Another Salary Cap Breach

[topsywaldron]

I thought Norwood's problem was that they "forgot" to include ANY of Doyles salary against a coaching position?

Surely the SANFL would have to take into account that Doyle "forgot" to play for most of that year?

[Wedgie]

I wouldn't include South in the 'technical' category, theirs was a far less benign effort.

No problem, they can go into the 'real cheats' pile, the others are just 'technical cheats' if I'm reading some North fans on here correctly.

There is a difference between man slaughter and murder Topsy.

[Booney]

I wouldn't include South in the 'technical' category, theirs was a far less benign effort.

No problem, they can go into the 'real cheats' pile, the others are just 'technical cheats' if I'm reading some North fans on here correctly.

There is a difference between man slaughter and murder Topsy.

Yep. The victim is either dead or dead.

[JK]

I wouldn't include South in the 'technical' category, theirs was a far less benign effort.

No problem, they can go into the 'real cheats' pile, the others are just 'technical cheats' if I'm reading some North fans on here correctly.

Like being a bit pregnant

[Zorro]

I wouldn't include South in the 'technical' category, theirs was a far less benign effort.

No problem, they can go into the 'real cheats' pile, the others are just 'technical cheats' if I'm reading some North fans on here correctly.

There is a difference between man slaughter and murder Topsy.

Yep. The victim is either dead or dead.

The key differences being pre-meditation and intent, although maybe the Board can go for the diminished capacity defense?

[HeartBeatsTrue]

I wouldn't include South in the 'technical' category, theirs was a far less benign effort.

No problem, they can go into the 'real cheats' pile, the others are just 'technical cheats' if I'm reading some North fans on here correctly.

There is a difference between man slaughter and murder Topsy.

Both of which incurs prison time.

[Wedgie]

I wouldn't include South in the 'technical' category, theirs was a far less benign effort.

No problem, they can go into the 'real cheats' pile, the others are just 'technical cheats' if I'm reading some North fans on here correctly.

There is a difference between man slaughter and murder Topsy.

Both of which incurs prison time.

Manslaughter doesn't always and it gets a loss less punishment.
The authorities tend to frown on deliberately killing someone more than accidentally killing someone.

[Squawk]

There is a difference between man slaughter and murder Topsy.

The difference is intent. I know Norwood didn't intend to breach the cap, nor it seems did North. An invalid analogy Wedgie!

[HeartBeatsTrue]

Fact of the matter is with the current rules re salary cap breach punishment, North got away scot free.

IMO fine shouldnt be dollar for dollar. It makes it easy for well off clubs to breach the cap purposely by under $5000 every now and then.

A coincidence i'm sure but North knows the rules re fines and the breach was not far under $5K.

[doggies4eva]

Given that the doggies were fined for giving their players a VCR each I say throw the book at them.

As far as intent goes I don't think it is relevant. No one intends to get caught. Clubs have an obligation to know the rules and comply with them. Ignorance or non-intention does not stack up as a defence in this case.

Having said that I still believe that slary caps don't work.

[Booney]

Fact of the matter is with the current rules re salary cap breach punishment, North got away scot free.

IMO fine shouldnt be dollar for dollar. It makes it easy for well off clubs to breach the cap purposely by under $5000 every now and then.

A coincidence i'm sure but North knows the rules re fines and the breach was not far under $5K.

Oh, good point. $for$ up to $5k so go just short of the $5k the player/coach (lol) is happy and the club is not much out of pocket. Very good point.

[Wedgie]

Fact of the matter is with the current rules re salary cap breach punishment, North got away scot free.

IMO fine shouldnt be dollar for dollar. It makes it easy for well off clubs to breach the cap purposely by under $5000 every now and then.

A coincidence i'm sure but North knows the rules re fines and the breach was not far under $5K.

Oh, good point. $for$ up to $5k so go just short of the $5k the player/coach (lol) is happy and the club is not much out of pocket. Very good point.

I doubt with the unknowns in a season any club could accurately predict and implement that. Hence why there's a buffer zone, if there were no unknowns when it came to players for the entire year it would be a simple process.

[Booney]

My employer and I agree to a figure for the year and my employer has no buffer zone for making errors, either way.

Surely performance incentives or any variables are always calculated in anticipation of the club having to pay every cent and not the opposite. ( paying no incentives )

[tipper]

My employer and I agree to a figure for the year and my employer has no buffer zone for making errors, either way.

Surely performance incentives or any variables are always calculated in anticipation of the club having to pay every cent and not the opposite. ( paying no incentives )

so you are saying that the clubs should work on that basis that every single player on their lists will play every single game in the league side? and make the best players every week? and no one will have any injuries that may prevent them from playing?

with players on differing renumeration levels, rewards scales etc it would be a very fine balancing act to work it out. i dont think it can be compared to someone working for a business in the "real world".

[Wedgie]

My employer and I agree to a figure for the year and my employer has no buffer zone for making errors, either way.

Surely performance incentives or any variables are always calculated in anticipation of the club having to pay every cent and not the opposite. ( paying no incentives )

You miss the point, the unknowns such as injuries, playes leaving, AFL players coming back or not coming back.
It is impossible for a club to know exactly what their annual figure will be at the start of the year and its not like they can renegotiate contracts or set fees towards the end of the year.
Club's can cater for a "normal" year but that can obviously change depending on what happens. A buffer zone was implemented to cater for such issues.
I'd probably think 5k isn't enough and is very small.
A professional club wouldn't just work out what their most payable every year is and work to that as they'd probably run 50-100k short of the salary cap and come nowhere.
An eg is Central where they were so close to the cap that a few videos put them over.
The best and smartest run clubs will probably come just under the cap every year if not in the buffer zone.
We're probabaly getting off topic here as North wouldn't have even entered the "buffer zone" if their understanding of the rules had happened.
They stuffed up, they learnt, no damage was done. Meh.
Your employer might not give you a buffer zone but the administrating body of taxation ie ATO does.

[Booney]

My employer and I agree to a figure for the year and my employer has no buffer zone for making errors, either way.

Surely performance incentives or any variables are always calculated in anticipation of the club having to pay every cent and not the opposite. ( paying no incentives )

so you are saying that the clubs should work on that basis that every single player on their lists will play every single game in the league side? and make the best players every week? and no one will have any injuries that may prevent them from playing?

with players on differing renumeration levels, rewards scales etc it would be a very fine balancing act to work it out. i dont think it can be compared to someone working for a business in the "real world".

No,but surely they work on worst case for them. ( For salary purposes,not on field success ) ie: the best players playing all games.

[Squawk]

My employer and I agree to a figure for the year and my employer has no buffer zone for making errors, either way.

[Wedgie]

My employer and I agree to a figure for the year and my employer has no buffer zone for making errors, either way.

Surely performance incentives or any variables are always calculated in anticipation of the club having to pay every cent and not the opposite. ( paying no incentives )

so you are saying that the clubs should work on that basis that every single player on their lists will play every single game in the league side? and make the best players every week? and no one will have any injuries that may prevent them from playing?

with players on differing renumeration levels, rewards scales etc it would be a very fine balancing act to work it out. i dont think it can be compared to someone working for a business in the "real world".

No,but surely they work on worst case for them. ( For salary purposes,not on field success ) ie: the best players playing all games.

Definately not, see my previous reply.
There has NEVER been a year where a club has had EVERY single best player play every game, why would you work to that figure if there's a buffer zone? It would be extremely stupid and unprofessional to do so and you'd be down 2 or 3 recruits every year because of it.

[Squawk]

with players on differing renumeration levels, rewards scales etc it would be a very fine balancing act to work it out. i dont think it can be compared to someone working for a business in the "real world".

Tipper, I think Booney's got a valid point - how about base salary, overtime, allowances, long service leave etc? All of those affect total wage and salary costs for any business.

[mackdaddy]

it surely isnt that hard for clubs... its a regulation they are required to meet just like laws and regulations placed on other business by the government and through legislation