penalties, finishing no higher than 11th in 2004 and winning their first-ever wooden spoons in 2002, 2005 and 2006. After the draft ban expired, Carlton received a multitude of priority and first round draft picks.^[37]
  
• Fremantle were fined $80,000 in 2002 for late and incorrect lodgement of documents relating to the financial and contract details of four players.
  
• In 2003, Brisbane were fined $260,000 for late lodgement of documents relating to the contract and financial details of 26 players, and the Western Bulldogs were fined $30,000 for late lodgement of documents relating to the contract and financial details of three players after a crackdown in light of the Carlton scandal the year before.
  
• Essendon were fined $85,000 in 2003 but did not have any points deducted after it was found that they had exceeded the salary cap by $106,000 during the 2002 season.^[38]
  
• In 2004, Melbourne were fined $30,000 for incorrect lodgement of documents relating to the contract and financial details of three players.^[39]
  
• In 2005, St Kilda were fined $40,000 for a minor breach in regards to minor sponsor Xbox providing players with the game machines.^[40] Brian Waldron, Matt Hanson and Cameron Vale, the club's CEO, CFO and Financial Officer at the time, are currently under investigation by ASIC, the Australian Tax Office, and the Victorian State Revenue Office in relation to the Melbourne Storm salary cap scandal in the NRL.
  
• In 2006, St Kilda were fined $40,000 for late lodgement of documents relating to the contract and financial details of four players.^[41]
  
• Richmond was fined $10,000 in 2007 for late lodgement of a document relating to the contract and financial details of a player.^[42]
  
• Two clubs were fined in 2008 for minor breaches: Adelaide ($20,000) and St Kilda ($10,000).^[43]
  
• In 2011, Richmond were fined $10,000 but did not have any points deducted after it was found that they had exceeded the salary cap by $13,000 during the 2010 season.^[44]
  
• In 2012, Collingwood were fined $20,000 for late lodgement of documents relating to the contract and financial details of two players.^[45]
  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary_cap

And what is the history of penalties for "tanking"?

Edited November 13, 201212 yr by PaulRB

And what is the history of penalties for "tanking"?

Zero.

-nouns

zero, nothing; null, nul, naught, nought, void;cipher, goose egg; none, nobody, no one;nichts [Ger.], nixie, nix; zilch, zip, zippo[slang]; not a soul; ame qui vive;

-adjectives

not one, not a one, not any, nary a one[dial.]; not a, never a; not a whit of, not aniota of, not a drop of, not a speck of, not ajot; not a trace of, not a hint of, not asmidgen of, not a suspicion of, not a shadowof, neither hide nor hair of.

Gee Geelong bent right over after receiving a penalty for salary cap breach by missing the PSD.

You'd almost role out the red carpet accepting that penalty today.

The Age is now suggesting there is a second player with deals outside the salary cap at the Crows.

Oh Joy!

Not necessarily a breach, but this could have a huge impact on Carlton's salary cap...

"The manager of Carlton captain Chris Judd will fight the AFL's decision not to approve a new third party arrangement between the Brownlow medallist and club sponsor Visy. The League confirmed on Friday morning any new deal involving Judd and the company could no longer be excluded from the Blues' additional services agreement (ASA) limit or total player payments (TPP)."

The article goes on to claim that the Judd-Visy deal is worth $250,000 per annum (refuted by management). If that were true then I wonder what the going rate is per minute?

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/151194/default.aspx

It is a joke that Judd and the Blues can have 250k outside the cap while Adelaide get roasted for having less outside the cap.

Bizarre, hypocritical, corrupt, etc...

It is a joke that Judd and the Blues can have 250k outside the cap while Adelaide get roasted for having less outside the cap.

Bizarre, hypocritical, corrupt, etc...

And also that we are getting heat put on us through tanking when other sides escape the heat.

Calton promised WC pick 3 before the season ended the year they tanked, then proceeded to throw matches,

Fev, Libba mentioned they tanked - yet the AFL and media choose to go after the wounded Dees,

like we haven't copped enough.

Why do GWS escape all the heat, they constantly approached players during the season, Scully, etc.

Yet not even a mention.

I'm glad we are going to fight this tooth and nail because it's time the AFL are held accountable for their favoratism towards certain sides.

What...Carlton now have a legit Salary Cap!!

You are joking. What an outrage...

Edited November 15, 201212 yr by why you little

I was too young to remember 1999 but that looks like a severe whack!

Yeah it was wasn't it, & probably are large part of our demise, multiplied by poor talent identification & recruitment, & our poor culture to develop kids.

All in all, we must continue to change & improve.

And also that we are getting heat put on us through tanking when other sides escape the heat.

Calton promised WC pick 3 before the season ended the year they tanked, then proceeded to throw matches,

Fev, Libba mentioned they tanked - yet the AFL and media choose to go after the wounded Dees,

like we haven't copped enough.

Why do GWS escape all the heat, they constantly approached players during the season, Scully, etc.

Yet not even a mention.

I'm glad we are going to fight this tooth and nail because it's time the AFL are held accountable for their favoratism towards certain sides.

No more of this!

It is a joke that Judd and the Blues can have 250k outside the cap while Adelaide get roasted for having less outside the cap.

Bizarre, hypocritical, corrupt, etc...

The comment that the Judd deal has to be declared as part of total player payments also sounds like it restricted any trade attempts that Carlton wanted to do, sounds like Malthouse was frustrated by the lack of options given how tight the cap must be.

Sad huh

Listening to Balmey on SEN, sounds like this has the potential to open a real can of worms - might be more prevalent than we have been lead to believe.

The Judd deal was on the nose to start with - the only surprise is that its taken so long to be reviewed.

A bad off-season on many fronts for AA and Vlad methinks.

Listening to Balmey on SEN, sounds like this has the potential to open a real can of worms - might be more prevalent than we have been lead to believe.

The Judd deal was on the nose to start with - the only surprise is that its taken so long to be reviewed.

A bad off-season on many fronts for AA and Vlad methinks.

Listening to Balmey on SEN, sounds like this has the potential to open a real can of worms - might be more prevalent than we have been lead to believe.

The Judd deal was on the nose to start with - the only surprise is that its taken so long to be reviewed.

A bad off-season on many fronts for AA and Vlad methinks.

I have a feeling we might be seeing the first act in the collaspe of the AFL Salary cap rules.

If someone takes the AFL to court on restraint of trade it will collapse.

In the medium term this would make it very difficult for clubs like the MFC to improve or in the long term survive.

The strong clubs will dominate and the MFC, North, Dogs etc might as well join the VFL.

We will have the English soccer situation were only 5 -6 teams with all the money have any chance of winning the flag.

I hope it does not happen because there would be only big problems for the MFC.

I have a feeling we might be seeing the first act in the collaspe of the AFL Salary cap rules.

If someone takes the AFL to court on restraint of trade it will collapse.

In the medium term this would make it very difficult for clubs like the MFC to improve or in the long term survive.

The strong clubs will dominate and the MFC, North, Dogs etc might as well join the VFL.

We will have the English soccer situation were only 5 -6 teams with all the money have any chance of winning the flag.

I hope it does not happen because there would be only big problems for the MFC.

no i disagree OD. The MFC has the ability to become a power club. I just don't think it has truly believed it for a long time.

Big Jimma believed it & so should we...

Mind you, if Judd played for us and we had had the Visy deal previously approved I reckon we'd be screaming about how the rules are being changed midstream. We'd be arguing that it's unfair on the rest of our playing list because our cap has just got squeezed by whatever that payment outside the cap is.

In my view, the deal should never have been allowed by the AFL. But because it was, the AFL should allow it to reach its natural conclusion.

(Having said that, I have no sympathy for Carlton. But that's just the default position.]

no i disagree OD. The MFC has the ability to become a power club. I just don't think it has truly believed it for a long time.

Big Jimma believed it & so should we...

IMO If the salary cap disappears it will be the clubs with the finiancial might that will get all the cream.

The MFC is in the bottom third on a finiancial basis.

We would simply be unable to get good players the top half dozen clubs would simly out bid us.

IMO without a salary cap the MFC is in serious danger.

Mind you, if Judd played for us and we had had the Visy deal previously approved I reckon we'd be screaming about how the rules are being changed midstream. We'd be arguing that it's unfair on the rest of our playing list because our cap has just got squeezed by whatever that payment outside the cap is.

In my view, the deal should never have been allowed by the AFL. But because it was, the AFL should allow it to reach its natural conclusion.

(Having said that, I have no sympathy for Carlton. But that's just the default position.]

i agree the deal should never have been allowed. A cap is a cap.

The AFL are now realizing that a lot of their rules are veery Flaky.

The legal challenges will mount.

Ju$$ is not the only shonky deal.

Mind you, if Judd played for us and we had had the Visy deal previously approved I reckon we'd be screaming about how the rules are being changed midstream. We'd be arguing that it's unfair on the rest of our playing list because our cap has just got squeezed by whatever that payment outside the cap is.

In my view, the deal should never have been allowed by the AFL. But because it was, the AFL should allow it to reach its natural conclusion.

(Having said that, I have no sympathy for Carlton. But that's just the default position.]

I still don't understand how the deal was initially approved given the rules that existed at that time

One common theory is that the AFL bent the rules in this case to ameliorate what some claimed was an over excessive punishment for the cap rorting

If so a few poor example of corporate governance, but this is the AFL-way after all

It is a joke that Judd and the Blues can have 250k outside the cap while Adelaide get roasted for having less outside the cap.

Bizarre, hypocritical, corrupt, etc...

Adelaide's payments to Tippet were not declared. The bizarre thing is they had room inside their salary cap to pay him. FOr some weird reason they chose not to.??!!#

It's quite amazing NOT.

Most if not all the salary cap breaches were committed by CEO's and / or admin staff with at least "Accountancy 101"

I'm no Business Guru, but I can add up and get 1+1 =2

The only way you can get something different is by cheating or you are dumb.

Any official who is party to such cheating, should be run out of the respective clubs and never allowed to work in a sporting environment.

If they didn't cheat, then the DUMB rule should be invoked. Same result as cheating.

I have a feeling we might be seeing the first act in the collaspe of the AFL Salary cap rules.

If someone takes the AFL to court on restraint of trade it will collapse.

In the medium term this would make it very difficult for clubs like the MFC to improve or in the long term survive.

The strong clubs will dominate and the MFC, North, Dogs etc might as well join the VFL.

We will have the English soccer situation were only 5 -6 teams with all the money have any chance of winning the flag.

I hope it does not happen because there would be only big problems for the MFC.

This along with the Tippett business 'old dee'. the AFL have a number of battles at the moment that could test the fabric of the competition. If the draft and salary cap unravel then we are in a precarious position.