AFL pulls plug on Judd's controversial third party deal

Synbad · **Posted:** Fri Dec 14, 2012 6:01 am

Wojee wrote:

Synbad wrote:

you see????

of all the silly questions about this silly game.. you fixatingly want me to answer the one about the silly juddy extra money situation...like its meant to be paramount in its importance.....

I posted the Scully vs Judd article because I was simply amazed how much Scully was being paid compared to someone with many more runs on the board. You're the one who started going off on a tangent about persecution complexes and how it's not relevant to winning premierships etc etc etc

Perhaps Carlton should pay a 3rd year player $1.8million for a season. Bet you'd think it was worth thinking about then.

but who cares??????

theyre both getting a heap more than u and me....

premierships!!!

the rest i dont care about....

BigKev · **Posted:** Fri Dec 14, 2012 3:48 pm

Synbad wrote:

BigKev wrote:

Eddie wrote:

The AFL are a joke. I have no problem with them not allowing it to be extended after the initial agreement expired but how can they tick off on it and then change the rules before the agreement ended? The article says that the club were informed on October 22nd, so 2/3 's of the way through the trade period they inform us. Bad luck if we had traded in a new player thinking our salary cap had room.
His manager was radio this morning, not a happy man and says this isnt the end of it. This is one that could be challenged successfully in court. Why can the AFL control who a player works for? It would be no different to my boss telling me i couldnt get a second job.

Stuff always changes
The first part sums it up for me too Eddie.
I don't mind if they change what's allowed for the next contract, but it's unjust to change the rules after they've given it the ok.
It's reasonable to expect a higher level of competancy from AFL admin now that they're all getting "industry commensurate" renumeration.

The rules were for the duration of the contract.
Contract expired...

Has Judd signed a new contract?
Geez I am out of touch - thanks Synners.
That being the case I don't think we've got too much to complain about - so as the same rules apply to everyone else.

Synbad · **Posted:** Fri Dec 14, 2012 4:56 pm

BigKev wrote:

Synbad wrote:

BigKev wrote:

Eddie wrote:

The AFL are a joke. I have no problem with them not allowing it to be extended after the initial agreement expired but how can they tick off on it and then change the rules before the agreement ended? The article says that the club were informed on October 22nd, so 2/3 's of the way through the trade period they inform us. Bad luck if we had traded in a new player thinking our salary cap had room.
His manager was radio this morning, not a happy man and says this isnt the end of it. This is one that could be challenged successfully in court. Why can the AFL control who a player works for? It would be no different to my boss telling me i couldnt get a second job.

Stuff always changes
The first part sums it up for me too Eddie.
I don't mind if they change what's allowed for the next contract, but it's unjust to change the rules after they've given it the ok.
It's reasonable to expect a higher level of competancy from AFL admin now that they're all getting "industry commensurate" renumeration.

The rules were for the duration of the contract.
Contract expired...

Has Judd signed a new contract?
Geez I am out of touch - thanks Synners.
That being the case I don't think we've got too much to complain about - so as the same rules apply to everyone else.

3rd part contract expired.

CFC contract still going...

killpies · **Posted:** Sun Dec 23, 2012 8:47 pm

Expecting Eddie to start claiming this should be included in our salary cap too.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/tv-radio/rebecca-judd-to-replace-livinia-nixon-as-channel-9s-weather-girl/story-e6frf9ho-1226542365743

GWS · **Posted:** Sun Dec 23, 2012 8:51 pm

killpies wrote:

Expecting Eddie to start claiming this should be included in our salary cap too.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/tv-radio/rebecca-judd-to-replace-livinia-nixon-as-channel-9s-weather-girl/story-e6frf9ho-1226542365743

"The tv weather wars..."

:lol:

What the @#$%&! are these people on...?

Effes · **Posted:** Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:07 pm

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-ne ... 6560326551

AGRO · **Posted:** Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:03 am

Effes wrote:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/chris-judds-manager-paul-connors-hopes-to-save-visy-deal/story-e6frf9jf-1226560326551

And less than 6 hours later,

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-ne ... 6560030131

Quote:

Carlton fails in its bid to have Chris Judd's Visy deal returned to outside the salary cap
Glenn McFarlane From: Herald Sun January 24, 2013 12:00AM

CARLTON COACH MICK MALTHOUSE DIRECTS TRAFFIC AT TRAINING AT VISY PARK. PICTURE: MIKE KEATING HERALD SUN

CARLTON'S fresh bid to have Chris Judd's third-party deal with Visy returned to outside of the AFL salary cap has failed.

Anencephalic · **Joined:** Wed Aug 29, 2007 12:23 pm **Posts:** 506

Time for courts.

The only justification for the salary cap is to make sure that clubs have some discipline in remaining solvent. If a third party wants to fund another person it has no affect on the clubs finances.

So sick of this socialism in sports. The whole point of sports is celebration of competition.

Blue Vain · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:35 am **Posts:** 17959

I'm not a big fan of taking legal action but the AFL stance on this matter is staggering.
To include the total amount in the cap suggests Chris Judds image and reputation as a marketing commodity has a value of zero.

I've been a solid advocate of the AFL decision makers over the years but the last 12 months have been a shambles.

Synbad · **Posted:** Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:29 am

Anencephalic wrote:

Time for courts.

The only justification for the salary cap is to make sure that clubs have some discipline in remaining solvent. If a third party wants to fund another person it has no affect on the clubs finances.

So sick of this socialism in sports. The whole point of sports is celebration of competition.

So how is third party payments about excellence in sport?

Eddie · **Joined:** Sat Aug 27, 2011 2:06 pm **Posts:** 1098

Blue Vain wrote:

I'm not a big fan of taking legal action but the AFL stance on this matter is staggering.
To include the total amount in the cap suggests Chris Judds image and reputation as a marketing commodity has a value of zero.

I've been a solid advocate of the AFL decision makers over the years but the last 12 months have been a shambles.

Thats my issue with this too. Judd does have value as a marketing commodity, just as other sporting people do. There should have been some sort of compromise, he does do work for Visy and the AFL now say it is of no value. Some of the money he earns should be allowed to be excluded from our cap.
Will sit back with interest and see what the AFL does about Joel Selwood's application for his 3rd party deal now.
It is only a matter of time before a player goes to court for restraint of trade, it appears it wont be Judd though.

JohnM · **Posted:** Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:37 pm

If I had to guess, I'd say that neither the club nor Chris Judd would really want to defend or justify the monies received from Visy in a courtroom. I think we all know that this was probably nothing like a fair commercial transaction.

The only question is: will the AFL also adopt the same stance for the many other such arrangements out there?

camel · **Posted:** Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:45 pm

Synbad wrote:

Anencephalic wrote:

Time for courts.

The only justification for the salary cap is to make sure that clubs have some discipline in remaining solvent. If a third party wants to fund another person it has no affect on the clubs finances.

So sick of this socialism in sports. The whole point of sports is celebration of competition.

So how is third party payments about excellence in sport?

Easy. It helps to keep the excellent in sport. :razz:

Juanita Jones · **Joined:** Fri Oct 01, 2010 12:30 pm **Posts:** 4149

JohnM wrote:

If I had to guess, I'd say that neither the club nor Chris Judd would really want to defend or justify the monies received from Visy in a courtroom. I think we all know that this was probably nothing like a fair commercial transaction.

The only question is: will the AFL also adopt the same stance for the many other such arrangements out there?

On the flip side you could argue that the AFL doesn't want to contest Judd earning extra coin rather than the other way around.

Donstuie · **Posted:** Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:54 pm

JohnM wrote:

The only question is: will the AFL also adopt the same stance for the many other such arrangements out there?

Why should they? They got their man, and the great unwashed think Judd's alone in this, so why keep it public?

SurreyBlue · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:32 am **Posts:** 10492

We are the AFL's puppets. So sad to watch. Can't believe we have fallen so far.

Synbad · **Posted:** Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:47 pm

SurreyBlue wrote:

We are the AFL's puppets. So sad to watch. Can't believe we have fallen so far.

Whats an AFL puppet???

They control the game...

Fallen so far ??.. u should be worrying about how we run our club not what the AFL rules are...

Chris Judd 30 this year.... im more interested in a flag.... if the third party contract impacts that.. we are in real trouble... but i doubt it does... and Chris Judd is on plenty of coin.
His juicy contract plus his promo stuff.... and his gaming and club ventures....and his own stuff.

Not sure why this is a concern to supporters....

Mosquito Fleet · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 2:56 pm **Posts:** 2477

SurreyBlue wrote:

We are the AFL's puppets. So sad to watch. Can't believe we have fallen so far.

Correct again my friend.

Synbad · **Posted:** Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:53 pm

hahaha

We are barcking for Chris Judds third party contract now???
The guy makes a million without it from the club...

See this is what i believe is wrong with this footy club.

Focussing on all the wrong things for sure....

Chris Judds third party contract... woopy... let them sort it out.. id be fupped if i care one way or another..

Dome or MCG..

all distractions from whats required to be a powerful club again.......

Next thing will be no Carlton player ever leaves this footy club and we never rebuild..

And for the persecuted mentality we have now... pffffft.... lol

Spare me...!!!!

STKILDA all the way....!!!

Anencephalic · **Joined:** Wed Aug 29, 2007 12:23 pm **Posts:** 506

Synbad wrote:

Anencephalic wrote:

Time for courts.

The only justification for the salary cap is to make sure that clubs have some discipline in remaining solvent. If a third party wants to fund another person it has no affect on the clubs finances.

So sick of this socialism in sports. The whole point of sports is celebration of competition.

So how is third party payments about excellence in sport?

It allows Carlton to get an advantage in hiring players at no cost to Carlton them I am all for it. Though more about competition off the field as well.

Though your point about it not producing the ultimate result (as yet) are well justified as well. The club does take some action probably not as quick as you would like it (e.g. Ratten / Malthouse).

My opinion is that the club strengthened with Judd coming to Carlton considering the rut Carlton was in previously. Visy helping make that happen was a win in my book.

AFL pulls plug on Judd's controversial third party deal

Who is online