Gary Ablett deal and what it means to the Saints

[ace]

With 112 players receiving third party payments and people like Judd receiving 100/200 thousand to speak to some employees once a year sound like strickly controlled to you?

They are strickly controlled in that clubs are not allowed to seek them out, if I understand it correcly, they are private arrangements between a player and a sponsor.

I'm pretty sure that if the club seeks out a 3rd party payment, then it must be counted under the salary cap.

Found this at AFL.com......pretty much spells out what I was trying to say earlier:

"AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson has reiterated the AFL will be tougher in scrutinising total player payments when the League absorbs the changes of free agency and two extra teams.

Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney will both be playing in a competition that will operate with the limited free agency rules from the 2012 season. Anderson said clubs will be even more closely monitored in regards to salary cap payments.

"With the advent of free agency and two new clubs, we will be extra vigilant in our approach to deals with sponsors," he said.

"At the moment, they constitute less than one and a half per cent of money paid to players and our cap is probably one of the hardest caps in international sport.

"We're determined to continue to make sure we're vigilant in protecting our salary cap, because it is fundamental to the evenness of the competition."

Anderson said he and Ken Wood, who oversees the Total Player Payments at the AFL, will be ticking off any arrangements involving players outside of the salary cap.

"The salary cap is fundamental to the success of our competition", Anderson said.

"Any deal between a club and a player goes inside the salary cap unless Ken Wood and myself are satisfied that there are good grounds for it to be outside the cap - that's the most simplistic I can put it."

"[The deals] must be bona fide and they must be commercial and they must be independent of the club. If the club arranges a deal, then that will not go outside the cap."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx

A lot of words from Adrian Anderson just to say he wont be doing anything to stop the rorts.

[vacuous space]

Do GA's deals magically disappear if he moves north? If they're only in place as long as he's a Geelong player, then they really shouldn't be outside the cap. If courting deals is against the rules, Costa's public appeal for Ablett money seems at least a little suspect.

I'm not sure it will keep him in Geelong though - you've got to think there would be commercial opportunities for Ablett no matter where he plays. It probably comes down to whether he wants to stay at his club or not. Same as it was for Roo and will be for Cooney, Franklin, Selwood and the rest.

[plugger66]

Do GA's deals magically disappear if he moves north? If they're only in place as long as he's a Geelong player, then they really shouldn't be outside the cap. If courting deals is against the rules, Costa's public appeal for Ablett money seems at least a little suspect.

I'm not sure it will keep him in Geelong though - you've got to think there would be commercial opportunities for Ablett no matter where he plays. It probably comes down to whether he wants to stay at his club or not. Same as it was for Roo and will be for Cooney, Franklin, Selwood and the rest.

How do you work that out. Maybe just maybe a geelong supporter is offering these deals and when he leaves he will no longer be a Geelong player so why would they keep him. Also if he promoted the city of Geelong why would they keep him on if he is living in the Gold Coast.

[Spinner]

I remember a while ago a player manager asked us to become more creative in regards to third party agreements.

[vacuous space]

How do you work that out. Maybe just maybe a geelong supporter is offering these deals and when he leaves he will no longer be a Geelong player so why would they keep him. Also if he promoted the city of Geelong why would they keep him on if he is living in the Gold Coast.

Isn't Cotton On supposedly the Ablett saviour? They've got plenty of stores in Queensland. I fail to see how having the face of Geelong is better for their business than having the face of the Gold Coast club. Maybe Ken Wood can. Maybe you can. I can't. The only upside to Cotton On having GA in Geelong that I can see is that their owner is a Geelong supporter.

I'm sure there will be opportunities for Ablett should he choose to leave that will make up any of the difference in outside the cap money.

[ausfatcat]

What do you mean the NRL and NBL dont allow thes payments. Of course they do. That is just a lie to make your arguement. Anything you have mentioned in the above post has no factual merit. Just made up rubbish.

Your confusing third party deals and sponsership of a player, they are two different things entirely.

Sponsership is payment to be a public figure or endourse a product, third party deals are tied to contracts and dependant on which club you represent not who you are entirely and are organised by the club or on behalf of the club.

And no they are not allowed in the NRL the Bulldogs got done for that a years ago, NFL has had similar cases over the years, and I believe the NBL is the same but not 100% sure.


As for statements by the AFL I find them hard to believe when they signed off on the Judd deal. If Judd is allowed to do it why can't anyone else???


BTW when it hit 2012 the world wont fall over (unless you believe in the Mayan calender thing) with the introduction it will slowly change not straight away

[plugger66]

What do you mean the NRL and NBL dont allow thes payments. Of course they do. That is just a lie to make your arguement. Anything you have mentioned in the above post has no factual merit. Just made up rubbish.

Your confusing third party deals and sponsership of a player, they are two different things entirely.

Sponsership is payment to be a public figure or endourse a product, third party deals are tied to contracts and dependant on which club you represent not who you are entirely and are organised by the club or on behalf of the club.

And no they are not allowed in the NRL the Bulldogs got done for that a years ago, NFL has had similar cases over the years, and I believe the NBL is the same but not 100% sure.

Totally incorrect. A third party deal may or may not be included in the salary cap. If organised by the club it is the salary cap, if organised by the manager it isnt in the salary cap.

[saintsRrising]

You can cut and dice it anyway you want...

Effectively it is getting around the salary cap.

I don't care if the AFL rubber stamped Judd's VISA Amassodor deal or not...it was a rort of the system to get around the salary cap.
We know..Juss knows it... and Box King knew it.

The Box King would not have handed out the Visy $$$ to any player...just to a player the Blues wanted to lure.

would Judd have joined the Blues without it?

I don't think so.

It was a rort.

[minneapolis]

FWIW It's strictly.


Carry on.

[plugger66]

You can cut and dice it anyway you want...

Effectively it is getting around the salary cap.

I don't care if the AFL rubber stamped Judd's VISA Amassodor deal or not...it was a rort of the system to get around the salary cap.
We know..Juss knows it... and Box King knew it.

The Box King would not have handed out the Visy $$$ to any player...just to a player the Blues wanted to lure.

would Judd have joined the Blues without it?

I don't think so.

It was a rort.

I dont know whether he would have joined Carlton or not. Probably was offered plenty of those types of deals involving other clubs as well but what I do know is that if a player who has 8 years service and then wants to leave a club now, the original club just has to match the money that is included in the salary cap for him to stay. Those type of third part deals will have no bearing on the clubs involved.

By the way why would the AFL help out Carlton by saying the deal is a realistic deal when you say it isnt? Isnt that the club that was given the biggest penalty for salary cap cheating. Also how do you know all the figures and what Judd does for Visy? Have you got all the figures? If you have can you print them so we van all see them.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Do GA's deals magically disappear if he moves north? If they're only in place as long as he's a Geelong player, then they really shouldn't be outside the cap. If courting deals is against the rules, Costa's public appeal for Ablett money seems at least a little suspect.

I'm not sure it will keep him in Geelong though - you've got to think there would be commercial opportunities for Ablett no matter where he plays. It probably comes down to whether he wants to stay at his club or not. Same as it was for Roo and will be for Cooney, Franklin, Selwood and the rest.

How do you work that out. Maybe just maybe a geelong supporter is offering these deals and when he leaves he will no longer be a Geelong player so why would they keep him. Also if he promoted the city of Geelong why would they keep him on if he is living in the Gold Coast.

That's the point - if a player's 3rd party deal is tied to their club affiliation (i.e. Ablett leaving Geelong would cost him the deal) then not counting it in the cap is ridiculous. Whether Judd could have got his Visy deal while playing for another club is conjecture, but you can't blame people for being cynical when Pratt was so dyed in the wool.

I'd expect people to be just as cynical if suddenly Lynfox started doling out 3rd party deals at a time that coincided with a couple of big recruits to St Kilda.

On the other hand, were I a billionaire who wanted to get away with rorting the system, I'd throw some money at a high profile player for pure business reasons, while ensuring they didn't play for "my" club (Ablett in the Gold Coast is one seriously marketable commodity for any business not solely confined to Geelong)... then slip a couple of incentives to players heading where I want them...

3rd party payments + salary cap = asking for trouble. 3rd Party Payments + Salary Cap + Free Agents = begging for it. If there's a closed pool of money, it can be divided to incent behaviour by whoever controls the purse strings (in the NFL, monetising their market is a significant challenge for the New Orleans Saints... yet they just won a superbowl). If it's an open pool, it incents the opening of purse strings, as whoever has the highest budget sets the agenda (New York Yankees, Manchester United).

[plugger66]

Do GA's deals magically disappear if he moves north? If they're only in place as long as he's a Geelong player, then they really shouldn't be outside the cap. If courting deals is against the rules, Costa's public appeal for Ablett money seems at least a little suspect.

I'm not sure it will keep him in Geelong though - you've got to think there would be commercial opportunities for Ablett no matter where he plays. It probably comes down to whether he wants to stay at his club or not. Same as it was for Roo and will be for Cooney, Franklin, Selwood and the rest.

How do you work that out. Maybe just maybe a geelong supporter is offering these deals and when he leaves he will no longer be a Geelong player so why would they keep him. Also if he promoted the city of Geelong why would they keep him on if he is living in the Gold Coast.

That's the point - if a player's 3rd party deal is tied to their club affiliation (i.e. Ablett leaving Geelong would cost him the deal) then not counting it in the cap is ridiculous. Whether Judd could have got his Visy deal while playing for another club is conjecture, but you can't blame people for being cynical when Pratt was so dyed in the wool.

I'd expect people to be just as cynical if suddenly Lynfox started doling out 3rd party deals at a time that coincided with a couple of big recruits to St Kilda.

On the other hand, were I a billionaire who wanted to get away with rorting the system, I'd throw some money at a high profile player for pure business reasons, while ensuring they didn't play for "my" club (Ablett in the Gold Coast is one seriously marketable commodity for any business not solely confined to Geelong)... then slip a couple of incentives to players heading where I want them...

3rd party payments + salary cap = asking for trouble. 3rd Party Payments + Salary Cap + Free Agents = begging for it. If there's a closed pool of money, it can be divided to incent behaviour by whoever controls the purse strings (in the NFL, monetising their market is a significant challenge for the New Orleans Saints... yet they just won a superbowl). If it's an open pool, it incents the opening of purse strings, as whoever has the highest budget sets the agenda (New York Yankees, Manchester United).

So you are saying a player can not earn money off a supporter of that particular club unless included in the salary cap. How is that fair to the player or the club? What if the person who runs the footy show at Channel 9 supports the Saints and Dal is a paid guest. Are you saying that should be in the salary cap? Are you also saying the AFl dont have checks and balances?

[BAM! (shhhh)]

That's the point - if a player's 3rd party deal is tied to their club affiliation (i.e. Ablett leaving Geelong would cost him the deal) then not counting it in the cap is ridiculous. Whether Judd could have got his Visy deal while playing for another club is conjecture, but you can't blame people for being cynical when Pratt was so dyed in the wool.

I'd expect people to be just as cynical if suddenly Lynfox started doling out 3rd party deals at a time that coincided with a couple of big recruits to St Kilda.

On the other hand, were I a billionaire who wanted to get away with rorting the system, I'd throw some money at a high profile player for pure business reasons, while ensuring they didn't play for "my" club (Ablett in the Gold Coast is one seriously marketable commodity for any business not solely confined to Geelong)... then slip a couple of incentives to players heading where I want them...

3rd party payments + salary cap = asking for trouble. 3rd Party Payments + Salary Cap + Free Agents = begging for it. If there's a closed pool of money, it can be divided to incent behaviour by whoever controls the purse strings (in the NFL, monetising their market is a significant challenge for the New Orleans Saints... yet they just won a superbowl). If it's an open pool, it incents the opening of purse strings, as whoever has the highest budget sets the agenda (New York Yankees, Manchester United).

So you are saying a player can not earn money off a supporter of that particular club unless included in the salary cap. How is that fair to the player or the club? What if the person who runs the footy show at Channel 9 supports the Saints and Dal is a paid guest. Are you saying that should be in the salary cap? Are you also saying the AFl dont have checks and balances?

No.

I'm not saying a player can't earn money from a supporter. Nor am I saying Dal can't go on the footy show to his heart's content. Nor am I even saying sponsors can't help clubs meet their TPP in scenarios like Jason Akermanis at the Western Bulldogs.

[plugger66]

That's the point - if a player's 3rd party deal is tied to their club affiliation (i.e. Ablett leaving Geelong would cost him the deal) then not counting it in the cap is ridiculous. Whether Judd could have got his Visy deal while playing for another club is conjecture, but you can't blame people for being cynical when Pratt was so dyed in the wool.

I'd expect people to be just as cynical if suddenly Lynfox started doling out 3rd party deals at a time that coincided with a couple of big recruits to St Kilda.

On the other hand, were I a billionaire who wanted to get away with rorting the system, I'd throw some money at a high profile player for pure business reasons, while ensuring they didn't play for "my" club (Ablett in the Gold Coast is one seriously marketable commodity for any business not solely confined to Geelong)... then slip a couple of incentives to players heading where I want them...

3rd party payments + salary cap = asking for trouble. 3rd Party Payments + Salary Cap + Free Agents = begging for it. If there's a closed pool of money, it can be divided to incent behaviour by whoever controls the purse strings (in the NFL, monetising their market is a significant challenge for the New Orleans Saints... yet they just won a superbowl). If it's an open pool, it incents the opening of purse strings, as whoever has the highest budget sets the agenda (New York Yankees, Manchester United).

So you are saying a player can not earn money off a supporter of that particular club unless included in the salary cap. How is that fair to the player or the club? What if the person who runs the footy show at Channel 9 supports the Saints and Dal is a paid guest. Are you saying that should be in the salary cap? Are you also saying the AFl dont have checks and balances?

No.

I'm not saying a player can't earn money from a supporter. Nor am I saying Dal can't go on the footy show to his heart's content. Nor am I even saying sponsors can't help clubs meet their TPP in scenarios like Jason Akermanis at the Western Bulldogs.

So what are you saying? If a player 3rd part deal is tied to the club then it should be in the salary cap. So if Rooy becomes the face of St George bank because his manager thought he might approach them as they are a Saints sponsor all monies earned by Rooy need to be in the salary cap. if that was the case either other players would have to take a pay cut or the Saints would have to say to Rooy, sorry but you cant do that. How is that fair to anyone.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

That's the point - if a player's 3rd party deal is tied to their club affiliation (i.e. Ablett leaving Geelong would cost him the deal) then not counting it in the cap is ridiculous. Whether Judd could have got his Visy deal while playing for another club is conjecture, but you can't blame people for being cynical when Pratt was so dyed in the wool.

I'd expect people to be just as cynical if suddenly Lynfox started doling out 3rd party deals at a time that coincided with a couple of big recruits to St Kilda.

On the other hand, were I a billionaire who wanted to get away with rorting the system, I'd throw some money at a high profile player for pure business reasons, while ensuring they didn't play for "my" club (Ablett in the Gold Coast is one seriously marketable commodity for any business not solely confined to Geelong)... then slip a couple of incentives to players heading where I want them...

3rd party payments + salary cap = asking for trouble. 3rd Party Payments + Salary Cap + Free Agents = begging for it. If there's a closed pool of money, it can be divided to incent behaviour by whoever controls the purse strings (in the NFL, monetising their market is a significant challenge for the New Orleans Saints... yet they just won a superbowl). If it's an open pool, it incents the opening of purse strings, as whoever has the highest budget sets the agenda (New York Yankees, Manchester United).

So you are saying a player can not earn money off a supporter of that particular club unless included in the salary cap. How is that fair to the player or the club? What if the person who runs the footy show at Channel 9 supports the Saints and Dal is a paid guest. Are you saying that should be in the salary cap? Are you also saying the AFl dont have checks and balances?

No.

I'm not saying a player can't earn money from a supporter. Nor am I saying Dal can't go on the footy show to his heart's content. Nor am I even saying sponsors can't help clubs meet their TPP in scenarios like Jason Akermanis at the Western Bulldogs.

So what are you saying? If a player 3rd part deal is tied to the club then it should be in the salary cap. So if Rooy becomes the face of St George bank because his manager thought he might approach them as they are a Saints sponsor all monies earned by Rooy need to be in the salary cap. if that was the case either other players would have to take a pay cut or the Saints would have to say to Rooy, sorry but you cant do that. How is that fair to anyone.

The litmus test is whether St George would pay the money if he were at another club, and what he does in exchange.

If the answer is that the payment is conditional on Reiwoldt playing for the Saints, and that he's doing no work other than appearing in saints gear on advertising, then it needs to be counted in the cap. Otherwise the name of the game becomes finding a sponsor with deep pockets, as the salary cap is a token only. Recruiting becomes less an issue of finding the best kids, than finding Australia's George Steinbrenner (i.e. someone interested in buying a premiership or 3).

I'd venture that most working people on this board have intellectual property clauses in their employment contracts (obviously barring the self employed), preventing them from leveraging their employer's brand/IP for their own benefit outside of work. If Reiwoldt appears on a St George ad in Saints gear, that's exactly the scenario companies are preventing - the money would go to the Saints, with Roo getting a cut, of whatever %... which needs to be counted against the cap.

[plugger66]

That's the point - if a player's 3rd party deal is tied to their club affiliation (i.e. Ablett leaving Geelong would cost him the deal) then not counting it in the cap is ridiculous. Whether Judd could have got his Visy deal while playing for another club is conjecture, but you can't blame people for being cynical when Pratt was so dyed in the wool.

I'd expect people to be just as cynical if suddenly Lynfox started doling out 3rd party deals at a time that coincided with a couple of big recruits to St Kilda.

On the other hand, were I a billionaire who wanted to get away with rorting the system, I'd throw some money at a high profile player for pure business reasons, while ensuring they didn't play for "my" club (Ablett in the Gold Coast is one seriously marketable commodity for any business not solely confined to Geelong)... then slip a couple of incentives to players heading where I want them...

3rd party payments + salary cap = asking for trouble. 3rd Party Payments + Salary Cap + Free Agents = begging for it. If there's a closed pool of money, it can be divided to incent behaviour by whoever controls the purse strings (in the NFL, monetising their market is a significant challenge for the New Orleans Saints... yet they just won a superbowl). If it's an open pool, it incents the opening of purse strings, as whoever has the highest budget sets the agenda (New York Yankees, Manchester United).

So you are saying a player can not earn money off a supporter of that particular club unless included in the salary cap. How is that fair to the player or the club? What if the person who runs the footy show at Channel 9 supports the Saints and Dal is a paid guest. Are you saying that should be in the salary cap? Are you also saying the AFl dont have checks and balances?

No.

I'm not saying a player can't earn money from a supporter. Nor am I saying Dal can't go on the footy show to his heart's content. Nor am I even saying sponsors can't help clubs meet their TPP in scenarios like Jason Akermanis at the Western Bulldogs.

So what are you saying? If a player 3rd part deal is tied to the club then it should be in the salary cap. So if Rooy becomes the face of St George bank because his manager thought he might approach them as they are a Saints sponsor all monies earned by Rooy need to be in the salary cap. if that was the case either other players would have to take a pay cut or the Saints would have to say to Rooy, sorry but you cant do that. How is that fair to anyone.

The litmus test is whether St George would pay the money if he were at another club, and what he does in exchange.

If the answer is that the payment is conditional on Reiwoldt playing for the Saints, and that he's doing no work other than appearing in saints gear on advertising, then it needs to be counted in the cap. Otherwise the name of the game becomes finding a sponsor with deep pockets, as the salary cap is a token only. Recruiting becomes less an issue of finding the best kids, than finding Australia's George Steinbrenner (i.e. someone interested in buying a premiership or 3).

I'd venture that most working people on this board have intellectual property clauses in their employment contracts (obviously barring the self employed), preventing them from leveraging their employer's brand/IP for their own benefit outside of work. If Reiwoldt appears on a St George ad in Saints gear, that's exactly the scenario companies are preventing - the money would go to the Saints, with Roo getting a cut, of whatever %... which needs to be counted against the cap.

If Rooy appears in Saints gear advertising St George it would be on the Saints salary cap as it would now. Nothing has changed regarding that but if he wasnt wearing Saints gear it wouldnt be on the salary cap if organised by his manager. I fail to understand what you are argueing about.