Demetriou - AFL to follow action of NRL re Salary Cap Breaches

[SwansFan1972]

Your idea of an audit must be different from mine .Surely the whole point of an audit, particularly in this instance, is so that they (the governing body) can uncover when people are "actively and purposefully" lying and cheating, not simply to rubber stamp the books. Either the auditors were not given enough scope/access to NRL/Storm records, or they did a poor job - which I suppose is why the NRL have said they will investigate that process also - as many people are asking them the same questions that I have posed here.

Yep - I think our ideas of audits are different - I can accept that the best auditor will struggle against active deceit. And yes, lots of people are asking the same questions as you. Most of them would also have a vague idea that "it should have been caught earlier", which is fine, but if pressed about how, would be stuck for any suggestions. To all of those people, I guess ideally the conversation between the NRL auditor and Brian Waldron would have been something like this...

Auditor - 'can we see your books please Mr Waldron"
Waldron - 'Yep, sure, here they are'
Auditor - Oh, um, are these really your books?'
Waldron - 'Yep, sure, they are'
Auditor - 'But are they really really your real books?'
Waldron - 'Yep, sure, they are. Oh, no, hang on a minute - actually, now since you've asked me so nicely, let me just get the real books for you - won't be a minute ...'

I will concede you one astute observation - the auditors certainly weren't given enough access to the Storm's books. Or the right books, at least!

Well part of the problem with those companies was with poor governance and corporate / government deregulation. But that is somewhat beside the point anyway as they are private companies only regulated to the point of least interference / burden - which is essentially all that the public has asked from them.

Hardly beside the point. They are all corporate entities, so what is wrong with the comparison? And I think you'll find that the main issue was deceit/fraud, not necessarily governance/supervision (which presumably works for the other 99% of companies NOT undertaking such bad acts - or do they behave honestly just because they are all good citizens who are unaffected by the threat of penalties for misbehaviour)?

The NRL and the AFL have to hold clubs to a different standard (and be held to a different standard themselves) as they are the regulators of the salary cap itself. I do not think that is an unrealistic expectation to think that the AFL and NRL can enforce the salary cap.

Are you really suggesting that an acceptable form of salary cap governance is in place where any club can get away with rorting the system - provided that they do not come undone via a whistleblower?

It is part of the burden of responsibility that the AFL and NRL have systems in place where rorting of this kind is uncovered - if that means they need to go to the extent of monitoring the bank accounts of the players - then so be it.

We're going around in circles. Why a different standard? Honest or not pretty much covers it. If honest, then you'll be ok - if not, there is the risk of discovery and punishment. Whether the current system is 'acceptable' or not to me is largely irrelevant, but unlike you, I'm sceptical that it is possible to create one which will catch breaches more reliably or earlier. Or that requires no penalties, either future loaded or retrospective (which you seem to believe would be ideal). It would be great if there was no need to threaten punishments for cheats, but it just isn't realistic. The current system, imperfect or otherwise, now makes the risks of cheating abundantly clear to all and we would hope is powerful enough to keep all clubs in line going forward.

As for getting access to the players bank accounts - well, that would only provide half the picture - and could the NRL be sure it knows of all a player's accounts?

In any case, advocating such a level of intrusion on the players is a strange contradiction from one who a few posts ago was advocating letting the past lie and sweeping any discoveries behind closed doors. Nothing like having a few bob each way, hey!

[Matty10]

Nothing like having a few bob each way, hey!

C'mon, now you are just being adversarial. What I advocated earlier was to keep things behind closed doors, to a large degree, in order to not harm the game for the sake of punishing one team. That is hardly a contradiction. The openness of players' bank accounts would not be made public in such a situation and the so-called intrusion would only add another level of protection - and isn't that what you asked me to provide? There are other things that could be done (access to tax records, etc) - that was just one example. It was not like the Storm players were being paid extra amounts in brown paper bags here - an accounting trail existed.

Honest or not pretty much covers it.

As for the rest of our arguments, we clearly are going around in circles. You seem to think a threat / punishment system is an appropriate way of maintaining the integrity of the NRL/AFL (which it must be said, did not work to prevent the Storm's rorting, even after the punishments given to the Bulldogs) - I simply do not agree. Active controls/systems, put in place by the NRL/AFL, and a comprehensive auditing process would be far more effective. You seem to think it is unreasonable to believe that a system of auditing controls could succeed against active rorting - again I simply do not agree.

They are all corporate entities, so what is wrong with the comparison?

The AFL/NRL structure is not the same as the corporate structure of publicly listed companies. Any specific internal auditing that those companies may do (in order to uncover suspected problems, or rorting etc) could be comparable to the auditing systems within our football codes - if they were undertaken - however, the mandatory external audits, done largely to satisfy government regulations (which are quite light - mainly due to an unwillingness for the cost to burden said companies) would not. It is the responsibility of the governing NRL/AFL body to maintain and monitor the adherence to a salary cap, which they put in place - for the teams within their very own competition.

But as you said, we are going round in circles.

[SwansFan1972]

C'mon, now you are just being adversarial. What I advocated earlier was to keep things behind closed doors, to a large degree, in order to not harm the game for the sake of punishing one team. That is hardly a contradiction. The openness of players' bank accounts would not be made public in such a situation and the so-called intrusion would only add another level of protection - and isn't that what you asked me to provide? There are other things that could be done (access to tax records, etc) - that was just one example. It was not like the Storm players were being paid extra amounts in brown paper bags here - an accounting trail existed.



As for the rest of our arguments, we clearly are going around in circles. You seem to think a threat / punishment system is an appropriate way of maintaining the integrity of the NRL/AFL (which it must be said, did not work to prevent the Storm's rorting, even after the punishments given to the Bulldogs) - I simply do not agree. Active controls/systems, put in place by the NRL/AFL, and a comprehensive auditing process would be far more effective. You seem to think it is unreasonable to believe that a system of auditing controls could succeed against active rorting - again I simply do not agree.



The AFL/NRL structure is not the same as the corporate structure of publicly listed companies. Any specific internal auditing that those companies may do (in order to uncover suspected problems, or rorting etc) could be comparable to the auditing systems within our football codes - if they were undertaken - however, the mandatory external audits, done largely to satisfy government regulations (which are quite light - mainly due to an unwillingness for the cost to burden said companies) would not. It is the responsibility of the governing NRL/AFL body to maintain and monitor the adherence to a salary cap, which they put in place - for the teams within their very own competition.

But as you said, we are going round in circles.

Yep - I did get a bit adversarial - unneccessarily really. Agree to disagree should have been where I got to - there is certainly enough steam around the storm already!

Patrick Smith wrote an interesting article on it all today: No winners in media slugfest | The Australian

[goswannie14]

Yep - I did get a bit adversarial - unneccessarily really. Agree to disagree should have been where I got to - there is certainly enough steam around the storm already!

Patrick Smith wrote an interesting article on it all today: No winners in media slugfest | The Australian

There are some interesting points in that article, including this......

Then there is the tiresome suggestion the NRL and News Ltd were aware of widespread salary cap fiddling across the league. Everybody was. Including Fairfax because the NRL had in more than 50 salary cap breach notices collected more than $3m in fines. To suspect salary cap corruption is one thing, proving it another altogether but you could hardly question the NRL's determination.

Those who are calling the Storm "cheats" better hope their team wasbn't one of the guilty parties. As it is widely known that nearly every team has been fined for salary cap breaches.

[Matty10]

Patrick Smith wrote an interesting article on it all today

It certainly seems like it won't be the last word on the matter - you can see this story playing out over the course of a year or two, rather than being done and dusted in the space of a couple of months.

Caroline Wilson also noted the AFL's qualified concern the other day (but with a hint of - perhaps unwarranted- confidence underneath re: superior auditing resources) over the salary cap issue with the Storm: Grand final set to stay put in September

Those who are calling the Storm "cheats" better hope their team wasbn't one of the guilty parties. As it is widely known that nearly every team has been fined for salary cap breaches.

I could be reading that article wrong, but I though P. Smith was making the point that those suggestions were merely unproven and inflammatory scuttlebutt. I don't think he was saying that those notices and fines had actually been issued - as had been claimed by some during the heated debates (re: blame games) surrounding the punishments metered out to the Storm.