Ad hoc AFL

The AFL can be its own worst enemy and its prime weapon of self-inflicted pain is ad hoc decision making.

 

No-one other than Carlton and Chris Judd were pleased when Judd’s “ambassadorial” role with Blues sponsor Visy Industries was approved by the AFL. The arrangement netted the Carlton star an additional $200k per year outside of the Blues’ salary cap.

 

As one wag sagely noted in an online comment this week:

Last time [questions were raised about this arrangement], Judd came from nowhere and appeared on TV spruiking recycling for Visy. Until then you never heard about his "ambassador role" and the most he did was probably put his bin out.

The Age

 

Fast forward five years and the Crows are feeling the heat of AFL ire over their extra-contractual agreements with Kurt Tippett. Now, the AFL decides that the Visy payment to Judd must come within the limits of the salary cap.

 

These rule changes that seem to come from nowhere in response to media furores don’t do much to inspire confidence in AFL leadership.

 

Surely the most appropriate way to deal with these salary cap issues is to decide on, and announce, a crystal-clear definition of what can, and can’t, be done. Make it a five year arrangement, at which point it is reviewed. Declare an amnesty for non-compliant arrangements of one or two years. Once the amnesty is complete, contract arrangements must be squeaky clean and no correspondence will be entered into. Players and managers in breach will be delicensed immediately and serve a mandatory two-year ban. Clubs in breach should be forced to carry the contract in their salary cap for its duration despite the player being delicensed.

 

If someone gets creative and makes an undesirable contract, close the loophole in the next contract period. Make it part of the EBA with the Players’ Association.

 

The only conclusion that can be drawn currently is that senior AFL executives are out of their depth and dog-paddling to stay abreast of circumstances.