West and Port breach Salary Cap

Ditts just mentioned he has some breaking news, to announce after 5pm, about a possible scandal from the Grand Final this year...

I wonder what it could be about?

Edit - Norwood and West supposedly over the salary cap

Ticket prices?

Don't tell me we fixed the game! Bassett paid West to lose and help land himself an AFL gig.

I knew we couldn't play that badly.

Norwood and West apparently found guilty of being over the salary cap

Jai Bednall just tweeted in his MMCM page that he had spoken to West CEO Kym Russell, who confirmed that the Bloods were over the Salary Cap.

West's list are the highest paid in the league?

Of course they are

A defensive game style is obviously expensive.

there shouldn't be a salary cap in the first place & why should the AFL as i'm led to believe dictate this ? further more i'll add if any club (mine included) spent way too much on players & ended up in poverty & had to close the doors well that would serve them right

what this tells me is that both West & Norwood wanted a premiership a little more than the rest

Wests is more complicated and not a deliberate action.Not sure on Norwood.

Interesting, W.

Here are more tweets from MMCM on this matter...

Have spoken to @NorwoodFC. Have emphatically denied Triple M report they breached the salary cap. #SANFL

Reminding people they didn't pay Eagleton a cent after he left and McGuinness & Newton missed out on match payments. #SANFL

Bassett also played a host of kids at $250 a game. Hard to see how they could've gone over. #SANFL

And on West Adelaide:

Clubs structure their cap relying on a certain number of injuries. @WestAdelaideFC didn't have as many as expected. #SANFL

Club was aware they'd breach the cap and informed the #SANFL early in the piece. Good run of health is the cause.

Bloods face fine and potential recruiting restrictions. SA Football Commision will hand down penalty at a meeting later this month. #SANFL

MMCM ‏@mmcmsanfl
@WestAdelaideFC has admitted to breaching the cap. Just confirmed with CEO Kym Russell. #SANFL

Another name can be added to the title shortly. Once the Norwood and West issues are clearer, a third club will await their outcome.

eartotheground wrote:Another name can be added to the title shortly. Once the Norwood and West issues are clearer, a third club will await their outcome.

A feathered team earttg?

I cant believe a club's salary cap takes into account injuries. Surley players are put on a contract for the season and get paid regardless of how many games they play. How can a club possibly estimate the injury toll they may get for the season and then be held accountable if they dont get enough injuries and hence exceed the salary cap? or am I missing something here?

Not as simple as that Manny.

It is Port Magpies, and of course West who breached the Salary Cap in 2012...

SANFL Media Release wrote:

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

TWO CLUBS CHARGED WITH SALARY CAP BREACHES

The SA Football Commission wishes to advise that two SANFL clubs have been charged with breaching the 2012 Salary Cap.

Player payment details from the West Adelaide and Port Adelaide Magpies Football Clubs were presented to the Commission today (Tuesday, November 27) by the Salary Cap Auditor for deliberation.

West Adelaide has been charged with breaching the nominated $360,000 cap by $38,319 in the 2012 season.

Port Adelaide has been charged with exceeding the cap by $19,887.

Under the SANFL’s Salary Cap regulations, each club faces a potential $50,000 fine, which is the prescribed penalty for any club recording a Salary Cap breach of between $10,000 and $50,000.

However, the SA Football Commission can impose additional penalties at its discretion.

“All clubs are fully aware of the Salary Cap regulations and know that the potential consequences of breaching the cap can be very serious,” Mr Davies said.

“Correspondence was sent to both clubs this morning and they now have 14 days to respond to the charges before an official penalty is laid.

“It is important to note that in both cases, the clubs voluntarily disclosed the information to the Commission.”

eartotheground wrote:Another name can be added to the title shortly. Once the Norwood and West issues are clearer, a third club will await their outcome.

Another one correct for ETTG - nearly a week prior to the story being made official.

Further indications on where you can get reliable information before it breaks.

I always knew West and Port had the highest paid lists


#ofcoursetheyhave

Aristotle Ablett wrote:I always knew West and Port had the highest paid lists


#ofcoursetheyhave

Like Norwood did in 2009?

This release from the Magpies .....



MAGPIES SALARY CAP INVESTIGATION: 27 November 2012





The Port Adelaide Football Club is cooperating with an investigation that has led to the Magpies being charged with exceeding the SANFL salary cap by $19,877 in 2012.



A routine end-of-season review of Magpies player payments revealed unintentional administrative errors that led it to breach the annual limit, which the club brought to the attention of the SANFL.



The club has worked with SANFL officials throughout the investigation and apologises for the accidental mistakes which have led to its first SANFL salary cap charges.



An examination of all contracts and actual payments revealed:



· The Magpies paid $364,887 to players in 2012 - $4,887 over the $360,000 salary cap. This is an over-run traditionally adjudged technical by the SANFL and punishable by a dollar-for-dollar fine.



· $10,000 in previously contracted incentive payments scrapped as part of a club policy ahead of the 2012 season and not paid. Unfortunately, the club failed to lodge Amendment of Contract forms ahead of the 30 March deadline to advise the SANFL the payments would not be made. Accordingly, that $10,000 is deemed to have been paid and must be included in the club’s 2012 total player payments.



· $5,000 in salary cap-exempt Zone Allowance payments inadvertently allocated to ineligible players not from the Magpies country zone. Accordingly, that $5000 must be included in the club’s 2012 total player payments.



Combined, the reckoned payments take the club’s total player payments in 2012 to $379,887, $19,877 over the salary cap and subject to greater sanction from the SA Football Commission.



Magpies general manager Brian Leys said the mistakes were embarrassing, but stressed the club had lodged all player payments and contracts openly and in good faith with the SANFL at the outset of the season.



“The club declared all of its payment details as required, but unfortunately we had some accidental allocation errors and simple paperwork mistakes that weren’t detected by reviews during the season and only came to light at the end of the year,” Leys said.



The errors were made ahead of the SANFL’s 30 March lodgement deadline, at a time when the Magpies were transitioning through a change of management and getting the season underway.



The club has always intended to abide by all rules and strongly upholds the importance of maintaining a clear understanding of the regulations to avoid mistakes.



It has learnt from its errors and is already implementing new player contract protocols and internal checks ahead of the 2013 SANFL season.



The SANFL advised Port Adelaide of the charges today and has given the club 14 days to formally respond before the sanction is imposed.



It is important to note that Magpies player payment arrangements are administered separately to those of Port Adelaide’s AFL players.



Brian Leys
General Manager
Port Adelaide Football Club SANFL Division

I wonder if the next fine they get will also be explained away by administrative error.

It will be interesting to see if the rumors of penalty's come true. I don't think Port deserve a harsh penalty but probably need to be made an example of.

As for West I don't think they will get as harsh a penalties s they probably deserve. You can't explain paying over the cap by that much due to a good run with injuries. Simplified it's over 10% and nearly $2000 a game. That doesn't happen even on a good day but good luck to them if they manage to get away with a relative minor penalty.

I don't think there's any discretion with the fine. For breaches exceeding 10K it's a 50K fine. I think both fines are probably sizeable enough to warrant the recruiting bans too.

The penalties are both warranted.

The elephant in the room is how most of the other clubs can offer players better deals than Port and West and manage their superior lists below the cap.

As Basil would say "Don't mention the Cap".

As I said in the Tippett thread, it is nonsensical to fine clubs and bring them further to their knees.

Any penalty should relate to the breach. IE Salary cap, draft or whatever.

I also think too much is made by media, public and clubs in imposing heavy and non-proportional penalties to this issue