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

[FredLeDeux]

i guess this would be like a tax loophole being closed?

Sorry, which part?

 

[Blue and Silver]

People don't even know what Adelaide did, do they?

They're being charged with draft tampering and promising to pay Kurt Tippett ~ 200,000 outside the cap (not third party payments)

Through the course of the investigations the third party arrangements for Tippett became of interest (AFL checking to see if any other funny business was happening). This was broadened to two players with similar deals. These deals are not yet believed to be surreptitious.

Presumably as a consequence of the murky territory these deals exist within, the AFL has decided to start pulling the plug on third party payments, starting with the big fish Chris Judd

 

[theflea]

Petty argument now. I can provide a name, public quote and source. Whether you want to argue if that person is right or wrong is entirely another matter altogether. The fact is, the other bloke can't provide a name, public quote or source; so it is fairly met with dismissal as even being actual, let alone if that potentially imaginary person may be right or wrong. Following?

As for Connors "defending his client", he's simply stating that the reported figure is incorrect. I would say, given there are a number of people who really do know the figure, none of whom actually report on it, that it would be fairly stupid of Connors to undermine his credibility with such false statements. But you reveal your hand here with loose standards of appraisal IMO.

i said just bc it wasnt a public statement doesnt necessarily mean its not true.it may or may not and you cant prove it isnt unless we see the contract itself, then we will know who is right or wrong. as for conners and managers in general i think they will do whatever it takes to defend their clients to the best of their ability. if thats loose standards then so be it.

 

[theflea]

Sorry, which part?

changing the rules on the run.

 

[FredLeDeux]

changing the rules on the run.

What they're doing is bringing the "legacy" deals like Judd's into line with all the more recent ones made after the rule was altered to exclude the Judd-style rort.
They're saying that Carlton's had a fair go under the old loophole, but from now on they have to meet the the same criteria as all other clubs in deciding what is and isn't a fair dinkum payment for services.

 

[CrippsonBlue]

First point is I never said no companies over pay workers - of course they do! It happens far too much! Judd is just an extreme example of overpayment. I am not ill informed. It seems the people arguing against me are

Well if you agree it occurs, then Visy overpaying Judd is their prerogative and not proof of anything. Who is to say Judd's salary is not just another example of the vast cases of employees being paid more than their worth?

(Again I don't agree he is being overpaid, but disputing your 'fact' that the only explanation is it is due to his affiliation with Carlton)

Richmond are a side with a huge following. Any sponsor gets good value with having their brand associated with the club despite its poor record on field over the last 3 decades.
The Chris Judd Brand is not worth much in my experienced opinion. Chicken wings pressure points etc have just devalued him further

So I assume you now admit that not every investment needs to be justified through 'hours of work', and instead can be justified through the affiliation of a brand.

Therefore the issue seems less about Judd's work equating to '2-3 weeks worth' per year, and more about him not being a good brand (in your opinion). That's fine, you are entitled to that opinion, however companies do not need to be able to satisfy your judgment of what is a worthwhile investment.

The worth of a brand is entirely subjective, and some will see great worth whereas others may see none. Visy see worth in Judd just as Richmond's sponsors see worth in the RFC brand.

Differing opinions of the value in these associations/deals etc. does not make one case justifiable, and another not. Nothing you've raised factually proves the Judd/Visy deal is not above board.

 

[Wayne Arnold]

Why does Judd need to work two jobs though? Surely his football income would be sufficient for his needs. I think he should give up the work he does for Visy and concentrate solely on his football. It seems he can't find an appropriate balance between the two and his football is suffering as a consequence. Perhaps post football he can pursue other areas of interest but right now the time and energy he puts into Visy is outweighing his number one priority.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Well if you agree it occurs, then Visy overpaying Judd is their prerogative and not proof of anything. Who is to say Judd's salary is not just another example of the vast cases of employees being paid more than their worth?

(Again I don't agree he is being overpaid, but disputing your 'fact' that the only explanation is it is due to his affiliation with Carlton)



So I assume you now admit that not every investment needs to be justified through 'hours of work', and instead can be justified through the affiliation of a brand.

Therefore the issue seems less about Judd's work equating to '2-3 weeks worth' per year, and more about him not being a good brand (in your opinion). That's fine, you are entitled to that opinion, however companies do not need to be able to satisfy your judgment of what is a worthwhile investment.

The worth of a brand is entirely subjective, and some will see great worth whereas others may see none. Visy see worth in Judd just as Richmond's sponsors see worth in the RFC brand.

Differing opinions of the value in these associations/deals etc. does not make one case justifiable, and another not. Nothing you've raised factually proves the Judd/Visy deal is not above board.

Of course Visy overpaying Judd is their prerogative. Who said it wasn't? What I am trying to say is with my experience in business for over 30 years and the information I have gained from people I know at Visy, it is highly likely that the work he does does not equate to his output. You do not have to be a neuronal giant to put two plus two together and say that the only reason he got that gig in the first place and continues to work there is to allow Carlton to have him remunerated in a way that, until now, has kept a portion of his income outside of the salary cap.

If you do not believe this to be so, that is your prerogative as well. You probably believe in the tooth fairy, Santa and the Boogie man as well.

Of course you will also say that I have no facts to disprove they exist either. Sometimes facts are thought of as information that makes something highly likely or highly unlikely.

On that basis it is highly likely that the Visy-Judd deal was a rort. After all didn't Judd himself say that he was visiting clubs to see which club had the best facilities to help him decide where to go. If that was the case, he should have chosen Collingwood because at the time their facilities were so far ahead of anyone else's, it wasn't funny. It was strange that after one meeting with Pratt at Raheen, he decided Carlton had the best facilities....or was it Visy that had the best facilities.....

 

[CrippsonBlue]

Why does Judd need to work two jobs though? Surely his football income would be sufficient for his needs. I think he should give up the work he does for Visy and concentrate solely on his football. It seems he can't find an appropriate balance between the two and his football is suffering as a consequence. Perhaps post football he can pursue other areas of interest but right now the time and energy he puts into Visy is outweighing his number one priority

Considering he has won a brownlow, numerous B&F + AA awards etc during the course of this deal, I would suggest it cannot have caused too great a distraction.

Also, show me an overwhelming majority of people that would turn down a lucrative deal promoting something they are passionate about because their current income is sufficient.

Judd is entitled to capitalise on his marketability.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Considering he has won a brownlow, numerous B&F + AA awards etc during the course of this deal, I would suggest it cannot have caused too great a distraction.

Also, show me an overwhelming majority of people that would turn down a lucrative deal promoting something they are passionate about because their current income is sufficient.

Judd is entitled to capitalise on his marketability.

On that basis I highly recommend him being the ambassador for Ingles chickens. He has been able to highlight the chicken wing much more recently than any environmental comment!

 

[mediumsizered]

Incorrect

from Wikipedia.........

In a dramatic last minute, the ball was kicked into South Melbourne's forward 50 with a goal ensuring that the premiership decider would be drawn. Ern Jamieson of Carlton leaped into the back of South Melbourne player Tom Bollard at full-forward, to punch the ball away, but a free kick was not given, allowing the ball to be cleared to safety and give Carlton victory.

None of their flags are clean. The only reason they won that one is because Kevin Bartlett didnt join the rules committee until 1917.

The description does not say whether there were hands in the back. Without more detailed information we can't determine whether a free kick would have been appropriate or not. I would particularly like to hear what the Umpires' Director thought of the decision. Without any evidence to the contrary we have to assume the umpire got it right.

 

[CrippsonBlue]

Sometimes facts are thought of as information that makes something highly likely or highly unlikely

A fact is something that indisputably proves or disproves something - information that makes something highly likely or highly unlikely is speculation.

I now see why you have been passing your opinion as fact, however your belief is being driven by speculations, not facts. It takes a lot for circumstantial evidence to establish fact.

I reiterate, nothing you've provided comes close to proving the Judd/Visy is a rort of the system as opposed to a genuine deal - your opinions and speculations do not make it so.

I cannot continuously argue against speculations and opinions justified by further speculation/opinion, nor am I interested in being drawn into pettiness such as your 'Tooth Fairy' or 'Chicken Wing' comments, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

A fact is something that indisputably proves or disproves something - information that makes something highly likely or highly unlikely is speculation.

I now see why you have been passing your opinion as fact, however your belief is being driven by speculations, not facts. It takes a lot for circumstantial evidence to establish fact.

I reiterate, nothing you've provided comes close to proving the Judd/Visy is a rort of the system as opposed to a genuine deal - your opinions and speculations do not make it so.

I cannot continuously argue against speculations and opinions justified by further speculation/opinion, nor am I interested in being drawn into pettiness such as your 'Tooth Fairy' or 'Chicken Wing' comments, so I'll leave it at that.

I also reiterate that not a single Carlton Supporter has been able to convince the rest of society that this is a bona fide deal that has nothing to do with keeping money out of the Carlton salary cap. As I have said, you all seem deluded, defensive, grappling at definitions, desperate and illogical in trying to defend the indefensible. Most of the rest of society would agree in the absence of evidence to contradict this view there is enough circumstantial evidence to make what I am saying, by your own definition, fact.

 

[mediumsizered]

If anything Carlton should face a worse punishment. They did it first, Adelaide probably saw it was only logical that "If they (Carlton) can do it, why can't we?".

So you want us to be punished for abiding by the rules.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Circular argument. Facts are you've not been able to demonstrate that Judd's deal is a "whale in the bay" by way of anything other than suspicion and innuendo. Considering it's your suspicion and innuendo, I'm sure you see that as evidence enough, but as I've pointed out; you have no idea what deals other players are on, the only other comparably high profile player in the league had a "cushy" deal too, other deals have been knocked back by the AFL, and it's being reported that a lot of these deals are now going to come under scrutiny.

Here 'tis.

- 78 deals
- Judd $200K
- "next level of deals" $20-$40K

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/players-warn-on-restraint-of-trade-20121117-29j6j.html

Juddy, the green whale.

 

[Dr Tobias Funke]

Value for money is in the eye of the company themselves. You're not qualified to judge and are full of cynicism.

Do you know what a fact is? Have you canvassed every company to see if they would be interested? How many environmental gigs are out there in the corporate world?

Perhaps, but that is not the same as your contention that he doesn't represent value for money.

Of course companies can decide to pay their staff or ambassadors whatever they like.

You could also look at market rate for large company ambassadorial roles as an indicator of value for money in the Juddy/Visy deal.

Someone like a Nat Bassingthwaite earned in the vicinity of $300-$400k/yr for her work as a local (Australian) ambassador for L'Oreal. In addition to appearances at events/internal company work, this also included mass media consumer TV & print campaigns. Additionally, as a 'personality', she has a much higher national profile (geographic and demographic) than Juddy. That's what companies are paying for in these roles; the level of your profile and the reach generated by the campaign/job.

To hazard a guess, market rate for Judd's Visy role would be somewhere between 20-40k/yr. As mentioned, companies can pay whatever they like and good on Judd and Connor's for securing such a lucrative deal, but surely when such an intrinsically linked club sponsor is paying way overs (for a multi-year length contract), it surely threatens the integrity of the salary cap?

 

[mediumsizered]

Here 'tis.

- 78 players
- Judd $200K
- "next level of deals" $20-$40K

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/players-warn-on-restraint-of-trade-20121117-29j6j.html

Juddy, the green whale.

Because The Age know exactly what each player is receiving. What the journos do is exactly what gets done on BF. They hazard a guess as to what Player A is getting, then on the basis of what they believe to be what others are getting, work out the average & arrive at their answer.

It's funny on the one hand people criticise the media for guessing when it is directed at their own club, but when the information published relates to another club, particularly when their is an agenda at play, it suddenly becomes gospel. Newsflash!!! The media have no idea how much players are getting paid by their clubs, or under third party agreements. There is no reason for them to know.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Because The Age know exactly what each player is receiving. What the journos do is exactly what gets done on BF. They hazard a guess as to what Player A is getting, then on the basis of what they believe to be what others are getting, work out the average & arrive at their answer.

It's funny on the one hand people criticise the media for guessing when it is directed at their own club, but when the information published relates to another club, particularly when their is an agenda at play, it suddenly becomes gospel. Newsflash!!! The media have no idea how much players are getting paid by their clubs, or under third party agreements. There is no reason for them to know.

You won't accept figures provided by a fellow Carlton supporter? 78 is quite a specific number. And "Judd's arrangement with Visy is by far the highest" is unequivocal.

 

[CrippsonBlue]

You won't accept figures provided by a fellow Carlton supporter? 78 is quite a specific number. And "Judd's arrangement with Visy is by far the highest" is unequivocal.

Why is the amount others earn of relevance to the amount Judd earns? If you are pulling the plug on this deal it has to be a blanket rule applied to everyone, not one based on income derived from the deal.

When this deal was arranged, Judd was largely regarded as the best player in the competition, hence it is not surprising his deal is 'by far the highest'...

 

[filandia2nuts]

Because The Age know exactly what each player is receiving. What the journos do is exactly what gets done on BF. They hazard a guess as to what Player A is getting, then on the basis of what they believe to be what others are getting, work out the average & arrive at their answer.

It's funny on the one hand people criticise the media for guessing when it is directed at their own club, but when the information published relates to another club, particularly when their is an agenda at play, it suddenly becomes gospel. Newsflash!!! The media have no idea how much players are getting paid by their clubs, or under third party agreements. There is no reason for them to know.

You're looking like an idiot now. Just let it go. We all knew the Judd's deal was a rort. I'm sure 99% of Carlton supporters did too. You had the free ride & now it's time to pay.
The best thing is you weren't able to capitalise on the $1.25 million extra you already got.

Also, I hope people don't forget the 'investments' judd secured with a board member. Greedy sod.

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

Why is the amount others earn of relevance to the amount Judd earns? If you are pulling the plug on this deal it has to be a blanket rule applied to everyone, not one based on income derived from the deal.

When this deal was arranged, Judd was largely regarded as the best player in the competition, hence it is not surprising his deal is 'by far the highest'...

Isnt the problem with the deal that Visy are also, indirectly, involved in the governance of the club with the Pratt connection??

 

[CrippsonBlue]

We all knew the Judd's deal was a rort. I'm sure 99% of Carlton supporters did too

Ahh yes, this compelling piece of evidence of "we all knew it's a rort" rears its head again - slam dunk case this one.

To be delivered in the following fashion:

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Of course Visy overpaying Judd is their prerogative. Who said it wasn't? What I am trying to say is with my experience in business for over 30 years and the information I have gained from people I know at Visy, it is highly likely that the work he does does not equate to his output.

You say what now?

You do not have to be a neuronal giant to put two plus two together and say that the only reason he got that gig in the first place and continues to work there is to allow Carlton to have him remunerated in a way that, until now, has kept a portion of his income outside of the salary cap.

Careful there mate. Carlton are not renumerating him outside of the cap in any way, and I would bet that you will find no correspondence from Carlton asking Visy to renumerate him. You can go the cynical line but you still only have a perception.

If you do not believe this to be so, that is your prerogative as well. You probably believe in the tooth fairy, Santa and the Boogie man as well.

Nah, just the basic principles of justice and the burden of evidence.

Of course you will also say that I have no facts to disprove they exist either. Sometimes facts are thought of as information that makes something highly likely or highly unlikely.

And the AFL in possession of every detail were unable to form those facts? Do they know more than you about the deal or not?

On that basis it is highly likely that the Visy-Judd deal was a rort.

On that basis, you are full of it. Stop throwing words like rort around. Carlton did everything by the book and still people like you throw mud and make accusations. An AFL approved rort ... nice one.

[quote[After all didn't Judd himself say that he was visiting clubs to see which club had the best facilities to help him decide where to go. If that was the case, he should have chosen Collingwood because at the time their facilities were so far ahead of anyone else's, it wasn't funny. It was strange that after one meeting with Pratt at Raheen, he decided Carlton had the best facilities....or was it Visy that had the best facilities.....[/quote]

Now I know how disingenuous you are.

Judd said:

Decent facilities - Carlton were in the process of building state of the art facilities. He never said best facilities.
Play MCG blockbusters - Carlton obviously qualify.
Financially stable - He got an undertaking that Pratt was planning on sticking around to finish the job.
Wanted to help a team grow to success, not be the icing on the cake - This is where Collingwood lost points as they were ready made and Judd didn't want the animosity of being the highest paid player at an already successful team.
Wanted a club that could compensate West Coast - Carlton clearly could.
Play finals - took a punt on that one but the high draft picks we had coming through went some way to convincing him.

He had previously met and been impressed by Greg Swann when Swann was at Collingwood. Judd might be a Pie if Swann never left.

Judd had a meeting with the football department at Carlton and received a lunch invitation to an already planned lucheon at Raheen. He never made any judgement re best facilities.

 

[KnaveyBlue]

Do you deny that the broader football community look at the Judd deal and think it is a rort that was used to get him extra income outside of the salary cap and secure him to Carlton? Be honest.

Can I answer too?

Yes, the whole thing was green-lighted by the AFL to get him to Carlton.

They'd crippled one of their top $$$ earners with the salary cap penalties. But they were never going to admit that they went over the top with the punishment. Instead they let the Blues do the Judd deal.

So in summary, the AFL had to let Carlton pay a player outside the salary cap in order to make up for punishing them for paying players outside the salary cap.

What a brilliant organisation.

 

[Wayne Arnold]

Ahh yes, this compelling piece of evidence of "we all knew it's a rort" rears its head again - slam dunk case this one.

To be delivered in the following fashion:

Well you don't seem to like facts either. So not sure what else one can turn to. Keep your head in the sand. Carlton posters should leave the thread quietly with their tail between their legs. Even Samantha Lane has proved the Judd deal is ridiculous. No other deal comes within proximity to such a figure.