The Judd Rule.

[Big Kahuna Boot]

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.

..a well known celebrity/sporting identity's image is worth quite a lot actually.. ..the better the player, the more they get.. ..in all things.. ..wage, sponsorships, 3rd party deals etc etc.. ..up until Gazza left geelong, he was also on a 3rd party deal [worth more than Judd]..

..the ONLY reason these 3rd party deals are being tightened is to prevent first geelong, and now melbourne, from matching or getting close to the offers from the AFL expansion teams.. ..these 'changes' have bnothing to do with Judd/Carlton/Visy, and everything to do with the AFL ensuring GC & GWS get their targeted players..

 

[Stamos]

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!

Oh, the injustice of it all

 

[jonoman89]

I have absolutely no love for Carlton, but you can't blame them for this. I would expect them to do everything in their power and within the rules to attract and maintain Judd.

If the same deal was to be signed tomorrow, I would say absolutely not - it should not be allowed.

But right or wrong, it's done.

So the fact that Judd has it, doesn't mean anyone else should get it.

And Judd should also not be allowed to re-sign the same deal again.

This post hits the nail on the head.

Like any other club would, Carlton did as much as it could (within the rules) to land a big fish. A fish that is desperately wanted.

I do not agree with the AFL in allowing these 3rd party agreement to get out of hand, but if i was in a position to benefit out of it i would. Regardless of my own thoughts on the matter. It's business.

Similarly, i think it's appalling how the AFL is maneuvering to stiff the Melbourne Football Club.

The only difference i can see between the Judd and Scully scenarios is that the 3rd party deal was used to lure Judd to another club, whereas a Scully deal would be to retain them. Still, that doesn't justify a seperate set of rules for mine.

 

[melbournemartin]

..a well known celebrity/sporting identity's image is worth quite a lot actually.. ..the better the player, the more they get.. ..in all things.. ..wage, sponsorships, 3rd party deals etc etc.. ..up until Gazza left geelong, he was also on a 3rd party deal [worth more than Judd]..

..the ONLY reason these 3rd party deals are being tightened is to prevent first geelong, and now melbourne, from matching or getting close to the offers from the AFL expansion teams.. ..these 'changes' have bnothing to do with Judd/Carlton/Visy, and everything to do with the AFL ensuring GC & GWS get their targeted players..

I totally agree with this bolded point.

The relation with "The Judd Rule" is that if Melbourne were allowed to give Scully a comparable salary that Carlton gives Judd through Visy then Scully would likely stay. It's still a blatant case of double standards by the AFL.

Until someone can convince me that Judd's contract would be accepted if proposed now under the new tighter rules, I will stand by the thought that it should be torn up. It is horrendous that the AFL can implement/change a rule and only say that it counts for future third-party deals, not present ones.

 

[BlueDay]

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





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

114 players in the AFL have 3rd party deals, that is 113 other than Judd. Players at your club, be careful what you wish for people....

 

[melbournemartin]

114 players in the AFL have 3rd party deals, that is 113 other than Judd. Players at your club, be careful what you wish for people....

The issue, as has been stated many times in this thread, is that Judd's is supposedly much larger than any other third-party deal.

 

[Monkey King]

It is horrendous that the AFL can implement/change a rule and only say that it counts for future third-party deals, not present ones.

No it's not. It's a standard practice to allow current agreements to expire before applying new regulations. The posters suggesting otherwise have no clue as to the legalities of what they're suggesting; an expensive court battle just waiting to be lost.

 

[Monkey King]

The issue, as has been stated many times in this thread, is that Judd's is supposedly much larger than any other third-party deal.

Indeed; all you're relying on is conjecture. Until someone can actually prove this, I call bullshit with total confidence. Had Ablett remained with Geelong for example, his third party deals would have paled Judd's. What do you reckon he'd be on now?

 

[Smokin]

No it's not. It's a standard practice to allow current agreements to expire before applying new regulations. The posters suggesting otherwise have no clue as to the legalities of what they're suggesting; an expensive court battle just waiting to be lost.

agree

how they were ever allowed should be the real question. Just an absolute can of worms and has/had to be stopped.

Makes no sense to have a salary cap, then a legal cheat. Mindbogglingly ridiculous.

 

[davis_756]

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?

This is exactly right every club in the comp that put offers to Judd would have had 200-300k coming from outside sources.

The difference between Carlton and the rest was simply that we could give him 900k under the cap while teams like the pies could only afford 500-600k.

The nonsense notion that Visy is what got him to carlton is wrong, its because we had more cap space & the draft picks to trade with.

 

[eldorado]

The nonsense notion that Visy is what got him to carlton is wrong, its because we had more cap space & the draft picks to trade with.

Regardless of what actually got him to Carlton, the real nonsense notion is that a 3rd party deal, with a company sponsoring the Blues, run by a president who is a high level coterie/president of the Blues, is completely unrelated to Chris Judd signing for the Blues.

This is the major problem with the deal, more-so than whether Judd is being paid acceptable market rates for his work. The problem is that the playing contract and the Visy contract is clearly one deal, provisional on Judd signing for Carlton.

 

[Big Kahuna Boot]

Regardless of what actually got him to Carlton, the real nonsense notion is that a 3rd party deal, with a company sponsoring the Blues, run by a president who is a high level coterie/president of the Blues, is completely unrelated to Chris Judd signing for the Blues.

This is the major problem with the deal, more-so than whether Judd is being paid acceptable market rates for his work. The problem is that the playing contract and the Visy contract is clearly one deal, provisional on Judd signing for Carlton.

..ultimately though, there's no problem with the deal because the AFL sanctioned/approved the deal when it was made.. ..they went through the deal with a fine tooth comb, they didn't just rubber-stamp it.. ..and even now, whatever they spruik in the media, they still approve that deal, even if they say it's not allowed any more for future deals [or rather, not allowed for clubs trying to retain players targeted by expansion clubs].. ..the AFL still give it their tick of approval.. ..so the 'Judd' deal is still legit..

..the AFL has double standards throughout their competition.. ..whatever tightening of the rules they claim to have done, is temporary i believe.. ..once their expansion teams' start-ups are completed, you'll see such tightening of 3rd party deals being 'relaxed' once more.. ..it's in the AFL's own interests, since they don't wanna give the players all that extra coin in their new CBA, allowing 3rd party deals is their way of getting a bit of extra coin to players without reaching into their own pockets..

 

[eldorado]

As you say, there is no problem with the deal, as the AFL say it's fine...

The only problem is with the AFL maintaining the fiction that they are acting transparently and equitably when it comes to the enforcement of their 'rules'.

 

[Chief Ten Beers]

the obsession from Collingwood continues....

Since when was Kennett a Collingwood supporter? Did you even read the OP?

 

[Big Kahuna Boot]

As you say, there is no problem with the deal, as the AFL say it's fine...

The only problem is with the AFL maintaining the fiction that they are acting transparently and equitably when it comes to the enforcement of their 'rules'.

..pretty much everyone knows though, that the AFL is doing nothing of the sort.. ..the AFL is a constantly shifting landscape, with obvious questionable integrity.. ..this is why so many clubs will exploit the wording of AFL rules as much as they can.. ..there's no real 'spirit' in the competition to motivate 'ethical' actions by clubs when the competition itself is suspect..

 

[eldorado]

Now, as long as we can get Adrian Anderson to admit to that, I'll be perfectly satisfied.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

It's hard to know what "The Judd Rule" is. Everything is different for him than everyone else. Holding the ball doesn't apply to him for a start.

 

[ExTasDeeMan]

I'm a bit late to the party - so there are 114 3rd party deals that are currently in place (and not counted to a salary cap). If melbourne (or any team for that matter), offers a 3rd party deal, it WILL be counted to the salary cap?

 

[Hawthorn United]

I'm a bit late to the party - so there are 114 3rd party deals that are currently in place (and not counted to a salary cap). If melbourne (or any team for that matter), offers a 3rd party deal, it WILL be counted to the salary cap?

Only if it prevents one of these expansion teams capturing a player. Just wait for 2-3 years time when the GC and GWS youngsters may get poached by established teams and 3rd party deals being overlooked for them.

 

[Chronz]

He could hold the ball all day with players tackling him and he still wouldn't get pinged. he'd be paid a free in the back.

 

[Smokeyr67]

Since when was Kennett a Collingwood supporter? Did you even read the OP?

Eveyones a Collingwood supporter, they just haven't realised it yet.

 

[Smokeyr67]

It's hard to know what "The Judd Rule" is. Everything is different for him than everyone else. Holding the ball doesn't apply to him for a start.

If he had his right arm cut off, the umpires would still deem his handball attempts to be legal disposal.

 

[Dumpstar]

This thread is pathetic.

 

[stui magpie]

This thread is pathetic.

No, what IS pathetic is that the shonkiest deal ever is publicly allowed. Judd being paid by Visy is a clear conflict of interest and should be included in Carlton's salary cap.

 

[Bozo]

At least Carlton wasted this extra $200K+ of salary cap on Warnock and not on a player they actually needed, like say, a defender above 5'10" or a forward who isn't a crumber.