Straya - A-League and State Leagues

Pelligra's Glory FC

670 replies · 215,154 views
09 Apr 07:00

Jeff Vader wrote:

number8 wrote:

Wait a minute. They get caught paying to much, now they try to cut payment to go under the cap? And think it is all good? This is not how those things work.

Why not. What he is signed for and what is paid are different.
If you sign a deal for 100k but are only ever paid 80k of that, what should count against the cap - the amount signed for of the amount paid? In reverse of that we have Keogh at $150k and rumoured to have been paid $300k so they are counting what he has been paid, and not what he is on the books for. 

If a player is on the books for $500k over 2 years and rather than have it as 2 equal amounts of $250k, why can't the player take 50k less this year and $50k more next year to make it as $200k and $300k? If they don't pay more than the 2.25m or whatever it is, thats cool.

The problem is the potential for marquee exploitation. You give someone a 3 year deal and pay them $2 million in one year and nothing in the other two years. You could essentially have 6 marquees at once if you could work it correctly.

Permalink
09 Apr 07:32

So just to clarify, no actual news yet?

Permalink
09 Apr 08:26

More importantly, what does Andy Harper and Mike Cockerill think about this?

"Ive just re-visited this and once again realised that C-Diddy is a genius - a drunk, Newcastle bred disgrace - but a genius." - Hard News, 11:39am 4th June 2009

Permalink
09 Apr 08:45

http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/article/2015/04/09/...

The old distraction technique...

"Ive just re-visited this and once again realised that C-Diddy is a genius - a drunk, Newcastle bred disgrace - but a genius." - Hard News, 11:39am 4th June 2009

Permalink
09 Apr 09:04

Can't handle the jandle

Permalink
09 Apr 09:50 · edited 09 Apr 10:10 · History

.

"Ive just re-visited this and once again realised that C-Diddy is a genius - a drunk, Newcastle bred disgrace - but a genius." - Hard News, 11:39am 4th June 2009

Permalink
09 Apr 22:50

Ryan54 wrote:

Jeff Vader wrote:

number8 wrote:

Wait a minute. They get caught paying to much, now they try to cut payment to go under the cap? And think it is all good? This is not how those things work.

Why not. What he is signed for and what is paid are different.
If you sign a deal for 100k but are only ever paid 80k of that, what should count against the cap - the amount signed for of the amount paid? In reverse of that we have Keogh at $150k and rumoured to have been paid $300k so they are counting what he has been paid, and not what he is on the books for. 

If a player is on the books for $500k over 2 years and rather than have it as 2 equal amounts of $250k, why can't the player take 50k less this year and $50k more next year to make it as $200k and $300k? If they don't pay more than the 2.25m or whatever it is, thats cool.

The problem is the potential for marquee exploitation. You give someone a 3 year deal and pay them $2 million in one year and nothing in the other two years. You could essentially have 6 marquees at once if you could work it correctly.

I did think about that but with the minimum salary you can pay player (45k?) x 19 players = $855k. Means you are getting at the most, about $1.3m for 1 season with whats left over and if you look at your example of getting "nothing" the other 2 years ($90k), then $1.4m over 3 years is not really going to get you a crazy marquee and you have a borked squad cause the rest are minimum wage players. If you did it the following 2 years (and the previous marquee is on the minimum) you could get to 3 of them but again, you will still have a borked team.

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink
10 Apr 00:50

Nah.  Players won't get banned.  It's a systemic rorting of the system by the club.

Punishment has to be the club and has to be strong enough to deter others from the same shark.

Of course, it won't be.

Rugged.

How's my driving? - Whine here

Permalink
10 Apr 01:17
Permalink
10 Apr 01:28
C-Diddy wrote:

More importantly, what does Andy Harper and Mike Cockerill think about this?

They think it is Wellington Phoenix's fault and so we should be thrown out of the A League.
Permalink
10 Apr 02:35

Jeff Vader wrote:

Ryan54 wrote:

Jeff Vader wrote:

number8 wrote:

Wait a minute. They get caught paying to much, now they try to cut payment to go under the cap? And think it is all good? This is not how those things work.

Why not. What he is signed for and what is paid are different.
If you sign a deal for 100k but are only ever paid 80k of that, what should count against the cap - the amount signed for of the amount paid? In reverse of that we have Keogh at $150k and rumoured to have been paid $300k so they are counting what he has been paid, and not what he is on the books for. 

If a player is on the books for $500k over 2 years and rather than have it as 2 equal amounts of $250k, why can't the player take 50k less this year and $50k more next year to make it as $200k and $300k? If they don't pay more than the 2.25m or whatever it is, thats cool.

The problem is the potential for marquee exploitation. You give someone a 3 year deal and pay them $2 million in one year and nothing in the other two years. You could essentially have 6 marquees at once if you could work it correctly.

I did think about that but with the minimum salary you can pay player (45k?) x 19 players = $855k. Means you are getting at the most, about $1.3m for 1 season with whats left over and if you look at your example of getting "nothing" the other 2 years ($90k), then $1.4m over 3 years is not really going to get you a crazy marquee and you have a borked squad cause the rest are minimum wage players. If you did it the following 2 years (and the previous marquee is on the minimum) you could get to 3 of them but again, you will still have a borked team.

Surely the idea is you run full squads for all three years, you just have two marquees on massive wages year one, which drop down to squad level wages in subsequent years with new marquees comming in.

Permalink
10 Apr 03:35

Hard News wrote:

Nah.  Players won't get banned.  It's a systemic rorting of the system by the club.

Punishment has to be the club and has to be strong enough to deter others from the same shark.

Of course, it won't be.

Rugged.

This

Keogh will have zero clue how close to the cap the team is nor what others being paid considering he is an out of towner and unlikely to have read the speculation as to who is getting what. The players sign their gig in good faith that what is there is what is there. However when they say 'oh we will pay half to your sister' you would have to wonder how much they do know.

If there are announcing this quickly, it would mean either they are getting off or already the FFA have a punishment in mind. You can't step up and go 'we now have the facts and will decide in due course' They have to sort this before the finals series.

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink
10 Apr 03:42

Jeff Vader wrote:

Hard News wrote:

Nah.  Players won't get banned.  It's a systemic rorting of the system by the club.

Punishment has to be the club and has to be strong enough to deter others from the same shark.

Of course, it won't be.

Rugged.

This

Keogh will have zero clue how close to the cap the team is nor what others being paid considering he is an out of towner and unlikely to have read the speculation as to who is getting what. The players sign their gig in good faith that what is there is what is there. However when they say 'oh we will pay half to your sister' you would have to wonder how much they do know.

If there are announcing this quickly, it would mean either they are getting off or already the FFA have a punishment in mind. You can't step up and go 'we now have the facts and will decide in due course' They have to sort this before the finals series.

You think he thought it normal that he got paid through his Sister?
Permalink
10 Apr 03:45

Ryan wrote:

Jeff Vader wrote:

Ryan54 wrote:

Jeff Vader wrote:

number8 wrote:

Wait a minute. They get caught paying to much, now they try to cut payment to go under the cap? And think it is all good? This is not how those things work.

Why not. What he is signed for and what is paid are different.
If you sign a deal for 100k but are only ever paid 80k of that, what should count against the cap - the amount signed for of the amount paid? In reverse of that we have Keogh at $150k and rumoured to have been paid $300k so they are counting what he has been paid, and not what he is on the books for. 

If a player is on the books for $500k over 2 years and rather than have it as 2 equal amounts of $250k, why can't the player take 50k less this year and $50k more next year to make it as $200k and $300k? If they don't pay more than the 2.25m or whatever it is, thats cool.

The problem is the potential for marquee exploitation. You give someone a 3 year deal and pay them $2 million in one year and nothing in the other two years. You could essentially have 6 marquees at once if you could work it correctly.

I did think about that but with the minimum salary you can pay player (45k?) x 19 players = $855k. Means you are getting at the most, about $1.3m for 1 season with whats left over and if you look at your example of getting "nothing" the other 2 years ($90k), then $1.4m over 3 years is not really going to get you a crazy marquee and you have a borked squad cause the rest are minimum wage players. If you did it the following 2 years (and the previous marquee is on the minimum) you could get to 3 of them but again, you will still have a borked team.

Surely the idea is you run full squads for all three years, you just have two marquees on massive wages year one, which drop down to squad level wages in subsequent years with new marquees comming in.

So if you have enough the money, you could have 6 marquees playing at the same time, if you go with the three years contract idea paying all in the first and then going down on minim wage. This can't be.

I think we need someone who reads through the A-League handbook and explain this to us, any lawyers around?

Permalink
10 Apr 04:38

Total Guess -  loss of 12 points and a suspended Fine.  Still in play off :)

  Supporter For Ever - Keep The Faith - Foundation Member - Never Lets FAX Get In The Way Of A Good Yarn

Permalink
10 Apr 05:02 · edited 10 Apr 05:04 · History

6-12 point deduction apparently.

If true, very far from an appropriate punishment.

edit: now twitter is saying they've been excluded from a-league finals and have been handed a $250,000 fine.

a.haak

Permalink
10 Apr 05:18

Why does it make a difference that they come seventh? I would have thought they would just strip the points entirely so they get the spoon. Outcome seems fair but also seems a weird way to administer the punishment, is there something I'm missing?

Permalink
10 Apr 05:25

Hopefully Perth (misguidedly) believe that they have grounds for appeal and are all fired up to beat Sydney later on tonight.Otherwise they are in a strange old space for the remaining three games.

I know, I know, its serious!

Permalink
10 Apr 05:34

number8 wrote:

269k fine, biggest chunk for this season.

http://www.a-league.com.au/article/ffa-statement-r...

They get the amount of points deducted to be on the 7th place after all rounds are played.

Sounds fair.

Except for the 3 teams they finish ahead of


Allegedly

Permalink
10 Apr 05:43

Tegal wrote:

number8 wrote:

269k fine, biggest chunk for this season.

http://www.a-league.com.au/article/ffa-statement-r...

They get the amount of points deducted to be on the 7th place after all rounds are played.

Sounds fair.

Except for the 3 teams they finish ahead of

Wish we had Perth again this season. Don't see why they just didn't void all their games - every game they had been cheating, should just give everyone a win for the games against Perth.

Permalink
10 Apr 05:48

Can't complain with that decision.

Permalink
10 Apr 05:50

Bullion wrote:

Tegal wrote:

number8 wrote:

269k fine, biggest chunk for this season.

http://www.a-league.com.au/article/ffa-statement-r...

They get the amount of points deducted to be on the 7th place after all rounds are played.

Sounds fair.

Except for the 3 teams they finish ahead of

Wish we had Perth again this season. Don't see why they just didn't void all their games - every game they had been cheating, should just give everyone a win for the games against Perth.

But some teams may have done well against Perth this team. If you have beaten a cheating side 2 or 3 times then you should be rewarded for that. Otherwise teams just get rewarded for being poor against Perth earlier in the season.

Permalink
10 Apr 06:00

Good job FFA

E's Flat Ah's Flat Too

Permalink
10 Apr 06:06

This means that we can seal top 4 on Sunday with a draw (appeal notwithstanding).

But we want more than that!

I know, I know, its serious!

Permalink
10 Apr 06:23

Dont understand the reasoning behind moving them to 7th. They had serious breaches of the regulations. Should be last.

I have an amazing ability to find my way out of mazes. I'm pathological. 
Permalink
10 Apr 07:00

Is there any actual difference to finishing 7th or 10th - is there less prize money or anything?  I honestly don't know, but I assumed anything outside the playoffs is almost equal except for bragging rights, and everyone else knows they cheated now so it's not like they can lord it over the Jets, CCM, or WSW fans.

People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people.

Permalink
10 Apr 07:01

C-Diddy wrote:

You can rest assured that the FFA wont rush into this one because they know that Tony Sage, being a Mining magnate, is not afraid of having a legal battle to get his way regardless of how deep in the wrong he is.

The FFA doesnt have that sort of cash lying around and will pissfart around for ages until the problem is conveniently swept under the carpet. 

Just like they have done with Nathan Tinkler

Happily proven wrong!

"Ive just re-visited this and once again realised that C-Diddy is a genius - a drunk, Newcastle bred disgrace - but a genius." - Hard News, 11:39am 4th June 2009

Permalink
10 Apr 07:23

Just at a playing level... Anyone else more worried about meeting Brisbane in the finals than Perth?

Permalink
10 Apr 07:26

"It will be hosted in Wellington. My balls my word"

3/7/2013

"McGlinchey is ours ! My balls my word."

5/8/2014

Permalink
10 Apr 08:40

Interesting that Mitch Nichols jumped ship (or was pushed depending on who you believe) 24 hours before the decision.

Permalink
10 Apr 08:51

Well Gallop came down hard like I thought he would. Either way, Perth are not involved so if other clubs were not paying attention, I bet they soon will be. It would not surprise me if all CEOs are meeting with owners and accounts on Monday to make sure their noses are clean.

Gallops next move is to give a 2 week amnesty whereby clubs can self report and the balance of what they are over comes off next years cap to get the league back into shape. Why? Cause the league does not need the scandal of another team over the cap and the message is out there that any club doing so is dragging the league down. I wonder what the major sponsors are thinking and the publicity this is getting them. Right now, this is a bad look for the league, not just Perth.

At the very least you have to fire Perths CEO. If you are that fudgeing stupid to get over the cap AND not win the league, then you are a complete idiot.

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink
10 Apr 08:52 · edited 10 Apr 09:19 · History

Mark Bosnich turns the topic it to be a general salary cap issue and think its to harsh, feels sorry for Perth, another FOX Propaganda statement.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/football/a-league/pert...

Haha quick search on Bosnich, brings up headlines, like:

was a terrible professional --fergusson

did a Nazi salute to a largely based jewish home croud

came to a humiliating end at MU

plead to dangerous and negligent driving charges

Why do we have to listen to this guys?

Permalink
10 Apr 09:05

Jeff Vader wrote:

At the very least you have to fire Perths CEO. If you are that fudgeing stupid to get over the cap AND not win the league, then you are a complete idiot.

Sage runs the club. Has hired yes men through the entire club. 

Permalink
10 Apr 09:16

Have to be honest given Gallops history im not surprised.Then again you have to wonder why they have just let the Jets situation bumble on.Shame they arnt as decisive about other issues in the game.


GET YOUR SHIRTS OFF FOR THE BOYS

Permalink
10 Apr 09:23

There is only one draw back still out there - Perth can affect where teams finish. For example, this weekends game against Sydney..... Win and Sydney stay where they are. Lose and Sydney go up above us.

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink