AFL hypocrites on the Ambassador rule

[Dan Warna]

The AFL have said that while the carlton (and nudge nudge wink wink ablett) and (i have heard the GWS bribe for the Melbourne player nudge nudge wink wink) deals for 'ambassador' roles will stand and be allowed to continue, defensive deals will be banned.

So Melbourne who were I understand from a melbourne insider, looking for a sponsor to offer young Scully a 200k to 300k off field role, have been told they can't do that, GWS have been told they are clear to do offer scully an off field deal.

I am glad that goddard or STevens isn't up for grabs this year because If I was GWS and given a nudge nudge wink wink, I'd offer goddard 1m to play and 500k in an 'ambassador' role and laugh while st kilda can't do anything equivalent because of they would automatically breach the salary cap rules.

Carlton are absolutely laughing, because while their talent is solid, without a doubt Chris Judd is one of the top 5 players int he league and an all time great and they have him on their list at 1/2 the price because the rest is paid for by Visy.

What a farking joke, an absolute joke.

Hang your head in shame Anderson, you pathetic two face piece of shite.

[ozrulestrace]

Totally agree, the stench of a double standard can be smelt from here.

So does that mean they concede that Judd's "ambassadorial role" which consists of a PR video from 2 years ago during "green week" has been suspect all along but they're too chicken to challenge Carlton FC, Visy and the Pratt Family?

[gringo]

No they want a seamless introduction to AFL in the western regions of sydney, if that means decimating a club on the way it is in the greater good of their game. We all know that the main thing is that the books look stuffed full of cash on their watch that way huge pay rises can be introduced. The AFL admin is off their nut the way they are selling off free to air broadcasts for cash, if soccer or basket ball could get their product on any free to air they would pay the broadcaster. Dumb move for the now not long term. Niche sports go to Foxtel not mainstream ones in australia.

[plugger66]

The AFL have said that while the carlton (and nudge nudge wink wink ablett) and (i have heard the GWS bribe for the Melbourne player nudge nudge wink wink) deals for 'ambassador' roles will stand and be allowed to continue, defensive deals will be banned.

So Melbourne who were I understand from a melbourne insider, looking for a sponsor to offer young Scully a 200k to 300k off field role, have been told they can't do that, GWS have been told they are clear to do offer scully an off field deal.

I am glad that goddard or STevens isn't up for grabs this year because If I was GWS and given a nudge nudge wink wink, I'd offer goddard 1m to play and 500k in an 'ambassador' role and laugh while st kilda can't do anything equivalent because of they would automatically breach the salary cap rules.

Carlton are absolutely laughing, because while their talent is solid, without a doubt Chris Judd is one of the top 5 players int he league and an all time great and they have him on their list at 1/2 the price because the rest is paid for by Visy.

What a farking joke, an absolute joke.

Hang your head in shame Anderson, you pathetic two face piece of shite.

Great post and really good last line. You really have nailed it. They always look after Carlton, just look at the pathetic penalties when they went over the salary cap. Yep you have nailed it.

[Leo.J]

The AFL have said that while the carlton (and nudge nudge wink wink ablett) and (i have heard the GWS bribe for the Melbourne player nudge nudge wink wink) deals for 'ambassador' roles will stand and be allowed to continue, defensive deals will be banned.

So Melbourne who were I understand from a melbourne insider, looking for a sponsor to offer young Scully a 200k to 300k off field role, have been told they can't do that, GWS have been told they are clear to do offer scully an off field deal.

I am glad that goddard or STevens isn't up for grabs this year because If I was GWS and given a nudge nudge wink wink, I'd offer goddard 1m to play and 500k in an 'ambassador' role and laugh while st kilda can't do anything equivalent because of they would automatically breach the salary cap rules.

Carlton are absolutely laughing, because while their talent is solid, without a doubt Chris Judd is one of the top 5 players int he league and an all time great and they have him on their list at 1/2 the price because the rest is paid for by Visy.

What a farking joke, an absolute joke.

Hang your head in shame Anderson, you pathetic two face piece of shite.

Great post and really good last line. You really have nailed it. They always look after Carlton, just look at the pathetic penalties when they went over the salary cap. Yep you have nailed it.

So you obviously think that it's fair Plugger?

[Dan Warna]

Great post and really good last line. You really have nailed it. They always look after Carlton, just look at the pathetic penalties when they went over the salary cap. Yep you have nailed it.

that was a decade ago now, why not allow the ambassador rule for all clubs? or ban it for all clubs?

sarcasm and bringing up the past does not discount the facts of the inequalities of the present.

or is it that because carlton were exposed then, they are now immune from further penalty? or is ambassador rule now open to everyone? or is it open to no one? or is it open to only carlton GCS and WSG?

you fail to address the current situation, but retort with sarcasm and the past.

[Moorabbin Man]

ABSOLUTELY DISGRACEFUL, SELF SERVING CRAP. LET'S SERVE THE GOLD COAST AND GWS A PREMIERSHIP ON A PLATTER IN 3 OR 4 YEARS AND SHAFT MELBOURNE!!!

DEMITRIOU MUST GO!!!!

[plugger66]

The AFL have said that while the carlton (and nudge nudge wink wink ablett) and (i have heard the GWS bribe for the Melbourne player nudge nudge wink wink) deals for 'ambassador' roles will stand and be allowed to continue, defensive deals will be banned.

So Melbourne who were I understand from a melbourne insider, looking for a sponsor to offer young Scully a 200k to 300k off field role, have been told they can't do that, GWS have been told they are clear to do offer scully an off field deal.

I am glad that goddard or STevens isn't up for grabs this year because If I was GWS and given a nudge nudge wink wink, I'd offer goddard 1m to play and 500k in an 'ambassador' role and laugh while st kilda can't do anything equivalent because of they would automatically breach the salary cap rules.

Carlton are absolutely laughing, because while their talent is solid, without a doubt Chris Judd is one of the top 5 players int he league and an all time great and they have him on their list at 1/2 the price because the rest is paid for by Visy.

What a farking joke, an absolute joke.

Hang your head in shame Anderson, you pathetic two face piece of shite.

Great post and really good last line. You really have nailed it. They always look after Carlton, just look at the pathetic penalties when they went over the salary cap. Yep you have nailed it.

So you obviously think that it's fair Plugger?

They have obviously tightened the rules because of the free agency which is a good thing I would have thought. Judd like many others has an existing contract so they have to let them finish that. You can bet Rooy has a good contract outside the club so if they tightened the rule now it wouldnt be just Carlton over the cap. You could bet a few clubs including probably ours would be over.

[Leo.J]

The AFL have said that while the carlton (and nudge nudge wink wink ablett) and (i have heard the GWS bribe for the Melbourne player nudge nudge wink wink) deals for 'ambassador' roles will stand and be allowed to continue, defensive deals will be banned.

So Melbourne who were I understand from a melbourne insider, looking for a sponsor to offer young Scully a 200k to 300k off field role, have been told they can't do that, GWS have been told they are clear to do offer scully an off field deal.

I am glad that goddard or STevens isn't up for grabs this year because If I was GWS and given a nudge nudge wink wink, I'd offer goddard 1m to play and 500k in an 'ambassador' role and laugh while st kilda can't do anything equivalent because of they would automatically breach the salary cap rules.

Carlton are absolutely laughing, because while their talent is solid, without a doubt Chris Judd is one of the top 5 players int he league and an all time great and they have him on their list at 1/2 the price because the rest is paid for by Visy.

What a farking joke, an absolute joke.

Hang your head in shame Anderson, you pathetic two face piece of shite.

Great post and really good last line. You really have nailed it. They always look after Carlton, just look at the pathetic penalties when they went over the salary cap. Yep you have nailed it.

So you obviously think that it's fair Plugger?

They have obviously tightened the rules because of the free agency which is a good thing I would have thought. Judd like many others has an existing contract so they have to let them finish that. You can bet Rooy has a good contract outside the club so if they tightened the rule now it wouldnt be just Carlton over the cap. You could bet a few clubs including probably ours would be over.

Do you think its fair? And do you think the AFL has handled it well?

[plugger66]

The AFL have said that while the carlton (and nudge nudge wink wink ablett) and (i have heard the GWS bribe for the Melbourne player nudge nudge wink wink) deals for 'ambassador' roles will stand and be allowed to continue, defensive deals will be banned.

So Melbourne who were I understand from a melbourne insider, looking for a sponsor to offer young Scully a 200k to 300k off field role, have been told they can't do that, GWS have been told they are clear to do offer scully an off field deal.

I am glad that goddard or STevens isn't up for grabs this year because If I was GWS and given a nudge nudge wink wink, I'd offer goddard 1m to play and 500k in an 'ambassador' role and laugh while st kilda can't do anything equivalent because of they would automatically breach the salary cap rules.

Carlton are absolutely laughing, because while their talent is solid, without a doubt Chris Judd is one of the top 5 players int he league and an all time great and they have him on their list at 1/2 the price because the rest is paid for by Visy.

What a farking joke, an absolute joke.

Hang your head in shame Anderson, you pathetic two face piece of shite.

Great post and really good last line. You really have nailed it. They always look after Carlton, just look at the pathetic penalties when they went over the salary cap. Yep you have nailed it.

So you obviously think that it's fair Plugger?

They have obviously tightened the rules because of the free agency which is a good thing I would have thought. Judd like many others has an existing contract so they have to let them finish that. You can bet Rooy has a good contract outside the club so if they tightened the rule now it wouldnt be just Carlton over the cap. You could bet a few clubs including probably ours would be over.

Do you think its fair? And do you think the AFL has handled it well?

I have no problem with at all. Imagine the whinging on here once free agency comes in and we lose a player because they are getting so much money outside the cap. As for how the AFL have handled it well I couldnt give a stuff. I am obviously strange, which many may agree, but really all I care about is our club and because the change may help the smaller clubs I dont mind it at all.

[Dan Warna]

They have obviously tightened the rules because of the free agency which is a good thing I would have thought. Judd like many others has an existing contract so they have to let them finish that. You can bet Rooy has a good contract outside the club so if they tightened the rule now it wouldnt be just Carlton over the cap. You could bet a few clubs including probably ours would be over.

They specifically said that they are tightening the rules for all clubs, but the carlton/judd one will be allowed to continue, as would GCS and WSG.

Why carlton/judd specifically? are they going to give terms on which ones are allowed and which ones aren't? No.

and I quote
"What we’re talking about here (Scully) is deals with associates or sponsors of clubs," Anderson said today. "Yes it (the third party rules) has changed.

"Ken Wood (the AFL investigations officer) has tightened the guidelines which means that any time there’s a third-party arrangement which is around the time of or in any way connected with a player staying with a club or not going, that will go in the salary cap."

Anderson, speaking today on Triple M, said third-party arrangements differed from deals struck between the AFL and players, such as Gold Coast's Karmichael Hunt and Greater Western Sydney's Israel Folau, with the league deals not included in the salary cap.
...

lothing company Cotton On tried to organise a deal to keep Gary Ablett in Geelong, but it appears it would not have been allowed.

Visy's deal with Judd, organised by then-president Dick Pratt and worth $200,000 or more a year, was ticked off under previous rules and is still considered legal.

The Blues have been told Visy can continue using Judd as an ambassador and paying him his yearly sum.



so what was different about the cotton on deal, which I hear was patterned around the published data for the visy scheme? so what is different about others who want the same deal?

[Dan Warna]

It doesn't help the smaller clubs, it helps the clubs who get favourable interpretations to allow 3rd party payments that do not seem to be consistent.

[plugger66]

They have obviously tightened the rules because of the free agency which is a good thing I would have thought. Judd like many others has an existing contract so they have to let them finish that. You can bet Rooy has a good contract outside the club so if they tightened the rule now it wouldnt be just Carlton over the cap. You could bet a few clubs including probably ours would be over.

They specifically said that they are tightening the rules for all clubs, but the carlton/judd one will be allowed to continue, as would GCS and WSG.

Why carlton/judd specifically? are they going to give terms on which ones are allowed and which ones aren't? No.

and I quote
"What we’re talking about here (Scully) is deals with associates or sponsors of clubs," Anderson said today. "Yes it (the third party rules) has changed.

"Ken Wood (the AFL investigations officer) has tightened the guidelines which means that any time there’s a third-party arrangement which is around the time of or in any way connected with a player staying with a club or not going, that will go in the salary cap."

Anderson, speaking today on Triple M, said third-party arrangements differed from deals struck between the AFL and players, such as Gold Coast's Karmichael Hunt and Greater Western Sydney's Israel Folau, with the league deals not included in the salary cap.
...

lothing company Cotton On tried to organise a deal to keep Gary Ablett in Geelong, but it appears it would not have been allowed.

Visy's deal with Judd, organised by then-president Dick Pratt and worth $200,000 or more a year, was ticked off under previous rules and is still considered legal.

The Blues have been told Visy can continue using Judd as an ambassador and paying him his yearly sum.



so what was different about the cotton on deal, which I hear was patterned around the published data for the visy scheme? so what is different about others who want the same deal?

I dont know the difference but I choose to believe there is a difference. Maybe we should all be paranoid and think the AFL are looking after Carlton. Dont know why they would apart from stupid things like the AFL love Carlton. Well that just makes so much sense. It seems you know the difference in the 2 deals as you are whinging about them. Can you give me exact details.

[Dan Warna]

Of course I can't give the exact details.

But I don't trust the AFL. they have proven over the years to be inconsistent, and dishonest.

you choose to trust the AFL, I choose to NOT trust the AFL.

As for carlton I was there in 93 when the stadium was packed to the rafters at princes park and the official attendance was 16,000 or so.

I chose to believe Carlton are dishonest based on the evidence they have served up over the years.

The AFL choses not to punish them again, because it would destroy them.

Bob Pratt has shown over the years he was a liar, a cheat and engaged in what many believe to be criminal activities.

[mr six o'clock]

The AFL are about one thing : Money
therefore they haved always loved the big melbourne clubs , for there potential to make them more money !
Thats why the blues , pies , bombers always seem to get away with things , ideally the afl would like less teams in melbourne , smaller supporter based sides are always struggling to turn a profit and thats the way they like it , its makes them easier to control , e.g. when baker got 14 weeks last year , we just had to cop it , if we had done anything we would have got screwed over like we did with sirengate , like whispers in the sky .
If Baker played for the pies there's no way in the world they would have given him 14 weeks , other wise the pies would have taken them to court , and there legal eagles would have come up with something to get him off .
The world of the AFL is full of inconsistancies , and its always the smaller clubs getting screwed but i suppose that's a reflection of society in general

[Snakeman66]

Of course I can't give the exact details.

But I don't trust the AFL. they have proven over the years to be inconsistent, and dishonest.

you choose to trust the AFL, I choose to NOT trust the AFL.

As for carlton I was there in 93 when the stadium was packed to the rafters at princes park and the official attendance was 16,000 or so.

I chose to believe Carlton are dishonest based on the evidence they have served up over the years.

The AFL choses not to punish them again, because it would destroy them.

Bob Pratt has shown over the years he was a liar, a cheat and engaged in what many believe to be criminal activities.

Bob Pratt is an AFL legend. Dick Pratt on the other hand......................................

[plugger66]

The AFL are about one thing : Money
therefore they haved always loved the big melbourne clubs , for there potential to make them more money !
Thats why the blues , pies , bombers always seem to get away with things , ideally the afl would like less teams in melbourne , smaller supporter based sides are always struggling to turn a profit and thats the way they like it , its makes them easier to control , e.g. when baker got 14 weeks last year , we just had to cop it , if we had done anything we would have got screwed over like we did with sirengate , like whispers in the sky .
If Baker played for the pies there's no way in the world they would have given him 14 weeks , other wise the pies would have taken them to court , and there legal eagles would have come up with something to get him off .
The world of the AFL is full of inconsistancies , and its always the smaller clubs getting screwed but i suppose that's a reflection of society in general

Yep thats good but why did Carlton get such penalties when they went over the salary cap? Paranoid by the sounds of it.

[bigcarl]

The AFL have said that while the carlton (and nudge nudge wink wink ablett) and (i have heard the GWS bribe for the Melbourne player nudge nudge wink wink) deals for 'ambassador' roles will stand and be allowed to continue, defensive deals will be banned.

So Melbourne who were I understand from a melbourne insider, looking for a sponsor to offer young Scully a 200k to 300k off field role, have been told they can't do that, GWS have been told they are clear to do offer scully an off field deal.

I am glad that goddard or STevens isn't up for grabs this year because If I was GWS and given a nudge nudge wink wink, I'd offer goddard 1m to play and 500k in an 'ambassador' role and laugh while st kilda can't do anything equivalent because of they would automatically breach the salary cap rules.

Carlton are absolutely laughing, because while their talent is solid, without a doubt Chris Judd is one of the top 5 players int he league and an all time great and they have him on their list at 1/2 the price because the rest is paid for by Visy.

What a farking joke, an absolute joke.

Well said. The AFL makes it up as it goes along. Policy on the run. Whatever suits the fat dictator and his monkey boy.

[mr six o'clock]

The AFL are about one thing : Money
therefore they haved always loved the big melbourne clubs , for there potential to make them more money !
Thats why the blues , pies , bombers always seem to get away with things , ideally the afl would like less teams in melbourne , smaller supporter based sides are always struggling to turn a profit and thats the way they like it , its makes them easier to control , e.g. when baker got 14 weeks last year , we just had to cop it , if we had done anything we would have got screwed over like we did with sirengate , like whispers in the sky .
If Baker played for the pies there's no way in the world they would have given him 14 weeks , other wise the pies would have taken them to court , and there legal eagles would have come up with something to get him off .
The world of the AFL is full of inconsistancies , and its always the smaller clubs getting screwed but i suppose that's a reflection of society in general

Yep thats good but why did Carlton get such penalties when they went over the salary cap? Paranoid by the sounds of it.

Yes ! but what penalty would we have got ?
after all we got a massive fine when we logded our bookwork late one year !!!

[plugger66]

The AFL are about one thing : Money
therefore they haved always loved the big melbourne clubs , for there potential to make them more money !
Thats why the blues , pies , bombers always seem to get away with things , ideally the afl would like less teams in melbourne , smaller supporter based sides are always struggling to turn a profit and thats the way they like it , its makes them easier to control , e.g. when baker got 14 weeks last year , we just had to cop it , if we had done anything we would have got screwed over like we did with sirengate , like whispers in the sky .
If Baker played for the pies there's no way in the world they would have given him 14 weeks , other wise the pies would have taken them to court , and there legal eagles would have come up with something to get him off .
The world of the AFL is full of inconsistancies , and its always the smaller clubs getting screwed but i suppose that's a reflection of society in general

Yep thats good but why did Carlton get such penalties when they went over the salary cap? Paranoid by the sounds of it.

Yes ! but what penalty would we have got ?
after all we got a massive fine when we logded our bookwork late one year !!!

All guess work where as I am using facts on the Carlton fine. As I said sounds all very paranoid.

[dragit]

I can't believe that Carlton have really come out bleating about their punishment this week.
News Flash…
THEY STILL HAVE A PREMIERSHIP, WON FROM CHEATING
I bet the Storm would prefer to keep their flags and cop some fines and draft penalties.
In the end, their drafting penalties have helped them become a much better side than they would have been otherwise. By staying down the bottom for so long, they have more high-round draft picks than anyone has ever had.
I reckon if they'd got Goddard, they probably would have missed out on Kruezer and Gibbs and maybe not the #3 they used to get Judd…

Sure they missed out on a great player in Goddard, but in the following 5 years they've had 3 number 1's, a two, a four and a pick six, & in the meantime picked up one of the greatest players ever and pay him outside the cap…

I really hope that group never wins a flag.

Always have been, always will be - filthy cheats, surprised Christopher Skase didn't have a stint as president down their.

[gringo]

The icing on the cake was welcoming back John Elliott a guy that as Liberal Party president was running dodgy business transactions and cheating the AFL salary cap. Most would have been jailed but now he is a welcome face down there again after screwing them with his criminal behaviour.

[Enrico_Misso]

The Paper-bag mentality is alive and well at Princess Park.
Still basically cheating scum.

[ace]

Have I ever suggested AFL is an abbreviation for corruption?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/c ... 6094925825

[saintspremiers]

Have I ever suggested AFL is an abbreviation for corruption?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/c ... 6094925825

Never!

Obviously Dimwit needs more gold teeth and so does Monkey Boy.

F*** I hate Gold Coast and GWS with a real passion now.

Bloody AFL lackey teams.

And as for Judd and Ablett, I hope they both have serious injuries, as this is the only thing that cab stop the rort for a period of time.