Re: Points System Is Crucifying Country Footy

qwerty · Post by **qwerty** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:54 am

What are peoples thoughts on the following;

Club xyz has signed say 5 players on 2 year contracts for say $600 - $800 a game this year. New rules for next year $500 a game max and $3k week therefore club xyz is in breach of the new rules, does the club have a position to argue from in that they have signed contracts to honour? What is the validity of these contracts and could player then challenge said club or SACFL in a court of law?

shoe boy · Post by **shoe boy** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:48 am

qwerty wrote:What are peoples thoughts on the following;

Club xyz has signed say 5 players on 2 year contracts for say $600 - $800 a game this year. New rules for next year $500 a game max and $3k week therefore club xyz is in breach of the new rules, does the club have a position to argue from in that they have signed contracts to honour? What is the validity of these contracts and could player then challenge said club or SACFL in a court of law?

No problem with taking them to court!

Look Good In Leather · Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:18 am

qwerty wrote:What are peoples thoughts on the following;

Club xyz has signed say 5 players on 2 year contracts for say $600 - $800 a game this year. New rules for next year $500 a game max and $3k week therefore club xyz is in breach of the new rules, does the club have a position to argue from in that they have signed contracts to honour? What is the validity of these contracts and could player then challenge said club or SACFL in a court of law?

SACFL sent out a memo last year that players may not be contracted beyond 2015 until rules in place

qwerty · Post by **qwerty** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:40 am

hmm interesting well there might be a large increase of players who signed extended contracts prior to that memo then :oops:

Post by **GWW** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:10 pm

On the RMFL website, there's some info re the salary cap. Presumably the same for all leagues.

http://www.foxsportspulse.com/assoc_pag ... sID=277448

bennymacca · Post by **bennymacca** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:43 pm

A few clauses interest me - I dont have any legal experience, but these would worry me

31.3.5 Hearing to be Informal

The hearing of the charge by the SACFL Board must be conducted with as little formality and technicality and with as much expedition as a proper consideration of the matters before it permit or require.

31.3.6 Rules of Evidence not to apply

The SACFL Board is not bound by the Rules of Evidence and may inform itself of any matter relating to the charge in such manner as it thinks appropriate.

31.3.9 Report to be Prima Face Evidence

A report made by the SACFL Player Payment Committee will be prima face evidence of the matter or matters contained in that report provided that a copy of the report has been provided to the person or Affiliated League Club charged prior to the commencement of the hearing.

31.3.10 Onus of proof

A person or Affiliated League Club charged under this Regulation has the onus of establishing on the balance of probabilities that a matter or matters contained in the report made by the SACFL Player Payment Committee are and/or any other evidence presented in support of a charge is untrue or incorrect and that he / she / it did not engage in the conduct alleged in the charge.

sideview · Post by **sideview** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:51 pm

Good bye country football.

Mr Beefy · Post by **Mr Beefy** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:57 pm

bennymacca wrote:A few clauses interest me - I dont have any legal experience, but these would worry me

31.3.5 Hearing to be Informal

The hearing of the charge by the SACFL Board must be conducted with as little formality and technicality and with as much expedition as a proper consideration of the matters before it permit or require.

31.3.6 Rules of Evidence not to apply

The SACFL Board is not bound by the Rules of Evidence and may inform itself of any matter relating to the charge in such manner as it thinks appropriate.

31.3.9 Report to be Prima Face Evidence

A report made by the SACFL Player Payment Committee will be prima face evidence of the matter or matters contained in that report provided that a copy of the report has been provided to the person or Affiliated League Club charged prior to the commencement of the hearing.

31.3.10 Onus of proof

A person or Affiliated League Club charged under this Regulation has the onus of establishing on the balance of probabilities that a matter or matters contained in the report made by the SACFL Player Payment Committee are and/or any other evidence presented in support of a charge is untrue or incorrect and that he / she / it did not engage in the conduct alleged in the charge.

It's not a law court so it isn't innocent until proven guilty. Just like a the tribunal if you get reported...

bennymacca · Post by **bennymacca** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 2:13 pm

Mr President, Johnny says he overheard two blokes in the pub discussing how they get extra payments. Prove him wrong.

Maybe my example is too simplistic but how would you do that?

PuttingBStorest · Post by **PuttingBStorest** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 2:20 pm

bennymacca wrote:A few clauses interest me - I dont have any legal experience, but these would worry me

31.3.5 Hearing to be Informal

The hearing of the charge by the SACFL Board must be conducted with as little formality and technicality and with as much expedition as a proper consideration of the matters before it permit or require.

31.3.6 Rules of Evidence not to apply

The SACFL Board is not bound by the Rules of Evidence and may inform itself of any matter relating to the charge in such manner as it thinks appropriate.

31.3.9 Report to be Prima Face Evidence

A report made by the SACFL Player Payment Committee will be prima face evidence of the matter or matters contained in that report provided that a copy of the report has been provided to the person or Affiliated League Club charged prior to the commencement of the hearing.

31.3.10 Onus of proof

A person or Affiliated League Club charged under this Regulation has the onus of establishing on the balance of probabilities that a matter or matters contained in the report made by the SACFL Player Payment Committee are and/or any other evidence presented in support of a charge is untrue or incorrect and that he / she / it did not engage in the conduct alleged in the charge.

I reckon the travel clause could also come under some scrutiny as well - say a bloke lives 51km from the home oval - he trains twice a week and plays on the weekend so that's 306kms he has done for the week (assuming he plays at his home ground) - does that qualify him for a travel reimbursement at 306km or only the 102km. Also - why is the travel reimbursement rate only about half of what the ATO rate is????

I can see the sales of "Brown paper bags" significantly increasing next year

Mr Beefy · Post by **Mr Beefy** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 2:24 pm

bennymacca wrote:Mr President, Johnny says he overheard two blokes in the pub discussing how they get extra payments. Prove him wrong.

Maybe my example is too simplistic but how would you do that?

There is an investigation before it gets heard by payment committee

daysofourlives · Post by **daysofourlives** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:16 pm

sideview wrote:Good bye country football.

Nope, goodbye SACFL, in fantasy land if they think they can prosecute under those conditions. That should have more leagues wanting to leave and is more worrying than the cap itself, the first club they decide to make an example of is in trouble. Will make Echunga's court case pale into insignificance.

Is it too much of a stretch to say you travelled to the club say 6 times a week?
Sunday recovery,
Monday treatment,
Tuesday Train
Thursday Train
Friday Team meeting
Saturday Play
Will they make you keep a log book, pfft what a joke.
Car load travel together but all claim travel, is that a breach?

How bout when the AFL negotiates its new TV deal they use some of that 2billion to give to state league clubs in every state to up the salary cap in those leagues

Post by **heater31** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:45 pm

A country footballer goes to his club 6 times a week :shock:

get your hand off it gentlemen that is the very reason they are playing country football because they can't be arsed putting in a commitment....

daysofourlives · Post by **daysofourlives** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:55 pm

heater31 wrote:A country footballer goes to his club 6 times a week get your hand off it gentlemen that is the very reason they are playing country football because they can't be arsed putting in a commitment....

Read my post again, i didnt say he would, i said that he would say he did

Post by **heater31** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:00 pm

daysofourlives wrote:
heater31 wrote:A country footballer goes to his club 6 times a week get your hand off it gentlemen that is the very reason they are playing country football because they can't be arsed putting in a commitment....

Read my post again, i didnt say he would, i said that he would say he did

But it's that outrageous that only an imbecile would believe it!

daysofourlives · Post by **daysofourlives** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:11 pm

heater31 wrote:
daysofourlives wrote:
heater31 wrote:A country footballer goes to his club 6 times a week get your hand off it gentlemen that is the very reason they are playing country football because they can't be arsed putting in a commitment....

Read my post again, i didnt say he would, i said that he would say he did

But it's that outrageous that only an imbecile would believe it!

Prove that he didnt??
Thats where the problem lies, they dont have to prove that he didnt

Mr Beefy · Post by **Mr Beefy** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:45 pm

Doesn't matter if he did the proposed rule says petrol money only covers the actual match.

shoe boy · Post by **shoe boy** » Thu Jul 23, 2015 8:22 am

Is it true the CFB under doc 31 have the right to fine and investigate with no evidence ?

Now we are in Australia and it is 2015 , who do these clowns think they are . [-X

OnSong · Post by **OnSong** » Thu Jul 23, 2015 10:37 am

Just follow the rules and you won't have a problem.

Useless · Post by **Useless** » Thu Jul 23, 2015 1:50 pm

OnSong wrote:Just follow the rules and you won't have a problem.

I think you are missing the point. You obviously do a lot for your club so well done, but unfortunately some clubs cannot find the people with the time to be able to do this as you.

I would think that your club would be in the minority in not only reporting correctly to the ATO, but in that they have minimal payments (not syaing this is a bad thing). some clubs need the extra players to be competitive and have to pay to get these. Success breeds success so you try and re-build a club around winning games. Its very hard to improve with out recruitment.

You have the advantage of being the biggest town in your league so the ability to gain juniors as well as other players is alot easier. This isnt just an attack on you or your club but just trying to argue my point.

How do you think teams in your league like hamley, united and perhaps virginia are going to survive if they cant pay players more than they can get at a club down the road from where they live. I find it hard to see under the new system how teams get better.

Yes there are some clubs that have not paid there players under a sustainable model. I feel if your club can generate the revenue and do it sustainably then they should be able to spend what they want or what ever they see fit.

Looking at Hamley as an example why did the league give them more points? they gave them enough rope to hang themselves. as much blame should be on the league as there is on the club.

another argument is to put the money into juniors, what can you honestly spend to gain juniors? do we start paying them? spare me. you gain juniors by winning games. you run football clubs to win games and premierships.