He was asked about the club's failure to embrace the draft. His answer was that it was illegal!
| TalkingCarlton http://talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/ |
|
| John Elliott on the draft/salary cap http://talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9437 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Blues2005 [ Sun Apr 16, 2006 4:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | John Elliott on the draft/salary cap |
Happened to hear part of a Triple M interview with former President John Elliott before this afternoon's game. One of his repeated claims, certainly since his ousting as President, has been that the draft/salary cap system is illegal and if challenged in court they would be no more. Whilst I realise that much of the stuff Jack says must be taken with a pinch of salt, I wonder what the basis for such a claim is and if there is actually any truth to it? Perhaps some of the legal eagles on TC such as CarltonClem could enlighten us further? Why would the current system be 'illegal'? I'm just curious... |
|
| Author: | Pafloyul [ Sun Apr 16, 2006 5:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
You know what the yanks are like; if it hasn't been taken to court there, then it would have no chance here. |
|
| Author: | BlueWorld [ Sun Apr 16, 2006 5:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
He was asked about the club's failure to embrace the draft. His answer was that it was illegal!
|
|
| Author: | steve [ Sun Apr 16, 2006 5:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Not sure if the draft would be illegal. His arguments have always focused on industrial relations law, that the draft and salary cap are a restraint of trade for the players, who should be able to choose where they play and what salary they can negotiate. He should be glad the salary cap and draft exist, in our current situation we'd be killed by the financially strong clubs if it was like the old days. |
|
| Author: | Kaptain Kouta [ Sun Apr 16, 2006 5:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think, from memory, the "Salary cap is illegal" argument is something like this: It's a restraint of trade. It stops clubs paying players what they're worth, and stops players being paid what they're worth in an open market. Ergo, it stops clubs being able to run unfettered about their business of creating and running a football club in a football comp where they're supposed to be running for success. |
|
| Author: | Barnesy [ Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think the draft etc is one of those things that we just have too let be. If it's challenged it may be illegal, however, it can also stuff up our game and end clubs. |
|
| Author: | barrel47 [ Sun Apr 16, 2006 8:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
KK, Think you wrapped it up in a nutshell. Interesting that 5-10 years ago, if we were to challenge the fabric of the salary cap, we were best placed to take advantage of it. Now, if it happened, we'd go the way of the Roos, Dogs et al. I think it is now our friend - which is interesting given that it was what started nobbling us (that and the stand). |
|
| Author: | ubettsya [ Mon Apr 17, 2006 12:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Interesting to hear him on 3AW today, he said that when he left the Carlton Football Club he left it in a financially good state....Caroline Wilson with a real angry lisp...Ripped into him and faced him with the payments under the table fine and said that Carlton could barely survive cause of that and you sit here and tell me that you left the club in a good financial situation.....I thinkth your dreaminth there....It was a pisser of an interview... |
|
| Author: | Loyal Carltonian [ Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Barrell 47 is right. Unfortunately in the financial position we're in if the salary cap went tomorrow then we would suffer even further on the field unless a white knight came along ala Abramovic at Chelsea and was willing to spend big time. There are a lot of influential Carlton people in the business world but it takes a special person to put their hands in their pocket. |
|
| Author: | jim [ Mon Apr 17, 2006 8:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: John Elliott on the draft/salary cap |
Blues2005 wrote: Happened to hear part of a Triple M interview with former President John Elliott before this afternoon's game. One of his repeated claims, certainly since his ousting as President, has been that the draft/salary cap system is illegal and if challenged in court they would be no more. Whilst I realise that much of the stuff Jack says must be taken with a pinch of salt, I wonder what the basis for such a claim is and if there is actually any truth to it? Perhaps some of the legal eagles on TC such as CarltonClem could enlighten us further? Why would the current system be 'illegal'? I'm just curious...
This is not to say whether I agree or disagree but, under the law of the land (not the AFL, although they might like to think they are), the draft and salary cap would probably be deemed illegal if challenged in court as it is a restraint of trade. That's why the NRL don't have the draft. They had it once but was challenged successfully in court by their Players Association and is now no more. The Supreme Court also upheld Silvio Forschini"s court challenge when looking for a clearance from Sydney to St. Kilda in 1983 back in the days when zoning was in. It was considered by the court to be a restraint of trade. I'd imagine the draft here as well would be considered alomg similar lines. Sometimes can depend on the judge and their personal bias's too. Shouldn't happen but it does. |
|
| Author: | Kaptain Kouta [ Mon Apr 17, 2006 8:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
As a slight aside, the NRL has no Draft, becuase they actively encourage all the talent to go to teams which were aligned with News/Super League. The News-Stacked board of the NRL does all it can to nobble the ARL-loyal teams, and prevent them from rising up the table over any period of time. |
|
| Author: | jim [ Mon Apr 17, 2006 8:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Kaptain Kouta wrote: As a slight aside, the NRL has no Draft, becuase they actively encourage all the talent to go to teams which were aligned with News/Super League. The News-Stacked board of the NRL does all it can to nobble the ARL-loyal teams, and prevent them from rising up the table over any period of time. The NRL used to have the draft well before the Super League but their Players Association beat it in court.
|
|
| Author: | blueman [ Mon Apr 17, 2006 8:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Aside from a desire for getting a cynical reporting angle, I cant understand why the media is still wanting to give Elliot oxygen. Surely he is very much a person that is a rapidly receding figure in the rear vision mirror, an anchronism, like an old broken 45rpm vinyl record that keeps jumping tracks and repeating the same lines of the song over and over again when it is played.. No valuable insights would come from a fatally flawed and failed business man, a person who has lost most, probably all of his respect from the business world and also the general public as well.. Its a bit of a sad state of affairs though when all they talk to about us is Elliot instead of perhaps talking to someone that might have new and fresh ideas for the club. Id like to think that there would have been better Carlton people with whom they could talk instead of him. Why doesnt a new presidential wannabe go on air during the prematch for the hawthorn game and talk a bit about where we are going and what we need to do as a club. Id reckon that it would be much more informative and interesting radio. |
|
| Author: | Synbad [ Mon Apr 17, 2006 8:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
See i disagree. Rich people are usually tossers. They love to pose. Where once upon a time we had them falling over themselves to give us money...because giving us money meant we would be great.. us being great meant that they could feel important around each other. today no matter how much money you give.. the club would be better off but it cant translate out ointo the footy field as greatness. Its all socialistic driven with a salary cap and a draft system. The days of clubs absolutely dominating the landscape for a decade or two or in our case three.. are over. So there is no point giving in their minds. Why give for a training facility when the team is going RS? If the salary cap and draft disappeared.. youd find our position would improve tremendously money wise. Its just human nature. |
|
| Author: | blueman [ Mon Apr 17, 2006 8:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
We have to live within the rules as they stand though. This effectively means that it is no longer possible for a down and out club to achieve a one or two year turnaround. I remember North Melbourne in the early 1970s, they had finished last for a number of years. Then Barassi left us in 1971 and his next coaching stint with with the Kangaroos. A legion of other top players at the time also left, including Marc Murphys father. North made the GF in 1974, I think maybe they finished quite well in 73. It was money and a bold business plan that achieved this. But such a thing wouldnt be possible now. |
|
| Author: | JackWorrall [ Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Not sure why it was relevant to comment on Wilson's speech impediment, but it's great to hear someone finally get stuck into Elliott. |
|
| Author: | ScottSaunders [ Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
he sure isnt a fan of smorgan. anyways, something i found very interesting was his comments on the social club. he said that during our last year at OO we earnt 1.3 or 1.4 mill from the social club. and said that last year we only earnt 250k or 300k from the social club last year. that is a massive difference. while i dont agree with elliots attitude to the draft and salary cap, i certainly do agree that the club should have done and got alot more than they did our of "deal" for leaving OO. but lets not go over old ground, im only stating it as i thought it was pretty interesting, thats a big loss. |
|
| Author: | Blue Vain [ Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
ThePrez wrote: anyways, something i found very interesting was his comments on the social club.
The man is a pathological liar in denial. His comment are interesting but only in a humorous sense. |
|
| Author: | Pafloyul [ Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I 'dunno', Synbad, I wouldn't risk it. |
|
| Author: | ScottSaunders [ Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Blue Vain wrote: ThePrez wrote: anyways, something i found very interesting was his comments on the social club. The man is a pathological liar in denial. His comment are interesting but only in a humorous sense. i dont know how you can say that is lying. i would have thought it would have been a pretty easily obtainable fact. what did the social club earn in 04? - 1.3 mill what did the social club earn in 05? - 250k you can dislike the man as much as you want, but dont confuse that with getting in the way of fact. thats a pretty big difference in anyones language, regardless of who said it or who didnt. 900k difference a year, is abig hit to the club when it least needed it and if you have been to the social club you would gather that statement wouldnt be too far off the mark as the social club is nothing compared to what is was at OO - and im referring to the attendance etc.. people getting something to eat, a drink at the bar etc.., not the atmosphere or lack there off, but physical numbers in attendance etc.. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC + 10 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|