cracka wrote:$50k more than what the Crows were fined for the Kurt Tippet debacle
Inflation, war in Ukraine, Yes vote, COVID all contributors
by Brodlach » Fri Sep 01, 2023 10:08 am
cracka wrote:$50k more than what the Crows were fined for the Kurt Tippet debacle
Brodlach wrote:Rory Laird might end up the best IMO, he is an absolute jet. He has been in great form at the Bloods
by Dutchy » Fri Sep 01, 2023 10:15 am
by scottroo » Fri Sep 01, 2023 10:17 am
by Mr Beefy » Fri Sep 01, 2023 10:18 am
jo172 wrote:redyellow&blue wrote:whufc wrote:$300k fine for anything involving semi amateur sport seems extremely excessive, feel for the junior football program which will suffer as a result.
EDIT - be ready for the deluge of players that will self report before the clubs can do it...
It's curious isn't it.
I've been expecting the deluge every time a club has been pinged (Padthaway and Willaston for example) but it's never seemed to come for whatever reason.
by jo172 » Fri Sep 01, 2023 10:35 am
Mr Beefy wrote:jo172 wrote:redyellow&blue wrote:whufc wrote:$300k fine for anything involving semi amateur sport seems extremely excessive, feel for the junior football program which will suffer as a result.
EDIT - be ready for the deluge of players that will self report before the clubs can do it...
It's curious isn't it.
I've been expecting the deluge every time a club has been pinged (Padthaway and Willaston for example) but it's never seemed to come for whatever reason.
A lot of players wouldn't even know the rules
by jo172 » Fri Sep 01, 2023 10:36 am
Dutchy wrote:jo172 wrote:Dutchy wrote:Wonder how the 2 players are feeling now?
Two players?
Rumours that 2 disgruntled players who wanted to be cleared, self reported about payments they have been receiving, which started the domino's
by whufc » Fri Sep 01, 2023 10:40 am
jo172 wrote:Might also add that for an offence apparently so serious to warrant an extraordinary fine/huge suspensions that 4 APPS points seems a bit trifling? One player a year?
by redyellow&blue » Fri Sep 01, 2023 10:52 am
whufc wrote:jo172 wrote:Might also add that for an offence apparently so serious to warrant an extraordinary fine/huge suspensions that 4 APPS points seems a bit trifling? One player a year?
Yep 100%.
Real misalignment between the financial fine and the players fine.
Personally if the breaches were 'so serious' then imo a fair result would be the club can still operate but they would have next to no points (which can be tracked through APPS) and that we would see them drop through down through the grades.
At the moment its hard to see how they would open the doors with such a fine.
by Mr Beefy » Fri Sep 01, 2023 10:54 am
whufc wrote:jo172 wrote:Might also add that for an offence apparently so serious to warrant an extraordinary fine/huge suspensions that 4 APPS points seems a bit trifling? One player a year?
Yep 100%.
Real misalignment between the financial fine and the players fine.
Personally if the breaches were 'so serious' then imo a fair result would be the club can still operate but they would have next to no points (which can be tracked through APPS) and that we would see them drop through down through the grades.
At the moment its hard to see how they would open the doors with such a fine.
by jo172 » Fri Sep 01, 2023 10:57 am
Mr Beefy wrote:whufc wrote:jo172 wrote:Might also add that for an offence apparently so serious to warrant an extraordinary fine/huge suspensions that 4 APPS points seems a bit trifling? One player a year?
Yep 100%.
Real misalignment between the financial fine and the players fine.
Personally if the breaches were 'so serious' then imo a fair result would be the club can still operate but they would have next to no points (which can be tracked through APPS) and that we would see them drop through down through the grades.
At the moment its hard to see how they would open the doors with such a fine.
I agree the fine is totally excessive, unless their books showed the could afford it. They are dropping down the grades even with the rorting
by whufc » Fri Sep 01, 2023 10:57 am
by whufc » Fri Sep 01, 2023 10:58 am
jo172 wrote:Mr Beefy wrote:whufc wrote:jo172 wrote:Might also add that for an offence apparently so serious to warrant an extraordinary fine/huge suspensions that 4 APPS points seems a bit trifling? One player a year?
Yep 100%.
Real misalignment between the financial fine and the players fine.
Personally if the breaches were 'so serious' then imo a fair result would be the club can still operate but they would have next to no points (which can be tracked through APPS) and that we would see them drop through down through the grades.
At the moment its hard to see how they would open the doors with such a fine.
I agree the fine is totally excessive, unless their books showed the could afford it. They are dropping down the grades even with the rorting
Tend to think this is the key.
Fine that could wipe out one club might be payable (but hurt) to another club. Not all numbers are created equally.
by whufc » Fri Sep 01, 2023 11:01 am
by Mr Beefy » Fri Sep 01, 2023 11:03 am
whufc wrote:What would happen with the $350k.
Would it just sit in the coffers at HQ.....
Is there a better use for the $$$$$$. If SAAFL were receiving that amount of money i would expect them to outline exactly how that money is going to benefit football/juniors/clubs in the SAAFL. Not just the generic 'will go towards a sustainable comp' because you would never expect to strike gold with that level of money for nothing which it essentially is as the SAAFL weren't financially out of pocket from Gaza breaches (unless there is lawyer fees etc then its totally understandable)
by whufc » Fri Sep 01, 2023 11:05 am
Mr Beefy wrote:whufc wrote:What would happen with the $350k.
Would it just sit in the coffers at HQ.....
Is there a better use for the $$$$$$. If SAAFL were receiving that amount of money i would expect them to outline exactly how that money is going to benefit football/juniors/clubs in the SAAFL. Not just the generic 'will go towards a sustainable comp' because you would never expect to strike gold with that level of money for nothing which it essentially is as the SAAFL weren't financially out of pocket from Gaza breaches (unless there is lawyer fees etc then its totally understandable)
Its notgoing to the SAAFL, its going to SACFL/SANFL
by cracka » Fri Sep 01, 2023 11:15 am
redyellow&blue wrote:whufc wrote:jo172 wrote:Might also add that for an offence apparently so serious to warrant an extraordinary fine/huge suspensions that 4 APPS points seems a bit trifling? One player a year?
Yep 100%.
Real misalignment between the financial fine and the players fine.
Personally if the breaches were 'so serious' then imo a fair result would be the club can still operate but they would have next to no points (which can be tracked through APPS) and that we would see them drop through down through the grades.
At the moment its hard to see how they would open the doors with such a fine.
No one learns that way. Why would it be fair? how many clubs would have lost or been relegated because GAZA were not playing fair by being over the cap and rorting the system?
I would hazard a guess that GAZA have
- been over the cap by big $$ for more then before 2018
- it's endemic at the club with multiple parties involved.
- It's cultural at some clubs to do this kind of thing.
Id' go as far to even suspend the players that got extra payments from playing in any comp anywhere for a year, and ban then from being allowed to sign contracts for 5 years. You want to play? play for free champ.
by Jimmy_041 » Fri Sep 01, 2023 11:16 am
cracka wrote:$50k more than what the Crows were fined for the Kurt Tippet debacle
by jo172 » Fri Sep 01, 2023 11:18 am
Jimmy_041 wrote:cracka wrote:$50k more than what the Crows were fined for the Kurt Tippet debacle
At least the Crows got something out of it - they got rid of Tippett
by Footy Chick » Fri Sep 01, 2023 11:28 am
whufc wrote:What would happen with the $350k.
Would it just sit in the coffers at HQ.....
Is there a better use for the $$$$$$. If SAAFL were receiving that amount of money i would expect them to outline exactly how that money is going to benefit football/juniors/clubs in the SAAFL. Not just the generic 'will go towards a sustainable comp' because you would never expect to strike gold with that level of money for nothing which it essentially is as the SAAFL weren't financially out of pocket from Gaza breaches (unless there is lawyer fees etc then its totally understandable)
Gatt_Weasel wrote:if they (Walkerville) dont win the flag ill run around the block of my street naked :) you can grab a chair and enjoy the view
by Turfie » Fri Sep 01, 2023 11:35 am
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |