The AFL can maintain control by not registering players to play in their comp. If a player makes to much of a stink, kick them out and let another take their place, we'll lose some talent but long term the system will remain. The only alternative for the players is to set up a rival competition which would be very unlikely given what is required to run the AFL today. Also players will realise that a free market system only benefits a few, as to pay the top the middle/bottom must take less as money isn't infinite, its not even infinite in the EPL, if you look how broke the big clubs really are.

I understand that Judd's deal outside the cap will need to be counted when renewed, it doesn't stop him having just Carltank needs to adhere to the same rules as everyone else. I don't know why they would complain, Judd will still get his money! So the agenda is being pushed by Carltank..so let them suck...now just to bring the Swans into line with all the other clubs.

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.

....the integrity of the game is in serious danger. Why do we keep hearing this and yet it is so incredibly selectively investigated and acted upon?

How about this one for a joke?

Fifteen Carlton players on Visy payroll along with Chris Judd

How many of this lot can even spell "environmental"

Wow. This is now officially a can of worms.

16 players on the Visy payroll.

News headline "Integrity officer at AFL on stress leave." Can find any and has been looking for a few years........

How about this one for a joke?

Fifteen Carlton players on Visy payroll along with Chris Judd

How many of this lot can even spell "environmental"

about as many that can spell "ambassador"

For years numerous people have been saying the second language of the AFL is lying.

Have seen nothing in the last year to suggest this is incorrect.

Edited November 19, 201212 yr by old dee

Integrity and consistency have not been a strong suit of the AFL since they got a sniff of the riches to be derived from a national competition, TV rights, etc....

In management terms their style of governance sits somewhere between the Mafia and Chinese Communist Party.

At best inscrutable, at worst corrupt, while always disguised as "doing the best for footy".

Edited November 20, 201212 yr by PaulRB

Carlton have always preferred the paper bag to the plasic bag.

Same result in the end though.

16 players on a Visy deal. & we were unable to get one deal set up in 2011

Why?

Carlton have always preferred the paper bag to the plasic bag.

Same result in the end though.

16 players on a Visy deal. & we were unable to get one deal set up in 2011

Why?

If it is the deal I think it is wyl

Then thank you AFL

they did us a very big favour

If it is the deal I think it is wyl

Then thank you AFL

they did us a very big favour

not the point i was making OD. If the AFL allowed 45% of Carlton's list to be 3rd party paid by the late presidents company, can we summise that the AFL was allegedly getting a slice of this?

Add all these smaller arrangements to that of Ju$$ & the Blues have been gaining a lot of cap space.

not the point i was making OD. If the AFL allowed 45% of Carlton's list to be 3rd party paid by the late presidents company, can we summise that the AFL was allegedly getting a slice of this?

Add all these smaller arrangements to that of Ju$$ & the Blues have been gaining a lot of cap space.

WE could have the same sort of deals wyl

The AFL has said these are ok and I understand most clubs have something similar with some players.

It is the size of the Judd deal and what he has to do to get it that begins the problem.

My understanding is all he has to do is give permission for his likeness to be used and they use a few words from him.

That is all, as Eddie suggest it looks phoney and IMO is, but no news there.

By the way he is paid by a company owned by a current board member, used to be the president who has since departed.

WE could have the same sort of deals wyl

The AFL has said these are ok and I understand most clubs have something similar with some players.

It is the size of the Judd deal and what he has to do to get it that begins the problem.

My understanding is all he has to do is give permission for his likeness to be used and they use a few words from him.

That is all, as Eddie suggest it looks phoney and IMO is, but no news there.

By the way he is paid by a company owned by a current board member, used to be the president who has since departed.

yes We could have the same deals.

I want to know why a deal we sought in late 2010 was not allowed whilst this "blanket" deal was allowed by the AFL.

It was no doubt a signifigant advantage to Carlton.

Carlton have always preferred the paper bag to the plasic bag.

Same result in the end though.

16 players on a Visy deal. & we were unable to get one deal set up in 2011

Why?

Yep, many plastic bags are transparent. Not the way Car'ton works, or the afffl.

yes We could have the same deals.

I want to know why a deal we sought in late 2010 was not allowed whilst this "blanket" deal was allowed by the AFL.

It was no doubt a signifigant advantage to Carlton.

TS to GWS was the desired result!

i read maybe 2 or 3 years all clubs had some deals like this bar 2 clubs... which was melbourne and north , now this could have changed since then

WE could have the same sort of deals wyl

The AFL has said these are ok and I understand most clubs have something similar with some players.

It is the size of the Judd deal and what he has to do to get it that begins the problem.

My understanding is all he has to do is give permission for his likeness to be used and they use a few words from him.

That is all, as Eddie suggest it looks phoney and IMO is, but no news there.

By the way he is paid by a company owned by a current board member, used to be the president who has since departed.

If we did old dee, have some 3rd parte' deals, they would have finished with Robbo, Green or Bruce, surely no one else would have been in the area of Salary, to warrant an extra clip.

TS to GWS was the desired result!

Correct, but has there been a massive overuse and inconsistency in applicatiohn of another rubbery AFL position? 16 deals signed off for Carlton players doesn't seem to be within the spirit of the thing and it was an unfavourable outcome at the time for "whats his name". Lets get all the information outhere to properly adjudge, afterall thats what the AFL seem to be wanting to be doing in our case on another matter. They have excavators and MRI scanners at work on us.

Correct, but has there been a massive overuse and inconsistency in applicatiohn of another rubbery AFL position? 16 deals signed off for Carlton players doesn't seem to be within the spirit of the thing and it was an unfavourable outcome at the time for "whats his name". Lets get all the information outhere to properly adjudge, afterall thats what the AFL seem to be wanting to be doing in our case on another matter. They have excavators and MRI scanners at work on us.

yes. The point i have been trying to make.

$cully has little do with it right now.

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.

In 2012 Adelaide forfeited their first 2 round picks in the 2012 ND (Voluntarily) but were allowed to keep a top 3 pick Brad Couch from the 2011 draft. They also lost their first 2 rounds in the 2013 ND but were allowed to participate in trading AND will still receive compensation for Free Agent losses. The Crows were fined $300,000 and three officials were banned (whatever that means) for between 2 and 6 months.

We are used to an inconsistent HQ completely make up the rules as they go along but this is insanity. Carlton and the rest of the competition should be appalled. Carlton was nearly ruined by their penalties.

The Crows must be laughing their heads off. $300k is 1 weeks footy department spending. 'Oh naughty crows. Don't do it again.' Missing the 1st 2 rounds of the draft this year is inconsequential after they had already secured Crouch. Missing the first 2 rounds next year while still being able to trade and receive compensation is less painful than a mosquito sting. The Crows have hardly ever had a high pick so its hardly going to bother them

HQ must be seriously worried about a legal stoush on the validity of the restraingt of trade that they impose on players. There is simply no other possible conclusion.

The AFL joke rolls on.

Totally agree. My Lawyer sent me a text this morning. He couldn't believe it!

How about this one for a joke?

Fifteen Carlton players on Visy payroll along with Chris Judd

How many of this lot can even spell "environmental"

Do they get two lots of annual leave as well?

If your not allowed to go into drafts and some players retire, how do you fill your list?

Josh, they have only lost early draft picks, they can still use late pick, rookies and psd to fill holes.

Emma Quayle is on to it.

Simply a disgrace. They have been hit with a feather duster.

The AFL don't want:

a: 2 basket cases in Adelaide

b: Tippet going to Court to claim restraint of trade

Rules on the run. Yet again. What a joke

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/stand-by-your-scam-20121201-2aogx.html

Link editor not working so cut and paste into browser....

Edited December 2, 201212 yr by jnrmac

Emma Quayle is on to it.

Simply a disgrace. They have been hit with a feather duster.

The AFL don't want:

a: 2 basket cases in Adelaide

b: Tippet going to Court to claim restraint of trade

Rules on the run. Yet again. What a joke

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/stand-by-your-scam-20121201-2aogx.html

Link editor not working so cut and paste into browser....

spot on Jnr. The penalties are a joke.

$300,000 The Crows will have a few fundraisers..Paid

A reshuffle of positions Trigg can still work by phone & correspondence.

It will be almost business as usual.

You are right the AFL do not want 2 Basket cases in Adelaide (sadly). The $$ in the game are now too high.

That includes Vlad & Angry's wages

Some clubs will look at this & think "mmm this would be worth the inconvinience if a flag is won..."

Adelaide were not far off it.

Shameful decisions.