AFL pulls plug on Chris Judd's controversial third-party deal with Visy

Remove this Banner Ad

You do realise none of these journos have the faintest idea of who is getting paid what, among the 700+ AFL players. They guess & run with it because they know readers like yourself accept their word as gospel. Yet when Chris Judd's manager, who is one of a few people who does know what Judd is getting paid by Visy, denies the figure is that high, people like you ignore this because it doesn't suit your agenda.

These journos exist & thrive because of people like you who buy every bit of candy they sell.

Connors denied it was $250k. When asked if it was $200k he chose not to discuss it further.
 
Had an interesting discussion with a coupel of lawyers who believe that the AFL could be in serious trouble if someone challenged their blocking of third party deals under restraint of trade.

They don't block them, they require them to be part of the TPP.
 
They don't block them, they require them to be part of the TPP.
Which is where the problem lies, why should something be included in TPP if it is fair and reasonable (this is where the arguement is for Judd-Visy Deal) compensation for services renderedwhihc has nothing to do with playing football?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Perhaps in your haste to counter, you've not paused to properly understand the point. Connors comment is verifiable because it's been made in a public arena and reported as such and can be sourced. Hence, the comment can be verified as having been made, as distinct from the content proven, which is what you're talking about here.

The other fella claiming to know Visy execs can not verify his claim in the same way. We don't know if the person he refers to even exists, let alone who they are, or whether they ever made such a comment; and that comment, imagined or otherwise, cannot be sourced or verified in any way whatsoever.

So again, as I've been at pains to explain to you, you can question whether what Connors says is true or not; that's fine, but that's not what you've piped in to question. You asked why I could make a comment on one hand - people in the know say otherwise - while dismissing the claims of this other bloke. I get the feeling even you understand this now and that's why you've flipped the context.

thats fair. i must admit i was under the impression that you were stating his version was true and correct not just that he stated it, and i know where your coming from now.
 
Which is where the problem lies, why should something be included in TPP if it is fair and reasonable (this is where the arguement is for Judd-Visy Deal) compensation for services renderedwhihc has nothing to do with playing football?

I guess the question is, does it have anything to do with playing football? AFL has ruled that it does.

Would VISY pay him $200k if he weren't a famous footballer? No

Would VISY pay him $200k if he were a famous footballer, but didn't play at Carlton? Unlikely

Hence it comes under the TPP, because it is deemed to be linked to him playing footy for Carlton.
 
Maybe if Judd did some relevant study (Environmental Science?) at a tertiary institution the deal would look far more legitimate. This would also set him up for life after football as he could pursue a career which he is passionate about.
 
I guess the question is, does it have anything to do with playing football? AFL has ruled that it does.

Would VISY pay him $200k if he weren't a famous footballer? No

Would VISY pay him $200k if he were a famous footballer, but didn't play at Carlton? Unlikely

Hence it comes under the TPP, because it is deemed to be linked to him playing footy for Carlton.
I agree. the reason that part of the contact was to be include in TPP (and remember that the AFL will allow $50K to be excluded) is that they deem that Visy are paying well over and above market rates.

My point is what if a player was to do a deal with an organisation that is in direct competition with a protected sponsor, why should this be included if they are being paid market rates for their services and image.
 
My point is what if a player was to do a deal with an organisation that is in direct competition with a protected sponsor, why should this be included if they are being paid market rates for their services and image.

They are not allowed to do deals with competing sponsors of their club, or the AFL - which is an entirely different discussion imo.

Can't do deals with club sponors, can't do deals with competing business of club or AFL sponsors.

Leaves a shallow pool.
 
Which is where the problem lies, why should something be included in TPP if it is fair and reasonable (this is where the arguement is for Judd-Visy Deal) compensation for services renderedwhihc has nothing to do with playing football?

The only problem is with the AFL's lack of consistency in applying the rule.

Something isn't included in the TPP if it is fair and reasonable, as long as it is an arm's length transaction. By that it means as long as it is not a deal struck with a person or entity that has ties to the football club where the remuneration can be seen as an external payment in lieu of his service to the football club.

If Judd could get hundreds of thousands of dollars for doing stuff all by a party that has no association to the CFC then it wouldn't be included in Carlton's TPP.

The problem has been spiralling out of control because there are a lot of non-arm's length deals going on at probably all football clubs that the AFL has approved.
 
So do Dick Pratt, John Elliott and John Nicholls. (And Karl Normal and Laurence Angwin)


John Nicholls, Karl Norman and Laurence Angwin were Presidents of the CFC? :confused:

That's news to me.

My post was in reply to your post :-

I'd hate to be a club that has a history of criminal presidents as well but that's just me
 
Had an interesting discussion with a coupel of lawyers who believe that the AFL could be in serious trouble if someone challenged their blocking of third party deals under restraint of trade.
Really?
As far as I'm aware, there has never been a challenge to a salary cap system. Anywhere.

You'd imagine that Lakers/Yankees/Melb Storm/Collingwood would be all over it, if it were the case.
 
Really?
As far as I'm aware, there has never been a challenge to a salary cap system. Anywhere.

You'd imagine that Lakers/Yankees/Melb Storm/Collingwood would be all over it, if it were the case.
Not the salary cap system, the AFL runs the competition not the clubs, hence it is a battle the clubs can't win, but to the independent contracts outside football.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Not the salary cap system, the AFL runs the competition not the clubs, hence it is a battle the clubs can't win, but to the independent contracts outside football.
Which are only one step removed, IMHO.

I think you'd have a heck of a time proving that a big deal from the president's company wasn't to the detriment of the game.
Competitions are allowed to set rules, providing they've got reasonable cause.
 
You are kidding! Richard Pratt was your classic modern day corporate Sociopath. His family/s are picking up the pieces of his lies and deception and now the Blues - and the AFL - are in damage control after being seduced by the "Cardboard King".
As a Collingwood supporter are you happy that Richard Pratt's son in law has donated $10 mill to Collingwood over the last couple of years. Money he earned as part of the Pratt family and VISY.

You know money taken from every day Australians courtesy of a modern day sociopath as you like to call him.
 
Congratulations, your cheating ways helped bring down another club with a culture of cheating

/golf clap

* In 1998, the West Coast Eagles were fined $100,000 and forfeited their third round pick in the National Draft after it was found that they had exceeded the salary cap by a total of $165,000 during the 1997 and 1998 seasons.

Come again!
 
Whether you like it or not, a figure of 200k has been quoted from journoes from both sides of the fence (Hun, Age & new media - Sportal), ardent Carlton follower (Lane) & strident critic (Robbo) ...

And whether you like it or not, it is clearly published as an estimate. That's what was in the article. What do you want me to do, just ignore that part? Like I said, critical reading is a gem of a thing. Plain and simple, this is an estimate, not a fact.
 
Or it's both. Entirely possible. I think I have $3.50 in my centre console.... but I can't verify it without being in the car.

Generally Lane is not the sort to make up numbers about Carlton, generally Connors is pretty quick to say or deny anything on his client's behalf. That they both seem happy with $200k, well, doesn't make it fact but it doesn't take a big leap of faith.
 
So do Dick Pratt, John Elliott ...

But ex-Tigers president Bond was a convicted criminal; neither of these Carlton ex-presidents are o_O

dead-mouse-in-cheese-trap-over-yellow-f11726.jpg


You went for the cheese ... and failed! LOL. Unfortunately for you, the Tigers are the only club with an actual convicted criminal ex-prez. Pies have a ex vice-prez convicted crim if that make you feels any better.
 
Or it's both. Entirely possible. I think I have $3.50 in my centre console.... but I can't verify it without being in the car.

Sure. And you might find there's only a buck there once you actually look.

Generally Lane is not the sort to make up numbers about Carlton, generally Connors is pretty quick to say or deny anything on his client's behalf. That they both seem happy with $200k, well, doesn't make it fact but it doesn't take a big leap of faith.

Both seem happy? That's a stretch and nothing more. I don't think Connors has been interviewed over that figure for him not to deny it. It's not like he's just going to come out especially and make a statement in regards to that figure alone. When he's otherwise commented, media getting the figure wrong has always been a side point.
 
Both seem happy? That's a stretch and nothing more. I don't think Connors has been interviewed over that figure for him not to deny it. It's not like he's just going to come out especially and make a statement in regards to that figure alone. When he's otherwise commented, media getting the figure wrong has always been a side point.
Except, of course, for the bit where he actually did deny one figure ($250k).
Then refused to comment on another ($200k).
Odd.

Maybe you're right, and had a sudden change of heart about making any sort of public comment.
Or...
 
But ex-Tigers president Bond was a convicted criminal; neither of these Carlton ex-presidents are o_O

dead-mouse-in-cheese-trap-over-yellow-f11726.jpg


You went for the cheese ... and failed! LOL. Unfortunately for you, the Tigers are the only club with an actual convicted criminal ex-prez. Pies have a ex vice-prez convicted crim if that make you feels any better.
Carlton only have a B&F - oh and the current winner.
 
Carlton only have a B&F - oh and the current winner.

Yes. John Nichols made an error as a teenager; but the current winner has no criminal conviction. And I don't think there would be many clubs without a history players having issues with the law at some point. Still, it's all just a bit of circle work after the original claim was knocked on the head so succinctly.
 
It was on both 3AW and SEN on Friday and again on the weekend.

You can listen by getting the podcast, but I can assure you that he corrected KB & Balmey on the $250k figure and said 'thats just false, its not that much' and when Balmey mentiioned that he thinks its $200k, Connors then said the 'value is immaterial to the discussion'
 

Remove this Banner Ad

AFL pulls plug on Chris Judd's controversial third-party deal with Visy

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top