The Judd Rule.

[DTShowtime]

Why should he be forced to sell his entire career and chance of future success down the drain

He has had as much sucess at Carlton than he would have had at Richmond.

 

[Monkey King]

From all reports, Judd does **** all to get 200k from Visy.

Eh? Most sportsmen do **** all to get their sponsorship/ambassador dollars. Why are you expecting Judd to be any different? He does Visy clinics and photo shoots etc. Same as Jono Brown does for his NAB ambassador role.

What might be of interest to many of you is that Judd is not our only Visy ambassador. There are others ...

Dodgiest payments/roles from other clubs -

Mal Micheal - Club tried to make him a Brisbane Lions ambassador for PNG.

Geelong/Ford - Some Cats players post-career roles with that company have looked pretty dodgy.

 

[melbournemartin]

Maybe a cushy "sales rep" kind of job, where he does little more than appear in ads or act as a "face" for the company.

I was being facetious.

 

[melbournemartin]

Eh? Most sportsmen do **** all to get their sponsorship/ambassador dollars. Why are you expecting Judd to be any different? He does Visy clinics and photo shoots etc. Same as Jono Brown does for his NAB ambassador role.

What might be of interest to many of you is that Judd is not our only Visy ambassador. There are others ...

Dodgiest payments/roles from other clubs -

Mal Micheal - Club tried to make him a Brisbane Lions ambassador for PNG.

Geelong/Ford - Some Cats players post-career roles with that company have looked pretty dodgy.

But Judd's deal is supposedly ~200k and no other players get close to that. There is really a difference between getting a few thousand on the side to appear in some photoshoots and getting the salary of an average AFL player added on top for doing very little more.

And no, I don't know salary figures for sure but these numbers have been floating around.

 

[Monkey King]

He has had as much sucess at Carlton than he would have had at Richmond.

Stop playing dumb! Carlton's win/loss rate has been nearly double Richmond's over that time. Carlton have at least played finals footy and are currently Top 4 while the Tigers are well adrift of even making the 8. Is it really that hard to figure out?

 

[melbournemartin]

Stop playing dumb! Carlton's win/loss rate has been nearly double Richmond's over that time. Carlton have at least played finals footy and are currently Top 4 while the Tigers are well adrift of even making the 8. Is it really that hard to figure out?

...yes but that's with Chris Judd playing. I'm pretty sure his point was that if Judd were at Richmond then things would be different. Obviously they would be different, but not sure about a complete form reversal.

 

[Damon_3388]

I was being facetious.

Well I decided to give a proper answer, describing a scenario that could have easily worked in reality had Melbourne's sponsors agreed to it.

 

[melbournemartin]

Well I decided to give a proper answer, describing a scenario that could have easily worked in reality had Melbourne's sponsors agreed to it.

Obviously we weren't as good at Visy at cheating the system. I'm sure Eddie had a big crack though.

The basic fact is that Judd is on a contract at Visy that brought him to Carlton. Adrian "****wit" Anderson has come out and said that any third-party deals used to keep Scully at Melbourne would have to be included under the salary cap.

I am still yet to have a Carlton supporter, or anyone else, describe to me how the Judd deal is allowed given what Adrian "****wit" Anderson said.

 

[Monkey King]

...yes but that's with Chris Judd playing. I'm pretty sure his point was that if Judd were at Richmond then things would be different.

Just going round in circles now. Judd considered his future to be at Carlton, why should he compromise his entire career for a one-off one pick upgrade. Makes no sense when people pull out the "should have dealt with Richmond" line. All I'm left thinking is that Judd's a hell of a lot smarter than the average BF punter

 

[Damon_3388]

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.

Well obviously it's not written into a lot of players' contracts, is it. That's why an estimated 114 players have outside the cap deals.

Obviously we weren't as good at Visy at cheating the system. I'm sure Eddie had a big crack though.

He would have been remiss not to. Football clubs should do all they can to get great players to their club, and should (and often do) exploit loopholes in the system and rules when it suits them. People always like to think of "their" football club as some morally upstanding righteous organisation, when in reality they all do just as much "dirty" stuff as each other to win or put themselves into a winning position.

I am still yet to have a Carlton supporter, or anyone else, describe to me how the Judd deal is allowed given what Adrian "****wit" Anderson said.

Unless this rule is set to act retrospectively on deals already in place (and Anderson and Co. want to investigate the legality all 114 seperate deals around the league, which I doubt they'd bother to do), the Judd deal just falls under whatever the rules were at the time the deal was instituted.

 

[blue healer]

And the fact that the AFL has changed its rules because it wants Tom Scully to go to GWS.

From all reports, Judd does **** all to get 200k from Visy. It's blatant salary cap cheating but Judd is the AFL golden boy so it's acceptable. This sounds like an odd argument but if Carlton is allowed to cheat then Melbourne should too. I don't like that we'd have to resort to third-party payments to keep Scully here but he's worth it, as is Judd.

A lot of people are talking about how Judd's contract with Visy somehow is still acceptable within the new, tightened AFL guidelines. Yet, according to this article, it says that ANY third-party deals for Tom Scully would not be allowed outside the salary cap.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/118464/default.aspx

So, Carlton supporters or anyone, can you please convince me how Judd has a legitimate contract at Visy, even under the tightened conditions, but Melbourne cannot obtain ANY third-party deal?

Judd's contract at Visy is legitimate because it was approved by the AFL who now seem to be moving the goalposts. In this circumstance it is only reasonable that existing arrangements remain in place and the new guidelines must be abided by.

A better question is why is the AFL now changing the rules. If it is mainly to get Scully (or anyone else for that matter) to fledgling clubs it is just plain wrong. Whilst I see the merit in expansion there is something just a little distasteful about long standing clubs (particularly those with no recent success like Melb & the Bulldogs) having their list management plans shattered by the AFL's desire to see new clubs achieve success immediately.

I think I read somewhere that GC are are planning to send their list to Arizona for altitude training. Who pays for this and if subsidised by the AFL why do clubs who are financially struggling not get the same assistance?

 

[melbournemartin]

Judd's contract at Visy is legitimate because it was approved by the AFL who now seem to be moving the goalposts. In this circumstance it is only reasonable that existing arrangements remain in place and the new guidelines must be abided by.

A better question is why is the AFL now changing the rules. If it is mainly to get Scully (or anyone else for that matter) to fledgling clubs it is just plain wrong. Whilst I see the merit in expansion there is something just a little distasteful about long standing clubs (particularly those with no recent success like Melb & the Bulldogs) having their list management plans shattered by the AFL's desire to see new clubs achieve success immediately.

I think I read somewhere that GC are are planning to send their list to Arizona for altitude training. Who pays for this and if subsidised by the AFL why do clubs who are financially struggling not get the same assistance?

I don't see why it is reasonable that Judd's arrangement at Visy should remain in place. His contract should be cancelled if it does not fall under the new rules.

To those who said that it does fall under the new rules, can you please explain how? Saying that it abides by the new rules is different to saying it abides by the old rules but won't be changed now it's in place.

 

[melbournemartin]

Well obviously it's not written into a lot of players' contracts, is it. That's why an estimated 114 players have outside the cap deals.



He would have been remiss not to. Football clubs should do all they can to get great players to their club, and should (and often do) exploit loopholes in the system and rules when it suits them. People always like to think of "their" football club as some morally upstanding righteous organisation, when in reality they all do just as much "dirty" stuff as each other to win or put themselves into a winning position.



Unless this rule is set to act retrospectively on deals already in place (and Anderson and Co. want to investigate the legality all 114 seperate deals around the league, which I doubt they'd bother to do), the Judd deal just falls under whatever the rules were at the time the deal was instituted.

Yep, all 114 deals should be investigated and, if they do not abide by the new rules, they should be cancelled. Simple Time consuming perhaps, but fair.

 

[yibbida]

I don't see why it is reasonable that Judd's arrangement at Visy should remain in place. His contract should be cancelled if it does not fall under the new rules.

Now that would open up a can of worms the AFL couldn't afford to open.

 

[blue healer]

I don't see why it is reasonable that Judd's arrangement at Visy should remain in place. His contract should be cancelled if it does not fall under the new rules.

To those who said that it does fall under the new rules, can you please explain how? Saying that it abides by the new rules is different to saying it abides by the old rules but won't be changed now it's in place.

Good luck in court with that one.

 

[Bestbird]

Judd's contract at Visy is legitimate because it was approved by the AFL who now seem to be moving the goalposts. In this circumstance it is only reasonable that existing arrangements remain in place and the new guidelines must be abided by.

A better question is why is the AFL now changing the rules. If it is mainly to get Scully (or anyone else for that matter) to fledgling clubs it is just plain wrong. Whilst I see the merit in expansion there is something just a little distasteful about long standing clubs (particularly those with no recent success like Melb & the Bulldogs) having their list management plans shattered by the AFL's desire to see new clubs achieve success immediately.

I think I read somewhere that GC are are planning to send their list to Arizona for altitude training. Who pays for this and if subsidised by the AFL why do clubs who are financially struggling not get the same assistance?

If you think the AFL moving the goal post regarding Scully is distastefull and wrong

Surely you can see the same regarding Judd with the AFL doing something similar in legitimising a 3rd party deal wayoutside the normal boundaries to help Carlton who were struggling at the time.

 

[willydave]

Yep, all 114 deals should be investigated and, if they do not abide by the new rules, they should be cancelled. Simple Time consuming perhaps, but fair.

Give up Martin, they've got us and everyone else over a barrel. The AFL have control of the biggest sport in the country and we all march in every weekend and sit down to watch our teams go about it.

The AFL do what they feel is fair for the majority of the competition, if that means squashing a relatively weaker club like ours, then there is no hesitation.

We are but a tiny dot on their 'plan for success' and we sit somewhere in the 10-15 range in terms of the next team they'd like to see be successful.

The only way to vote with out feet is to not buy AFL memberships. We are still too quiet as a club. Imagine if GWS looked like they were going to take Dustin Martin under this plan, Richmond fans would be livid. We are soft target and take the punishment without so much as a whimper.

 

[blue healer]

If you think the AFL moving the goal post regarding Scully is distastefull and wrong

Surely you can see the same regarding Judd with the AFL doing something similar in legitimising a 3rd party deal wayoutside the normal boundaries to help Carlton who were struggling at the time.

How do you know the Judd deal was way outside the normal boundaries?

How many times do I have to say, in differing styles, that it doesn't matter what you or I think about the deal it was approved by the governing body.

Personally I am not too keen on it but at least it's in the open and not hidden under piles of carpet like ours (and other clubs) in the past.

And I'm pleased that we have him.

 

[Gaz_Brownlow]

How do you know the Judd deal was way outside the normal boundaries?

How many times do I have to say, in differing styles, that it doesn't matter what you or I think about the deal it was approved by the governing body.

Personally I am not too keen on it but at least it's in the open and not hidden under piles of carpet like ours (and other clubs) in the past.

And I'm pleased that we have him.

Whats not open mate is the exact dollar figure on his VISY contract.....reportedly up to 700k per season! Thats bullshite of the highest order IF true!!

Its not Carlton's fault this time, they presented the deal for approval and it got approved....however the whole thing wreaks of AFL manipulation and again and again we are uncovering some hidden truths behind the AFL that is compromising the fairness of the competition.

ALL third party payments related to clubs should be strictly OUTLAWED and under no circumstances should there be any additional payments from club associates than what the club is able to supply under the salary cap.

No exceptions....and this even includes Gary Ablett Jnr's additional payments for property advertising in Geelong/Torque...that should have been brought up as well.

The AFL have a lot to answer for over the Judd deal.

 

[Cthublhu]

Whats not open mate is the exact dollar figure on his VISY contract.....reportedly up to 700k per season!

**** me! Judd's deal with VISY gets bigger with every post. It started this thread at barely into 6 figures, morphed into 200k per season, stayed there for a while and now it's at 700k. A few more pages of this and Juddy will be buying Bill Gates.

 

[Thommo 42]

Heath Shaw had a 3rd party deal with the TAB, he went to get is signed off with the AFL and it didn't work out for him.

One rule for Judd, one rule for everyone else!

 

[blue healer]

Whats not open mate is the exact dollar figure on his VISY contract.....reportedly up to 700k per season! Thats bullshite of the highest order IF true!!

Its not Carlton's fault this time, they presented the deal for approval and it got approved....however the whole thing wreaks of AFL manipulation and again and again we are uncovering some hidden truths behind the AFL that is compromising the fairness of the competition.

ALL third party payments related to clubs should be strictly OUTLAWED and under no circumstances should there be any additional payments from club associates than what the club is able to supply under the salary cap.

No exceptions....and this even includes Gary Ablett Jnr's additional payments for property advertising in Geelong/Torque...that should have been brought up as well.

The AFL have a lot to answer for over the Judd deal.

Mate, exactly where does a $700K figure come from?

I don't mind the concept being banned but if you think this will stamp out clandestine, undisclosed payments then I want what you're smoking

 

[Partridge]

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.

Good post. It's a pretty simple answer, if the AFL wants that particular team to either succeed or improve, the deal will go through. They want Carlton to improve so Judd's deal with Visy is seen as proper and above board.

Likewise, they would've dragged Ablett up to the Gold Coast themselves if he hadn't have left himself, and would have found any way to pay him.

Do they want Melbourne to get better? Not so much, hence their opposition to Scully getting extra cash to stay.

 

[gbatman]

if other clubs want to do it and it is within the rules like Carlton have done it then good for them. Judd is a well educated man. I believe he achieved an enter score in the high 90's which makes him one of the best students of his year in Victoria. Judd has an active role with Visy. Sure it's part of the lure and he's probably getting payed a lot for doing little but it was a good get .

 

[Damon_3388]

Do they want Melbourne to get better? Not so much, hence their opposition to Scully getting extra cash to stay.

Why not though? 50 years ago, they were the biggest club in VFL football. Surely having a former superpower return to prominence is just an attractive prospect as giving one extra good young player (of which they'll be getting plenty anyway) to a new franchise.