Tweet
PATRICK SMITH
AFL only fuels flames of suspicion over club
April 29, 2004
ADRIAN ANDERSON might not have lost his cool altogether. But the fire brigade arrived just in case. A media briefing meant to alleviate suspicions only helped multiply them. By briefing's end there was a burning in Anderson's belly.
The AFL yesterday failed in an extraordinary bid to convince the football community that the $260,000 fines levied against the Brisbane Lions were not, in part, driven by the league's sponsor dispute with the three-time premiership team.
Anderson is the AFL's general manager of football operations and, along with Ken Wood, the league's investigation manager, sought to prove the 26 breaches that drew the $260,000 fine were not merely a matter of sloppy paperwork. Anderson fairly bristled at the suggestion.
That Wood was presented to the media at all was a telling example of how troubled the AFL administration has become as the community appears reluctant to accept that the fines are reasonable and separate to the sponsorship conflict. The AFL made no ground in yesterday's hour-long meeting.
Wood, whose job is to ensure club compliance with the AFL's total player payments, is truly the league's faceless man. His job description forbids him from making public statements.
Yesterday was an exception. The league sensed the temperature was rising and Wood was rolled out.
At the heart of the issue is whether the fines are a payback for the Lions' decision to drop Coca-Cola, an AFL protected sponsor, and accept a new sponsorship deal with rival Cadbury Schweppes.
The AFL yesterday detailed each breach. In some cases paperwork required by the league was 12 months late, not provided at all or was just days late. No-one doubts they were committed. But every breach drew what the AFL said was the only fine possible ? $10,000. Anderson stated that under competition rules there was no room for the AFL to use its discretion and reduce the fines.
The AFL was able to paint a picture of a club chronically tardy and sloppy. However, the AFL maintained that at no stage was the club in breach of the salary cap. Importantly, the AFL refused to release the amounts of money involved in the breaches. Presumably because they were insignificant.
It also appears that the AFL has freely used discretion before when administering fines for similar breaches. In 2002, Fremantle was fined $75,000 for late lodgement of player contracts, late lodgement of contracts that varied from original estimates, breaches relating to additional services and late lodgement of contract variations.
Surely the Fremantle fine had to have a multiple of 10,000. The AFL later explained that the AFL commission used its discretion to vary the fine because the Dockers had already received other penalties including loss of draft picks.
For that reason it is surprising an AFL spokesman said last night that the Brisbane fines were not put to the commission for consideration. Big fine, the premier club for the past three years and no AFL commission involvement? Curious.
As well, Brisbane yesterday produced evidence that it was fined in 2002 a total of $22,500 for player payment breaches in 2001. Included in that sum was one fine of $5000 and two fines of $2500 for late lodgement of contracts. No discretion?
Brisbane may have laboured its paperwork and made the AFL task of salary-cap governance difficult, but it still appears to be paying as much for the rogue sponsorship deal as it does for a clock that is running up to 12 months slow.
Yesterday the AFL went about hosing down an issue and effectively set itself on fire.
AFL only fuels flames of suspicion over club
April 29, 2004
ADRIAN ANDERSON might not have lost his cool altogether. But the fire brigade arrived just in case. A media briefing meant to alleviate suspicions only helped multiply them. By briefing's end there was a burning in Anderson's belly.
The AFL yesterday failed in an extraordinary bid to convince the football community that the $260,000 fines levied against the Brisbane Lions were not, in part, driven by the league's sponsor dispute with the three-time premiership team.
Anderson is the AFL's general manager of football operations and, along with Ken Wood, the league's investigation manager, sought to prove the 26 breaches that drew the $260,000 fine were not merely a matter of sloppy paperwork. Anderson fairly bristled at the suggestion.
That Wood was presented to the media at all was a telling example of how troubled the AFL administration has become as the community appears reluctant to accept that the fines are reasonable and separate to the sponsorship conflict. The AFL made no ground in yesterday's hour-long meeting.
Wood, whose job is to ensure club compliance with the AFL's total player payments, is truly the league's faceless man. His job description forbids him from making public statements.
Yesterday was an exception. The league sensed the temperature was rising and Wood was rolled out.
At the heart of the issue is whether the fines are a payback for the Lions' decision to drop Coca-Cola, an AFL protected sponsor, and accept a new sponsorship deal with rival Cadbury Schweppes.
The AFL yesterday detailed each breach. In some cases paperwork required by the league was 12 months late, not provided at all or was just days late. No-one doubts they were committed. But every breach drew what the AFL said was the only fine possible ? $10,000. Anderson stated that under competition rules there was no room for the AFL to use its discretion and reduce the fines.
The AFL was able to paint a picture of a club chronically tardy and sloppy. However, the AFL maintained that at no stage was the club in breach of the salary cap. Importantly, the AFL refused to release the amounts of money involved in the breaches. Presumably because they were insignificant.
It also appears that the AFL has freely used discretion before when administering fines for similar breaches. In 2002, Fremantle was fined $75,000 for late lodgement of player contracts, late lodgement of contracts that varied from original estimates, breaches relating to additional services and late lodgement of contract variations.
Surely the Fremantle fine had to have a multiple of 10,000. The AFL later explained that the AFL commission used its discretion to vary the fine because the Dockers had already received other penalties including loss of draft picks.
For that reason it is surprising an AFL spokesman said last night that the Brisbane fines were not put to the commission for consideration. Big fine, the premier club for the past three years and no AFL commission involvement? Curious.
As well, Brisbane yesterday produced evidence that it was fined in 2002 a total of $22,500 for player payment breaches in 2001. Included in that sum was one fine of $5000 and two fines of $2500 for late lodgement of contracts. No discretion?
Brisbane may have laboured its paperwork and made the AFL task of salary-cap governance difficult, but it still appears to be paying as much for the rogue sponsorship deal as it does for a clock that is running up to 12 months slow.
Yesterday the AFL went about hosing down an issue and effectively set itself on fire.
