Including Scully Snr in salary cap only increases suspicion
Columnist By Ben Somerford, 1 Dec 2011 Ben Somerford is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- AFL, Greater Western Sydney Giants, Phill Scully, Tom Scully
Tom Scully looks on during a Melbourne Demons training session at AAMI Park. Slattery Images
Related coverage
Either Phil Scully’s recruitment role at Greater Western Sydney is legitimate and outside the salary cap, or it’s part of his son Tom’s playing contract and sits inside the salary cap. That’s the plain and simple truth. Yet somehow the whole issue has become murky.
AFL salary cap investigations officer Ken Wood said: “Really what has happened is that the club and the AFL have agreed that for the avoidance of any doubt it should go in the cap. I guess unfortunately what that’s done is create this perception that there’s something about it that’s not bona fide.”
Indeed it has. If there’s nothing to hide, why put Scully Snr’s salary in the cap?
GWS CEO Dave Matthews added on SEN Radio earlier this week: “Can you be more transparent than actually putting something in the cap that you may not even have needed to?”
The problem is it’s one way or the other. If the AFL or GWS can’t explain that, then there’s always going to be a perception something isn’t right.
Of course, this wasn’t a big deal until GWS realised Phil Scully’s reported $680,000 six-year deal would become an issue in a few years time when their young assets begin to demand better contracts. There will be salary cap pressure and they’ll end up losing good players.
Now there’s some talk GWS want his contract taken off the salary cap, with Matthews hinting at it and coach Kevin Sheedy forthrightly stating it.
Sheedy said this week: “I think there’s been an over-reaction. I think we’ve got the right to pick any person that we want to recruit for us. It could be Andrew Demetriou’s cousin, it doesn’t matter, it’s irrelevant.”
Of course, the question remains over the legitimacy of Scully Snr’s role at GWS. That decision itself goes back to Wood.
But Scully Snr’s previous employer, the Sydney Swans, backed him as a recruiter on Wednesday.
Swans manager of player personnel Kinnear Beatson said: “I’ve always found him to have a good eye for it (recruiting). If we had the budget for a full-time position, I would have no hesitation in approaching Phil.”
It’s worth noting, Scully Snr held a part-time role with the Swans where he was paid $10,000 per year. GWS’s contract is quite the increase, even if it is a full-time role. Some may say that’s evidence of an inducement.
The reality is, from afar, that’s hard to assess. But surely someone can make a decision one way or the other. That’s the best way to eradicate doubt; make a decision.
Either it’s legitimate or it’s not.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
The Crowd Says (16) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
- AFL, Greater Western Sydney Giants, Phill Scully, Tom Scully
December 1st 2011 @ 9:17am
Ian Whitchurch said | December 1st 2011 @ 9:17am | Report comment
Part of why this beat-up occured – and it is a beatup – is that the AFL’s clubs have been darn successful in hiding the level of wage inflation in uncapped staff salaries, so people here $100k a year and go ‘rort ! rort!’, because they think assistants are on what they used to be on ten years ago, rather than what they are on now.
The AFLPA has stated recruiter wages have gone up 19% a year for the last 5 years, and that turns $42k into $100k after 5 years.
There has been one other data point in this about what recruiters are paid – a BigFooty poster claiming a mate of his was a recruiter and earned $125k.
But, basically, it comes down to the facts that (a) the AFL is making the rules up on this as they go along, and (b) in his “investigation” Wood never phoned Phil Scully’s previous employer regarding whether he was worth promoting from part time to full time.
December 1st 2011 @ 9:52am
The Cattery said | December 1st 2011 @ 9:52am | Report comment
Sounds about right – he was employed by the Swans as a recruiter on a part-time basis. Is it extravagant to pay a recruiter $100,000 per annum on a full-time basis? I don’t know – but it seems to me some are making value judgements (vis-a-vis what they might earn as a bank clerk or a deep-sea diver) as to whether that is appropriate, rather than looking at market rates for that sort of role.
December 1st 2011 @ 10:07pm
Oracle said | December 1st 2011 @ 10:07pm | Report comment
Recruiters don’t get 6 year contracts, not even coaches,let alone Andrew Demetriou, that is why it smells so much.
December 1st 2011 @ 10:58pm
Ian Whitchurch said | December 1st 2011 @ 10:58pm | Report comment
Oracle,
How many recruiters contracts have you seen ? The public information about them is two-thirds of stuff all.
As well, are you absolutely sure there arent any termination clauses in the contract ?
Again, it’s a beat-up.
December 1st 2011 @ 9:50am
TomC said | December 1st 2011 @ 9:50am | Report comment
Well, the whole premise of this article is just totally flawed.
It almost definitely isn’t a case of either/or here. I don’t think anyone believes that Phil Scully signing for GWS is just one massive coincidence. But then I’m sure they want to get value for money out of him as a recruiter as well.
If Scully is being paid at market rate for his services I don’t really have a problem with it being ex salary cap.
December 1st 2011 @ 9:55am
The Cattery said | December 1st 2011 @ 9:55am | Report comment
One thing is for sure, if the amount doesn’t belong in the salary cap, it shouldn’t be plonked there just because a handful of people think it’s extravagant paying someone $100,000 per annum to be a recruiter – either the salary cap rules specifically mention this sort of scenario, or they don’t. If they do – fine, if they don’t, you take it out – simple as that.
With GWS precariously placed between getting a half-competitive team out on the paddock next season, and getting smashed by 20 goals every week, that $100,000 can buy another strong body, and they need it.
December 1st 2011 @ 1:22pm
Ian Whitchurch said | December 1st 2011 @ 1:22pm | Report comment
The Cattery,
There are no rules. Its all on “a case by case basis”.
December 1st 2011 @ 12:19pm
Jaceman said | December 1st 2011 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
Certainly increases the chances of him staying – the qn is why GWS has invested so much in one kid with a bad knee…
December 1st 2011 @ 10:59pm
Ian Whitchurch said | December 1st 2011 @ 10:59pm | Report comment
Because (a) they think he’s going to be a very, very good football player, and (b) Melbourne made a huge offer to hold him.
December 1st 2011 @ 6:14pm
yewonk said | December 1st 2011 @ 6:14pm | Report comment
exactly jaceman i dot see half the value in this kid. he is going to have some pressure on him over the years too with the young guys coming through wanting better deals. given the amount of head starts gws have already been given it and if it is a case by case decision how easy would it be for the afl to ignore whatever principles they have in mind in such a situation and just give gws another pass.
December 1st 2011 @ 7:53pm
The Cattery said | December 1st 2011 @ 7:53pm | Report comment
But if this situation is not stated in the rules, then it’s not a case of “another pass”.
Either make it explicit or forget about it.
December 1st 2011 @ 10:05pm
Oracle said | December 1st 2011 @ 10:05pm | Report comment
Fat Phil had the big offer on the table for 12 months while still in the employ of the Swans. It hasn’t helped Tom with his explanations of only making his mind up in September 2011 and being unaware of his father signing up as a GWS recruiter. His credibility is not great as a result and the more he says, the worse it looks for him.
The football public are not mushrooms.
December 1st 2011 @ 11:09pm
The Cattery said | December 1st 2011 @ 11:09pm | Report comment
Tom is being offered a small fortune to switch clubs, and you reckon that the fact that his dad is about to earn $100,000 per annum will somehow seal the deal?
If he had never worked as a recruiter, yeh, it would look extremely suspect, but the fact is that he has been working part-time as a recruiter with another AFL club, in fact, it’s the only other club in Sydney!!
December 2nd 2011 @ 12:40am
Jack Russell said | December 2nd 2011 @ 12:40am | Report comment
Keep in mind that all clubs must pay 92.5% of the cap. Given the GWS list is 75% rookies on close to minimum wage with many of the rest not commanding high salaries either, I wonder if Scully Sr’s deal has been included to get it up to the required level.
December 2nd 2011 @ 5:33am
amazonfan said | December 2nd 2011 @ 5:33am | Report comment
Especially since their salary cap is larger than that of other clubs. Interesting point.
December 2nd 2011 @ 9:44am
Ian Whitchurch said | December 2nd 2011 @ 9:44am | Report comment
Scully etc have had their contracts very very heavily frontloaded – they are incredibly well paid in year one, and possibly getting minimum wage in years 3-5. This lets GWS move cap space to when they will need it to re-sign their 20 or so first round-equivalent picks (remember to count Shiel, Hampton etc, and they still have 2 17 year olds to trade, and they have the compo picks they traded for. This is a lot of contract extentions).