Visy Poach: chickens coming home

[Steeleyourself]

Again, I'm not having a go at Collingwood or Eddie. They just did the best for their club. As he should.

But let's dispense with this notion that it is stout yeoman legions of Collingwood fans who have made the club the financial powerhouse.

It was Eddie McGuire, a very skilled operator, a man who ran Channel 9 for a while, a man with great contacts, who turned the ship around, and his key decision was lobbying for Friday nights - every club lobbies for games in certain timeslots - when his club had ignored them for nearly 15 years.

Possibly because he saw the marketing power in pursuing them?

I'm not quite getting where you are coming from - my guess is you are not speaking financially, but believe Eddie was targeting Friday night games to help rort the draw? Because, financially speaking, what Eddie/Collingwood have done is nothing like this situation at all.

 

[fairdinkum]

That's almost as funny as Essendon supporters with their history commenting on the salary cap. Perhaps Essendon can ask the AFL if they can keep Hurley by purchasing an imaginary website like they did with Lloyd and Hird.

I'm interested to hear more about this.

 

[MaddAdam]

Our special, financial treatment is available to other clubs if they wish to persue it, available if they can achieve it, and usable if they do.

If I am reading this correct, Carlton have 1 more year of 200k outside the Salary cap, something other teams can NOT afford to do, do NOT have access too and can NOT achieve fairly if they do.

That's the major difference, Eddie bought in bucks, but couldn't go around the game's rules, he had to play within them, this, seemingly, does not.

Carlton's special deal is disgraceful. Especially when they haven't paid back the AFL the money they were given to bail them out of imminent bankruptcy.

Collingwood supporters refusing to acknowledge their (very recent) history is pretty annoying too, especially given my own club now struggles and gets accused of relying on "handouts" due to Collingwood - with the also somewhat culpable Essendon - stealing a major cash generator off a club that had made it what it was.

The moral high ground is a slippery place.

 

[KnaveyBlue]

The AFL... virtually crippled the club with a stroke of the pen. I think this is the swing back correction.

/thread

The Judd deal is as much about AFL $$$ as it is Carlton.

The AFL realised they'd ruined one of their best brands, and this was their way of fixing things without having to admit they ****ed up with the initial penalty.

Yes, Carlton benefit from the Judd deal, but the AFL are the key player in the overall scheme.

 

[Tas]

That's not what I'm saying at all... Generally the way that football allegiances work is you follow who your old man goes for... It's bred into you as a kid.


Mate of mine is a Richmond supporter his dad laid out three tigers jumpers and said you can only follow one one of these teams

It get passed down through generations

My family was a Richmond family, my brother and I defected to North in the early 70s and all I can say to that is thank god because a lot of friends/family who remained with the establishment have had a fairly miserable time of football for most of my lifetime.

The kind of supporters that are told who to follow and are incapable of making a decision for themselves are not the right type of people to be supporting our club. If we can't get by without degenerating to the point that we must accept these types of supporters then I would be glad to see our club enter the VFA than have to accept the knuckle dragging Neanderthals into our ranks.

This is ultimately where footy is going down the toilet, my club is being forced to drag the bottom of the pond for the kind of dregs that tends to get collected by other clubs and it is sad that football is all about money and we can't have different types of clubs that cater for the needs and desires of a wide group of supporters.

AFL is turning into the same kind of plastic as the food they serve at the footy games. It looks like something you once remembered but it is somehow not quite right and it sticks in your gut and you feel physically ill going through the process.

 

[MaddAdam]

Possibly because he saw the marketing power in pursuing them?

I'm not quite getting where you are coming from - my guess is you are not speaking financially, but believe Eddie was targeting Friday night games to help rort the draw? Because, financially speaking, what Eddie/Collingwood have done is nothing like this situation at all.

Which is what I have been saying all thread.

I'm saying it is very rich to get lectured by Eddie - as he does to North - when he stole the fixture we made.

And thus Collingwood supporters whinging about Carlton's deal with Judd (reprehensible as it is) is somewhat tiresome.

 

[Steeleyourself]

Carlton's special deal is disgraceful. Especially when they haven't paid back the AFL the money they were given to bail them out of imminent bankruptcy.

Collingwood supporters refusing to acknowledge their (very recent) history is pretty annoying too, especially given my own club now struggles and gets accused of relying on "handouts" entitely due to Collingwood - with the equally culpable Essendon - stealing a major cash generator off a club that had made it what it was.

The moral high ground is a slippery place.

Ok, I was trying to understand how it related to the issue directly, I understand where you are coming from now. While I agree the "high ground" shouldn't be held by any club when it comes to financial backing (what would C'wood be without a competition) I think it's irrelevant if it's not outside the rules.

But I digress: I'd love to see a lot more equality (I started supporting c'wood in 95, when I was 7), at the time we were broke with hat in hand, and would have loved to see us a powerhouse, but now it's "what for?", now we are, I only sympathise with the clubs in a hole: it sucked back then because I rarely got games in CQLD, and it sucks now for the differential in resources available.

 

[Burzum]

I'm interested to hear more about this.

What In_Like_Flint fails to realise is that the AFL originally signed off on the deal

 

[Steeleyourself]

Which is what I have been saying all thread.

I'm saying it is very rich to get lectured by Eddie - as he does to North - when he stole the fixture we made.

And thus Collingwood supporters whinging about Carlton's deal with Judd (reprehensible as it is) is somewhat tiresome.

Sorry, I didn't understand where you were coming from before, so I sounded a bit abash.

My only issue is that it gives an unfair advantage against the rules, but I don't begrudge carlton for it.

The AFL need to cop this in the chin and fix it, though.

 

[s_cranberry]

My family was a Richmond family, my brother and I defected to North in the early 70s and all I can say to that is thank god because a lot of friends/family who remained with the establishment have had a fairly miserable time of football for most of my lifetime.

The kind of supporters that are told who to follow and are incapable of making a decision for themselves are not the right type of people to be supporting our club. If we can't get by without degenerating to the point that we must accept these types of supporters then I would be glad to see our club enter the VFA than have to accept the knuckle dragging Neanderthals into our ranks.

I was born into a strict Carlton family... My grandfather played one game for the blues


The bolded part is ridiculous... Your club needs all the supporters it can get... North are in no position to be picky about how your supporters became north supporters.... Why you really need is supporters who show up to games

 

[BF Tiger]

/thread

The Judd deal is as much about AFL $$$ as it is Carlton.

The AFL realised they'd ruined one of their best brands, and this was their way of fixing things without having to admit they ****ed up with the initial penalty.

Yes, Carlton benefit from the Judd deal, but the AFL are the key player in the overall scheme.

I'd have been happy if they'd stripped the premiership won with salary cap breaches and lessened the penalties that were actually imposed.

But it is all about AFL dollars, and that is what the Judd deal was all about.

 

[Max zero]

/thread

The Judd deal is as much about AFL $$$ as it is Carlton.

The AFL realised they'd ruined one of their best brands, and this was their way of fixing things without having to admit they ****ed up with the initial penalty.

Yes, Carlton benefit from the Judd deal, but the AFL are the key player in the overall scheme.

Hardly should of done a Melbourne Storm on you. Systemic, sustained and organized cheating will the full knowledge/approval of the club.

 

[MaddAdam]

Ok, I was trying to understand how it related to the issue directly, I understand where you are coming from now. While I agree the "high ground" shouldn't be held by any club when it comes to financial backing (what would C'wood be without a competition) I think it's irrelevant if it's not outside the rules.

But I digress: I'd love to see a lot more equality (I started supporting c'wood in 95, when I was 7), at the time we were broke with hat in hand, and would have loved to see us a powerhouse, but now it's "what for?", now we are, I only sympathise with the clubs in a hole: it sucked back then because I rarely got games in CQLD, and it sucks now for the differential in resources available.

Good post. Nice work.

 

[SugarHealey]

There's the Carlton contract then there's the Visy deal. Who knows how long that lasts, but even presuming it ends at the end of next year, at the very dumbest reckoning, that's another 200k for one year.

The reality though is that Carlton will have been able to front load contracts during the whole duration. That amount of money sloshing around every year is nothing to sneeze at when you are seeking to nab players or fend off advances from the expansion teams.

And while we all realise that it's ending, the point remains that the AFL could very easily have compensated for that by giving every other club the capacity to spend another 200k per year if they felt they couldn't dissolve that contract. How it got signed off in the first place is rank.

It also means that Carlton would have done some very creative accounting. Front loading contracts for stars like Murphy, knowing that post 2012, the funds would dry up.

$200,000.00?

I thought it was even higher than that?

So was that his part of the Visey deal, or was their another part for his partner?

 

[yaco55]

Third party deals should be simplified.

A true third party deal is one organised by the player of his Manager that is completely independent of the club - So that includes sponsors, coterie members etc.

Follow this principle and you will have more integrity.

 

[KennyHunter9]

Third party deals should be simplified.

A true third party deal is one organised by the player of his Manager that is completely independent of the club - So that includes sponsors, coterie members etc.

Follow this principle and you will have more integrity.

Then it's not a third party deal. It's a sponsorship deal, plain and simple.

Outlaw third party deals, by all means.

There's a lot of ignorance on this thread.

So many third party deals, involving so many clubs.

So many exceptions to the salary rules (Folau at GWS, Hunt at GC, GWS, GC, Sydney extra living allowances etc).

200K is not a lot of money to pay someone of Judd's profile to promote initiatives, participate in advertising, branding. He's one of the most recognisable sports stars in a sports mad country. Get a grip people.

 

[SurreyBlue]

As a West Coast fan who was bitterly disappointed to say the least when Judd left, the whole Visy thing wreaked of sham from the start.
The sheer double standards involves boggles the mind and further reinforces the fact that the AFL isn't one for equal standards.

You do realise that WestCoast have the most "outside" deals then any other club - right???

 

[Max zero]

You do realise that WestCoast have the most "outside" deals then any other club - right???

Yet none of them come anywhere close to Judds.

 

[yaco55]

Then it's not a third party deal. It's a sponsorship deal, plain and simple.

Outlaw third party deals, by all means.

There's a lot of ignorance on this thread.

So many third party deals, involving so many clubs.

So many exceptions to the salary rules (Folau at GWS, Hunt at GC, GWS, GC, Sydney extra living allowances etc).

200K is not a lot of money to pay someone of Judd's profile to promote initiatives, participate in advertising, branding. He's one of the most recognisable sports stars in a sports mad country. Get a grip people.[/QUOTE

Fair enough.

Lets outlaw third party deals.

 

[LeverPuller]

The reality is the whole stench only came up when Adrian Anderson came out during the Tom $cully saga and said that Melbourne would not be able to create a Judd-like deal for Scully.

Why?

Because the AFL wanted their man.

It's blatant hypocrisy on the AFL's part and now it'll come back to bite the clubs in the arse once more. What's for the good of the AFL's back pockets and what's for the good of the game is becoming a very blurry line right now.

And personally, I'm going to just love to see if GWS ever get done for salary cap rorting...

 

[Krueger]

Cheats will be cheats.

Im sure if Cartlon paid Judd $1 per year out of the salary cap and Visy chipped in with $2 million per year that would be okay too??

Its a rort and a joke why it was allowed. Next thing we will hear it was just a coincidence that Visy wanted Judd as an ambassador for his green credentials and not the fact the the Clubs President was chairman of Visy who wanted Judd to come to Carlton.

 

[Poseidon]

Cheats will be cheats.

Im sure if Cartlon paid Judd $1 per year out of the salary cap and Visy chipped in with $2 million per year that would be okay too??

Its a rort and a joke why it was allowed. Next thing we will hear it was just a coincidence that Visy wanted Judd as an ambassador for his green credentials and not the fact the the Clubs President was chairman of Visy who wanted Judd to come to Carlton.

Your anger is misdirected. Aim it at the AFL chairmen who sign off on these deals. Is there a more amateurish professional sporting organisation than the AFL? They bring out a set of rules and then pick & choose who it applies to.

 

[Rob]

Outlaw third party deals, by all means.

There's a lot of ignorance on this thread.

So many third party deals, involving so many clubs.

So many exceptions to the salary rules (Folau at GWS, Hunt at GC, GWS, GC, Sydney extra living allowances etc).

200K is not a lot of money to pay someone of Judd's profile to promote initiatives, participate in advertising, branding. He's one of the most recognisable sports stars in a sports mad country. Get a grip people.

Fair enough.

Lets outlaw third party deals.

How the hell do you do that? Sponsors get involved with clubs to get access to the players, and those players are entitled to get paid a reasonable amount for providing their services to said sponsors. They appear in ads, they go to shopping centres, fast food stores, wherever. They're not going to do it for free - hell, I wouldn't.

The issue is market value, pure and simple. And the onus should be on the club to prove it.

 

[MaddAdam]

And personally, I'm going to just love to see if GWS ever get done for salary cap rorting...

Mate, Sydney still get a salary cap boost because of "cost of living pressures" when it is more expensive to live in Melbourne, or at the very least, it is the same.

 

[Kong]

That's almost as funny as Essendon supporters with their history commenting on the salary cap. Perhaps Essendon can ask the AFL if they can keep Hurley by purchasing an imaginary website like they did with Lloyd and Hird.

Please elaborate.