UnJudd Fines

[ace]

Chris Judd is the guilty party that started the melee.
The AFL fines him $3,000 for starting and participating in the melee.

So Judd gets fined less than 0.3% of his annual salary plus fake job payments.
He wont miss the $3,000.

Gilbert gets fined $1200 for defending himself.
His fine is far harsher than that of Judd because he does not get paid anything like Judd.

Even the other Carlton players fined for flying the Carlton flag copped a harsher penalty than Judd as they only get table scraps after Judd's salary.

Have I every suggested that the AFL is an abbreviation for ..........

[plugger66]

Seriously.

[Eastern]

Chris Judd is the guilty party that started the melee.
The AFL fines Jeanie Pratt $3,000 for starting and participating in the melee.

So Judd gets fined less than 0.3% of his annual salary plus fake job payments.
She wont miss the $3,000.

Gilbert gets fined $1200 for defending himself.
His fine is far harsher than that of Judd because he does not get paid anything like Judd.

Even the other Carlton players fined for flying the Carlton flag copped a harsher penalty than Judd as they only get table scraps after Judd's salary.

Have I every suggested that the AFL is an abbreviation for ..........

Edited !!

[desertsaint]

no ace has a fair point - afl fines, speeding fines, etc should be based on a proportion of the offender's salary so that they are an equal deterrent for all.
finland made news years ago for fining a businessman over $100,000 for speeding.
Essentially Judd is the least penalised.
IF the fine is meant to act as a deterrent then it needs to be proportional.

[goddardisgod]

Have always thought that fines should be a percentage of pay.

Take current fines. Do calculations with average wage to figure percentage.

Apply that fine instead of this uniformed piss head scheme.

[plugger66]

no ace has a fair point - afl fines, speeding fines, etc should be based on a proportion of the offender's salary so that they are an equal deterrent for all.
finland made news years ago for fining a businessman over $100,000 for speeding.
Essentially Judd is the least penalised.
IF the fine is meant to act as a deterrent then it needs to be proportional.

So unemployed dont get fined? What happens to self employed who hide money?

[matrix]

an answer for everything.........

[desertsaint]

no ace has a fair point - afl fines, speeding fines, etc should be based on a proportion of the offender's salary so that they are an equal deterrent for all.
finland made news years ago for fining a businessman over $100,000 for speeding.
Essentially Judd is the least penalised.
IF the fine is meant to act as a deterrent then it needs to be proportional.

So unemployed dont get fined? What happens to self employed who hide money?

unemployed earn money - so yes they do get fined.
your second point is pretty irrellevant - do you use it as a basis for a flat tax argument?

[borderbarry]

I thought they were fining players a percentage of their match payments at one stage, or is that cricket?

[Thinline]

no ace has a fair point - afl fines, speeding fines, etc should be based on a proportion of the offender's salary so that they are an equal deterrent for all.
finland made news years ago for fining a businessman over $100,000 for speeding.
Essentially Judd is the least penalised.
IF the fine is meant to act as a deterrent then it needs to be proportional.

So unemployed dont get fined? What happens to self employed who hide money?

What have they got to do with footballers whose incomes are clearly visible in the ledger?

In these circs it makes perfect sense to 'proportionalise' fines.

If Judd and Cripps were front and centre, the penalties would be grossly unfairly proportioned.

[plugger66]

no ace has a fair point - afl fines, speeding fines, etc should be based on a proportion of the offender's salary so that they are an equal deterrent for all.
finland made news years ago for fining a businessman over $100,000 for speeding.
Essentially Judd is the least penalised.
IF the fine is meant to act as a deterrent then it needs to be proportional.

So unemployed dont get fined? What happens to self employed who hide money?

What have they got to do with footballers whose incomes are clearly visible in the ledger?

In these circs it makes perfect sense to 'proportionalise' fines.

If Judd and Cripps were front and centre, the penalties would be grossly unfairly proportioned.

Why should they get different fines if they do the exact same thing wrong just because the other player is better or earns more. Doesnt happen in to work places I would think or in the real world of fines and penalties.

[Birdman]

Why should they get different fines if they do the exact same thing wrong just because the other player is better or earns more. Doesnt happen in to work places I would think or in the real world of fines and penalties.

Because the fine is the way the penalty is administered. It is the penalty that is key. In order to penalise people the same, the fine should be proportional. As it stands, having the same fines means a greater penalty for those who earn less.

[Thinline]

It's not an ordinary workplace. Far from it. I, for instance, don't draft my Employees. Nor does a regulator limit what I can pay them. Afl is a bubble predicated on the level playing field. Different principles can apply.

[Saint_Ash]

I thought they were fining players a percentage of their match payments at one stage, or is that cricket?

Cricket fines as a percentage of match payments rather than set amounts.

[SaintPav]

I thought they were fining players a percentage of their match payments at one stage, or is that cricket?

Cricket fines as a percentage of match payments rather than set amounts.

Excellent point

[Eastern]

I thought they were fining players a percentage of their match payments at one stage, or is that cricket?

That would make contract negotiations even more complicated. Imagine the Paul Connors' of this world holding out for even more money just in case their player gets involved in a mellee. No thanks !!

[Life Long Saint]

Why should they get different fines if they do the exact same thing wrong just because the other player is better or earns more. Doesnt happen in to work places I would think or in the real world of fines and penalties.

They wouldn't get a different fine. They would be fined different dollar values but the fine would be the same.

If the AFL decrees that 5% is the fine rather than a dollar value then it is absolutely equal.

If the goal of the fine is to seriously deter someone from reoffending then a percentage based system would go closer to achieve the goal.

[True Blue Sainter]

no ace has a fair point - afl fines, speeding fines, etc should be based on a proportion of the offender's salary so that they are an equal deterrent for all.
finland made news years ago for fining a businessman over $100,000 for speeding.
Essentially Judd is the least penalised.
IF the fine is meant to act as a deterrent then it needs to be proportional.

Well played, sir.

I agree entirely.

Fines should be based as a % of player's match payment.

[plugger66]

This thread is very funny. Firstly is the boot was on the other foot and Rooy for some reason started the fight then we would be saying the fines should all be the same and the silly Carlton people would be wanting some stupid fine system and secondly, does anyone honestly think that Judd should be fined around $30K for starting a silly melee.

[Eastern]

This thread is very funny. Firstly is the boot was on the other foot and Rooy for some reason started the fight then we would be saying the fines should all be the same and the silly Carlton people would be wanting some stupid fine system and secondly, does anyone honestly think that Judd should be fined around $30K for starting a silly melee.

No, if for no other reason than we would all be paying that much more for our packaging !!

[True Blue Sainter]

This thread is very funny. Firstly is the boot was on the other foot and Rooy for some reason started the fight then we would be saying the fines should all be the same and the silly Carlton people would be wanting some stupid fine system and secondly, does anyone honestly think that Judd should be fined around $30K for starting a silly melee.

No, I wouldn't.

And whoever said 30K?!

It should be a fair % of each player's wage. That's it. It's fair. If it's a Saints player, why do I care if they're out of pocket. I only care about how they play on the field not their bank balance.

[Saints43]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1759791.stm

Nokia boss gets record speeding fine

Anssi Vanjoki, 44, has been ordered to pay a fine of 116,000 euros ($103,600) after being caught breaking the speed limit...

In Finland, traffic fines are proportionate to the latest available data on an offender's income.

[plugger66]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1759791.stm

Nokia boss gets record speeding fine

Anssi Vanjoki, 44, has been ordered to pay a fine of 116,000 euros ($103,600) after being caught breaking the speed limit...

In Finland, traffic fines are proportionate to the latest available data on an offender's income.

And in Australia we dont.

[sunsaint]

This thread is very funny. Firstly is the boot was on the other foot and Rooy for some reason started the fight then we would be saying the fines should all be the same and the silly Carlton people would be wanting some stupid fine system and secondly, does anyone honestly think that Judd should be fined around $30K for starting a silly melee.

No, I wouldn't.

And whoever said 30K?!

It should be a fair % of each player's wage. That's it. It's fair. If it's a Saints player, why do I care if they're out of pocket. I only care about how they play on the field not their bank balance.

is there anything left that can be nit picked at?
what would you base this "proportional" based system?
match payments? You couldnt get that final figure till the end of the playing year.
Contracts? What about back ended contracts where the final year is loaded. Or the other way round with front loaded contracts. You cant base it on the total because a player one year into a contract might not see it out.
Contracts + endoursements? As in the case of judd?
I dont think there will be one player that would allow that sort of public revelation into their private earnings.
besides most clubs coteries reimburse the fines.

[westy]

Fines relevant to personal income sounds a bit sociocommunistic bourgeoisie bullshittish claptrap to me. Fine Juddles $10,000 for being a smart alec dickwad!