TOPIC:

ArkRoyal wrote: I would love to know how they proved any of this?

Some interesting talk on the ammo thread Ark

DW: thanks -- I actually read the thread last night, and to be honest, all seems above board in terms of the decision. If the player admitted he was offered money, and that is against the rules, then you could not rule in favour of the club. Have I read it all correctly?

ArkRoyal wrote: DW: thanks -- I actually read the thread last night, and to be honest, all seems above board in terms of the decision. If the player admitted he was offered money, and that is against the rules, then you could not rule in favour of the club. Have I read it all correctly?

Reading Ando1984's comments from earlier today puts another spin on it if true. Seems to be the way in footy. No absolute proof but you may have transgressed despite lack of actual evidence so 100% guilty. A stat dec by a player who has been threatened with suspension is hardly damning evidence if coerced in to doing so to save his own bacon. $40000 fine will break and destroy an ammo club so I would hope the evidence is bloody damning in the least. I have absolutely no affiliation to this club either mate, just seems like pretty harsh justice when the A grade clubs have been dishing out cash for decades and the commission turns a blind eye and conveniently throws it in the all too hard basket.

With all due respect to those with "ïnside info", it doesn't sound like we're getting the full picture. I simply can't believe that the WAAFL would impose such a penalty based on a player simply stating that he received an offer for travel money. There HAS to be more evidence to support that scenario.

Further, as far as I'm aware, the $40k fine is a maximum penalty, not one that has been imposed in this scenario. I'd be shocked if the actual fine was remotely close to that.

As some have mentioned, I don't think it's as simple as people think to get concrete evidence supporting player payments. Particularly for an organisation that is not massively resourced.

I suspect there is a smoking gun somewhere in this event and they're setting an example to ward off other clubs from doing the same.

Underdog wrote: With all due respect to those with "ïnside info", it doesn't sound like we're getting the full picture. I simply can't believe that the WAAFL would impose such a penalty based on a player simply stating that he received an offer for travel money. There HAS to be more evidence to support that scenario.

Further, as far as I'm aware, the $40k fine is a maximum penalty, not one that has been imposed in this scenario. I'd be shocked if the actual fine was remotely close to that.

As some have mentioned, I don't think it's as simple as people think to get concrete evidence supporting player payments. Particularly for an organisation that is not massively resourced.

I suspect there is a smoking gun somewhere in this event and they're setting an example to ward off other clubs from doing the same.

Good post, which certainly makes sense.

Underdog wrote: With all due respect to those with "ïnside info", it doesn't sound like we're getting the full picture. I simply can't believe that the WAAFL would impose such a penalty based on a player simply stating that he received an offer for travel money. There HAS to be more evidence to support that scenario.

Further, as far as I'm aware, the $40k fine is a maximum penalty, not one that has been imposed in this scenario. I'd be shocked if the actual fine was remotely close to that.

As some have mentioned, I don't think it's as simple as people think to get concrete evidence supporting player payments. Particularly for an organisation that is not massively resourced.

I suspect there is a smoking gun somewhere in this event and they're setting an example to ward off other clubs from doing the same.

Would be remarkable if the max $40k was applied for this type of offence given WAFL team Perth were only slapped with a $20k fine for a salary cap breach reduced to $10k on appeal, seem out of whack.

Senior Seagull wrote:

Underdog wrote: With all due respect to those with "ïnside info", it doesn't sound like we're getting the full picture. I simply can't believe that the WAAFL would impose such a penalty based on a player simply stating that he received an offer for travel money. There HAS to be more evidence to support that scenario.

Further, as far as I'm aware, the $40k fine is a maximum penalty, not one that has been imposed in this scenario. I'd be shocked if the actual fine was remotely close to that.

As some have mentioned, I don't think it's as simple as people think to get concrete evidence supporting player payments. Particularly for an organisation that is not massively resourced.

I suspect there is a smoking gun somewhere in this event and they're setting an example to ward off other clubs from doing the same.

Would be remarkable if the max $40k was applied for this type of offence given WAFL team Perth were only slapped with a $20k fine for a salary cap breach reduced to $10k on appeal, seem out of whack.

FMD this practice has been rife in A Grade and other grades and WAFL for years so they know want to draw the line in the sand? If that is going to be the case apply the rule consistently from hereon and do not waver as they have in the past........

ArkRoyal wrote: I would love to know how they proved any of this?

An ex player complained, and signed a stat dec

Tiger Tales wrote: A B Grade club was removed from the competition part way through this season.

That was for other reasons