Who's signed for next season

[Stuckey]

Yeah the same could be done for things after the contract expires. How can you stop a club or third party paying a player once they're retired?

[EdDog]

Back OT - has Vidosic signed yet?

[Futbol_Crazy21]

I don't think the players get that money and if it does it comes in via the club so it definitely gets included in the cap.

What clubs could do, and especially victory are in this category is get third parties to pay them and claim that they weren't involved in the arrangement. An example of this sort of thing happening was with Tippet at the crows. He was getting paid by Balfour's to do those annoying ads but allegedly were not put under the cap.

Almost as shady as campaign finance in the states. "No no, our donors put money in super-pacs and its the super-pacs that run attack ads, we have no involvement" says politician X.

[Futbol_Crazy21]

Back OT - has Vidosic signed yet?

Nope, and probably not, he apparently has a $3m price tag.

[EdDog]

Back OT - has Vidosic signed yet?

Nope, and probably not, he apparently has a $3m price tag.

Yes but that is baloney. Surely it's a matter of time.

[Interloper]

Victory once again making a mockery of the salary cap.

Di Pietro to Glenn Elliott in 2013: 'There's two salary caps in this league. There's yours and everyone else's, and then there's ours.'

thats because MV have built a massive connection with business in Victoria, doesn't take a big company to be able to stump up 50-100k for a private endorsement deal for a player that doesn't have to be included in the cap. Do that for the whole playing squad and it makes a big difference!

To be fair, we do player sponsors as well, whether its on par with MV thats another story.

I don't think the players get that money and if it does it comes in via the club so it definitely gets included in the cap.

What clubs could do, and especially victory are in this category is get third parties to pay them and claim that they weren't involved in the arrangement. An example of this sort of thing happening was with Tippet at the crows. He was getting paid by Balfour's to do those annoying ads but allegedly were not put under the cap.

The AFL has two salary caps. The regular player payment cap and a smaller cap specifically to cover paid endorsements such as Tippett's. A club is required to spend at least 95% of both in a season.

*In the case of Tippett the problem was that it wasn't declared (and could have been fit within the cap anyway.)

[mcjules]

Victory once again making a mockery of the salary cap.

Di Pietro to Glenn Elliott in 2013: 'There's two salary caps in this league. There's yours and everyone else's, and then there's ours.'

thats because MV have built a massive connection with business in Victoria, doesn't take a big company to be able to stump up 50-100k for a private endorsement deal for a player that doesn't have to be included in the cap. Do that for the whole playing squad and it makes a big difference!

To be fair, we do player sponsors as well, whether its on par with MV thats another story.

I don't think the players get that money and if it does it comes in via the club so it definitely gets included in the cap.

What clubs could do, and especially victory are in this category is get third parties to pay them and claim that they weren't involved in the arrangement. An example of this sort of thing happening was with Tippet at the crows. He was getting paid by Balfour's to do those annoying ads but allegedly were not put under the cap.

The AFL has two salary caps. The regular player payment cap and a smaller cap specifically to cover paid endorsements such as Tippett's. A club is required to spend at least 95% of both in a season.

*In the case of Tippett the problem was that it wasn't declared (and could have been fit within the cap anyway.)

Yes I know but the point was that it wasn't declared and if done correctly would be difficult to prove.

[Interloper]

In the short term maybe. There's any number of triggers that could spur a more thorough audit of player payments. Which the FFA *seems* to be willing to do at this point and if they don't there will at least be media scrutiny.

Players still have to deal with the tax system, income details can enter the public domain through court disputes (Carlton were undone by a long service leave claim,) players nominally on $100k can be seen rejecting $700k offers.

[Stuckey]

In the short term maybe. There's any number of triggers that could spur a more thorough audit of player payments. Which the FFA *seems* to be willing to do at this point and if they don't there will at least be media scrutiny.

Players still have to deal with the tax system, income details can enter the public domain through court disputes (Carlton were undone by a long service leave claim,) players nominally on $100k can be seen rejecting $700k offers.

Which is interesting given the Keogh issue. How who he make a correct tax return if he is getting paid "without his knowledge." Obviously that entire thing is BS as why would Perth just pay someone when they have no knowledge of it.

[shinAUFC]

Would the ffa really pursue victory or sfc if they were suspicious salary cap dealings?

Im not playing the east coast conspiracy card here. But realistically i have a feeling the ffa may take a "what we dont know cant hurt us " approach to the bigger clubs salary cap because the league is still growing and needs these big clubs to thrive.

Perth glory is (sadly) relatively expendable. They will be known as cheats for a few years and its not like they are involved in the big games. Where as mv are a major draw card and their success offers the league so much in a time that growth is so important.

Catch 22 eh

[mcjules]

Would the ffa really pursue victory or sfc if they were suspicious salary cap dealings?

They would if it was a big enough rort and the media got on their backs.

I don't think they would be doing that and they may not be doing anything untoward at all. However we have seen that they'll use every loophole they can to get the best squad possible, it's not unreasonable to think that some things they perceive to be loopholes may actually be against the rules.

These are great because fans of those clubs will go "they got us on a technicality" and won't feel bad about it. Meanwhile it's helped them win a couple of trophies...

[Stuckey]

Would the ffa really pursue victory or sfc if they were suspicious salary cap dealings?

Im not playing the east coast conspiracy card here. But realistically i have a feeling the ffa may take a "what we dont know cant hurt us " approach to the bigger clubs salary cap because the league is still growing and needs these big clubs to thrive.

Perth glory is (sadly) relatively expendable. They will be known as cheats for a few years and its not like they are involved in the big games. Where as mv are a major draw card and their success offers the league so much in a time that growth is so important.

Catch 22 eh

I think key markets will always get favouritism. Whether that be rule changes that coincide with something that suits them or scrutiny on fairly minor wrong doings.
It's just up to clubs to be smart enough to let's these rule changes and loopholes work for them. Obviously the FFA don't want bad press, so I doubt they'll drag a club's name thru the mud unless they are clearly cheating heavily as Perth did.

[ganas]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Sydney get docked points a few seasons ago for salary cap breaches?

[salmonfc]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Sydney get docked points a few seasons ago for salary cap breaches?

They were fined $129k and docked three points.

[Futbol_Crazy21]

So will we see another weekend signing this weekend? Or will the next one come after our cup game?