The Judd Rule.

[DTShowtime]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/clubs-fume-over-the-judd-rule/story-e6frf9jf-1226094925825

Hawthorn boss Jeff Kennett said a move to block a third-party deal for Melbourne's Tom Scully was hypocritical.
It follows revelations the AFL has outlawed outside arrangements such as the one that sealed Chris Judd's defection to Carlton.
The Carlton skipper continues to pocket lucrative payments from cardboard giant Visy without affecting the club's salary cap.
"The AFL have continued to vary the rules to suit the interests of the AFL," Kennett told the Herald Sun yesterday.

Payments from Visy to Judd, believed to total several hundred thousand dollars a year, come on top of his estimated $900,000-a-season Carlton pay packet.
The Visy deal was a deciding factor in Judd choosing Carlton after he left the West Coast Eagles in 2007

I wonder if this Judd deal would have been ticked off if Mike Fitzpatrick wasn't on the AFL Commission.

 

[JuddsABlue]

lol this thread is pathetic

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

Other players are more than welcome to try and attract media contracts from other sponsors, as they are currently doing

the obsession from Collingwood continues....

 

[Neville Bartos]

You can be absolutely sure that everyone outside of Carlton is absolute bemused at how Judd and Carlton get away with the stupid Visy deal.

Correct me if I'm wrong (or try to if I'm right and you're a Carlton supporter) but the facts are:

1. Visy was a sponsor of Carlton at the time
2. The owner of Visy was the Carlton president at the time
3. Judd's deciding factor to choose Carlton over the other clubs was the chance to work at Visy

Any expert will tell you that the $200,000 he's rumoured to be getting at Visy for the service he actually provides is seriously suspect. Some of the 3rd party deals at the Melbourne Storm were less connected to the club than Judd, Visy and Carlton.

I hope all 16 other club presidents get together and rally against the AFL for allowing this blatant salary cap double-standards to happen.

And it will be interesting to see Judd's opinion of the environment and Carlton once he stops getting paid by Visy.

 

[DTShowtime]

I hope all 16 other club presidents get together and rally against the AFL for allowing this blatant salary cap double-standards to happen.

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.

 

[Poseidon]

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

Hard to disagree with this comment, even if my club has been a beneficiary of it.

 

[jonoman89]

Hard to disagree with this comment, even if my club has been a beneficiary of it.

Agree, the Judd thing doesn't sit well with me. However, Judd is not the only person with a club related 3rd party deal.

It's quite clear the AFL only enforce the cap or go against its underlying rationale when it suits them.

Judd is using the system to the best of his abilities, and provided that is ticked off then nothing can be done. 100% of players would take the same deal. He has the right to seek the best money for his services, like any other employee.

 

[Wooljay]

Well defensive Blues supporters aside, Kennett actually makes a good point for once. It's absurdly hypocritical by the AFL, and they are bending the rules just so one of their franchises can get away with poaching a second year high pick player. It's absolute trash.

 

[jonoman89]

Well defensive Blues supporters aside

The two Carlton fans above you have agreed the Judd deal stinks.

 

[Wooljay]

The two Carlton fans above you have agreed the Judd deal stinks.

I'm preempting the endless hordes that will inevitably follow.

 

[Bestbird]

The Judd Visy deal was always suspect

A case of poltics over equality by the AFL in terms of the salary cap when the agenda suits.

 

[Magma]

i personally dont have a problem with the judd deal and the scully one should be allowed too. afl seem pissy that this might take away from their new franchise. i just dont see the big deal with getting outside payments, especially if they are being used like judd (who i believe is an ambassador/spokesman for visy?).

 

[Damon_3388]

Any expert will tell you that the $200,000 he's rumoured to be getting at Visy for the service he actually provides is seriously suspect.

Can't Visy choose to pay their employee whatever they like, regardless of whether someone else sees it as commensurate to the service Judd provides? If they are willing to and can afford to pay him $200,000 a year for doing very little, good luck to them I say. There's nothing stopping Carlton paying, say, Ryan Houlihan $1 million a year (if they could afford it within the cap) if they wanted to either. Whether he's actually worth that amount for what he produces should be neither here nor there in reality; as long as they can afford it, and are willing to pay it, how they spend their money is their business.

The thing I find funny is how some people act as though "the Judd deal" is something new, or something that only he is getting. There's reportedly over 100 players on similar "outside the cap" deals around the league, and these kind of deals/cushy outside jobs have been around for many, many years; I remember a number of Crows players in the mid-'90s had "sales rep" kind of jobs with sponsor SA Breweries (where I'd imagine they did little else other than be a recognised "face" for the company), and appeared in ads for other sponsors like Balfours and Toyota as well.

 

[The Magenius]

The AFL have to fix this, its a really ugly look, but they wont because they want scully to go to GWS and they don't want to upset their star man Judd.

 

[The Magenius]

Can't Visy choose to pay their employees whatever they like, regardless of whether someone else sees it as commensurate to the service Judd provides? If they are willing to and can afford to pay him $200,000 a year for doing very little, good luck to them I say. There's nothing stopping Carlton paying, say, Ryan Houlihan $1 million a year (if they could afford it within the cap) if they wanted to either. Whether he's actually worth that amount for what he produces should be neither here nor there in reality; as long as they can afford it, and are willing to pay it, how they spend their money is their business.

The thing I find funny is how some people act as though "the Judd deal" is something new, or something that only he is getting. There's reportedly over 100 players on similar "outside the cap" deals around the league, and these kind of deals/cushy outside jobs have been around for many, many years; I remember a number of Crows players in the mid-'90s had "sales rep" kind of jobs with sponsor SA Breweries (where I'd imagine they did little else other than be a recognised "face" for the company), and appeared in ads for other sponsors like Balfours and Toyota as well.

The big issue with the judd deal is that there is no way he would have got the visy deal had he not gone to carlton and by all reports this was the main reason he choose carlton.

 

[Damon_3388]

The big issue with the judd deal is that there is no way he would have got the visy deal had he not gone to carlton and by all reports this was the main reason he choose carlton.

Who's to say that Melbourne, or Collingwood, or any other Victorian-based club wouldn't have or couldn't have gotten him a similar deal with one of their sponsors?

 

[Scodog10]

I wonder if this Judd deal would have been ticked off if Mike Fitzpatrick wasn't on the AFL Commission.

Be careful about casting absolutely ridiculous aspersions like this, Fitzpatrick and the commission may have allowed it but only after acting on the advice given to them by others.

The person that needs to come into question for allowing the deal is the one that audits the club's salary caps, I've heard his name mentioned before but for the life of me can't think of it now, if anyone can provide it I'd appreciate it.

The point being that before a deal like this is given the green light the auditor is supposed to go over it with a fine tooth comb and decide if there are any anomalies with it. Considering he felt that Judd's deal met the guidelines he's the one that needs to be questioned as he's employed by the commission to make sure they make the right decision and that the rules aren't exploited!

Which TBH does seem to be the case with the Visy deal.

 

[Furn]

Who's to say that Melbourne, or Collingwood, or any other Victorian-based club wouldn't have or couldn't have gotten him a similar deal with one of their sponsors?

The point is there's a salary cap. It's there to keep teams reasonably even. Are you saying the team with the richest fans or sponsors should get all the best players?

 

[Damon_3388]

The point is there's a salary cap. It's there to keep teams reasonably even. Are you saying the team with the richest fans or sponsors should get all the best players?

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?

 

[Ando727]

The big issue with the judd deal is that there is no way he would have got the visy deal had he not gone to carlton and by all reports this was the main reason he choose carlton.

You could even take it a step past that and say that it wasn't Visy who paid for that deal, it was the owner of Visy, Dick Pratt. Since he was the president of Carlton and it was in his direct interests to have Judd at the team, it must be considered a payment by Carton outside of the salary cap. Anyone who can't see that is in serious denial.

It's equivalent to arguing that a husband who promotes his secretary wife and doubles her salary immediately after marrying her was doing so in the capacity of being her boss and her job performance, and not because of his personal relationship with her. Sure, they make up stories about how it transpired, but it just isn't credible.

Visy has continued to honour the deal because it remains in the Pratt family and Jeannie Pratt is almost as much of a Carlton nut as her late husband was. If Visy were a separate company with no ties to Carlton, does anybody seriously think they would need a contract with Chris Judd? Visy is an industrial company that markets products to the wholesale market, not to the general public. They don't sell more products because Chris Judd is an ambassador for the company. Nor do they give a flying *&(^ about the environment. It's all hot air designed to get and keep Judd at Carlton. Other clubs have every right to be angry about Judd being an exception to the rule. The Judd-Visy should be canceled if we are interested in fairness across the board. Unfortunately we aren't. That's why we have situations like new clubs raping drafts and offering equally dodgy player contracts and disproportionate salary caps. The AFL is run like a corporation and not a sporting league. That's why we can't really expect it to be run fairly.

 

[The Magenius]

Who's to say that Melbourne, or Collingwood, or any other Victorian-based club wouldn't have or couldn't have gotten him a similar deal with one of their sponsors?

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.

 

[TheKITC]

Can't Visy choose to pay their employee whatever they like, regardless of whether someone else sees it as commensurate to the service Judd provides? If they are willing to and can afford to pay him $200,000 a year for doing very little, good luck to them I say. There's nothing stopping Carlton paying, say, Ryan Houlihan $1 million a year (if they could afford it within the cap) if they wanted to either. Whether he's actually worth that amount for what he produces should be neither here nor there in reality; as long as they can afford it, and are willing to pay it, how they spend their money is their business.

The thing I find funny is how some people act as though "the Judd deal" is something new, or something that only he is getting. There's reportedly over 100 players on similar "outside the cap" deals around the league, and these kind of deals/cushy outside jobs have been around for many, many years; I remember a number of Crows players in the mid-'90s had "sales rep" kind of jobs with sponsor SA Breweries (where I'd imagine they did little else other than be a recognised "face" for the company), and appeared in ads for other sponsors like Balfours and Toyota as well.

I see it, but I don't believe it!

Great post, especially the second paragraph.

I'm glad a non-Carlton supporter put this forward so it is not just dismissed in typical BF logic.

 

[scraw]

Who's to say that Melbourne, or Collingwood, or any other Victorian-based club wouldn't have or couldn't have gotten him a similar deal with one of their sponsors?

But they didn't, and now Melbourne is trying to do that but it's not allowed. Except Judd can keep his.

All to make sure an AFL baby gets their man.

Not a shot at Carlton/Judd (though if such laughable workarounds are to be allowed we may as well just be up front about it). More the inequity of it, especially in a landscape where some teams are getting utterly screwed to stand up two new teams

 

[no1bankteller]

I see it, but I don't believe it!

Great post, especially the second paragraph.

I'm glad a non-Carlton supporter put this forward so it is not just dismissed in typical BF logic.

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.

 

[Juddrockz]

According to the HUN as many as up to 114 players are getting paid outside the cap with third party deals etc and Juddy is only ONE of these!!!
Just imagine IF the afl decided to turn the tables and make all clubs try to slip the payments under the cap.there goes the premium players for most clubs I would imagine.
Cant see the afl reversing the rule now as the Pies are trying to keep all their "guns" together they'd have to let have their players go!!

 

[Pessimistic]

What about legitimate deals like Buddy's fashion label ?

Are we saying none of his backers/partners could be Hawthorn supporters, or that if his partner was a melbourne supporter, he than couldn't transfer to melbourne ?

Just hypothetically - before people have heart failure.

Sure the Judd Pratt thing was obvious, but just how do you draw the line ?