TOPIC:

If they have cheated, then eight points has to be deducted. Just like the Bulldogs. It has to be the same mun.

DD wrote:

Good to see your honesty freezin. There is precedence here Perth Glory under Kenny Lowe were sitting pretty at the top of the A League ladder then were stripped of all match points and banned from playing finals even if they managed to win enough games to qualify.

Was a mass player exodus that followed led by Danny Vukovic who was livid. I was always curious what this "magic" was that you referred to when you would say hopefully Doddy can weave his magic. Now we know. 😂

Doddy should hit up Marty Atkins to ask him what he's doing for a crust these days. Sounds on the surface like this could be worse than $ouths breach. With your club already suffering a big financial loss last year your club might be calling on Korda Mentha. Though they are busy atm managing Glory's situation.

Full story by JT on Sportfm. Wouldn't it be ironic if the previous Korda Mentha clients got parachuted into the finals? 🤣

www.sportfm.com.au/post/east-fremantle-salary-cap-investigation





 

Not sure you should be mentioning names here, DD- the statement mentions admin errors so not sure Doddy is at fault (yet). Time will tell

Geez sounds like EF are getting pinged for doubling up on players super payments, but only declaring one in the TPP. Not including a recruits sign on fee in the TPP, even though that same recruit, got recruited last minute by club in another comp. Not declaring 5K worth of match day award footy boots in the TPP.

Why would they double up on Super? No benefit to the player for 40 years!!! Sounds like a mistake to me.

ADMIN ERRORS, there always ADMIN ERRORS. they stuffed up intentionally or unintentionally, they must pay the penalty, sorry lads the rules are the rules.

Spot on Screemar.

There must be some sort of guidelines they go off here.

The clubs are well aware of what needs to be included in their salary cap and what doesn't... and even if there is some doubt, they can request a ruling from the WAFC. I'm just loving it that after all the innuendo against my club over the years, we're one of the few who have operated within the rules.

BC, we all know there are many ways to skin a cat or fatten a goat.

I guess  for the likes of the WAFC, it is less hassle  to audit  superannuation payments, player contracts and footy related items such footy boots....than non footy related items such as white goods, property, and sponsor employment opportunities. 

Fingers crossed EFFC can right a few of those wrongs here by: 

(1) reimbursing the WAFC any outstanding superannuation payments when those individuals turn 60.

(2) returning all  5K worth of  those 2022 footy boots to the WAFC... and

(3) ask the WAFC to demand the AFL,  abolish the SSP and mid season drafts immeadiately, enabling EF to atleast  receive some service for their paid in advance goods.

 

Listening to the post game radio review, the EF issue is, allegedly, that they paid the super to certain players twice, once to their nominated fund and a second lot to the player directly, which if true, and we do need to wait until some official confirmation, is out of order as you cant pay super direct to a person in my understanding. An external audit discovered this and advised EF who then advised the WAFC or the other way round. The report then went on to say it was technically not a salary cap rort as Super is separate from a salary, so if thats the case, EF might escape the massive penalties applied to SF who's salary cap rort must have been significant. Either way the timing is unfortunate as it's cast a shadow over what promised to be a ripping finals round. Could the WAFC have delayed the announcement? Maybe but these organisations leak like a sieve, so as soon as it gets to a journo, JT in this case, it's going to go public.


As i said, that info is second hand from a radio report, I'm sure a proper clarification will come from the WAFC shortly.

That is also my understanding, that superannuation cannot be paid to a person directly. Simply doesn't happen that way. Amounts need to be directed to a nominated fund as it normally is.
It all sounds like a storm in a tea cup.