The Judd Rule.

[Pessimistic]

Most clubs try and benefit from third party deals and if AFL is really genuine about managing third party deals then it needs to look at de-linking the third party deal from the club. To do this they may need to look at a test such as:

"Is the third party deal available to the player regardless of the club he plays for."

If it's a small state based company offering the deal then you may limit this to the state rather then nationally, however if its a global company like Visy then the contract offered should be assessed at a national level.

If the contract is only be available to a player if they play at a certain club then you would have to seriously question the nature of the contract.

How do you differentiate ? I assume the Visy contract is for the same length of time as the playing contract. Hypothetically it is transferrable with Judd but in practice ?

Also the salary cap room can be created with deals for another player or players, creating salary cap room which can then be used to chase uncontracted players - where no deal needs to be proven or otherwise

 

[Teffy]

The integrity of the salary cap is really taking a battering here. I have no doubt players at my own club are receiving 3rd Party payments & you would be niave to suggest it doesn't happen elsewhere.

However if the 3rd Party deal is the deciding factor in acquiring a player than the idea of the salary cap is irrelevant.

3rd party deals have to go!

 

[tazhawk]

Another example of Judd getting special treatment.

Aside from the obvious bias he gets off the umpires when will it all end?

 

[Books]

Judd does care about the environment, and he is a high-profile person, so there is nothing wrong with Visy paying him if they want to.

But the fact that the owner of Visy was also the president of Carlton, the two deals started at the same time and Visy would NOT have paid Judd id he had chosen to play for another club make it very obvious that the two deals are linked.

The offer was obviously "choose Carlton and you will also get the Visy deal" so therefore it definitely should be included in the salary cap.

 

[thejester]

No, I'm saying that there shouldn't be anything stopping any other club from offering or arranging a second job for a player if they want it. There's no rules against having jobs outside of football, is there? It does set a bit of a dangerous precedent (as the money on offer can get out of control, and people don't see them as "real" jobs, because all they are is a "face" for a company), but if Carlton can and did do it with one of their sponsors, why can't anyone else?

Isn't that the whole point though - that clubs aren't allowed to arrange this, and the offer has to come independently from the company? IIRC it was floated last year and GFC got a 'please explain' from the AFL, with Cook and Costa having to clarify that they hadn't been soliciting third-party bids for Ablett, those bids (might have been Cotton On?) had come independently from the company.

 

[Wallaby]

I remember the good ol' days when the player would get the job of groundsman at the footy club and get paid for driving the mower. Or the job on the garbage round (Garry Hocking!).

The fact is people, you cannot stop players earning money outside the sport. I am sure plenty of Eagles have sponsorship deals from West Aussie firms that would not be offered to Vic- or SA- based stars. Judd probably lost a few of these when he went to Carlton. How many Geelong players have received free or discounted Fords over the years?

It's probably very good business in some cases for a company to be publicly involved with a football club. If they choose to do that by playing players directly rather than contributing to the general club finances, how do you stop them?

I don't know - I wish we had a 100% fair way of distributing the talent available to all clubs. The salary cap and draft is the way we and several sports around the world use - it's not perfect.

 

[CatFan79]

I remember the good ol' days when the player would get the job of groundsman at the footy club and get paid for driving the mower. Or the job on the garbage round (Garry Hocking!).

I doubt Garry Hocking was lured to Geelong by a deal involving waste disposal worth a couple hunj a week..

The fact is people, you cannot stop players earning money outside the sport. I am sure plenty of Eagles have sponsorship deals from West Aussie firms that would not be offered to Vic- or SA- based stars. Judd probably lost a few of these when he went to Carlton. How many Geelong players have received free or discounted Fords over the years?

Judd getting 200k+ from Visy, a company owned by the then President of Carlton.. I think there's a difference. It was the deciding factor no one will deny that..

I can tell you for a fact that the Geelong players get a deal on Fords which is slightly worse than staff price.. eg. 5-6k off a Territory, which anyone of the street could probably haggle.

 

[Thommo 42]

l

Judds contract with Visy was approved by the AFL and still fits the criterea under the new afl rules that all clubs have to abide to

..

No it doesn't and Adrian Anderson made a clear statement confirming this.

If a 3rd party deal arrives when a player is in contract negotiations for either retention or signing to a club, it counts in the cap, no matter how clean the deal is.

I don't believe Pratt was actually on the Carlton board at the time this deal was done anyway was he?

 

[Donstuie]

Funny how this quote was tucked away near the arse-end of the article where no-one would bother to look (and seemingly hasn't).

The league last year admitted 114 players were paid more than $2 million outside the league salary cap by club associates in 2009.

Last I looked, there weren't 114 Chris Judds in the league.

Yet apparently Judd and VISY is the only 3rd party deal in the comp.

PARADOX! PARADOX!

 

[Blue and Silver]

The issue is that the AFL is blocking Tom Scully from getting any deals in Melbourne. They want him to go. Plenty of players get paid outside the cap. Geelong players got special land deals from Costa didn't they? I don't take a lot of issue with that, every club has a wealthy or powerful benefactor who will look favorably upon current and former players.

I remember reading not so long ago that St Kilda organized for all their player to have some outside of football work. Which if we are being pedantic is them organizing payments outside of the cap. However what they are doing is positive and helps the players learn life skills.

I'm sure Judd gets paid for other advertising jobs as well, take for example his appearance in Powerade (who are an AFL not Carlton sponser) ads. I don't begrude him for that

 

[leeloo]

There are 114 players that are receiving these 3rd party payments that have been approved by the AFL? Why do they even have a salary cap?

As much as I hate this sort of attitude but Melbourne should look into legal action. Clearly they are being blocked so that GWS can get the player.

Get used to it people, Suns and the Giants are going to get this treatment for a long time to come.

 

[blueboy25]

So well connected Channel 9 identities such as Brayshaw and Mcguire who also happen to be club presidents organise for Pies and Roos players to have regular spots on the footy show.

The players get a nice little wage from this, does the AFL need to investigate it?

 

[eldorado]

Funny how this quote was tucked away near the arse-end of the article where no-one would bother to look (and seemingly hasn't).



Last I looked, there weren't 114 Chris Judds in the league.

Yet apparently Judd and VISY is the only 3rd party deal in the comp.

PARADOX! PARADOX!

Very droll.

Yes, there are many 3rd party deals. Many footballers are marketable.

But when the league says, on one hand, that no clubs - say, Geelong or Melbourne - may orchestrate these deals, but on the other, says there was no evidence of orchestration in the Judd 3rd party deal, when the president of the company is the main coterie member/president/head of a major sponsor of a club, and the 3rd party deal magically materialises during talks to entice the player to said club...


...thenit is beyond the wildest reaches of credibility, even for Carlton fans.

The ones not mired in defensiveness, anyway.

 

[FRUMPY]

No, I'm saying that there shouldn't be anything stopping any other club from offering or arranging a second job for a player if they want it. There's no rules against having jobs outside of football, is there? It does set a bit of a dangerous precedent (as the money on offer can get out of control, and people don't see them as "real" jobs, because all they are is a "face" for a company), but if Carlton can and did do it with one of their sponsors, why can't anyone else?

If it is written in their contract that they cant do work in certain areas then they cant. It is the same as people who work for 1 television network and are not allowed to appear on rival network programs.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

No, I'm saying that there shouldn't be anything stopping any other club from offering or arranging a second job for a player if they want it. There's no rules against having jobs outside of football, is there? It does set a bit of a dangerous precedent (as the money on offer can get out of control, and people don't see them as "real" jobs, because all they are is a "face" for a company), but if Carlton can and did do it with one of their sponsors, why can't anyone else?

this is laughable!

You think CLUBS should be able to have carte blanch to get around the salary cap by organising deals with companies?

Why have the ****ing salary cap then?

How dumb do you have to be not to understand the implications surrounding that?

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Funny how this quote was tucked away near the arse-end of the article where no-one would bother to look (and seemingly hasn't).



Last I looked, there weren't 114 Chris Judds in the league.

Yet apparently Judd and VISY is the only 3rd party deal in the comp.

PARADOX! PARADOX!

ironic that your .gif is from feeble minds....

Everyone knows there's a lot of 3rd party arrangments; it's the SIZE of Judd's deal that is of concern.

Do some simple maths yourself.

$2,000,000 minus the alleged $200k Judd gets (might be a bit more, might be a bit less), which gives yous $1.8M.

Now divide that by 113. What do you get?

Less than $16k on average per player. Fairly different to Juddy's $200k, isn't it?

 

[eldorado]

this is laughable!

You think CLUBS should be able to have carte blanch to get around the salary cap by organising deals with companies?

Why have the ****ing salary cap then?

How dumb do you have to be not to understand the implications surrounding that?

Damon, do you understand why we have a salary cap?

 

[mayhem20202]

That is a hell of a lot of money for a company to write-off, for most sponsorhip deals you actually need to get something form the deal, there is no way judd gives visy as much as he costs, only if you owned the company and were willing to write it off would it not be an issue. Imagine a company trying to get its board to approve 700k a year to spend on a footy players, its not going to happen very often.

I would imagine that it would work something like this. Off the record, Visy sponsor Carlton to the tune of $500K per year, $300K in cash to Carlton and $200K in cash to Judd. As an offshoot of that, they get $500K worth of sponsorship value, ie. name on shorts/sign/jumper, whatever comes with that level of sponsorship. Because so many things in football don't have a defined value, none of it is policeable (if that is a word!!!)

 

[jonbe54]

The Judd/Visy deal is done and dusted, sure anyone outside of Carlton can see the facts but the AFL chooses to ignore them - fine, that's not the point I think.

The point is the playing field is demonstrably NOT level in respect to Melbourne, or for that matter any other club trying to hold onto talent whilst the AFL is seeking to ensure that their new franchises are instantly - or as near instantly as possible - successful.

No third party deals means an open field of action for GWS and THAT is the sore point for me. The AFL are intent on making sure that clubs have no defense against the new clubs and will not be content to stand by and let the market have some say, they are ensuring that the GWS will have their say.

 

[asanque]

The AFL under Vlad and Anderson have shown they are willing to bend and break every rule as long as it suits their agenda.

The 'Judd Rule' is just one example of many.

To put it another way, the only thing consistent about the AFL is their inconsistency.

 

[Brasher]

The Judd/Visy deal is done and dusted, sure anyone outside of Carlton can see the facts but the AFL chooses to ignore them - fine, that's not the point I think.

The point is the playing field is demonstrably NOT level in respect to Melbourne, or for that matter any other club trying to hold onto talent whilst the AFL is seeking to ensure that their new franchises are instantly - or as near instantly as possible - successful.

No third party deals means an open field of action for GWS and THAT is the sore point for me. The AFL are intent on making sure that clubs have no defense against the new clubs and will not be content to stand by and let the market have some say, they are ensuring that the GWS will have their say.

Well said.

Let's play this hyperthetical.... Mr Concerned Melbourne Supporter, having no formal links with the MFC and aware of the gap between the GWS and Melbourne offers (this information is readily available in the public forum) contacts Scully's management and offers a $400K per year deal to mow his lawns, but only if he plays for Melbourne. Scully signs the reported MFC deal of $600K per year and starts mowing lawns mid week.

I'd love the AFL to try and do anything about that and if they did enjoy watching them get crucified in court by the Players Association (who can take the draft along to be announced null and void for restaint of trade whils they are at it).

 

[Stamos]

Well said.

Let's play this hyperthetical.... Mr Concerned Melbourne Supporter, having no formal links with the MFC and aware of the gap between the GWS and Melbourne offers (this information is readily available in the public forum) contacts Scully's management and offers a $400K per year deal to mow his lawns, but only if he plays for Melbourne. Scully signs the reported MFC deal of $600K per year and starts mowing lawns mid week.

That would clearly be against 3rd-party deal rules. If they were to pay Scully the going rate for lawn-mowing, it would be fine.

 

[Brasher]

That would clearly be against 3rd-party deal rules. If they were to pay Scully the going rate for lawn-mowing, it would be fine.

It's a big lawn!

How can it be against the rules if the guy who gives Scully the money has nothing to do with the MFC?

The AFL might think they can enforce a rule that prohibits this but unfortunately for Lord Vlad and his lap dog he will find that the common laws of the land override the laws of the AFL.

 

[new breed]

He is a Superstar footballer , who also like his money .

GAJ is on better money , K Hunt is on equal money and Scully will be shortly also ,....... Juddy is recieving what he probably deserves , just the process was a bit mirky

 

[Thommo 42]

Funny how this quote was tucked away near the arse-end of the article where no-one would bother to look (and seemingly hasn't).



Last I looked, there weren't 114 Chris Judds in the league.

Yet apparently Judd and VISY is the only 3rd party deal in the comp.

PARADOX! PARADOX!

haha.

$2m over 114 players! Juddy gets 10% of that $2m, and the other $1.8m is spread over 113.

Very level playing field we have here!