AFL fails test of character

Theres an issue here no doubt. Garlett though has been a bit silly in the leadup and has only himself to blame. The others may well have been overlooked for any trouble they've been in no matter how small. For me this is a direct result of taking kids away from families too soon. 17/18 year olds - especially with issues - could use some time maturing in state leagues before being recruited but the AFL just wont wait. Its Youth or Die.

Oh my,there might be 78 in 2011,but i will bet that number is dropping. In the future the numbers could possibly be half that amount . & AR dont attack the messenger (seems to be a real trait amongst AFL types,just ask Rendall). Here is the article,i suppose they look silly for writing the truth.. JUST three indigenous players were recruited to AFL clubs in this year's national draft and another was redrafted by his club just months after Adelaide recruiter Matt Rendell was sacked for warning the AFL clubs were increasingly wary of recruiting indigenous players. Fremantle selected Josh Simpson with its first-round draft pick, at pick 17; Gold Coast chose Tim Sumner, brother of former Sydney player Byron, with pick 55; and Geelong chose Bradley Hartman with pick 77, while West Coast redrafted Brad Dick with pick 79. It was a stark drop from several years ago when 25 per cent of the draft was indigenous. This year the talented but troubled Dayle Garlett, considered a top-10 player on talent alone, was not selected at all in the draft. Similarly Shannon Taylor, Chris Yarran and Marvin Morell, all footballers with the ability to play the game at elite level, were also overlooked. Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/indigenous-numbers-fall-20121122-29te3.html#ixzz2E4uk1yHF

Thanks TC. Best laugh I've had all day!

Yes Wook, the Essendon breach was by far the most serious and I apologise for not directing my initial "comment" at them. It was your first comment that hit the wrong note as far as I was concerned, as it did nothing to further the topic, other than trying to justify Carlton's deal with Visy, to earn Juddy a couple of extra dollars. Ultimately the Eagles couldn't match the offer (or didn't want to and Juddy seemed pretty keen to head home, anyway). The problem I see is this sort of "deal" just opens the door for all these other options to be explored and compared and if all else fails, to be pointed at and offered up as an excuse for somebody else doing the wrong thing. I do remember a famous video of John Elliott make some sort of reference to salary cap cheating after a big win over Essendon. Will have to see if I can find that one - maybe post the link for you. The clubs not listed in my earlier post are all "playing by the rules" apparently - Richmond, St. Kilda, North Melbourne, Collingwood, Bulldogs, Hawthorn even. Between them, 5 premierships since the AFL started in 1990. On the other side, Sydney, Brisbane, Carlton, Essendon, West Coast, Geelong & Melbourne (not that it matters) plus Adelaide now, have won 16 premierships under the AFL banner. Very interesting stat. I'll leave it at that.

last week it was 38 one day, and 18 the next in Adelaide. Go figure. t might as well b Melbourne these days

Again, While I appreciate the lecture on my own clubs history. Thats not what i was addressing in your initial statement. Most reasonable carlton people are well aware that our punishment fit the crime at the time. It does not compare with the Visy deal being passed by the AFL. The fact is by 2002 when the AFL penalised carlton most of the players involved were retired. Only Allan as still playing and he recieved a suspension. Ill note that your first quoted instance was the swans in 1987, note the massve Essendoin and melbourne fines prior to 2002, (and ignore the fact there was an amnesty in the early 90s) and yet you'e drawn the conclusion that he Blues invented the brown paper bag? How odd. Im forced to ask if you read what you cut and paste. And I dont think the Crows punishment was enough, intent to breach the cap should be treated the same as a breach.

There you go - courtesy of Superfooty. Carlton is well known to have received the heaviest penalty in 2002, which the club says hurt it for a decade. But many others have felt the wrath of the AFL over time, as this list suggests. * 1987, Sydney were fined the maximum of $60,000 and forfeited their first round pick in the National Draft after a VFL investigation found that they had exceeded the salary cap by $1.15 million during the season. * In 1992, Sydney were fined $50,000 after it was found that they had failed to disclose payments made to former player Greg Williams during the 1990 season; Williams was suspended for six matches and fined the maximum of $25,000 for accepting the payments. * In 1994, Carlton were fined $50,000 after it was found that they had exceeded the salary cap by $85,000 during the 1993 season. * In 1995, Sydney were fined $20,000 after key documents relating to player financial details and star full-forward Tony Lockett's contract details were lost in the post by club officials, forcing the club, who had won the last three wooden spoons, to scratch from the 1995 pre-season draft and play the season two players short. The club officials responsible were fired by the Swans one week later. * In 1996, Essendon were fined a record $638,250 ($250,000 in back tax and penalties, $112,000 for draft tampering and $276,250 for breaching the salary cap regulations), forfeited their first, second and third round picks in the National Draft and were excluded from the 1997 rookie and pre-season drafts after a joint Australian Tax Office and AFL investigation found that they had committed serious and systematic breaches of the salary cap regulations totalling $514,500 between 1991 and 1996. * In 1998, the West Coast Eagles were fined $100,000 and forfeited their third round pick in the National Draft after it was found that they had exceeded the salary cap by a total of $165,000 during the 1997 and 1998 seasons. * Geelong were fined $77,000 in 1998 and excluded from the 1999 pre-season draft after it was found that they had exceeded the salary cap by $154,000 during the 1997 season. * In 1999, Melbourne were fined $600,000 and forfeited their first, second and third round picks in the National Draft for two years after it was found that they had committed serious and systematic breaches of the salary cap regulations totalling $810,000 between 1995 and 1998. * In 2001, Carlton were fined $125,150, forfeited their second and third round picks in the 2001 National Draft and were excluded from the 2002 pre-season draft after it was found that they had failed to disclose payments totaling $239,900 to captain Craig Bradley and incorrectly lodged an additional services agreement document during the 1998 and 1999 seasons. * In 2002, Carlton were fined a record $987,500 and forfeited their priority picks in the National Draft, their first and second round picks in the National Draft for two years and were excluded from the 2003 pre-season draft after an AFL investigation found that they had committed serious and systematic breaches of the salary cap regulations totaling $1.37 million between 1998 and 2001. * In 2003, Brisbane were fined $260,000 for late lodgement of documents relating to the contract and financial details of 26 players. The brown paper bag seems to be Calton invention. Yes - the AFL sanctioned Chis Judd's deal with Visy. But it has opened up Pandora's box by doing so. Hence, the failure to really whack the Crows and put out there a big deterrent. Instead you may have somebody looking at it and thinking $300K and a couple of draft picks verus a premiership? Might be worththe punt!!!

Would you like me too find a non-Carlton one to use - is that it?

RedB, They are rapidly becoming clearer ... with the key rule being "show the deal to the AFL first".

maybe its one example, but its the one you chose, and it was sanctioned by the AFL at the time. Nothing grey or wrong about the deal from a carlton perspective.

Well i can sit aound and believe in conspiracy theories or I can believe what Adelaide staff told local radio in Adelaide and local news, or what demetriou told national television. Or I can make stuff up too.

hell i should have piced it up: tat'll learn me to post when i wake up

If Saints had won and gone through, AND Hall was their "star player", then he would have got off is my guess. In addition to my previous comment, the AFL has the same problem with Melbourne. Behind closed doors the AFL are probably screaming at the Demons board for being so stupid. Now they have to issue a penalty that doesn't result in the Demons lingering down the bottom of the ladder for another 5 years AND minimises the damage to the AFL's integrity. They also have to think about the damage to the Jimmy Stynes legacy.

Or Dirty Deeds, Done Dirt Cheap! Who would you play, Col?

Here what your saying Jonesy. They do have to make decisions for the good of the game and establish the "even playing field". I did want Hall to get a week in the 2005 prelim final. Being a Saint's supporter, it has always irked me that Fraser Gehrig got a week for a tummy tap on Cloke, who was hanging on to his jumper, even after the ball crossed the boundary line and was at their feet. Yet Hall can whack Goose Maguire when the ball is half the length of the field away and gets nothing but a goal and a pat on the back. I wonder what he would have copped if he was still wearing a St. Kilda jumper?

Every year since I have been following the game there has been dramas. Should actually mention that Adelaide were the ones that done the shonky deal with out Tippets knowledge (So he says) and arent players responsible for their contracts. I do not normally come out in support of the AFL very often but they did not do the deal -Adelaide did and they (AFL) are trying to clean up the mess. I see an article today headed "Contract Classes" - How appropriate. If the 18 clubs do not do the right thing it will end in a shambles eventually. Change of topic - Good on ya Izzy -I thought you would go to Rugby Union - A genuine International code along with Soccer Football.

NeeDeep. I too agree that there is a good chance Adelaide made veiled threats and/or the AFL had to go soft because they know its prevalent. Patrick Smith in the Australian today wrote another damning piece on the AFL Commissioners, but he, like many others, simply fails to mention that the problem is in fact that every club is doing the "Tippet thing", its hard to police, and the AFL has to weigh up the pros and cons of any penalty. The other thing people forget is that its just a sport at the end of the day and the AFL is there to deliver the best possible competition in can. A few people are clearly upset the book wasn't thrown at Adelaide. But lets say it was? We then have two Adelaide clubs that don't perform and sit near the bottom of the ladder. Maybe put it another way; when Hall punched his opponent in the guts in the prelim final in 2005, how many of us really wanted Hall to get a game and miss the Grand Final? Very few I imagine. I am not saying this is right or wrong, I'm just saying the AFL faces problems and makes judgement calls that are in the interests of the competition. If there is an overwhelming negative response to the Adelaide penalty and the game suffers, then it was the wrong call. My guess is the grumblings over the penalty will extend into 2013, but not enough to stop people going to or watching Aussie Rules.

db swannie In 2011 there was 78 indigenous players in the AFL. Not only are these figures way over the proportion of population for indigenous Australians, but it far exceeds the ratio of indignenous players in any other sporting code in Australia. I understand you don't happen to like Australian Footy, but these comments just make you sound silly.

Swings and round-a-bouts, bit like NSW/QLD kids getting drafted, one year there is plenty, the next - not so many.

Yes it was Rendell that was the fall guy, I should've picked up Wookies comment of "Mifsud". The comment about Rendells views having validity is absolutely true, case in point the young Indigeneous lad picked up by Freo in this draft, he has recently become a father and some clubs were very concerned of his ability to adapt to both fatherhood and AFL football, this would be hard for any kid from any background but is think more difficult for a kid in his circumstances being so far away from family. A lot if this is what Rendell was trying to solve and discuss. I still have trouble believing that Adelaide would sack their gun recruiter over this without massive pressure from the AFL. And as if Adelaide are going to say "the AFL made us sack him"...yeh right.