by morell » Mon Dec 12, 2016 9:06 am
by human_torpedo » Mon Dec 12, 2016 9:37 am
heater31 wrote:marbles wrote:Jay schultz has turned down an offer of $400 a game at an unconfirmed c9afl club and will instead be heading to a victorian country club next season
Didn't realise St Kevin's Old Boys had relocated out of the Metro Melbourne area.....
by Bag & Sledge » Mon Dec 12, 2016 10:00 am
jo172 wrote:Bag & Sledge wrote:jo172 wrote:carey wrote:Monday night should be fun.
4 SA Clubs done over the Cap!
2 from the SAAFL
Who's the Div 1 club with a current mass exodus?????? No idea who could someone lend me a HAND?
Not to point any fingers but if they've managed to finger anyone the penalties need to be severe. Only hope in hell of the system working
Totally agree!
If this Salary Cap is going to work, there needs to be a NO TOLERANCE policy on any breach.
There should be NO COMPASSION for any clubs self confessing, if you're over the cap by as little as $100 one week, you're over the cap, its as simple as that.
Wouldn't see the AFL letting clubs off with a slap on the wrist!
Particularly given at least ostensibly it seems difficult for the CFL to catch anyone. The only way to balance the apparent minimal risk of detection is to have incredibly harsh penalties.
by OnSong » Mon Dec 12, 2016 10:07 am
by morell » Mon Dec 12, 2016 11:17 am
by jo172 » Mon Dec 12, 2016 11:21 am
Bag & Sledge wrote:jo172 wrote:Bag & Sledge wrote:jo172 wrote:
Not to point any fingers but if they've managed to finger anyone the penalties need to be severe. Only hope in hell of the system working
Totally agree!
If this Salary Cap is going to work, there needs to be a NO TOLERANCE policy on any breach.
There should be NO COMPASSION for any clubs self confessing, if you're over the cap by as little as $100 one week, you're over the cap, its as simple as that.
Wouldn't see the AFL letting clubs off with a slap on the wrist!
Particularly given at least ostensibly it seems difficult for the CFL to catch anyone. The only way to balance the apparent minimal risk of detection is to have incredibly harsh penalties.
If a Club in the Adelaide Football League has been found guilty of Salary Cap breach and receive a penalty from the SANFL Investigation Committee or SA Community Football League, can the Adelaide Football League then also give the club another penalty of their own on top of what they have already received for bringing the game into disrepute?
by OnSong » Mon Dec 12, 2016 11:22 am
morell wrote:Wonder where all the people saying "you'll never catch them anyway so it's pointless" have gone.
by Jim05 » Mon Dec 12, 2016 11:23 am
morell wrote:Wonder where all the people saying "you'll never catch them anyway so it's pointless" have gone.
by OnSong » Mon Dec 12, 2016 11:25 am
Jim05 wrote:morell wrote:Wonder where all the people saying "you'll never catch them anyway so it's pointless" have gone.
So you honestly believe only a couple of clubs were over this year?
Only the dumb clubs will get caught, there are far too many legitimate ways to bypass it
by Mythical Creature » Mon Dec 12, 2016 11:35 am
OnSong wrote:Jim05 wrote:morell wrote:Wonder where all the people saying "you'll never catch them anyway so it's pointless" have gone.
So you honestly believe only a couple of clubs were over this year?
Only the dumb clubs will get caught, there are far too many legitimate ways to bypass it
Only the dumb clubs will bypass it because it jeopardises the long term future of the club.
Watch them make a public name and shame if they can pin this breach on a club.
I would be wild it if was my club. Absolutely livid of the management's selfishness and greed to put it at risk.
by morell » Mon Dec 12, 2016 11:35 am
You don't get it. They don't have to be caught, they just have to see what happens to those who areJim05 wrote:morell wrote:Wonder where all the people saying "you'll never catch them anyway so it's pointless" have gone.
So you honestly believe only a couple of clubs were over this year?
Only the dumb clubs will get caught, there are far too many legitimate ways to bypass it
morell wrote:Need to make it so that when administrators are evaluating risk, its a no-brainer decision.
by Dutchy » Mon Dec 12, 2016 12:00 pm
by OnSong » Mon Dec 12, 2016 12:03 pm
Dutchy wrote:So who is your guess?
Id suggest the Div 1 Premiers
by morell » Mon Dec 12, 2016 12:05 pm
Dutchy wrote:So who is your guess?
Id suggest the Div 1 Premiers
by Mythical Creature » Mon Dec 12, 2016 12:05 pm
by Trader » Mon Dec 12, 2016 1:03 pm
morell wrote:Dutchy wrote:So who is your guess?
Id suggest the Div 1 Premiers
My mail suggests there might be some investigative work being done in regards to school players actually being from that school.
by morell » Mon Dec 12, 2016 1:18 pm
I'm sure with people of such high calibre as yourself involved they'll be nothing untoward happening and absolute exoneration will occur.Trader wrote:morell wrote:Dutchy wrote:So who is your guess?
Id suggest the Div 1 Premiers
My mail suggests there might be some investigative work being done in regards to school players actually being from that school.
I heard they don't fully inflate their footballs and the goals at Park 9 are actually only 6.2m wide not the required 6.4m.
by Bum Crack » Mon Dec 12, 2016 1:23 pm
by Jim05 » Mon Dec 12, 2016 1:35 pm
Bum Crack wrote:Aren't there a few teams in the Barossa who pay the players partners to play netball and this is on top of the payments the players are already getting and not declared in the cap??? So in effect, the money the partner is getting paid to play netball is actually part of the football payment on the side?
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |