THE BOMBERS' SWISS ADVENTURE

[Willmoy1947 3,971]

Possibly an indication along with Watson's new direction that the result of CAS Appeal is out there already.

[monoccular 17,328]

7 hours ago, It's Time said:

I was told Dons paid him this year not us. So to some extent at least the cost was mitigated. I believe we get to utilise his salary for this year in the salary cap next season. For what it's worth. 

I know I shouldn't be but I remain stunned by the deafening silence from the AFL press about them getting pick 1. It is a glaring example of how compromised the AFL Press are and how beholden to the AFL they are. There should have been a deafening outcry over this but there's nothing. 

Totally agree with your comment re nail in the coffin for AFL integrity.

Nail in the coffin !!??   The sarcophagus has been sealed and buried deep in some pyramid like structure for years.   

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

20 hours ago, hemingway said:

Yes understandable. It is a little hypocritical to condemn club and players and at the same time welcome two of the players as if they had only ingested mothers milk. 

Maybe we should just take a leaf from the AFL's book and embrace hypocrisy.

Also reminds me of this, because Blackadder is brilliant:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0526711/quotes?item=qt0309936

[Demon Dynasty 17,094]

On 9/14/2016 at 7:49 AM, Whispering_Jack said:

The suspensions are not quite over yet but the players involved can now appear at and train with their clubs.

In that respect, I suppose we can officially welcome Jake Melksham to the fold. 

I think the club was poorly advised when it did the trade deal with Essendon to get him but it did so with eyes wide open.

Despite this, we received no compensation for the loss of a year from a player for who we gave up a second round draft pick, nor were we properly entitled to any compensation.

What does make it a little difficult to take is how Essendon has been magnificently compensated in terms of its capacity to recruit/draft players in the wake of the saga. 

The Bombers who were at the heart of the doping scandal were allowed to take 12 additional players for 2016 whereas the innocents had no rights to replacing suspended players and no recognition was given to the fact that the better part of a dozen players will be coming back onto their list in 2017. They get first place in the national, pre season and rookie drafts ahead of another club who they finished ahead of by a minuscule amount of percentage points.

That's about the final nail in the coffin for AFL integrity in my book.

A particular breed of Foxtel is often found lurking around dimly lit corners and corridors of AFL HQ waiting to pounce Jack.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Rusty Nails

[Demon Dynasty 17,094]

On 9/12/2016 at 9:05 AM, sue said:

Waiting for the appeal to make a decision is pretty thin since as far as I can see the appeal is based on a technicality, not an issue of fact.

Sue one should never let facts get in the way of an effective proceeding nor the intended outcome!.......

 

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

So, some of the players have begun settling, 3 to 4 of them according to Caro:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-essendon-begin-settling-compensation-claims-with-banned-players-20160914-grghyv

 

Was there ever a ruling or any information from the AFL on how these payments will be treated with regards to the salary cap? I mean, I'm sure the EFC is a fine upstanding organisation that would never bend or break rules, but we've discussed previously that this presents an opportunity to subvert the intention of the salary cap if these payments aren't included.

[Willmoy1947 3,971]

Not forgetting Tax Office....

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

27 minutes ago, Choke said:

So, some of the players have begun settling, 3 to 4 of them according to Caro:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-essendon-begin-settling-compensation-claims-with-banned-players-20160914-grghyv

 

Was there ever a ruling or any information from the AFL on how these payments will be treated with regards to the salary cap? I mean, I'm sure the EFC is a fine upstanding organisation that would never bend or break rules, but we've discussed previously that this presents an opportunity to subvert the intention of the salary cap if these payments aren't included.

No sure how you can think a civil compensation matter has anything to do with AFL sanctioned salary caps.  Totally separate matters.

 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,652]

1 minute ago, iv'a worn smith said:

No sure how you can think a civil compensation matter has anything to do with AFL sanctioned salary caps.  Totally separate matters.

 

Not necessarily. Theoretically, extra payments by way of compensation could be made to enable a lower payment to be made for salary cap purposes. However, this might not be as easy as it sounds as I imagine Essendon's insurers would be involved somewhere in this process.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

Just now, iv'a worn smith said:

No sure how you can think a civil compensation matter has anything to do with AFL sanctioned salary caps.  Totally separate matters.

 

Sigh.

Because it gives the EFC an opportunity to subvert the salary cap.

In an idea world, you'd be correct and neither would have anything to do with the other. However, I don't trust the EFC not to tank their negotiations in to compensate for a lower payment to a player under their salary cap. Their insurance premiums are going to skyrocket anyway.

I'm also extremely sceptical given they've managed to hold onto so many players who are launching action against them. It makes very very little sense to me as to why someone would stay with an employer who they are suing for compensation. I think there's more going on.

Call me an idiotic conspiracy theorist, but basically, I don't trust them.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

3 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Not necessarily. Theoretically, extra payments by way of compensation could be made to enable a lower payment to be made for salary cap purposes. However, this might not be as easy as it sounds as I imagine Essendon's insurers would be involved somewhere in this process.

Precisely.  This is a civil matter, whereby the player's seek compensation through their employer's insurer.  It has no correlation to salary caps.  It's analogous to workers compo.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

11 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Precisely.  This is a civil matter, whereby the player's seek compensation through their employer's insurer.  It has no correlation to salary caps.  It's analogous to workers compo.

No, it's not.

You can't continue to work while receiving an ongoing worker's comp claim. An employer with an employee on worker's comp doesn't have a 'salary cap' that they could wring out an advantage of by inflating the compo.

This isn't like worker's comp. These are settlement talks to avoid civil litigation, and as such they are a negotiation. The notion that the EFC could tank/influence these negotiations in order to pay their players less inside the cap and retain them all, when they otherwise couldn't, is valid (at least in my opinion).

Edit: The amount of players they have retained doesn't pass the smell test. Something is fishy, and I suspect this has something to do with it.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Choke

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

7 minutes ago, Choke said:

No, it's not.

You can't continue to work while receiving an ongoing worker's comp claim. An employer with an employee on worker's comp doesn't have a 'salary cap' that they could wring out an advantage of by inflating the compo.

This isn't like worker's comp. These are settlement talks to avoid civil litigation, and as such they are a negotiation. The notion that the EFC could tank/influence these negotiations in order to pay their players less inside the cap and retain them all, when they otherwise couldn't, is valid (at least in my opinion).

Sorry, you're just plain wrong.  It is a civil matter, which seeks compensation through the employer's insurer for damages.  You are right on one thing, the insurer is paying out to avoid litigation.  Insurers are renowned for stalling the potential for payouts.  Therefore, it would suggest in this case, that insurance company has had legal advice that if they tried to stonewall compensation, on behalf of the insured, it may buy time, but would ultimately cost a lot more if litigation was to occur.  Surely you are not implying that if a monetary award for damages is granted, then the employees' salary should be discounted commensurately?

 

Edited September 19, 2016 by iv'a worn smith

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

5 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Sorry, you're just plain wrong.  It is a civil matter, which seeks compensation through the employer's insurer for damages.  You are right on one thing, the insurer is paying out to avoid litigation.  Insurers are renowned for stalling the potential for payouts.  Therefore, it would suggest is this case, that insurance company has had legal advice that if they tried to stonewall compensation, on behalf of the insured, it may buy time, but would ultimately cost a lot more if litigation was to occur.  Surely you are not implying that if a monetary award for damages is granted, then the employees' salary should be discounted commensurately?

 

I'm saying that's exactly what DOESN'T happen in the real world, but exactly what the EFC may desire as an outcome.

 

Edit: I give them no credit iv'a. I think if there's a way to exploit the situation, they will, given their recent history.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Choke

[rjay 24,616]

25 minutes ago, Choke said:

No, it's not.

You can't continue to work while receiving an ongoing worker's comp claim. An employer with an employee on worker's comp doesn't have a 'salary cap' that they could wring out an advantage of by inflating the compo.

This isn't like worker's comp. These are settlement talks to avoid civil litigation, and as such they are a negotiation. The notion that the EFC could tank/influence these negotiations in order to pay their players less inside the cap and retain them all, when they otherwise couldn't, is valid (at least in my opinion).

Edit: The amount of players they have retained doesn't pass the smell test. Something is fishy, and I suspect this has something to do with it.

 

19 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Sorry, you're just plain wrong.  It is a civil matter, which seeks compensation through the employer's insurer for damages.  You are right on one thing, the insurer is paying out to avoid litigation.  Insurers are renowned for stalling the potential for payouts.  Therefore, it would suggest in this case, that insurance company has had legal advice that if they tried to stonewall compensation, on behalf of the insured, it may buy time, but would ultimately cost a lot more if litigation was to occur.  Surely you are not implying that if a monetary award for damages is granted, then the employees' salary should be discounted commensurately?

 

As much as we don't like the EFC nor trust them or the AFL in anyway 'Choke', I think 'Iva' is most probably on the money here.

If the insurer is footing the bill then they are not going to be paying overs so that EFC get a salary cap break...they will be paying as little as possible.

Edited September 19, 2016 by rjay
Big problem...forgot ' ' for 'Iva'

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

Just now, rjay said:

 

As much as we don't like the EFC nor trust them or the AFL in anyway 'Choke', I think Iva is most probably on the money here.

If the insurer is footing the bill then they are not going to be paying overs so that EFC get a salary cap break...they will be paying as little as possible.

We don't know what the extent of the EFC's involvement with the negotiations are.

They've been dishonest to such a point before, where I wouldn't be surprised if they were able to arm players going into negotiations with the insurer (assuming they are not party to it).

Their premiums are going to skyrocket anyway. In fact I'm not sure how they're still insured at all, must be one hell of a premium increase.

[beelzebub 23,200]

32 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

No sure how you can think a civil compensation matter has anything to do with AFL sanctioned salary caps.  Totally separate matters.

 

Are  you thinking they possibly wouldn't count  in the manner of "Brown bagged donations " ? 

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

Just now, beelzebub said:

Are  you thinking they possibly wouldn't count  in the manner of "Brown bagged donations " ? 

Indeed.

The AFL has form here.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

6 minutes ago, Choke said:

Indeed.

The AFL has form here.

Now it's the AFL who are complicit in compensation payments and the level of those payments?

 

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

9 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Now it's the AFL who are complicit in compensation payments and the level of those payments?

 

Your ability to misrepresent posts is bordering on Saty levels here mate.

BB referenced brown paper bags, a clear jab at the AFL's record of looking the other way at third party deals such as Judd and Visy.

This demonstrates that the AFL 'has form' with regards to players being remunerated outside of the salary cap, when they can find even a flimsy justification for it. It applies here because the AFL determine the salary cap, and what does and does not fall within it. The AFL, to my knowledge, have not commented on the EFC players' compensation payments, hence my original post asking if anyone had any further information on that front.

I said nothing about the AFL being complicit in the 'payments and level of those payments'.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

1 minute ago, Choke said:

Your ability to misrepresent posts is bordering on Saty levels here mate.

BB referenced brown paper bags, a clear jab at the AFL's record of looking the other way at third party deals such as Judd and Visy.

This demonstrates that the AFL 'has form' with regards to players being remunerated outside of the salary cap, when they can find even a flimsy justification for it. It applies here because the AFL determine the salary cap, and what does and does not fall within it. The AFL, to my knowledge, have not commented on the EFC players' compensation payments, hence my original post asking if anyone had any further information on that front.

I said nothing about the AFL being complicit in the 'payments and level of those payments'.

Then what do you mean by "the AFL have form here"? "Brown Bag donations" and harking back to the Judd, Visy issue.  A world of difference to legally sanctioned compensation payments.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

1 minute ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Then what do you mean by "the AFL have form here"? "Brown Bag donations" and harking back to the Judd, Visy issue.  A world of difference to legally sanctioned compensation payments.

I literally just explained my comment, in the post you have quoted.

[beelzebub 23,200]

2 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Then what do you mean by "the AFL have form here"? "Brown Bag donations" and harking back to the Judd, Visy issue.  A world of difference to legally sanctioned compensation payments.

Iva, the AFL. Make up everything to suit.They are  complicit because they often facilitate that which they shouldn't.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

7 minutes ago, Choke said:

I literally just explained my comment, in the post you have quoted.

Ughhh!!!!!!!!!

[daisycutter 29,342]

45 minutes ago, rjay said:

 

As much as we don't like the EFC nor trust them or the AFL in anyway 'Choke', I think 'Iva' is most probably on the money here.

If the insurer is footing the bill then they are not going to be paying overs so that EFC get a salary cap break...they will be paying as little as possible.

do we know if the insurer is footing 100% of the money? i'd suggest not as this is not a court case but a settlement arrangement to avoid a court case. as such i'd expect the settlements to be confidential. it is possible that the insurers will not cover 100% of all settlements (for various reasons)

the afl have made a statement a few months ago stating they will be overseeing the settlements to ensure there is no flow-on effect to the salary cap or any other afl regulated spending. so the afl at least sees there is some scope for circumventing. i also presume that the afl has ensured it will have access to any settlement details in order to audit it.

beyond all that we are just guessing

Edited September 19, 2016 by daisycutter