NO Third Party for Melbourne

[MaddAdam]

The AFL knew it had wrecked one of its top Victorian clubs with its ridiculous salary cap penalties, but couldn't lose face by going back on the punishment.

Turning a blind eye to the Judd/VISY arrangement was their way of getting one of their biggest franchises back on track, without having to admit they probably went too bit far with the fines and draft exclusions.

Standard AFL policy - make another mistake to cover up the last one.

They use the exact same approach when it comes to changin the game's rules.

There's a lot of sense in this post.

 

[Molian]

Am i wrong here, but isnt the whole Judd/VISY thing sweet? Its like him having another job outside of footy which has nothing to do with the AFL and salary caps etc.
If i played for an AFL club AND had a job on the side at say maccas, they could pay me what they wanted and it wouldn't have anything to do with what my footy club payed me as it is another job all together.
I get that its all a bit shifty in the fact that Judd doesn't actually do anything for VISY (that im aware of anyway) but at the end of the day its a separate job to his playing for Carlton so i really see no issue.
Possibly the wrong thread to ask this but i just want to know if my understandings of the whole arrangement are accurate??

 

[stefoid]

The trouble with third party payments with regard to the salary cap is they are unenforceable.

Lets say the pies decide to get all their doily needs from "Jims Doilys" and pay $10K per box of 100 for them.

3 months latter, Daisy is paid $100K for doing a promo for "Jims Doilys".

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Am i wrong here, but isnt the whole Judd/VISY thing sweet? Its like him having another job outside of footy which has nothing to do with the AFL and salary caps etc.
If i played for an AFL club AND had a job on the side at say maccas, they could pay me what they wanted and it wouldn't have anything to do with what my footy club payed me as it is another job all together.
I get that its all a bit shifty in the fact that Judd doesn't actually do anything for VISY (that im aware of anyway) but at the end of the day its a separate job to his playing for Carlton so i really see no issue.
Possibly the wrong thread to ask this but i just want to know if my understandings of the whole arrangement are accurate??

Pretty much the opposite to what you think.

Judd does do work for Visy, but the issue is how much value do you put on a high profile player being the public face of one of your initiatives? It is all subjective.

The issue is that Visy are a sponsor of Carlton. Just after his recruitment, the owner of Visy become President of Carlton, and his wife is not vice president of Carlton. The issue becomes more cloudy when a sponsor or director is involved. However that is precisely why the AFL checked it out looking for fair value for services rendered. It took several months to define the role and get approval.

 

[Molian]

The trouble with third party payments with regard to the salary cap is they are unenforceable.

Lets say the pies decide to get all their doily needs from "Jims Doilys" and pay $10K per box of 100 for them.

3 months latter, Daisy is paid $100K for doing a promo for "Jims Doilys".

Im sorry but i dont see the issue with this, if Daisy and the pies want to make an extra buck why not?
Remember the time he spends doing said promo is time away from footy training, team meetings whatever so why shouldnt he get paid for it?
have i missed the point?

 

[Molian]

Pretty much the opposite to what you think.

Judd does do work for Visy, but the issue is how much value do you put on a high profile player being the public face of one of your initiatives? It is all subjective.

The issue is that Visy are a sponsor of Carlton. Just after his recruitment, the owner of Visy become President of Carlton, and his wife is not vice president of Carlton. The issue becomes more cloudy when a sponsor or director is involved. However that is precisely why the AFL checked it out looking for fair value for services rendered. It took several months to define the role and get approval.

so the AFL looked into what he would be doing at VISY and had to decide if it was appropriate to allow VISY to employ one of the AFLs employees?
why does it matter if VISY sponsor carlton, thats separate cash isnt it?
if they want to employ someone they can pay them what they want surely.
i dont see an issue here, if samsung wanted to pay jobe watson a million dollars for advertising a tv whats the problem? as i said in another post this is time he COULD be doing footy stuff like training or whatever instead hes giving his time to samsung to stand infront of a camera and promote a tv, so why should he not be paid handsomely for it?
im a bit lost on this one.

 

[Jordie_tackles]

The AFL wont be able to enforce this at all, i call BS

reason is that they can only include the payments if it is linked as a result of the players club or instigated by the club

"independent" 3rd parties deals wont be included, this will limit players earning capacity...which i doubt the AFL will get away with, for legal reasons

In the same way that Lebron James earns like 15Million from the Heat but 100Million from endorsements... keep this under the cap lol...

If the AFL interfere in this way they will get taken to court, players wont earn these endorsements becasue clubs wont be able to keep them under the cap

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

so the AFL looked into what he would be doing at VISY and had to decide if it was appropriate to allow VISY to employ one of the AFLs employees?
why does it matter if VISY sponsor carlton, thats separate cash isnt it?
if they want to employ someone they can pay them what they want surely.
i dont see an issue here, if samsung wanted to pay jobe watson a million dollars for advertising a tv whats the problem? as i said in another post this is time he COULD be doing footy stuff like training or whatever instead hes giving his time to samsung to stand infront of a camera and promote a tv, so why should he not be paid handsomely for it?
im a bit lost on this one.

It's in the collective bargaining agreement. The player has to notify the AFL of any third party deals involving current sponsors or club directors/employers. The AFL then have to peruse the details according to set criteria and assess fair value for services.

In this particular case, they are just warning Melbourne not to engineer something to retain Scully, but they can do nothing to stop someone offering Scully money for services, and Scully doesn't even have to tell them IIRC, if it does not involve anybody associated with the club.

 

[new breed]

You cant have third Party agreements as it is unfair to the less financial clubs with less opportunity to use third Party businesses and avenues to rort the system . That is my view of the ruling anyway !

 

[stickman11]

Considering there are 113 already in place in the AFL, I am pretty sure there would be little difficulty in any third party deal. Melbourne and North Melbourne are the only two clubs that don't have 3rd party deals. So it wouldn't be unfair because all other clubs are doing it.

 

[new breed]

Considering there are 113 already in place in the AFL, I am pretty sure there would be little difficulty in any third party deal. Melbourne and North Melbourne are the only two clubs that don't have 3rd party deals. So it wouldn't be unfair because all other clubs are doing it.

I only know of Judd . Plus Kennedy from WCE was offered a Cabinet making Apprenticeship when he crossed with the Judd deal , not a third Party payment rather a second career option .

 

[stickman11]

I only know of Judd . Plus Kennedy from WCE was offered a Cabinet making Apprenticeship when he crossed with the Judd deal , not a third Party payment rather a second career option .

def 113, it was in the herald sun and all clubs were involved.

 

[DTShowtime]

I doubt of those 113 reported 3rd party deals that they would be to the degree that Judd is at. The AFL approved the Cotton On deal with Ablett & Geelong last year & it was reported he would receive $400 K / season from Cotton On. Anderson's comments today don't stack up with approving this.

 

[Bestbird]

I have always been a bit uncomfortable with third party deals. paticularly when that party has links to a club

IMO it makes a bit of a mockery of the salary cap.

Perhaps these deals should have cap or a limit amount placed on them as well

 

[Rob]

Considering there are 113 already in place in the AFL, I am pretty sure there would be little difficulty in any third party deal. Melbourne and North Melbourne are the only two clubs that don't have 3rd party deals. So it wouldn't be unfair because all other clubs are doing it.

Nothing wrong with third party deals. Plenty of players legitimately do work (mainly promotional) for club sponsors. And get paid a fair market rate for that work.

What the AFL should be clamping down on is bullshit third party deals that are essentially salary payments. Scully getting $10k to be a poster boy? Fair enough. Scully getting $300k? Get ****ed.

 

[Jordie_tackles]

Things will become really complicated for the AFL with regards to this, i dont see how they can control 3rd party payments like this

They will be charging clubs for money players are earning in their own right...within a salary cap

When the AFL effectively limits a players earnings it is pretty damaging

 

[liz]

I have always been a bit uncomfortable with third party deals. paticularly when that party has links to a club

IMO it makes a bit of a mockery of the salary cap.

Perhaps these deals should have cap or a limit amount placed on them as well

Exactly. I am surprised that people can't see that a significant payment by a third party linked to the club is, prima facie, a way of paying a player more. The onus needs to be on the player, club and the third party to demonstrate that the arrangement is not contingent on the club that player plays for and/or that the remuneration is commensurate with the services provided. For example, if the third party can demonstrate that they pay other people similar amounts to do the same work, it is genuine extra work by that player and wouldn't come under the salary cap, even if the employer is linked with the club in question.

For example Ted Richards works a day a week at Citibank, one of the Swans' major sponsors. The onus should have to be on the club, player and Citi to demonstrate it pays many other people similar amounts to do similar work.

The Judd deal never smelt right to outside parties (admittedly ones without access to the facts of the arrangement) because of the clear relationship between Carlton and Visy, and because the role is not one that anyone else can be shown to be performing for similar amounts.

The big change in the landscape since the Judd deal was approved - and I am surprised that no-one has mentioned this yet in this thread - is the imminent introduction of free agency. At the moment, the salary cap is just one mechanism that prevents top players being poached by the handful of rich, glamourous and powerful clubs. The other mechanism is the restriction on free movement between clubs. Take that away, and without a far more tightly policed approach towards salary-cap circumventing payments, we will very quickly move to a competition dominated by the three or four rich, well supported clubs.

I think 3rd party deals compromise the cap in any case, but it becomes a critical issue once free agency comes in.

 

[davis_756]

Yes the AFL are changing rules to suit their new franchises , sounds like they want Scully at GWS

This is exactly what it looks like to me, ban 3rd party payments so GWS's targets cannot get more then 50% of their offers at their current clubs.

I think its simply because they are shit scared no one will want to go up there and the franchise will be a complete failure.

 

[Big Kahuna Boot]

..posted in the scull gws thread and hadnt seen this one up.. ..basically, it's the AFL backing it's expansion teams.. ..Juddy was on a 3rd party deal back in the eagles days as well as blues, Ablett likewise [was on slightly more coin than judd's visy deal] with the cats.. ..heaps of players had/have 3rd party deals in place.. ..provided the pay was 'fair' for the work you do.. ..a champ of the game simply lending a company their 'image' is actually worth a far whack, hence judd and gazza could get good coin for little work..

..has been happening for a while, and in fact the afl has the final approval of said deals.. ..then, last year costa shoots his mouth that they they'll use a 3rd party deal to match whatever the suns throw at gazza, and the afl shooshes him up.. ..dee's think they might try similar to get close to gws offer, and now publicly it's told that those deals have been 'tightened' and won't apply in this case.. ..bollocks..

..love footy, but the AFL as a competition has no integrity..

 

[Rob]

..has been happening for a while, and in fact the afl has the final approval of said deals.. ..then, last year costa shoots his mouth that they they'll use a 3rd party deal to match whatever the suns throw at gazza, and the afl shooshes him up.. ..dee's think they might try similar to get close to gws offer, and now publicly it's told that those deals have been 'tightened' and won't apply in this case.. ..bollocks..

Or more likely - those third party deals, which are clearly an attempt to pay a player outside the salary cap, are blatant cheating.

How else could you explain that these purported third party deals suddenly arose when huge dollars have been thrown at the player by another club? Surely if he's genuinely worth that much to sponsors, he'd be on those sort of deals now?

 

[Furn]

The key factor is whether or not these deals are dependant on a player playing for a particular club. IF thats the case, it should be in the cap.

No one can tell me Judd would be at visi had he gone to Richmond. Therefore it should be in the cap.

You can say its just a business thing and a guy has the right to earn money if he can but whats to stop someone, say Scully, taking a deal from a melb fan or sponsor and then going to GWS anyway.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I doubt of those 113 reported 3rd party deals that they would be to the degree that Judd is at. The AFL approved the Cotton On deal with Ablett & Geelong last year & it was reported he would receive $400 K / season from Cotton On. Anderson's comments today don't stack up with approving this.

With all due respect, nobody knows the degree of Judd's deal with Visy. Everybody talks as though he gets as much from Visy as he does from the club but I haven't seen anything to suggest that.

The nearest we came to having any insight was Greg Swann suggesting the Visy deal Judd had was barely six figures. Since then some media speculation has suggested maybe $200k.

 

[Black Panther]

In 10 years time Juddy will be just some schmo working in a box factory

 

[MYLOTIS]

The AFL manipulates rules to suit their own agenda.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in denial.

The AFL wanted Judd at Carlton. The AFL wanted Ablett at GC and it's becoming apparent they want Scully at GWS.

It's not rocket science, folks.

 

[kwame]

In 10 years time Juddy will be just some schmo working in a box factory

10 years time juddy will be the carlton coach