-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
500K extra for that hack? / Ben Holland sues Richmond [Merged]
- Thread starter BalmyArmy
- Start date
Re: 500K extra for that hack?
If Casey and Holland ignored Demwitriou's advice and decided to do a back door deal to compensate Holland, then we are in breech of the salary cap whether we paid or not. I don't think the Fonz will take kindly to having been disregarded.
A one off deal like this doesn't compare with Carlton's systematic and calculated rorting, I just have a few concerns about the Nathan Brown deal. If it is more than just Holland involved then we could face a substantial penalty. I'd be very happy to pay Holland out just to shut him up, but unfortunately we have gone past that option now.
Copping a salary cap breach penalty over a sh1t truck like Holland would be rubbing salt into the wound.
If Casey and Holland ignored Demwitriou's advice and decided to do a back door deal to compensate Holland, then we are in breech of the salary cap whether we paid or not. I don't think the Fonz will take kindly to having been disregarded.
A one off deal like this doesn't compare with Carlton's systematic and calculated rorting, I just have a few concerns about the Nathan Brown deal. If it is more than just Holland involved then we could face a substantial penalty. I'd be very happy to pay Holland out just to shut him up, but unfortunately we have gone past that option now.
Copping a salary cap breach penalty over a sh1t truck like Holland would be rubbing salt into the wound.
Re: 500K extra for that hack?
there are lots of back room deals done...the AFL are fools thinking most clubs abide by the rules...fairdinkum that mob live in fantasy land...
gotta love uncle clinton even when he isnt involved with the RFC anymore the stench still lingers.....
there are lots of back room deals done...the AFL are fools thinking most clubs abide by the rules...fairdinkum that mob live in fantasy land...
gotta love uncle clinton even when he isnt involved with the RFC anymore the stench still lingers.....
Re: Ben Holland sues Richmond for over $500k.
Frawley is quoted in todays Age saying that nothing about separate payments was discussed which is good news for us. The same article heavily implies that Richmond did nothing more than what other clubs have done and that the AFL knows about the practice which is basically just giving AFL players preferential access to opportunities. Other players took up the Sandhurst option. It makes a mockery of those in the media like Brian Waldron saying we were worse than Carlton (obviously he still carries some sort of grudge). More than ever I don't think we will face salary cap problems unless we lose the case.
mb64 said:
Frawley is quoted in todays Age saying that nothing about separate payments was discussed which is good news for us. The same article heavily implies that Richmond did nothing more than what other clubs have done and that the AFL knows about the practice which is basically just giving AFL players preferential access to opportunities. Other players took up the Sandhurst option. It makes a mockery of those in the media like Brian Waldron saying we were worse than Carlton (obviously he still carries some sort of grudge). More than ever I don't think we will face salary cap problems unless we lose the case.
Re: Ben Holland sues Richmond for over $500k.
I hope your Right. The Casey brown thing was common knowlege back then so if it's something along those lines then we should be ok. With all the other stuff what proof does he have other than a verbal agreement.IanG said:
Re: 500K extra for that hack?
I still think we are in a lot of trouble.
There is an interesting piece by Caroline Wilson in todays paper in which she discusses the history. Apparently the lawyer guiding Holland is a bloke called Greg Griffen. As I remember it in 2004 our then CEO Mark Brayshaw had taken over contract negociations in regard to all players from Frawley and Beck.
After a lot of very public demands and quite a bit of name calling by Griffen made through Mario Rucci? and the Adelaide press, Brayshaw announced that he would no longer deal with Griffen and Holland responded by then sacking Griffen and appointing his father to act on his behalf.
Griffen struck me then and now, as a rather low type of South Australian who would love to drag a Victorian Club down to his level.
The suggestion in the Wilson article that Ben doesn't want to take Richmond or Casey to the Supreme Court but would rather deal through the Players Association, which obviously came from Griffen, is imo just a means by which Griffen is again seeking to damage the clubs reputation.
Steven Wright is right not to deal with these people, one with his own agenda and the other somewhat weak and dim, but a hearing in the Sup Ct is not a sensible option either and is certainly not an option that the AFL will favour.
A writ has apparently been filed in the Sup Ct to satisfy Statute of limitation issues. The next step is that Holland will either seek to have it served, a separate step, or the Casey lawyers will ask that it be struck out. Holland I would suggest is likely to be led through this by family members as well as Griffen. Lets hope he listens to some good advice from Duncan Kellaway, whom I think is now his brother in law.
The other player is CC, who won't enjoy the publicity either.
Welcome home CC.
momentai said:
I still think we are in a lot of trouble.
There is an interesting piece by Caroline Wilson in todays paper in which she discusses the history. Apparently the lawyer guiding Holland is a bloke called Greg Griffen. As I remember it in 2004 our then CEO Mark Brayshaw had taken over contract negociations in regard to all players from Frawley and Beck.
After a lot of very public demands and quite a bit of name calling by Griffen made through Mario Rucci? and the Adelaide press, Brayshaw announced that he would no longer deal with Griffen and Holland responded by then sacking Griffen and appointing his father to act on his behalf.
Griffen struck me then and now, as a rather low type of South Australian who would love to drag a Victorian Club down to his level.
The suggestion in the Wilson article that Ben doesn't want to take Richmond or Casey to the Supreme Court but would rather deal through the Players Association, which obviously came from Griffen, is imo just a means by which Griffen is again seeking to damage the clubs reputation.
Steven Wright is right not to deal with these people, one with his own agenda and the other somewhat weak and dim, but a hearing in the Sup Ct is not a sensible option either and is certainly not an option that the AFL will favour.
A writ has apparently been filed in the Sup Ct to satisfy Statute of limitation issues. The next step is that Holland will either seek to have it served, a separate step, or the Casey lawyers will ask that it be struck out. Holland I would suggest is likely to be led through this by family members as well as Griffen. Lets hope he listens to some good advice from Duncan Kellaway, whom I think is now his brother in law.
The other player is CC, who won't enjoy the publicity either.
Welcome home CC.
Re: Ben Holland sues Richmond for over $500k.
Article also says via a crows spokesman the figure of $1.3m was exaggerated.
When afl Operations Manager vlad and afl investigated other property deals for other players and all were deemed above board.
In 2003 holland put list of claims to casey. casey forwarded the claim letter to afl.
hollands' manager greg griffen kept repeating about "lost opportunities" and holland felt "spurned".
Not under the table payments etc
Storm in a teacup.
Article also says via a crows spokesman the figure of $1.3m was exaggerated.
When afl Operations Manager vlad and afl investigated other property deals for other players and all were deemed above board.
In 2003 holland put list of claims to casey. casey forwarded the claim letter to afl.
hollands' manager greg griffen kept repeating about "lost opportunities" and holland felt "spurned".
Not under the table payments etc
Storm in a teacup.
Re: Ben Holland sues Richmond for over $500k.
Casey's no idiot, nothing would have been signed promising payments.
Opportunities yes, but direct payments - I don't think so
clown said:
Casey's no idiot, nothing would have been signed promising payments.
Opportunities yes, but direct payments - I don't think so
Re: 500K extra for that hack?
I was actually relieved after reading this morning's piece. There case sounds weak- at the time of signing the contract Holland understood he would get mentoring and investment advice and because he got injured (and was a hack) clinton's love went to brown instead. On the face of it doesn't appear to have salary cap implications- the money being claimed is the difference between adelaide's offer and what he got presumably on the basis that he would have taken this offer if he didn't have the mentoring offer
I was actually relieved after reading this morning's piece. There case sounds weak- at the time of signing the contract Holland understood he would get mentoring and investment advice and because he got injured (and was a hack) clinton's love went to brown instead. On the face of it doesn't appear to have salary cap implications- the money being claimed is the difference between adelaide's offer and what he got presumably on the basis that he would have taken this offer if he didn't have the mentoring offer
Frawley denies Tigers cap rort (HeraldSun)
Frawley denies Tigers cap rort
Sam Edmund | April 05, 2008 12:00am
FORMER Richmond coach Danny Frawley has admitted several Tigers players struck property deals with former president Clinton Casey. As the AFL launched as investigation into possible salary cap breaches by Richmond, Frawley said last night he was aware of his players buying property owned by Casey.
"Yeah I think I'm aware without giving specifics. The Torquay development down there may have been one," Frawley said.
"But to my knowledge, under my tenure, I have no inclination that the club was dealing outside the salary cap."
Former Richmond player Ben Holland is suing Casey and his old club for $530,000 in loss and damages.
He claims he was promised a range of business and investment opportunities he never received while at a Crown casino meeting with Frawley and Casey in late 2001.
Related LinksMike Sheahan: Extra incentives not new to footy
Tough contest: Lions bred to pounce
Holland has issued a Supreme Court writ in which he alleges, among other things, that Casey offered him priority access to a $180,000 block of land at a Sandhurst development that he could re-sell for a large profit.
"Clinton proceeded to talk about business opportunities (at the meeting) and that's all they were, opportunities," Frawley told Triple M.
"There were no words like 'promise' or 'guarantee'. There was one word; 'opportunity'.
"I would put my hand on my heart and swear on my mothers grave that to my knowledge, the Richmond Football Club in my time did not deal outside the salary cap."
Holland's writ alleges the offers, made in late 2001, were designed to make-up the difference between an $800,000 three-year deal to re-sign with Richmond and a $1.33 million three-year rival offer from the Adelaide Crows.
AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou said the alleged offers to Holland, if proven true, would be in breach of the salary cap.
"If it's true . . . yes it would be, you can't do that," Demetriou said.
"It's a matter for the courts. We'll see where it goes."
Demetriou revealed he met Holland and then Richmond CEO Mark Brayshaw in his former role as football operations manager in late 2001 as the Tigers sought ways to make the difference between the Richmond and Adelaide offers.
"The issue back then was, was there a way that under the rules of the salary cap, whether Richmond Football Club could pay him any more ---- and the answer was no," he said.
Brayshaw yesterday told the Herald Sun he didn't believe the offers made to Holland broke salary cap rules.
"To my knowledge, no, but I'm on the board of the Kangaroos and I really don't want to comment," he said.
Richmond chief executive Steven Wright said the Tigers would defend the allegations.
In 2005 the AFL launched a major investigation into property investments involving players to ensure they weren't part of a strategy to get around the salary cap.
Frawley denies Tigers cap rort
Sam Edmund | April 05, 2008 12:00am
FORMER Richmond coach Danny Frawley has admitted several Tigers players struck property deals with former president Clinton Casey. As the AFL launched as investigation into possible salary cap breaches by Richmond, Frawley said last night he was aware of his players buying property owned by Casey.
"Yeah I think I'm aware without giving specifics. The Torquay development down there may have been one," Frawley said.
"But to my knowledge, under my tenure, I have no inclination that the club was dealing outside the salary cap."
Former Richmond player Ben Holland is suing Casey and his old club for $530,000 in loss and damages.
He claims he was promised a range of business and investment opportunities he never received while at a Crown casino meeting with Frawley and Casey in late 2001.
Related LinksMike Sheahan: Extra incentives not new to footy
Tough contest: Lions bred to pounce
Holland has issued a Supreme Court writ in which he alleges, among other things, that Casey offered him priority access to a $180,000 block of land at a Sandhurst development that he could re-sell for a large profit.
"Clinton proceeded to talk about business opportunities (at the meeting) and that's all they were, opportunities," Frawley told Triple M.
"There were no words like 'promise' or 'guarantee'. There was one word; 'opportunity'.
"I would put my hand on my heart and swear on my mothers grave that to my knowledge, the Richmond Football Club in my time did not deal outside the salary cap."
Holland's writ alleges the offers, made in late 2001, were designed to make-up the difference between an $800,000 three-year deal to re-sign with Richmond and a $1.33 million three-year rival offer from the Adelaide Crows.
AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou said the alleged offers to Holland, if proven true, would be in breach of the salary cap.
"If it's true . . . yes it would be, you can't do that," Demetriou said.
"It's a matter for the courts. We'll see where it goes."
Demetriou revealed he met Holland and then Richmond CEO Mark Brayshaw in his former role as football operations manager in late 2001 as the Tigers sought ways to make the difference between the Richmond and Adelaide offers.
"The issue back then was, was there a way that under the rules of the salary cap, whether Richmond Football Club could pay him any more ---- and the answer was no," he said.
Brayshaw yesterday told the Herald Sun he didn't believe the offers made to Holland broke salary cap rules.
"To my knowledge, no, but I'm on the board of the Kangaroos and I really don't want to comment," he said.
Richmond chief executive Steven Wright said the Tigers would defend the allegations.
In 2005 the AFL launched a major investigation into property investments involving players to ensure they weren't part of a strategy to get around the salary cap.
Holland demanded compensaiton in 2004 (realfooty)
Holland demanded compensation in 2004
Caroline Wilson | April 5, 2008
DISGRUNTLED former Tiger Ben Holland first wrote to Richmond demanding financial compensation in late 2004 while then-president Clinton Casey was battling a board challenge on the eve of an election.
The Age understands that Casey, believing that Holland or his management would go public with the allegation that the club had promised financial inducements to the player worth more than $500,000, forwarded the letter to the AFL.
The letter was dismissed by the league on the basis that AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou had already met Holland and then-Richmond chief executive Mark Brayshaw in a bid to convince the player Richmond had no room remaining in its salary cap.
League investigator Ken Wood had already cleared a series of property investments involving parcels of land and units at Torquay, Sandhurst and Laguna Keys recommended by Casey and taken up by players including Nathan Brown, Mark Coughlan and Kane Johnson, as well as former coach Danny Frawley and football manager Greg Miller.
Holland, who has lodged a Supreme Court writ against Casey and Richmond, which will be investigated again by the AFL in case of salary-cap ramifications, is suing for $530,000 — the difference, he claims, between what Richmond paid him over a three-year deal and what Adelaide offered him at the end of 2001 as part of the failed Kane Johnson deal.
But his manager Greg Griffin last night claimed that Holland would try to avoid the courts and resolve the issue via the AFL Players Association's grievance procedure.
Griffin also denied there was a salary-cap issue but that Holland, who had not wanted his claim made public before finishing his career with the Demons, had been a player "spurned". "I don't think it's a salary-cap issue," Griffin said from Adelaide last night. "There was a representation made by (Clinton) Casey that he would mentor Ben in a business sense.
"Nathan Brown was offered something similar two years later and revealed as much on The Footy Show. Preferential dealings happen regularly all the time in football. Mark Ricciuto has an interest in three hotels with Adelaide board member Peter Hurley.
"But Ben got injured and Casey found someone else to extend his largesse to. That's basically our claim. He went from being strongly desired by Richmond to not wanted. The word spurned comes to mind."
Should Holland's alleged letter from Casey, written on Richmond letterhead in October 2001, reveal under-the-table dealings, he could be deregistered, suspended or fined.
Griffin said Holland had taken notes following the meeting at Kokos with Casey and Frawley, which occurred after the player changed his mind and told Frawley, via teammate Duncan Kellaway, that he wanted to stay at Richmond.
Frawley told The Age: "There's two sides to every story. I, too, thought the issue had been put to bed and I had no knowledge of separate payments. It wouldn't be the first time a club has advised a player with business help and property opportunities."
Crows' sources indicated that the club offered the player significantly more than he settled upon at Richmond but added that the quoted figure of $1.33 million was exaggerated.
"The club has been vigorously defending any claims that it made any inducement to Ben Holland that was outside the salary cap," Tigers' president Gary March told The Age.
"I don't think Clinton (Casey) has ever denied that he offered financial inducements to players via third party business opportunities.
"He made those offers to players, officials and coterie members. Some chose to take them up with their own money.
"Those involving players have all been scrutinised by the AFL and they have all been above board."
Tigers' chief executive Steve Wright told a news conference yesterday that the claims would be vigorously defended.
It is believed that the club, to protect itself, will distance itself from Casey during that defence if it is required.
Casey was overseas last night but also was preparing to deny the Holland claims.
March said the timing of the story was disappointing for the club. "I have apologised to the football department and the coaches and the players because it's a distraction they don't need."
Demetriou said on 3AW yesterday: "I had a meeting with Ben Holland and Mark Brayshaw, who was the then-CEO, about this matter back when I was general manager of football operations, and … I thought this was a dead issue.
"… The issue back then, was he was being offered, allegedly, $1.3 million for Adelaide? So we have to ascertain whether that's true and then that he was then offered a significant amount less for Richmond.
"Well, because the issue back then was, you know, was there any way that the Richmond Football Club pay him any more and the answer was no."
Holland demanded compensation in 2004
Caroline Wilson | April 5, 2008
DISGRUNTLED former Tiger Ben Holland first wrote to Richmond demanding financial compensation in late 2004 while then-president Clinton Casey was battling a board challenge on the eve of an election.
The Age understands that Casey, believing that Holland or his management would go public with the allegation that the club had promised financial inducements to the player worth more than $500,000, forwarded the letter to the AFL.
The letter was dismissed by the league on the basis that AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou had already met Holland and then-Richmond chief executive Mark Brayshaw in a bid to convince the player Richmond had no room remaining in its salary cap.
League investigator Ken Wood had already cleared a series of property investments involving parcels of land and units at Torquay, Sandhurst and Laguna Keys recommended by Casey and taken up by players including Nathan Brown, Mark Coughlan and Kane Johnson, as well as former coach Danny Frawley and football manager Greg Miller.
Holland, who has lodged a Supreme Court writ against Casey and Richmond, which will be investigated again by the AFL in case of salary-cap ramifications, is suing for $530,000 — the difference, he claims, between what Richmond paid him over a three-year deal and what Adelaide offered him at the end of 2001 as part of the failed Kane Johnson deal.
But his manager Greg Griffin last night claimed that Holland would try to avoid the courts and resolve the issue via the AFL Players Association's grievance procedure.
Griffin also denied there was a salary-cap issue but that Holland, who had not wanted his claim made public before finishing his career with the Demons, had been a player "spurned". "I don't think it's a salary-cap issue," Griffin said from Adelaide last night. "There was a representation made by (Clinton) Casey that he would mentor Ben in a business sense.
"Nathan Brown was offered something similar two years later and revealed as much on The Footy Show. Preferential dealings happen regularly all the time in football. Mark Ricciuto has an interest in three hotels with Adelaide board member Peter Hurley.
"But Ben got injured and Casey found someone else to extend his largesse to. That's basically our claim. He went from being strongly desired by Richmond to not wanted. The word spurned comes to mind."
Should Holland's alleged letter from Casey, written on Richmond letterhead in October 2001, reveal under-the-table dealings, he could be deregistered, suspended or fined.
Griffin said Holland had taken notes following the meeting at Kokos with Casey and Frawley, which occurred after the player changed his mind and told Frawley, via teammate Duncan Kellaway, that he wanted to stay at Richmond.
Frawley told The Age: "There's two sides to every story. I, too, thought the issue had been put to bed and I had no knowledge of separate payments. It wouldn't be the first time a club has advised a player with business help and property opportunities."
Crows' sources indicated that the club offered the player significantly more than he settled upon at Richmond but added that the quoted figure of $1.33 million was exaggerated.
"The club has been vigorously defending any claims that it made any inducement to Ben Holland that was outside the salary cap," Tigers' president Gary March told The Age.
"I don't think Clinton (Casey) has ever denied that he offered financial inducements to players via third party business opportunities.
"He made those offers to players, officials and coterie members. Some chose to take them up with their own money.
"Those involving players have all been scrutinised by the AFL and they have all been above board."
Tigers' chief executive Steve Wright told a news conference yesterday that the claims would be vigorously defended.
It is believed that the club, to protect itself, will distance itself from Casey during that defence if it is required.
Casey was overseas last night but also was preparing to deny the Holland claims.
March said the timing of the story was disappointing for the club. "I have apologised to the football department and the coaches and the players because it's a distraction they don't need."
Demetriou said on 3AW yesterday: "I had a meeting with Ben Holland and Mark Brayshaw, who was the then-CEO, about this matter back when I was general manager of football operations, and … I thought this was a dead issue.
"… The issue back then, was he was being offered, allegedly, $1.3 million for Adelaide? So we have to ascertain whether that's true and then that he was then offered a significant amount less for Richmond.
"Well, because the issue back then was, you know, was there any way that the Richmond Football Club pay him any more and the answer was no."
Re: 500K extra for that hack?
An another interesting article
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,23484662-19742,00.html
An another interesting article
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,23484662-19742,00.html
Compare his on-field opportunities with his off-field opportunities.CptJonno2Madcow2005 said:
Deuce.
Same result.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/1,9191,23485845-19771,00.html
Article by sheahan
Also another
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?p=10551531#post10551531
Re: 500K extra for that hack?
i think it`s all a storm in a tea cup as well.
every club does this sort of thing and is open about it.
from the words of holland`s lawyer it has nothing to do with the salary cap or not recieving payments.
he was merely promised business mentoring by casey and didn`t recieve it.
Griffin also denied there was a salary-cap issue but that Holland, who had not wanted his claim made public before finishing his career with the Demons, had been a player "spurned". "I don't think it's a salary-cap issue," Griffin said from Adelaide last night. "There was a representation made by (Clinton) Casey that he would mentor Ben in a business sense.
"Nathan Brown was offered something similar two years later and revealed as much on The Footy Show. Preferential dealings happen regularly all the time in football. Mark Ricciuto has an interest in three hotels with Adelaide board member Peter Hurley.
"But Ben got injured and Casey found someone else to extend his largesse to. That's basically our claim. He went from being strongly desired by Richmond to not wanted. The word spurned comes to mind."
gary march even said these sorts of things have already been scrurinised by the afl and been given the all clear.
"He made those offers to players, officials and coterie members. Some chose to take them up with their own money.
"Those involving players have all been scrutinised by the AFL and they have all been above board."
we have nothing to worry about.
now bring on those magpies!
momentai said:
i think it`s all a storm in a tea cup as well.
every club does this sort of thing and is open about it.
from the words of holland`s lawyer it has nothing to do with the salary cap or not recieving payments.
he was merely promised business mentoring by casey and didn`t recieve it.
Griffin also denied there was a salary-cap issue but that Holland, who had not wanted his claim made public before finishing his career with the Demons, had been a player "spurned". "I don't think it's a salary-cap issue," Griffin said from Adelaide last night. "There was a representation made by (Clinton) Casey that he would mentor Ben in a business sense.
"Nathan Brown was offered something similar two years later and revealed as much on The Footy Show. Preferential dealings happen regularly all the time in football. Mark Ricciuto has an interest in three hotels with Adelaide board member Peter Hurley.
"But Ben got injured and Casey found someone else to extend his largesse to. That's basically our claim. He went from being strongly desired by Richmond to not wanted. The word spurned comes to mind."
gary march even said these sorts of things have already been scrurinised by the afl and been given the all clear.
"He made those offers to players, officials and coterie members. Some chose to take them up with their own money.
"Those involving players have all been scrutinised by the AFL and they have all been above board."
we have nothing to worry about.
now bring on those magpies!
