In a move that has stunned the AFL world and sent shockwaves through Carlton and St Kilda fanbases alike, the Saints have quietly launched an internal review into historical ties between the club and AFL legend Stephen Silvagni — a review triggered by the ongoing legal and reputational fallout from the conviction of Stephen’s youngest son, Tom Silvagni.
The development, first reported by The Age and confirmed by multiple sources close to both clubs, centres on Stephen Silvagni’s previously undisclosed advisory role with St Kilda during the early 2000s. According to documents obtained by the newspaper, Silvagni — a Carlton Hall of Famer, dual premiership captain, and one of the most respected figures in the game — provided informal consultation to St Kilda’s football department between 2002 and 2005 on recruiting, list management, and opposition analysis. The arrangement was never publicly disclosed at the time and appears to have been conducted without formal contract or remuneration beyond “expenses.”
The revelation has been described by Carlton insiders as “deeply embarrassing” and “a betrayal of club loyalty.” Stephen Silvagni spent his entire 16-year playing career at Carlton (1985–2001), captaining the club to premierships in 1987 and 1995, and later served as its list manager from 2007 to 2014. The idea that he was quietly assisting a direct rival during the peak of Carlton’s rebuild has reignited old rivalries and raised questions about conflicts of interest.
St Kilda’s decision to open the review came after Tom Silvagni’s conviction in December 2025 for two counts of digital rape committed at the family home in Balwyn North. The case has already forced Stephen and his wife Jo to sell off significant assets — including the Mornington Peninsula holiday house and several vintage cars — to cover mounting legal fees estimated in the millions. The review is not directly tied to Tom’s conviction, but club sources say the publicity surrounding the Silvagni name made continued silence untenable.
“St Kilda felt it had to get ahead of the story,” one senior club figure told The Age. “Once the connection became public knowledge through court documents and media leaks, the board decided full transparency was the only option. They’re not accusing Stephen of wrongdoing — they’re simply documenting what happened and why it was never declared.”
Carlton Football Club issued its own brief response: “Stephen Silvagni is a Carlton legend whose service to this club is unquestioned. We are aware of the reports and will be seeking further clarification from all relevant parties.”
The timing could not be worse for the Silvagni family. Tom’s six-year-and-two-month prison sentence, handed down in December, triggered an immediate appeal that has already cost the family millions in legal fees. Stephen’s quiet asset sales — including family jewellery and a signed 1995 premiership guernsey — were widely reported last week, painting a picture of a once-powerful football dynasty now under severe financial strain.
For St Kilda, the review is an uncomfortable but necessary step. The club has emphasised that any advisory role Silvagni played was informal and predates modern conflict-of-interest rules. Yet the optics are brutal: a Carlton icon quietly helping a rival during a period when both clubs were desperate for success.
The broader AFL community is watching closely. If the review uncovers any breach of rules or ethics, it could lead to sanctions or reputational damage for both clubs. More likely, it will simply add another layer of pain to a family already enduring intense public scrutiny.
For Stephen Silvagni — premiership captain, Hall of Famer, father of four — the past few months have been a brutal reminder that football legacies can be fragile. What was once a proud name in the game is now tied to scandal, financial pressure, and uncomfortable questions about loyalty and discretion.
As the investigation continues and the appeal process drags on, one thing is certain: the Silvagni story — once defined by glory on the field — is now being rewritten in courtrooms, auction houses, and the court of public opinion.
