NO Third Party for Melbourne

[The Old Dark Navy's]

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.

The AFL want anybody with a name at GWS as they are probably getting worried. More likely though that Scully has agreed and the AFL are trying to soften the inevitable blow. I feel for Scully because the pressure is immense.

 

[Big Kahuna Boot]

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?

..Judd was on a 3rd party deal at wce, before getting one at blues.. ..gazza was on one at geelong, when Costa made mention they'd use this option to help combat the greater suns offer it was then, that the afl 'tightened up the rules'.. ..remember, up until that point the 3rd party deals were checked out and approved by the afl..

..you do realise that plenty of players have 3rd party deals right..?..

 

[Big Kahuna Boot]

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.

..i highly doubt the AFL has a special favouritism for Carlton..

 

[Rob]

..Judd was on a 3rd party deal at wce, before getting one at blues.. ..gazza was on one at geelong, when Costa made mention they'd use this option to help combat the greater suns offer it was then, that the afl 'tightened up the rules'.. ..remember, up until that point the 3rd party deals were checked out and approved by the afl..

..you do realise that plenty of players have 3rd party deals right..?..

As I said previously, there's nothing wrong with 3rd party deals where they're genuine. But its usually pretty obvious where a 3rd party deal crosses the line between genuine and fraudulent. An offer coming at the same time a rival club makes a big money offer that the current club can't possibly match within their cap is pretty solid evidence of it being attempted cheating wouldn't you say?

 

[MatthewBanks48]

http://www.triplem.com.au/melbourne...ly-from-joining-gws-giants/20110714-di52.html

Anderson was trying to sell this move this morning.

So Obvious that the AFL just wants Scully to go to the GWS GIants and will do anything in its power to facilitate it.

Why all of a sudden are they clamping down on it now? Stop treating us like morons AFL!!

 

[johnjinsf]

Perhaps the AFL Integrity Officer can investigate the office of Adrian Anderson, because there does not seem to be much integrity coming out of that doorway.

And perhaps Judd can wear a Visy cap at the Brownlow medal count - that's got to be worth all the under-the-table money he is being paid.

 

[stickman11]

The AFL want anybody with a name at GWS as they are probably getting worried. More likely though that Scully has agreed and the AFL are trying to soften the inevitable blow. I feel for Scully because the pressure is immense.

... but whatever happens, it is going to be a bonus for Melbourne in ways never imagined.

 

[Pessimistic]

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.

Nail on the head. I believe for top10 player, the poaching club has to beat the poachee club within the salary cap.

This doeant stop the poching club puttin gohter players on third party and reallocating funds to poaching a player.

Should be a ban on clubs being able to poach any playe while they have substantial third party deals in place.

In fact, while any club has extra salay cap in place (GC and GWS) they should be excluded form poaching players.
its simply not right that GC and GWS can poach players for eight years before any of their players can be poached

 

[Blues_Man]

Perhaps the AFL Integrity Officer can investigate the office of Adrian Anderson, because there does not seem to be much integrity coming out of that doorway.

And perhaps Judd can wear a Visy cap at the Brownlow medal count - that's got to be worth all the under-the-table money he is being paid.

it's not under the table money when it's been reported and given the all clear by the AFL ..you should listen harder at school

dumb post

 

[DermiesLuvChild]

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.

Yes, that's exactly where it is heading. The wealthy clubs will lure players from weaker clubs (financially weak or geographically disadvantaged) under free agency & with third party deals (the clubs will find ways to distance themselves from such deals). The AFL will investigate all such deals, however cannot police this effectively.
Collingwood is building a war chest for this (with many wealthy associates willing to help out with a nod and a wink).
I also think that the AFL are probably aware of the Scully/GWS situation & are laying the ground for a future announcment (already indicating Scully is worth 2 first round picks). The AFL are desperate for GWS to land some big fish (whether it be Scully or other players).
I also feel for Scully as he is going to cop the brunt of the GWS recruiting fall out (although when he is feeling sad he can simply check his asset portfolio & crack open a bottle of Grange).

 

[Baldur]

Didn't want to mention the other 113 (2010 stat) similar arrangements AFL players have?

Really there are 113 other AFL players getting $200,000 plus from the company that was owned by the president of the club? No not the case at all.

 

[kane249]

very good question.

Obviously because they haven't made it retrospective, but when does Judd's current contract, and/or "sponsorship" end?

Shouldn't matter if Judd no longer gets paid the third money, he says he chose Carlton over the other clubs for family reasons and not money!

(uh huh)

 

[Brasher]

Isn't the AFL basically acting as GWS' 3rd party in the Scully (and for that matter every high profile target)? Where exactly is GWS's war chest coming from?

 

[Big Kahuna Boot]

As I said previously, there's nothing wrong with 3rd party deals where they're genuine. But its usually pretty obvious where a 3rd party deal crosses the line between genuine and fraudulent. An offer coming at the same time a rival club makes a big money offer that the current club can't possibly match within their cap is pretty solid evidence of it being attempted cheating wouldn't you say?

..yes and no.. ..the poaching club having extra cap space is already 'sanctioned' cheating in many respects.. ..it's also very much an issue of timing, as the AFL makes and breaks the rules as it goes along, so what's not cheating one year can be cheating the year after [or even same year] on the seeming whim of the AFL.. ..i would think that IF there were no expansion clubs coming in, there'd be no tightening of the 3rd party deals..

.... ..i'd also hazard a guess that the majority of 3rd party deals are worked out between the club [at a distance], the 3rd party [being friendly towards the club], and the player's manager.. .... ..unless the player is a champ of the game where they're a well known and respected player, a company isn't going to enter into a 3rd party deal with an avg player unless those in control at the company are sympathetic to the cause..

 

[Big Kahuna Boot]

Shouldn't matter if Judd no longer gets paid the third money, he says he chose Carlton over the other clubs for family reasons and not money!

(uh huh)

..i believe that.. ..sure he wasn't heading home for a paycut, hell if he stayed in the west at the eagles he'd have every chance to be making even more money.. ..a player like Judd is gonna get big bucks at any club he plays for [taking into account a player like him would Not be playing for a small/broke club]..

 

[Pessimistic]

Buddy has a legitimate fashion label which he started with a business partner. it benefits because he is a name but isnt linked to a club. How can you outlaw one type of dealing and not the other ?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Shouldn't matter if Judd no longer gets paid the third money, he says he chose Carlton over the other clubs for family reasons and not money!

(uh huh)

He didn't say that at all. He went back to Victoria for family reasons. He chose his Victorian club based on facilities, capacity to play finals, and preferred a team that he could help grow, not one where he was the icing on the cake and walked in at the expense of another player to capitalise on the hard work already done. He also wanted a club that could compensate the Eagles. The latter two essentially ruled Collingwood out.

Of course, he was impressed by Pratt and sought an undertaking from Pratt that he would stay involved in the club if Judd came. He would have been well aware of our previous financial dramas.

 

[Ron The Bear]

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.

Hard to defend when the club president was also Judd's employer.

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)

Exactly. Why wasn't Judd the spokesman for Visy regarding the carbon tax's effect on recycling?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-tax-uncertainty/story-e6frg6xf-1226041684974

 

[willydave]

What?

The AFL moving the goal posts to suit their own agenda? Surely not.

Adrian Anderson is a worm, and the most disappointing fact is that we as supporters keep turning up in droves to watch this farce.

 

[yibbida]

Really there are 113 other AFL players getting $200,000 plus from the company that was owned by the president of the club? No not the case at all.

There is 112 other AFL players getting paid unknown amounts for doing what exactly?

At least the money Judd is getting paid by Visy is giving Visy good exposure. Wouldn't be many footy fans that don't know that Judd is involved in Visy.

 

[Tiger2709]

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.

The whole competition is now manipulated by the AFL, not Collingwoods fault, but having them play 17 games at the 'G' gives them a huge advantage, the fact that clubs this year have played some teams twice already while not having played others once, has to have an effect on ladder positions, some clubs play the top teams twice this year and the GCS only once, that could be the difference between making the finals and missing out, I'm more concerned about this imbalance (all teams need to play each other twice a year) than some under the counter payments, but for the AFL to do this to the Dees is pretty harsh, both dimwittio and his sidekick anderson are schemers of the highest degree.

 

[Messenger]

There is 112 other AFL players getting paid unknown amounts for doing what exactly?

At least the money Judd is getting paid by Visy is giving Visy good exposure. Wouldn't be many footy fans that don't know that Judd is involved in Visy.

For the entire duration of the deal, I have seen one piece of Visy branded advertising with Judd's image on it.

I may well be missing something here, but the work does not seem commensurate with the pay.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Exactly. Why wasn't Judd the spokesman for Visy regarding the carbon tax's effect on recycling?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-tax-uncertainty/story-e6frg6xf-1226041684974

Are you serious or fishing? You don't get an ambassador that promotes recycling, to lead a political backlash against the Government who are actually trying to do something to help the environment.

Visy were just trying to get some tax credits added into the mix. Absolutely zero to do with Judd or his role.

 

[strategy]

How would the AFL know anyway , to coin the phrase " there is more than 1 way to skin a cat " ..
ie : people are registered and live in Monaco for a little while each year and pay little or no Tax and other things can also be done legally around the world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Monaco.

not saying thats the way but who knows !

 

[Ron The Bear]

Are you serious or fishing? You don't get an ambassador that promotes recycling, to lead a political backlash against the Government who are actually trying to do something to help the environment.

Visy were just trying to get some tax credits added into the mix. Absolutely zero to do with Judd or his role.

Both. The comments were about the impact of a carbon tax on Visy's recycling program, and Chris Judd's comments would carry more weight with the public than Tony Gray's. But then Judd probably thinks this means three Brownlow votes.