AFL penalises without punishing

[Hotdog60]

This is a article written by Les Zigomanis LINK

In light of whats been going on in the AFL lately it's an interesting point of view.

Read on.

There have been so many transgressions lately in the AFL, you'd be forgiven for believing they'd whack hard in response, not only to punish the offender, but to caution anybody else thinking of following in the offender's footsteps.

However, thinking about this the other day, I could recall only two incidents – in my opinion – where the AFL punished a guilty-party of wrongdoing. These were disallowing Brett Chalmers from playing for Collingwood for three years, when Collingwood were accused of draft tampering in 1993; the other was suspending Justin Charles for sixteen games in 1997 after he tested positive for steroids.

That's it, as far as I'm concerned – the only two occasions offenders were punished.

Now I'm sure some will point to the penalties handed out to Carlton for breaching the salary cap following the 2002 season. But, for mine, whilst the penalties were extreme, and whilst they were penalising, they actually weren't punishing.

Fines are irrelevant in the modern competition, given the AFL will ultimately just subsidize any club financially struggling. Clubs are now too intricately interwoven into the broadcast rights to allow one to suddenly disappear.

As for the loss of draft picks, how much did they really hurt? Compare Carlton to the Western Bulldogs: the Bulldogs have come off a moderately successful period, their older, better players have now retired (or are in their declining years), and they're forced to embrace a full rebuild. If you took away a couple of first rounders, it might stall the rebuild, but it's not really going to affect the fortunes of a club which'll probably sit in the bottom four for the next few years.

Similarly with Carlton back then. They were coming off moderate success (a grand final appearance in 1999, finals in 2000 and 2001), and their older guns were on the way out. They were one of the last (if not the last) club to embrace the new AFL environment (drafting, rebuilding), so the bottom dropped out. Depriving them of a Goddard and Wells, for example, really didn't affect their fortunes in the short and medium term. If anything, the presence of them might've improved them just enough that they would've missed out on Murphy, Gibbs, Kreuzer (and also the currency to secure Judd).

Still, given the penalties (on Carlton) were meant to be the AFL's ironclad imposition on cheating the salary cap, their line in the sand, you would think anybody guilty of any similar indiscretions would be given a proper whack.

Not so. Look at Adelaide. They've been struck with a feather. Worse – farcically – but the player at the centre of their rorting (in Kurt Tippett) has still been able to get to his preferred destination. Who the hell was punished here? Was anybody? Carlton supporters would be forgiven for feeling robbed.

Then you have the Melbourne Football Club, levelled by admissions of tanking. We all know the AFL system encourages clubs who are not in the finals hunt to finish as low as possible and gain access to the best young talent in the country. This was particularly true when priority picks existed. I'm unsure how some in the media can deny this occurs. In fact, clubs – any clubs – should be charged with ignorance and stupidity if, given the opportunity, they don't attempt to exploit the system.

And now there's admissions from Melbourne themselves they tanked (even after the AFL proclaimed tanking did not exist), and what's happened? The penalties which have been announced (a $500,000 fine and suspensions for Chris Connolly and Dean Bailey) are laughable.

Why should any subsequent club follow the AFL's regulations when there really seems no meaningful punishment for infractions? How does anybody learn?

For mine, if you're going to punish a club, then the penalties need to be karmic. For example, if a club cheats the salary cap by $500,000, then I would rule that club must operate with $500,000 less in their salary cap for the next ten years. That's at least one very good player, or a couple of good ones. As the club cheated the salary cap to hold onto talent, they must now operate on a lesser player field, which increases their risk of losing talent. If you've tanked, deregister the players gained for two years, which'll force that club to trade those players – probably at a bargain price. Sure, you can still issue fines and deprive clubs of draft picks, but clubs should also meaningfully feel the punishment of their crimes.

This is how it should play out. You can penalise a club. Or you can punish them. Punishing them should disadvantage them every bit as much as their transgressions advantaged them. Penalising them is like giving three years for assault to a prisoner already serving life.

Of course, though, that's just my opinion.

Now let's see how the AFL handle the next offender.

[LostDoggy]

It's an interesting article alright.

The criticism of the Crows and Dees' treeatment is spot on. What real disincentive is there to prevent these transgressions recurring?

Demetriou talks tough (anybody found guilty of tanking will never work in football again) but when it comes to the crunch they wimp out of it for fear of costly legal battles, a battle by the way, where they can be the only winner given that their resources are far supeior to that of any club.

They can act tough when it comes to the political correctness matters (Matthew Rendell says hi) but when it comes to issues threatening the integrity of the game, it seems it is all too hard.

[MrMahatma]

Good article.

Penalties to the Dees and Crows are a joke.

On those, it's worth the risk to break AFL rules.

[GVGjr]

To be honest I'm as mad as hell with the AFL about this decision.

Right from the start of the investigation it would appear that the final outcome was always going to be weighed down by the fact that they had to defend Andrew Demetriou insistence that tanking was not part of the AFL and any decision made could not compromise that point.

Are we really to believe that Chris Connolly bullied Dean Bailey into structuring the side not to win games?

Are we really to believe that after a season of media speculation that the Melbourne Football club was tanking games that Cameron Schwab didn't call his two main football managers in and make sure they were on the same page about the necessity to win as many games as they could and that the notion of tanking as not acceptable?

Are we really to believe that Don McLardy has accepted the 'umpires decision' on the $500,000 fine when in fact they weren't found guilty of tanking?

Are we really to believe that Don McLardy hasn't made Cameron Schwab accountable for the mismanagement of the football department which resulted in a $500,000 fine for a club that rarely makes a profit?

Are we really to believe that Gillon McLachlan oversaw an investigation into tanking but apparently doesn't understand what that reference really means?

I could go on.

The AFL has completed an investigation into a serious issue by brokering deals to protect the game rather than obtaining all the facts and acting on it no matter what.

As supporters we should expect more from them, a lot more.

The only way to get the AFL to stop treating the members like fools is to hit them where it hurts and the only thing they care about is crowd attendance.

With that in mind my proposal that I would like to put forward to football members of every other club is to stop attending any Melbourne home games.

Can you imagine the AFL trying to explain why the Dees only had 10,000 people attending their home games?

We need to send a sharp message to the AFL and I'd love to start a petition that tells the AFL that they have made a gross error with this highly compromised outcome about the issue of tanking.

Does anyone have more to add?

[Remi Moses]

Would have been nice if the AFL just fessed up and admitted they were wrong .
They basically set up a system where it they'd be insane if they didn't tank.
So they didn't tank but Bailey and Connolly have been suspended ! 500,000 fine, but they didn't tank. Hasn't been a great couple of weeks for the AFL.

[AndrewP6]

I don't disagree with what you've said GVGjr, I just think trying to tell the AFL they're wrong is a futile exercise. Living in Make Believe Land has clouded their perception of reality.

[jeemak]

Nice post GVGjr.

Boycotting the Queens Birthday home game for the coming few years would be a nice message to send.

[westdog54]

The only way to get the AFL to stop treating the members like fools is to hit them where it hurts and the only thing they care about is crowd attendance.

With that in mind my proposal that I would like to put forward to football members of every other club is to stop attending any Melbourne home games.

Can you imagine the AFL trying to explain why the Dees only had 10,000 people attending their home games?

We need to send a sharp message to the AFL and I'd love to start a petition that tells the AFL that they have made a gross error with this highly compromised outcome about the issue of tanking.

Does anyone have more to add?

I think two messages definitely need to be sent.

One to the AFL that AFL fans are sick and tired of being made to look stupid, and another to the Dees to tell them that we're not going to let them get away with what is flat out cheating.

I'm usually a defender of the AFL and I'm far from militant but I'm with you 100% on this. The AFL has spent months and months huffing and puffing about the integrity of the game but they seem incapable of blowing the house down, lest they put themselves in a situation where they may appear even slightly foolish.

If the Adelaide and Melbourne incidents had happened under Ross Oakley or Wayne Jackson, god help them. When you look at the penalty handed down to Carlton for their breaches its hard to fathom how the parties to these incidents have escaped so lightly.

If there was any sense of justice or fairness with anything that the AFL did, Kurt Tippett would not be playing at all this year, his manager stripped of their accreditation, Chris Connolly and Dean Bailey would not be working in football again and their respective CEOs would not be far behind them. But to do this would involve the AFL eating some form of humble pie, which we all know will not happen.

Gillon McLachlan was one of the few at AFL house that never has given so much as a hint that he didn't have a handle on things, but he's been made to look positively amateurish on the back of this investigation.

As for Cameron Schwab, you nominated him as an Eker in another thread and its an apt description. Will surely never work in professional sport again once his time at Melbourne is up.

[bornadog]

Totally agree with Gvgjr on this, its unbelievably weak by the AFL. In fact many of the penalties and so called findings in various investigations are too insipid.

The AFL should take a leaf from the way the NRL dishes out punishments.

The AFL just buries its head in the sand on major issues such as drugs, game attendance, stadium deals, Collingwood away jumper, etc etc as well as tanking.

[Ghost Dog]

I think two messages definitely need to be sent.

One to the AFL that AFL fans are sick and tired of being made to look stupid, and another to the Dees to tell them that we're not going to let them get away with what is flat out cheating.

Is anyone surprised by any of this? the old boys network runs deep.
Melbourne Footy Club is a pathetic outfit and you cannot tell me that employees other than those penalised were not totally complicit.

[Go_Dogs]

Great post GVGjr, agree with every bit of it.

I'm pretty passionate about my footy, but the arrogance and incompetency of the administration has me a bit flat at the moment, whereas I'm normally getting pretty excited about the upcoming season. It's a culture of cover ups and deflection at AFL house and it really needs to become a more transparent body because at the moment it's amateur.

[LostDoggy]

Just imagine how mad we're going to be when Essendon get away with theirs.

[KT31]

Just imagine how mad we're going to be when Essendon get away with theirs.

I don't want to believe it, but think it is inevitable that Essendon will get none or a very light penalty.

[Ghost Dog]

With only three of a possible nine of the commissioners as ex players, I think it explains a bit.

[jeemak]

With only three of a possible nine of the commissioners as ex players, I think it explains a bit.

Care to elaborate?

Don't really know what you mean...........