Salary Cap Issues - Norwood, West & Port

[DOC]

Westies dilema woul have been solved but not Port's.

[Wedgie]

Westies dilema woul have been solved but not Port's.

No amount of rules and regulations can fix complete incompetence.

[FlyingHigh]

"This leaves the club with $192,000 left in the SANFL's $360,000 cap to divide between its players in guaranteed base salaries. "I think it's just easier to maintain," Port chief executive Brian Leys said."


Maybe not.

In the article in the paper, Leys made mentioned that there was a transition period as some blokes already had existing contracts under the way they were doing things.

[StrayDog]

So long as you return "Tommy" in the same condition you found him, you chappies are okay by me ol' boy.

Ha ha. Now that's funny because word has it that since Centrals have had the cup, the lids gone missing..........

I said "Tommy". Didn't say anything about his hat.

Back under the house you!

I will.....but I'm keeping the gold frisbee.

[Rik E Boy]

Back under the house you!

I will.....but I'm keeping the gold frisbee.

What goes around comes around.....

regards,

REB

[Dutchy]

WEST Adelaide chief executive Kym Russell says his club might have to make further cuts to its football budget to absorb the fine for its salary cap breach.

Last week the Bloods were charged by the SA Football Commission for breaching the annual $360,000 salary cap by $38,319.

As outlined in league regulations, the Bloods could be fined $50,000 and slapped with recruiting restrictions when the commission meets next week to hand down its penalty.

West Adelaide had already cut its football spending this year, which was understood to include reducing the salary of coach Andrew Collins and consolidating football services.

Russell said the club had to review aspects of its business to find ways to absorb the penalty.

"We are still working our way through the budget though, and after the weekend I'll know exactly where we are going to be," Russell told the Guardian Messenger.

"I've been aware of what the potential fine would be for a very long time. It's in the regulations ... so the penalties set out by the SANFL last week "didn't come as a surprise", he said.

"We've had to make changes.
"Some things have had to be cut back.

"We're trying to be more efficient in the way we spend our money.

"There's no one program" to be cut. "It's all over the club."

Russell said his club had also made adjustments to its player payment model to avoid a repeat of the issue next season. The departures of Brad Fisher, Ryan Willits, Fort Caruso, Nat Caruso and Ben Fisher in recent weeks has already freed up money in the cap.

In similar news, Port Adelaide was also charged with exceeding the salary cap last week.

[CENTURION]

Coincidentally, that's almost the same amount that was "stolen" earlier this year.

[SDK]

Yes the players broke in and stole the amount over the salary cap and left a shit on the coach's desk. This club loves to copy North !

[CENTURION]

Yes the players broke in and stole the amount over the salary cap and left a shit on the coach's desk. This club loves to copy North !

I like that! Moving to Rend...... has given you a sense of humour!

[grant j]

SANFL decision made

http://www.sanfl.com.au/news/sanfl_news/1918/

[JK]

Hmm, so Westies breach for the 3rd time, but can still participate in the Mini-Draft, unlike Norwood in 2008? They have already recruited players from outside their zone, so the recruiting ban means buggerall.

[on the rails]

Hmm, so Westies breach for the 3rd time, but can still participate in the Mini-Draft, unlike Norwood in 2008? They have already recruited players from outside their zone, so the recruiting ban means buggerall.

If I remember correctly re Norwood's ban - the league messed up re the start and end of the ban which didn't really hurt Norwood signing recruits in the end?

[JK]

Hmm, so Westies breach for the 3rd time, but can still participate in the Mini-Draft, unlike Norwood in 2008? They have already recruited players from outside their zone, so the recruiting ban means buggerall.

If I remember correctly re Norwood's ban - the league messed up re the start and end of the ban which didn't really hurt Norwood signing recruits in the end?

I didn't think we had any recruits in that off-season, but my memory is rooted .. I'll find out and come back

[dedja]

How pathetic is the SANFL? ... might as well flog Port and West with a wet lettuce FFS.

As Spermy quite rightly points out, in reality West don't have much of a recruiting ban as they were free to recruit until today and the ban is in force until 31/12/2013 ... so in reality, West are penalised a few short months.

Port don't have any money so the fine will be paid by the SANFL to itself.

Again as per Spemy's post, Norwood it seems were dealt a much harsher penalty ... I would have thought being associated with MONSFAW would have been penalty enough.

[Brodlach]

Hmm, so Westies breach for the 3rd time, but can still participate in the Mini-Draft, unlike Norwood in 2008? They have already recruited players from outside their zone, so the recruiting ban means buggerall.

Have we breached two times before? (actually didnt know that)

Most clubs do most of their recruiting after all AFL drafts are completed so it certainly is a penalty

[JK]

Hmm, so Westies breach for the 3rd time, but can still participate in the Mini-Draft, unlike Norwood in 2008? They have already recruited players from outside their zone, so the recruiting ban means buggerall.

Have we breached two times before? (actually didnt know that)

I believe so, my understanding was the first one was very minor and something like a $5k fine.

[dedja]

*cough* insurance con *cough*

West to get off scott free by putting $50K into their vault ...

[Brodlach]

Hmm, so Westies breach for the 3rd time, but can still participate in the Mini-Draft, unlike Norwood in 2008? They have already recruited players from outside their zone, so the recruiting ban means buggerall.

If I remember correctly re Norwood's ban - the league messed up re the start and end of the ban which didn't really hurt Norwood signing recruits in the end?

I didn't think we had any recruits in that off-season, but my memory is rooted .. I'll find out and come back

I reckon Norwood were banned from recruiting until February of the next season?

[on the rails]

Hmm, so Westies breach for the 3rd time, but can still participate in the Mini-Draft, unlike Norwood in 2008? They have already recruited players from outside their zone, so the recruiting ban means buggerall.

Have we breached two times before? (actually didnt know that)

Most clubs do most of their recruiting after all AFL drafts are completed so it certainly is a penalty

Rubbish - a few clubs might annnounce signings after but the majority of players are signed and announced prior to the last draft. For example this year - have a look at the IN's for the Eagles, North and Glenelg for starters and tell me that those 3 clubs are going to recruit the same or more post draft?

The penalties are very soft and West are very lucky considering this is not the first big offence they have been caught for and I don;t buy their bullshit excuse of how they mis-managed injury payments! A bit like the offical reason Centrals gave for Hayes departure - looks good on paper and eases guilt. It's lucky the SANFL Investgators didn't probe the "Tippett" signing more? If the rumours are true and that got out, I am not sure what excuse West would have conjuered up for that??? Buggered if I know how they can sign him for 2013 beyond also without continuing assistance?

[dedja]

They must have a good accountant ...