Jay Schulz

[macca23]

the kid is being made a scape goat by TAC for their desire to get out of this deal. It has been reported that the board were split about renewing, and not very united. Now let's look what he did.

he drove 80 in a 40 zone. bloody stupid that, but we've all done it too. speeding doesn't concern the TAC drink driving campaign so who cares.

He blew .065 - or in other words F-all. for years in SA this was below he legal limit, in the US the limit is .1; the 0.05 limit is a statistical irrelevancy.
this limit is about politics, not saving lives. doesn't make it ok, but he had very little to drink, and was very unlikely to impaired in a meaningful way.

it's a minor incident, and the TAC used it to get out of deal they didn't want, and he is copping the blame for it.

make no mistake he's a dumbassed ****, but that's not the same as what he is being blamed for.

in which case, for the right price I'd have him here.

Let me start by saying, I'd probably take the lad on too if he came at a cheap price.

But it's definitely a bit more than fk-all. He's a P plate driver and he is not allowed to drive with any alcohol at all in his bloodstream.

he would have known that before he went to the hotel and started drinking. He would have known that before he elected to drive home.

He chose to break the law, and in doing so would have known he was doing the wrong thing, not just in law, but also by his club.

If I was the Richmond CEO I'd feel like breaking his arms and legs and tossing him out for the reckless contempt he had for his club, who everybody knows is sponsored by an anti-drink-driving body.

That's a bit more than fk-all.

 

[Crow-mosone]

Let me start by saying, I'd probably take the lad on too if he came at a cheap price.

But it's definitely a bit more than fk-all. He's a P plate driver and he is not allowed to drive with any alcohol at all in his bloodstream.

he would have known that before he went to the hotel and started drinking. He would have known that before he elected to drive home.

He chose to break the law, and in doing so would have known he was doing the wrong thing, not just in law, but also by his club.

If I was the Richmond CEO I'd feel like breaking his arms and legs and tossing him out for the reckless contempt he had for his club, who everybody knows is sponsored by an anti-drink-driving body.

That's a bit more than fk-all.

I'll give you the P plate part - at his age? geez. He has been a ********, the speeding bothers me a lot more.
if he hadn't been speeding he wouldn't have been picked up.

I am talking about the magnitude of his 'drink driving', which is pretty small. should he have done it under the circumstances? no. but I'll bet he didn't make a one off risque decision. Richmond's players are unlikely to live their lives differently because of the major (disgruntled) sponsor.

 

[GoSarge]

And so recruiting a young player from the U18 guarantees you a successfull recruit - BS!

Please don't put words in my mouth WW, that's not what I said.

Look at it factually, we gave up picks 4 and 20 for WC, pick 23 (IIRC) for Hewitt and 28 for Ryan Fitzgerald. We also gave up, effectively, a third rounder for Scott Stevens. None of these players were proven at AFL level except WC who was at the end of his career. Now if we had our time again, and used these picks at the ND, you would hope out of those 5 picks listed above, at least one or two of them would turn out to be a top quality player.

The Riewoldt and Thompson situation is different, Riewoldt is a gun, so of course we would grab him and Thompson was excellent at Melbourne before he missed a large chunk of last season which justifies spending pick 12 on him.

Your thoughts ?

 

[WaynesWorld19]

the kid is being made a scape goat by TAC for their desire to get out of this deal. It has been reported that the board were split about renewing, and not very united. Now let's look what he did.

he drove 80 in a 40 zone. bloody stupid that, but we've all done it too. speeding doesn't concern the TAC drink driving campaign so who cares.

He blew .065 - or in other words F-all. for years in SA this was below he legal limit, in the US the limit is .1; the 0.05 limit is a statistical irrelevancy.
this limit is about politics, not saving lives. doesn't make it ok, but he had very little to drink, and was very unlikely to impaired in a meaningful way.

it's a minor incident, and the TAC used it to get out of deal they didn't want, and he is copping the blame for it.

make no mistake he's a dumbassed ****, but that's not the same as what he is being blamed for.

in which case, for the right price I'd have him here.

Agreed

 

[Hasus]

Great future star

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Please don't put words in my mouth WW, that's not what I said.

Look at it factually, we gave up picks 4 and 20 for WC, pick 23 (IIRC) for Hewitt and 28 for Ryan Fitzgerald. We also gave up, effectively, a third rounder for Scott Stevens. None of these players were proven at AFL level except WC who was at the end of his career. Now if we had our time again, and used these picks at the ND, you would hope out of those 5 picks listed above, at least one or two of them would turn out to be a top quality player.

The Riewoldt and Thompson situation is different, Riewoldt is a gun, so of course we would grab him and Thompson was excellent at Melbourne before he missed a large chunk of last season which justifies spending pick 12 on him.

Your thoughts ?

It's relatively easy to drag up these names to justify why we should not trade players for draft picks, but it's just as easy to drag up failed draft picks to justify the counter argument.

Fact is neither is right or wrong! and we shouldn't be so hung up that trading draft picks for players is strictly forbidden, because under the right circumstances that would be folly.

Fitzgerald at 28 COULD have been a masterstroke of recruiting (originally a #4 draft pick to Sydney) if his body hadn't given way we would be applauding the decision to draft him - that big word IF

 

[Stiffy_18]

It's relatively easy to drag up these names to justify why we should not trade players for draft picks, but it's just as easy to drag up failed draft picks to justify the counter argument.

Fact is neither is right or wrong! and we shouldn't be so hung up that trading draft picks for players is strictly forbidden, because under the right circumstances that would be folly.

Fitzgerald at 28 COULD have been a masterstroke of recruiting (originally a #4 draft pick to Sydney) if his body hadn't given way we would be applauding the decision to draft him - that big word IF

I know this is in the wrong thread but for arguments sake if Fevola said he wants to play for the crows next year would you trade 1st and 2nd round picks for him?

 

[WaynesWorld19]

I know this is in the wrong thread but for arguments sake if Fevola said he wants to play for the crows next year would you trade 1st and 2nd round picks for him?

Absolutely not:

1. Our main draft requirement this year is midfielders and that supercedes a need for a FF no matter how good.
2. Basically excluding yourself from a draft would IMO be folly (losing first 2 picks) - I would only deal 1st round plus player .
3. It's never going to be an option as I'll bet your left & Right he stays with Carlton.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Absolutely not:

1. Our main draft requirement this year is midfielders and that supercedes a need for a FF no matter how good.
2. Basically excluding yourself from a draft would IMO be folly (losing first 2 picks) - I would only deal 1st round plus player .
3. It's never going to be an option as I'll bet your left & Right he stays with Carlton.

1st rounder + Jericho?????

 

[- PC -]

I was thinking the same thing myself this morning.

He looks to have some potential, but we wouldnt want to be giving much up for him.

Say a second round pick, maybe, or a mid list player, no more than that IMO.

Offer them a keg and a book of cabcharge vouchers

 

[outback jack]

I never said he wasn't young talent

All I said that Adelaide will not trade their 1st and 2nd round draft picks for the next couple of years. This point has been made by NC, Triggy, Reidy and even Stewart a number of times already.

Its a strategy that club has in getting us back to being a premiership contender. Nothing to do with age. If we didn't get that pick 12 in Stenglein trade we wouldn't have traded our pick for Thompson

stiff you shouldnt make comments like that when you have no knowledge of the club. You dont know what the club wants to do, and i havent heard them say specifically they are going to keep their first and second rounders.

Waynes_world is right, in that they would have kept 12, and not got thompson if they are apparently following this strategy. I'd have no problem trading our first rounders, or second, as long as it is for proven young talent. Schultz isnt this, so i would not expect it to happen. Waters and butler is another matter, depending on their progress this yr.

 

[outback jack]

Absolutely not:

1. Our main draft requirement this year is midfielders and that supercedes a need for a FF no matter how good.
2. Basically excluding yourself from a draft would IMO be folly (losing first 2 picks) - I would only deal 1st round plus player .
3. It's never going to be an option as I'll bet your left & Right he stays with Carlton.

say fev was on offer, which i think there is next to no chance, the club would be absolutely mad not to trade 1st and 2nd rounder for him. As long at we didnt have a top4 ish pick.

Key forwards win games, and we need one, you can snag good midfielders with 3rd rounders, but not gun forwards.

 

[Infamy]

And Shultz at 21 is not young talent Why the hell did we get Thompson then - he's ready to retire - this age argument sorry is really getting on my goat

Schulz is still only 19, so for a kpp player he's done ok for a kid
After this incident I doubt Richmond will be looking to offload him though, if anything Schulz owes the Tigers a fair bit so is unlikely to screw them over more.

 

[mymansyd]

The only time I can see the Crows trading either of their 1st/2nd round draft picks over the next few years is for probable 10-year players (eg. Scott Thompson who turned 22 in March).

The only SA boys under-23 of REAL quality that I'd trade early picks for would be: Kane Cornes, Pavlich, Rivers, Schammer or Cooney.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Schulz is still only 19, so for a kpp player he's done ok for a kid
After this incident I doubt Richmond will be looking to offload him though, if anything Schulz owes the Tigers a fair bit so is unlikely to screw them over more.

What I would say is that being held to blame for losing a half million dollars in sponsorship can weigh very heavily on a 19 year old.

That pressure combined with a severe ankle injury and a scrutinizing Melbourne media may influence him to want to get out to a new environment.

Plough's pledge to shattered Jay
02 April 2005 Herald Sun
Scott Gullan and Jon Pierik

RICHMOND coach Terry Wallace says shattered utility Jay Schulz should be "educated not assassinated" despite his drink-driving charge ending the club's multi-million dollar sponsorship deal.
Tigers chase a new backer

Wallace and Schulz met with the club's management, leadership and playing group yesterday after arriving at Punt Rd at 8am and apologised for his behaviour.

Asked how he felt as he left the ground, Schulz, who joined the Tigers at the end of 2002, said: "Pretty disappointed, as everyone is."

The Tigers are worried about Schulz's mental state as he is recovering from a serious ankle injury.

It was also revealed yesterday that Schulz had broken a club rule of not drinking while recovering from injury.

Schulz's parents, Fiona and Paul, flew from Eyre Peninsula in South Australia on Thursday night to be with their distraught son.

Club officials are keen to make sure the mental scars of such a public humiliation are not permanent.

"We've got to be very careful," a club source said.

"He's been belted by the cops, belted by the football club and belted by the public . . . he's a shattered man and we need to look after him."

Despite conceding Schulz had made an "enormous blunder", Wallace said the best move would be to continue to educate the 19-year-old on his social responsibilities.

"The message of the TAC is firmly getting across and we are educating society, because if this was something that happened 10 or 20 years ago, we would not be getting anywhere near the airplay on the radio or anything that it is now getting," he said.

Wallace denied suggestions Schulz's contract should be shredded.

"The message from the whole football club -- the coaching staff and the playing division -- is that we couldn't be more disappointed," Wallace said.

As the Tigers prepare for tomorrow's crucial clash against fellow struggler Hawthorn, Wallace said the controversy would have no bearing on the result.

"This shouldn't have any effect whatsoever on what you're doing on a footy field and that's basically where we sit," Wallace said.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

The only time I can see the Crows trading either of their 1st/2nd round draft picks over the next few years is for probable 10-year players (eg. Scott Thompson who turned 22 in March).

The only SA boys under-23 of REAL quality that I'd trade early picks for would be: Kane Cornes, Pavlich, Rivers, Schammer or Cooney.

Absolutely which is why you would never discount trading ANY draft pick if the right deal were available.

Look at Melbourne, got Maloney - a fantastic pickup even at this early stage - are we saying we would not have entertained the idea of getting him if he were available (cause a third round draft pick was not going to do anything)
But then again according to some at 21 he's too old for our recruiting strategies.

On this age argument again, the discussion on do we recruit Fevola again on the age argument the answer would be no as he will be 25 next year.
This no recruiting players over 25 is bunkem! - if we get 6-7 years of known quality footy and the player recruited fills a team need, surely that is better than recruiting an unknown quantity who you hope will make the grade and hope will get past 50 AFL games.

There's plenty that don't - now don't mis-interpret my argument, Iam not saying trade draft choices - what Iam saying is be open minded to trading, drafting irrespective of age.

On the arguments presented by some we should never have recruited D.Jarman

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Let me start by saying, I'd probably take the lad on too if he came at a cheap price.

But it's definitely a bit more than fk-all. He's a P plate driver and he is not allowed to drive with any alcohol at all in his bloodstream.

he would have known that before he went to the hotel and started drinking. He would have known that before he elected to drive home.

He chose to break the law, and in doing so would have known he was doing the wrong thing, not just in law, but also by his club.

If I was the Richmond CEO I'd feel like breaking his arms and legs and tossing him out for the reckless contempt he had for his club, who everybody knows is sponsored by an anti-drink-driving body.

That's a bit more than fk-all.

I agree with you Macca. He should not have been driving full-stop as he was a P-plater with alcohol in the system. With the money these footballers are on, he could afford a cab.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Absolutely which is why you would never discount trading ANY draft pick if the right deal were available.

Look at Melbourne, got Maloney - a fantastic pickup even at this early stage - are we saying we would not have entertained the idea of getting him if he were available (cause a third round draft pick was not going to do anything)
But then again according to some at 21 he's too old for our recruiting strategies.

On this age argument again, the discussion on do we recruit Fevola again on the age argument the answer would be no as he will be 25 next year.
This no recruiting players over 25 is bunkem! - if we get 6-7 years of known quality footy and the player recruited fills a team need, surely that is better than recruiting an unknown quantity who you hope will make the grade and hope will get past 50 AFL games.

There's plenty that don't - now don't mis-interpret my argument, Iam not saying trade draft choices - what Iam saying is be open minded to trading, drafting irrespective of age.

On the arguments presented by some we should never have recruited D.Jarman

Yep, I'm sure the idea that we won't trade out 1st & 2nd round picks would go out the window if a good young talent became available in a a trade. Never say never.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

I agree with you Macca. He should not have been driving full-stop as he was a P-plater with alcohol in the system. With the money these footballers are on, he could afford a cab.

With respect at 19 there are a lot of stupid things done which we later regret.
Is Shultz any different from every other 19 year old?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

With respect at 19 there are a lot of stupid things done which we later regret.
Is Shultz any different from every other 19 year old?

He has more disposable income than most 19 year olds & would have had plenty educational sessions from the club. The idiot should have caught a taxi.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

He has more disposable income than most 19 year olds & would have had plenty educational sessions from the club. The idiot should have caught a taxi.

Don't disagree Kane, but the fact remains at 19 the brain cells for some are either still developing or have been destroyed

 

[macca23]

Is Shultz any different from every other 19 year old?

Yes he is.

We, the general public, are not highly paid AFL players under public scrutiny expected to be role models for Australian youth.

Once you excuse the role models you have no standards. To play down what Schulz did says "don't bother about the laws, just have a few anyway"

Young drivers mixed up with alcohol and speed have proven to be deadly mixtures over the years.

And surely you're not naive enough to think that the Richmond club don't hammer this point about drink driving to all their players, given who was their sponsor?

$500,000 per year down the tube because Schultz thinks the laws of the land and the Richmond Footy club don't apply to him?

That's a little more than a naughty boy escapade.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Yes he is.

We, the general public, are not highly paid AFL players under public scrutiny expected to be role models for Australian youth.

Once you excuse the role models you have no standards. To play down what Schulz did says "don't bother about the laws, just have a few anyway"

Young drivers mixed up with alcohol and speed have proven to be deadly mixtures over the years.

And surely you're not naive enough to think that the Richmond club don't hammer this point about drink driving to all their players, given who was their sponsor?

$500,000 per year down the tube because Schultz thinks the laws of the land and the Richmond Footy club don't apply to him?

That's a little more than a naughty boy escapade.

Macca money has no relevance in this issue to the decision making process of the lad.

And who said AFL players at 19 are or should be role models - that is totally unfair and I doubt Shultz at 19 with 16 games under his belt is a role model to anyone bar his family members.
Now Hird, Buckley and other high profile players are a different story.

Yes Richmond have educated their players but Macca anymore tham you or I and other community members have been educated about right & wrong, and whats lawful and unlawful.

Not excusing what he did for a minute, but I will guess that what you got up to was probably worse and Iam sure you were educated on the laws of the land

This kid should not be held responsible for Richmond losing the TAC sponsorship, with the exception of Collingwood that pressure does not fall onto other AFL players at other clubs.

 

[macca23]

Not excusing what he did for a minute, but I will guess that what you got up to was probably worse and Iam sure you were educated on the laws of the land

Guity as charged.

But when I played footy the culture re drinking etc was totally different.

You weren't regarded as a man unless you got thoroughly p*ssed after the game. Or if you missed the Sunday morning drinking marathon/strip show!!

But our match fees bought us a pair of boots and a couple pair of boot-laces. We were barely professionals who did this for a living.

Times have changed dramatically within both society and footy clubs.

Players like Schulz are supposed to be the consumate professional right from day one when they go through AFL conducted courses as to what is expected from them.

Society no longer accepts drink driving as an acceptable practice, hence the introduction of zero alcohol for P plate drivers and the lowering of acceptable blood leveks of alcohol.

Yes he might be only 19. But he is in a different environment to the normal 19 year old, and is paid accordingly. He also has to act accordingly.

Times have changed. It's no longer a minor offence and its ramifications have been massive.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Society no longer accepts drink driving as an acceptable practice, hence the introduction of zero alcohol for P plate drivers and the lowering of acceptable blood leveks of alcohol.

Yes he might be only 19. But he is in a different environment to the normal 19 year old, and is paid accordingly. He also has to act accordingly.

Times have changed. It's no longer a minor offence and its ramifications have been massive.

The general opinion here is this kid should not be held responsible for losing a club sponsor - an opinion I agree with.

As I said b4 the money is irrelevant to the argument - it has not had any effect on Shultzs decision process.


Is Shultz any different to any other 19 year old playing Hockey, Softball, Baseball, Basketball who also have strict club and training environments - No

In Basketball they just shoot people or attack coaches......
In comparison to possible areas of problems Shultz's was minor - excusable NO! but lets get some perspective and understand what it's like to be young