You've opened a door with these rants of yours Lucas. I'm putting myself on TS sabbatical before I inflame this debate.
The AFL gave the OK for the Judd deal. If it was against the rules the AFL would not have allowed it. The Blues were smart in getting this done for Judd so can't see how people can complain. Also we payed a heavy price for salary cap cheating with 3 wooden spoons. People need to get over it Juddy picked the Blues because we are a great club.
The only thing I'll say further is that if Judd was doing it for Southcorp, one of Visy's opponents in industry, I'd have much less issue with it. The problem is that Pratt as Carlton President owned Visy (or much thereof) and used that money to buy the best player in the game.
Wouldn't it be delicious if Judd was brought back to the Eagles by a mining magnate using Judd to promote their green credentials. Sorry just had to bite on that one. To be honest BBR, the reason Carlton was allowed to get Judd was because the WCE situation was already out of control and they wanted their team to be split apart and have no chance of successes accompanying their party nature. The AFL also felt sorry for them. Fine, what's done is done, but we can't pretend it's right now. So Carlton, now's the time to fork out for Judd that money, because it's clearly part of the salary cap. Well, maybe 90%. I can understand Judd making some money from his time posing for pictures, even if the source of the funds is still way too close to the recipient. Now I need a TS rest for a while.
Juddy was always going to come back to Melbourne regardless of the West Coast situation. I think people are just jealous because he choose the Blues and not their club It's up to the AFL with this deal you can't blame the Blues. If the AFL says we have to fork out the money then we fork out the money.
Correct. I blame the AFL. Carlton would find the money easily within their salary cap. Just means some guys like Duigan or Watson or Russell don't get paid overs, really.
There are over 100 of these contracts in the AFL, how else can Collingwood have so many top tier players on their list. They havent lost any big names recently yet managed to get Jolly, Ball in past few years. Cant bitch and moan about it when every AFL club would have a similar deal, its just Judd is the best player in the AFL so its bigger news... btw i dont like any of the deals but its the way things are done so gotta live with it...
<blockquote>Quote from BlueBeliever on July 14, 2011, 19:51 Third party deals should be made public but disallowing them will just make them move away from football, and pretend it's not happening. Do you think the Bulls could have stopped Jordan making his Airs and the hundreds of variants? If they start trying to stop players from accepting sponsorship payments the players would claim it had nothing to do with the club and take the AFL to court</blockquote> That's the thing though, there's a clear line between Basketball and Basketball shoes. Also between ownership of the Bulls and Nike. Now, if the Bulls were owned by a paperclip magnate, and instead of shoes, Jordan created his own line of Air Paperclips, that for mine is something that needs close attention as there is no real benefit in Jordan lending his image to said paperclips. Now the Judd one is difficult in that it is tough to put an exact figure on how much worth his image is to Visy. Carlton fans will say it's worth it and a bit, while their detractors will say No way, they're rorting the cap. In truth, it's probably somewhere in between, so as long as it meets the appropriate rubber stamping, then I guess I gotta trust the big guys upstairs to be approaching it fairly.
Generally I'd agree Walesy but I don't think you can differentiate like that, Jordan sells shoes due to being a big name player. Visy sell Judds likeness because he's a big name player. If they ban player endorsements because they are in relation to the club where do you draw the line? If I buy shares in Visy and am a Carlton member can I hire Judd as an ambassador for my own private business? The only thing to make Judd different to any other third party deal is that they were open about it being involved in the negotiations from the start. Bomber and Hirdy are co-owners of a restaurant, does that mean Bomber should have been blocked from going to Essendon as well as it was a concurrent event? Judd and Visy copping it for honesty it seems to me...
<blockquote>Quote from BlueBeliever on July 15, 2011, 11:57 Generally I'd agree Walesy but I don't think you can differentiate like that, Jordan sells shoes due to being a big name player. Visy sell Judds likeness because he's a big name player. If they ban player endorsements because they are in relation to the club where do you draw the line? If I buy shares in Visy and am a Carlton member can I hire Judd as an ambassador for my own private business? The only thing to make Judd different to any other third party deal is that they were open about it being involved in the negotiations from the start. Bomber and Hirdy are co-owners of a restaurant, does that mean Bomber should have been blocked from going to Essendon as well as it was a concurrent event? Judd and Visy copping it for honesty it seems to me...</blockquote> Where to draw the line- perhaps start along the lines of- if a board member/president has controlling interests in a company, then that company cannot sponsor, or hire any player from the club that the board member is on the board of. That way, a player is still free to source any outside contracts, provided they aren't any direct lines back to people with a vested interest in the club.
Doesn't that just support the under the table approach though? If he wanted to Pratt had more than enough rich mates to broker a deal with one of them to sponsor Judd (away from the club) and in return he give them cheaper cardboard contracts amounting to the same cash value. AFL wouldn't be able to prove anything. Banning it just seems to me to be the wrong way to go about it, it'd turn into the pollies and their "contracts for mates". I think in theory it's great but in practice I really can't see it working. Bit like communism I guess. All just my opinion though of course
Judd gets all favours from AFL and umpires. evn if collingwood win by 10 goals Judd still get 3 votes
i think the judd 3rd party deal gets thrown up all the time because it is prob the largest outside the salary cap. imo most clubs would have some sort of deals like this going on. as for scully i think the afl objection would be the amount offered to scully. ie judd gets paid a mill for playing and a mill from visy. scully gets 150k from melb then a mill from kapersky. i think that judd has proven he is worth the money whereas scully may or may not be time will tell.as for solving the problem maybe have 3 to 5 of outside contracts allowed per club and make it a % inline with club contract
Lucas Judd left Eagles a)for the money, b) for the money and c) for the money. He did not care who he played for as long as the team had some chance of finals football and was located in Melb as he had nothing to prove in Perth with a Brownlow and premiership under his belt. He also wanted to get away from the culture at the Eagles at that time and wanted to avoid being the leader of the Club. He does not want to be a role model, did not want to be Capt of the Eagles (forced into that-another reason to leave) and would be happiest if he got paid a truckload for what he does (and is very good at) and never had to front the press or do a promo for the his Club ever. Football is purely a financial enterprise for him and his deal with Carlton where he set his terms and conditions and they came gave into him is a classic example of that.
'Unfortunately', Lucas is a Collingwood supporter. His arguments are sound but are tainted in others' eyes as a black and white rant. Not so. Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon, West Coast and a couple of others could take full advantage if this rort is allowed to continue. We'll end up with an EPL scenario where only the same 4-5 sides are capable of winning any given year. I was obviously over the moon last season. But between 1990 and 2010 we've seen North, Port, Hawthorn etc. win flags with many other so-called 'lowly' clubs being top 4. That makes any premiership much more special. We're all competing in a robust league with 16 (18) viable premiership hopes. Lucas is right. But I don't know how you overcome the problem. PS: Nice call, jo!!