SA Footy

Breaking news in the paper today:

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,20930741-24394,00.html

Didn't see anything about that in the Panther's Press!

They claim even though it was money paid in the 2006 contract year that it was payment for 2005.
Geezus, they're game admitting that, if they were miles over before I doubt I'd want to be increasing it!
Fact of the matter is it was paid in the 2006 contract year so they're over the salary cap for the 2nd year in a row, no ifs or buts about it.
Details of the fine weren't released but it was believed to be only about 13k.
Can they go the threepeat?

The current board keeps blaming the previous board (have they all been turned over??) yet isn't this the same board that tried to stall salary cap investigations earlier this year?
Damn, I sat 1 metre away from the President of the South board last week at the kids Christmas Carols night, I should have grilled him!

"Kavanagh said he contacted the league immediately after discovering the technical breach during the annual salary cap audit, something Whicker confirmed.

..."There certainly was not an attempt to hide it. They quite openly put their hand up about it."

What a joke! It wouldn't have taken much sniffing around to have found it since every supporter of the other clubs has been talking about it since day one. More likely it should read "South contacted the league after months of knowing full well that they had made decisions to leapfrog the salary cap in order to promote the rapid acceleration of short term gain. A club official, who did not wish to be named said, "Hey we're South! We're raking it in from every bucktoothed local pleb who staggers blindly into our state of the art gaming facilities. A slap on the wrist from Mr Whicker is a small price to pay for on field success. I categorically deny that just because we haven't actually had on field success means it wasn't worth it! We've done it before and we'll do it again! Growwl (makes muffled Panther noise)."

Wedgie wrote:Breaking news in the paper today:

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,20930741-24394,00.html

Didn't see anything about that in the Panther's Press!

Yes and the "smoke and mirrors" re the SAFC yearly profit indicates in the Panther's Press that they made a bucket load but in reality it's operating profit combined was $76K as reported in the 'Tiser article.

BPBRB wrote:

Wedgie wrote:Breaking news in the paper today:

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,20930741-24394,00.html

Didn't see anything about that in the Panther's Press!

Yes and the "smoke and mirrors" re the SAFC yearly profit indicates in the Panther's Press that they made a bucket load but in reality it's operating profit combined was $76K as reported in the 'Tiser article.

Yeah, but that's still pretty good, if they hadn't broken the salary cap by a million dollars that profit would be 1.076 mill!
Throw in Cupido's food bill and they could have been up around the 2 mill mark!

South have made that mistake of not finding players that just want to play for the love of the jumper, its a shame when players expect to get paid for playing.

dash61 wrote:South have made that mistake of not finding players that just want to play for the love of the jumper, its a shame when players expect to get paid for playing.

Yes how wrong of south's players to expect to get paid!

I think they've been on the right track as far as recruiting in 2006 and I think they've learnt from previous mistakes such as Cupido.
The Crows have done them a big favour in taking Archard off their books (for the nomimal amount per game), I don't know what his initial contract was but I would have been asking for a pay increase if I was him as he was an absolute gun in 2006 but now they don't have to worry about that.
Between Cupido, Davey and Archard Id assume they'd be dropping a fair bit of player income in 2007.

Wedgie wrote:I think they've been on the right track as far as recruiting in 2006 and I think they've learnt from previous mistakes such as Cupido.
The Crows have done them a big favour in taking Archard off their books (for the nomimal amount per game), I don't know what his initial contract was but I would have been asking for a pay increase if I was him as he was an absolute gun in 2006 but now they don't have to worry about that.
Between Cupido, Davey and Archard Id assume they'd be dropping a fair bit of player income in 2007.

Archard was outstanding this (last) year and would have no doubt expected a significant pay increase.Cupido "out" will certainly ease the strain,however,Prendergast will take up the slack there.

dash61 wrote:South have made that mistake of not finding players that just want to play for the love of the jumper, its a shame when players expect to get paid for playing.

Your'e joking! You think Cupido would have even known what a South Adelaide jumper looked like before he signed the contract? Let alone have a "love" of the jumper.

Very good assessment wedgie and id say spot on, Archard came over really as an unknown and wouldnt have been on huge coin.

2007
prendegast for Cuppido (clean financial swap)
archard & davey would ease the books 30k

Fair enough to say 15k to play with but the kenna's and a few others may be putting their hands out for a few more gold coins. some of their playing stocks must be increasing in value with above average performances in 2006

I apologise to all those South fans for my ludicrous claims I made stating that the $50 000 K fine was for both 2005 and 2006. it seems that I was wrong it was for 2005 only.

At least I was right about them being over for 2006, Ah well I can't be right 100% of the time can you???

1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:I apologise to all those South fans for my ludicrous claims I made stating that the $50 000 K fine was for both 2005 and 2006. it seems that I was wrong it was for 2005 only.

At least I was right about them being over for 2006, Ah well I can't be right 100% of the time can you???

Tassie, you might laugh now but if they were a player less in 2006 it may have been the difference with them taking fifth spot and not the bays

hah hah hah

dash61 wrote:

1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:I apologise to all those South fans for my ludicrous claims I made stating that the $50 000 K fine was for both 2005 and 2006. it seems that I was wrong it was for 2005 only.

At least I was right about them being over for 2006, Ah well I can't be right 100% of the time can you???

Tassie, you might laugh now but if they were a player less in 2006 it may have been the difference with them taking fifth spot and not the bays

hah hah hah

Dunno, looking at their peformance in the Elimination Final against Port I'd say they may have been a better side with one less player!

dash61 wrote:

1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:I apologise to all those South fans for my ludicrous claims I made stating that the $50 000 K fine was for both 2005 and 2006. it seems that I was wrong it was for 2005 only.

At least I was right about them being over for 2006, Ah well I can't be right 100% of the time can you???

Tassie, you might laugh now but if they were a player less in 2006 it may have been the difference with them taking fifth spot and not the bays

hah hah hah

With the Eagles winning the flag,this argument has no substance at all.Who cares if the Bays missed the five,or if South won the Elimination?

dash61 wrote:

1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:I apologise to all those South fans for my ludicrous claims I made stating that the $50 000 K fine was for both 2005 and 2006. it seems that I was wrong it was for 2005 only.

At least I was right about them being over for 2006, Ah well I can't be right 100% of the time can you???

Tassie, you might laugh now but if they were a player less in 2006 it may have been the difference with them taking fifth spot and not the bays

hah hah hah

Dash how wrong you are we would have got fourth spot if we won that game, the Sturt game in June and to a lesser extent the last game agaisnt North cost us 5th spot......

Bottom line we cost ourselves a spot in the finals as we weren't good enough to win one of last three games agaisnt sides that made the finals, in a nutshell if you can't beat finals bound teams you don't deseve to be there.

Back on the subject,how does such an error occur? They knew,without a doubt,of their over payment in 2005,surely this would ensure that every cent paid to players from that point on would have been accounted for.Surely?

If I was a South member I would be asking questions about the people running the show.

Storm in a teacup...South just havent learnt how to "hide" the money like 6 other clubs (cant include Norwood and Sturt sorry)

Archard being a rookie and not a fully listed player at the Crows does that mean he is still paid partially by South? whats the rule there?

Dutchy wrote:Storm in a teacup...South just havent learnt how to "hide" the money like 6 other clubs (cant include Norwood and Sturt sorry)

Archard being a rookie and not a fully listed player at the Crows does that mean he is still paid partially by South? whats the rule there?

The same rule as the main listed players. If they play SANFL the local clubs only have a nominal sum counted towards their overall Salary cap as rookies get a reduced AFL payment contract.

Booney wrote:Back on the subject,how does such an error occur? They knew,without a doubt,of their over payment in 2005,surely this would ensure that every cent paid to players from that point on would have been accounted for.Surely?

If I was a South member I would be asking questions about the people running the show.

I'd be asking the same questions, even if I wasn't a member (which I'm not).
This might hinder Phil Herden's job a little bit.

I don't think this will hinder Phil at all.
He's employed because of his ability to communicate and he'll easily be able to express South Adelaide's view easily.
As was stated in the article this was inherited from the old board's decisions and Phil wasn't around at the time. Easy for him to handle I would think.