Judd, Malthouse criticise AFL ruling

By AAP,

Tagged:
 ,

28 Have your say

    Related coverage

    Carlton captain Chris Judd and his new coach Mick Malthouse have blasted the AFL decision that puts the star player’s third-party deal under the club salary cap.

    Judd’s management have said they will fight the league announcement on Friday that his long-time agreement with recycling giant Visy could no longer exist outside club total player payments.

    The lucrative ambassador role is understood to be worth about $200,000 a season.

    “It’s certainly very disappointing from our point of view and makes it very difficult to cultivate a career post-footy and explore work opportunities while you are playing,” Judd told Channel Seven.

    He added the “goal posts are constantly being moved”.

    The AFL say they flagged two years ago that the rules surrounding third-party deals would be tightened with the advent of free agency.

    But Malthouse, who is with Judd and his teammates at a pre-season camp in Arizona, was also unimpressed.

    “When you start changing the rules halfway through, I’m just astounded,” Malthouse said.

    “I don’t think it’s fair on either (Judd or Carlton) or any other player in the competition.

    “The league may be painting themselves into a very, very dark corner.”

    © AAP 2018

    Have Your Say



    If not logged in, please enter your name and email before submitting your comment. Please review our comments policy before posting on the Roar.

    Oldest | Newest | Most Recent

    The Crowd Says (28)

    • November 19th 2012 @ 9:36am
      andyincanberra said | November 19th 2012 @ 9:36am | ! Report

      This is entirely the AFL’s fault. It was a rotten deal to begin with that should have been nipped in the bud 5 years ago.

    • Roar Guru

      November 19th 2012 @ 9:43am
      Richard said | November 19th 2012 @ 9:43am | ! Report

      Yes well the question is, would Judd have his job at Visy if he weren’t playing football for Carlton? If the answer to that question is “no”, then clearly the role relates to his playing position at Carlton, and the payment should be included in Carlton’s salary cap.

      I wonder what his ambassador role involves? Explaining the benefits of cardboard boxes?

    • Roar Guru

      November 19th 2012 @ 9:45am
      Richard said | November 19th 2012 @ 9:45am | ! Report

      On the other hand, Carlton could employ Rebecca Twigg. Now there’s an ambassador for you.

    • November 19th 2012 @ 10:54am
      Andrew A said | November 19th 2012 @ 10:54am | ! Report

      The Judd-Visy deal was a rort that Carlton got away with for 5 years. They did well to gain AFL approval in Judd’s first year and again 3 years ago when his first Visy contract expired. The AFL are scrutinising 3rd party arrangements more closely now and decided not to approve Judd’s new Visy contract outside the salary cap. The correct decision was made. Any similar arrangements with players at other clubs should also be treated the same, although I doubt many (if any) players would be earning $200-$250k p.a. for a part time ambassador role at a board member’s company. Perhaps Carlton can go back to the brown paper bags to overcome the AFL’s decision.

    • November 19th 2012 @ 11:12am
      Andrew A said | November 19th 2012 @ 11:12am | ! Report

      Also, simply because the AFL approved Judd’s first two Visy contracts doesn’t mean that they will approve it indefinitely each time it comes up for renewal. The AFL standards have been updated, similar to match rules being updated. What was allowed in the past doesn’t meet the new standard. Judd has an opportunity to show some leadership and reduce his $1m p.a. Carlton-Visy salary to allow teammates on much less money to earn a bit more. Who knows, there could be someone else on Carlton’s list who could be a better Visy ambassador – whatever that is.

      • November 19th 2012 @ 12:00pm
        Pillock said | November 19th 2012 @ 12:00pm | ! Report

        I think Judd is lucky that Visy gave him time off to go to Arizona with the rest of the Carlton boys, however I am sure that he filled out a request form.
        While it is not much fun to have the rules changed from season to season it apperas it should have been included from day one. It’s a bit like telling a few fibs on your tax return just because you get away with it once or twice don’t fall into the trap of taking the high ground.

        • November 19th 2012 @ 12:10pm
          Cassius said | November 19th 2012 @ 12:10pm | ! Report

          Yeah carlton is relatively strong again and with Malthouse at the helm they dont need large 3rd party agreements. 3rd party agreements is what got the Storm into Trouble I think…

          • November 19th 2012 @ 5:01pm
            Paul said | November 19th 2012 @ 5:01pm | ! Report

            And guess who shares training facilities?

            • Roar Guru

              November 20th 2012 @ 5:03am
              The_Wookie said | November 20th 2012 @ 5:03am | ! Report

              they also share with the Rebels Union side. Better get someone over there stat.

              • November 20th 2012 @ 1:16pm
                Nathan of Perth said | November 20th 2012 @ 1:16pm | ! Report

                What with the JOC deal, you may just be onto something.

    • November 19th 2012 @ 1:00pm
      Kev said | November 19th 2012 @ 1:00pm | ! Report

      This Visy deal should never have been approved. Anyone who believes that this was legitimate and wasn’t part of getting Judd to the club is being disingenuous. The rules should be quite simple; if players have deals with a business that has any ties to a club be it through sponsorship or their employees being board members of this club or anything else that resembles a relationship with the club, this deal should be considered part of the salary cap. It has to be this broad because it’s otherwise too easy for people to make handshake deals.

    Explore:
    ,