1 minute ago, jnrmac said:

No its not. General workers don't operate under a salary cap.

Choke on post 2135 above is right. It's an opportunity for the cheats to subvert the salary cap by offering more in "compensation" and lower in footy salary going fwd.

'Hey Jobe, we know that your Brownlow has been tainted so how about we give you $3m in comp and don't pay you for footy for the next 2 years.' It may not even be taxable FFS.

It's obvious and clearly not beyond the EFC cheats to do it.

I reckon you're right, why is a team that has been so unwilling to admit guilt, suddenly so happy to pay millions in compo?

No bloody wonder he came back J'mac. His return probably had to be announced well before CAS decision.

On another tack still think there are whistle blowers out there because this has a long way to go yet, and the box is wide open.

3 hours ago, jnrmac said:

No its not. General workers don't operate under a salary cap.

Choke on post 2135 above is right. It's an opportunity for the cheats to subvert the salary cap by offering more in "compensation" and lower in footy salary going fwd.

'Hey Jobe, we know that your Brownlow has been tainted so how about we give you $3m in comp and don't pay you for footy for the next 2 years.' It may not even be taxable FFS.

It's obvious and clearly not beyond the EFC cheats to do it.

wrong, wrong wrong.

22 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

wrong, wrong wrong.

Why?

It isn't beyond the realms of possibility for the dons to settle with a player for a undisclosed and confidential amount, as most settlements are, then pay them less than market value in their contract? Both the player and the club would need to be on board but it could happen. 

Here is a more realistic example. The club would normally pay Heppel 500k a year, they also have to settle with him about the PED issue and will pay him 1mil for this (all figures made up). They say to Dyson, hey, we will give you a 1.5mil settlement when we originally said 1 mil, that extra 500k comes off your 5 year contract so instead of your contract being 500k a year it is now only going to be 400k a year. You get a big chuck up front in the settlement and you free up a bit of cap space so we can bring in more talent and you can play in a team that should be more successful.

 

I'm not sure on the tax implications on a payout but that could also be beneficial. The club could also pay it out of there pocket so the insurance company doesn't need to be involved. It is possible.

Even though we have seen what these players will do to tow the club line I don't think this will happen but imagine the almighty [censored] storm that would erupt if they were found out for that!

45 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

wrong, wrong wrong.

Well considered response. like a pre-schooler.

And I can't remember the last job I had where I had a salary cap with my co-workers.

Edited September 26, 20169 yr by jnrmac

45 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

wrong, wrong wrong.

I reckon it's extremely brave to assume anything with the EFC, especially if that assumption involves them doing the right thing.

3 hours ago, jnrmac said:

No its not. General workers don't operate under a salary cap.

 

44 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

wrong, wrong wrong.

 

Yeah, I totally remember the last time I asked for a raise and my boss said "Sorry mate, the salary cap is already maxed this year. I tell you what, take your normal pay this year and next year we can fit in triple because I'm planning on firing some people. But then the year after that it'll need to reduce to close to nothing because I have to bring in some defectors from another company and they won't move for cheap."

Football players are not 'normal' employees. They can't even get income protection insurance like normal workers because their occupation is too risky (and short term), and are covered instead by some AFLPA scheme from memory.

9 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Well considered response. like a pre-schooler.

And I can't remember the last job I had where I had a salary cap with my co-workers.

Beat me to it jnr, lol.

6 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Well considered response. like a pre-schooler.

And I can't remember the last job I had where I had a salary cap with my co-workers.

My banal response matches some of the posts on the subject.  Civil matters are entirely outside the ambit of the AFL's salary cap provisions.  As for a pre-schooler, I wish I was that young again.  

11 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

My banal response matches some of the posts on the subject.  Civil matters are entirely outside the ambit of the AFL's salary cap provisions.  As for a pre-schooler, I wish I was that young again.  

That's right.

And it is essentially the problem.

As DC said, the AFL have actually acknowledged this and said they will look over the agreements to ensure they don't think any rorting takes place.

So even the AFL think there is scope for circumventing the salary cap via, as you say, external civil proceedings.

 

I'va, the issue isn't whether the players have legitimate civil claims and end up getting massive payouts. The issue is if EFC artificially inflates those payouts in order to reduce paying that player under their salary cap.

(just picking numbers here to illustrate the point, nothing behind them):

Scenario 1
Player X settles with the EFC's insurer for $1m.
Player X plays for the EFC and is paid $250k per annum for 2 years, total $500k.

Player X receives a total of $1.5m, EFC pays $500k under the salary cap.

No worries, player X has waived his right to sue the EFC in a civil court and been paid a settlement instead. Totally legit and no issue at all.

Scenario 2:
Player X settles with the EFC's insurer for $1.3m
Player X plays for the EFC for $100k per annum for 2 years, total $200k.

Player X receives a total of $1,5m, EFC pays $200k under salary cap.

That's subverting the salary cap, and that's what the AFL is afraid of, hence their decision to check the payouts.

 

The mechanism by which the EFC convinces the insurer to pay the extra money is in question. Whether is by somehow tanking the negotiations or feeding players additional leverage, I don't know. Ultimately it doesn't matter, the scope for circumventing the cap exists.

My initial post was simply asking if the AFL intended to oversee these payouts in order to ensure no rorting occurs. DC answered that question.

3 minutes ago, Choke said:

That's right.

And it is essentially the problem.

As DC said, the AFL have actually acknowledged this and said they will look over the agreements to ensure they don't think any rorting takes place.

So even the AFL think there is scope for circumventing the salary cap via, as you say, external civil proceedings.

 

I'va, the issue isn't whether the players have legitimate civil claims and end up getting massive payouts. The issue is if EFC artificially inflates those payouts in order to reduce paying that player under their salary cap.

(just picking numbers here to illustrate the point, nothing behind them):

Scenario 1
Player X settles with the EFC's insurer for $1m.
Player X plays for the EFC and is paid $250k per annum for 2 years, total $500k.

Player X receives a total of $1.5m, EFC pays $500k under the salary cap.

No worries, player X has waived his right to sue the EFC in a civil court and been paid a settlement instead. Totally legit and no issue at all.

Scenario 2:
Player X settles with the EFC's insurer for $1.3m
Player X plays for the EFC for $100k per annum for 2 years, total $200k.

Player X receives a total of $1,5m, EFC pays $200k under salary cap.

That's subverting the salary cap, and that's what the AFL is afraid of, hence their decision to check the payouts.

 

The mechanism by which the EFC convinces the insurer to pay the extra money is in question. Whether is by somehow tanking the negotiations or feeding players additional leverage, I don't know. Ultimately it doesn't matter, the scope for circumventing the cap exists.

My initial post was simply asking if the AFL intended to oversee these payouts in order to ensure no rorting occurs. DC answered that question.

choke, iva has already said the insurers themselves wouldn't be party to overpaying, and i agree that is likely. my reply to that is we have no guarantee that the total accepted compensation payment will be paid by the insurers alone. extra could be paid by either essendon or wealthy benefactors. This could be part of the legal settlement whereby the insurers may argue they are only required to partially pay because of essendon's conduct and the terms of the insurance. This happens a lot in civil cases where payouts are met by multiple parties. Alternatively the players could receive separate payments via essendon benefactors on condition they accept the insurers offer. All of this amounting to a higher "compensation" but a lower contract value. I'm not suggesting any of this will happen, just pointing out there is scope for it and despite afl oversight i'm not sure they would necessarily pick it up or be able to do much about it.

anyway the key point i'd make is that the insurers themselves would only be settling for the least amount they can without wishing to "assist" essendon 

40 minutes ago, Choke said:

 

 

Yeah, I totally remember the last time I asked for a raise and my boss said "Sorry mate, the salary cap is already maxed this year. I tell you what, take your normal pay this year and next year we can fit in triple because I'm planning on firing some people. But then the year after that it'll need to reduce to close to nothing because I have to bring in some defectors from another company and they won't move for cheap."

Football players are not 'normal' employees. They can't even get income protection insurance like normal workers because their occupation is too risky (and short term), and are covered instead by some AFLPA scheme from memory.

Choke most businesses I've worked for do have a salary cap, it's called the budget. There is a budget for sales, marketing, entertainment, travel and one for staff salaries. 

Have you never asked for a bigger pay rise and heard the "sorry the budget is maxed out this year for a bigger pay rise".

Ive always found the way to a big/ger pay rise is to get a new job internally or more likely externally.

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

choke, iva has already said the insurers themselves wouldn't be party to overpaying, and i agree that is likely. my reply to that is we have no guarantee that the total accepted compensation payment will be paid by the insurers alone. extra could be paid by either essendon or wealthy benefactors. This could be part of the legal settlement whereby the insurers may argue they are only required to partially pay because of essendon's conduct and the terms of the insurance. This happens a lot in civil cases where payouts are met by multiple parties. Alternatively the players could receive separate payments via essendon benefactors on condition they accept the insurers offer. All of this amounting to a higher "compensation" but a lower contract value. I'm not suggesting any of this will happen, just pointing out there is scope for it and despite afl oversight i'm not sure they would necessarily pick it up or be able to do much about it.

anyway the key point i'd make is that the insurers themselves would only be settling for the least amount they can without wishing to "assist" essendon 

Yep I take your point, likely not the insurer but the EFC or benefactor.

 

 

Just now, Cards13 said:

Choke most businesses I've worked for do have a salary cap, it's called the budget. There is a budget for sales, marketing, entertainment, travel and one for staff salaries. 

Have you never asked for a bigger pay rise and heard the "sorry the budget is maxed out this year for a bigger pay rise".

Ive always found the way to a big/ger pay rise is to get a new job internally or more likely externally.

 

That's a false equivalency. A budget is not a salary cap, a budget applies only to one business, where a salary cap applies to all clubs.

All businesses in a sector don't sit down and decide (or are told by a regulator) that they cannot exceed X dollars in total salaries because otherwise it gives an advantage to 'richer' businesses. They pay what they want and they set their own budget, and varies from company to company. A salary cap is imposed on all clubs as an equalisation measure, and is uniform, with obvious conflicted concessions to some clubs because of location.

16 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

choke, iva has already said the insurers themselves wouldn't be party to overpaying, and i agree that is likely. my reply to that is we have no guarantee that the total accepted compensation payment will be paid by the insurers alone. extra could be paid by either essendon or wealthy benefactors. This could be part of the legal settlement whereby the insurers may argue they are only required to partially pay because of essendon's conduct and the terms of the insurance. This happens a lot in civil cases where payouts are met by multiple parties. Alternatively the players could receive separate payments via essendon benefactors on condition they accept the insurers offer. All of this amounting to a higher "compensation" but a lower contract value. I'm not suggesting any of this will happen, just pointing out there is scope for it and despite afl oversight i'm not sure they would necessarily pick it up or be able to do much about it.

anyway the key point i'd make is that the insurers themselves would only be settling for the least amount they can without wishing to "assist" essendon 

Plus the fact, the insurers know, if this went to litigation, the cost would be far greater to both them as the insurer and the club itself.

If the EFC, given what it has already been through, in terms the costs that it has incurred and the incredible damage it has done to its brand, are silly enough to still try and circumvent the salary cap rules, then I say throw the book at 'em.

My only point, in all of this, is that in my view, the club is guilty of gross negligence and should have been dealt with in a way that carried far more gravitas than a relative slap on the wrist.  Whereas, the players - young men - lost a year out of what is an already short career, in relative terms, may never recover psychologically and may well find themselves receiving less money, rather than more, as a direct result of doing their job, going forward.

My view is, by comparison, the club, as a body corporate, was far less punished than the players themselves.  Not sure that is commensurate?

 

Edited September 26, 20169 yr by iv'a worn smith

8 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Plus the fact, the insurers know, if this went to litigation, the cost would be far greater to both them as the insurer and the club itself.

If the EFC, given what it has already been through, in terms the costs that it has incurred and the incredible damage it has done to its brand, are silly enough to still try and circumvent the salary cap rules, then I say throw the book at 'em.

My only point, in all of this, is that in my view, the club is guilty of gross negligence and should have been dealt with in a way that carried far more gravitas than a relative slap on the wrist.  Whereas, the players - young men - lost a year out of what is an already short career, in relative terms, may never recover psychologically and may well find themselves receiving less money, rather than more, as a direct result of doing their job, going forward.

My view is, by comparison, the club, as a body corporate, was far less punished than the players themselves.  Not sure that is commensurate?

 

On this we can agree.

10 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Plus the fact, the insurers know, if this went to litigation, the cost would be far greater to both them as the insurer and the club itself.

If the EFC, given what it has already been through, in terms the costs that it has incurred and the incredible damage it has done to its brand, are silly enough to still try and circumvent the salary cap rules, then I say throw the book at 'em.

My only point, in all of this, is that in my view, the club is guilty of gross negligence and should have been dealt with in a way that carried far more gravitas than a relative slap on the wrist.  Whereas, the players - young men - lost a year out of what is an already short career, in relative terms, may never recover psychologically and may well find themselves receiving less money, rather than more, as a direct result of doing their job, going forward.

My view is, by comparison, the club, as a body corporate, was far less punished than the players themselves.  Not sure that is commensurate?

 

plus, i'd add that the players must carry some guilt ( we can argue how much till the cows come home). consequently it's fair to expect that the player's role in this should have some impact on their football career and consequently their earnings from it. The question then is how much punishment should the players bear, and this is where we probably won't get much agreement. I agree the club has been "hurt" less than the players in terms of impact and that is another argument. 

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

plus, i'd add that the players must carry some guilt ( we can argue how much till the cows come home). consequently it's fair to expect that the player's role in this should have some impact on their football career and consequently their earnings from it. The question then is how much punishment should the players bear, and this is where we probably won't get much agreement. I agree the club has been "hurt" less than the players in terms of impact and that is another argument. 

That is my only argument.  The sanctions placed on individual employees, far out weigh those suffered by the club.  From my perspective, the club will be successful again, in the not too distant future and all of this will be consigned to the dustbin of history, as far as the EFC will be concerned.  Their significant support base will be as feral as ever, with their overt displays of ignorant arrogance.  Their wait, in comparison, to play finals football again, will be far shorter than what we at the MFC have had to endure.  Not sure we can say the same for the EFC players.

Decisions by CAS, under the auspices of WADA, are often more arbitrary, than the jurisdictions, governed by statutes.  As late as this morning, we learned that Sir Bradley Wiggins was given exemptions for steroids due to the claim that the 'medication' was administered for his asthmatic condition.  Before this came to light, he denied ever injecting himself or being injected, except for vaccinations.

I wonder if things would have been different, if the salutation of "Sir" did not precede his name.

He looked very convincing in between swallows...

7 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Decisions by CAS, under the auspices of WADA, are often more arbitrary, than the jurisdictions, governed by statutes.  As late as this morning, we learned that Sir Bradley Wiggins was given exemptions for steroids due to the claim that the 'medication' was administered for his asthmatic condition.  Before this came to light, he denied ever injecting himself or being injected, except for vaccinations.

Wiggins having injections under the TUE system as administered by his sport (UCI) have/had nothing to do with WADA or CAS, so not sure why you bring it up.

6 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Wiggins having injections under the TUE system as administered by his sport (UCI) have/had nothing to do with WADA or CAS, so not sure why you bring it up.

Who authorises the exemptions?  Under what code? Perhaps you may like to look at the relevant section of the WADA code, https://www.wada-ama.org/en/what-we-do/science-medical/therapeutic-use-exemptions.

 

Edited September 26, 20169 yr by iv'a worn smith

50 minutes ago, Choke said:

Yep I take your point, likely not the insurer but the EFC or benefactor.

 

 

 

That's a false equivalency. A budget is not a salary cap, a budget applies only to one business, where a salary cap applies to all clubs.

All businesses in a sector don't sit down and decide (or are told by a regulator) that they cannot exceed X dollars in total salaries because otherwise it gives an advantage to 'richer' businesses. They pay what they want and they set their own budget, and varies from company to company. A salary cap is imposed on all clubs as an equalisation measure, and is uniform, with obvious conflicted concessions to some clubs because of location.

Yeap true but every business has a budget plus they use market Intel for the "industry" to keep salaries in check with the "range" bulltish they trot out.

Also it is not uniform in the AFL at this point and hasn't been for some time, clubs have different caps. It may standardise after the new clubs cap incentives fade away but with the COLA that was in place and has only recently come out plus GC and GWS higher caps it hasn't quite been level. 

2 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Who authorises the exemptions?  Under what code?

You're presenting yourself as the expert on all things WADA and CAS, but you don't know how the TUE system works?

1 minute ago, bing181 said:

You're presenting yourself as the expert on all things WADA and CAS, but you don't know how the TUE system works?

No I'm not, I am simply reading about it.  http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-tue-under-scrutiny-before-sunday-morning-interview/  So let me get this right, you're saying individual sporting bodies act independently and without the imprimatur of WADA?

 

 

15 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Who authorises the exemptions?  Under what code?

http://www.britishathletics.org.uk/EasysiteWeb/getresource.axd?AssetID=219&type=Full&servicetype=Attachment

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

http://www.britishathletics.org.uk/EasysiteWeb/getresource.axd?AssetID=219&type=Full&servicetype=Attachment

So without the imprimatur of WADA?