Another Sleazy Judd Deal

[Jordie_tackles 354]

So? The point in all of this is that the OP is insinuating there are shady dealings going on when it is patently obvious to even Blind Freddy and his dog that this is not the case.

I thought that financially beneficial opportunities you gain as a football player for a club *that you would not otherwise get* need to be included in the cap.

[hardtack 10,423]

I thought that financially beneficial opportunities you gain as a football player for a club *that you would not otherwise get* need to be included in the cap.

Well, if you read the article, you will see that Judd took out a personal loan from the bank for half of the funding and the other half came from his earnings which surely he is allowed to spend in any way he sees fit. The only issue was his non declaration on the public register.

[mauriesy 7,160]

Doesnt matter if they are a director or a supporter, it is an opportunity he only receives due to his footballing abilities, and club he plays for.

Anyone in this world can invest in any opportunity they come across or are offered as a result of their employment. It doesn't necessarily make it 'sleazy', 'underhand' or even illegal. Often it's called 'networking'.

Do you think a Toyota worker shouldn't get a discount on a car, a Metro employee a discount on public transport, or a company director low-priced share options?

[jnrmac 19,905]

Jeeeeesus!!! How many times does it need to be said... the person you are alluding to WAS NOT a director until 2010... the deal was done in 2009!!

So you are correct... absolutely nothing here!!

Hardtack. You don't have to repeat yourself. We hear uyour opinion. Its just that other people have DIFFERENT opinions. Get used to it.

Clearly the NOW Director was an influential supporter and presumably donor, coterie club member etc. And it appears he became a Director later. You don't think there is anything in it but I think it stinks and is worth investigating. The article CLAIMS that Judd was trying to avoid scrutiny from the gaming authorities. How do you know it was not also to avoid AFL scrutiny?? No didn't think so.

Judd and Carlton are serial offenders at underhanded deals that breach the spirit of the salary cap. Worth looking at.

The AFL are on record as saying they won't let another Visy deal happen. Clearly they think it breaches the spirit of the rules.

Edited May 4, 2012 by jnrmac

[Sir Why You Little 36,670]

The AFL are on record as saying they won't let another Visy deal happen. Clearly they think it breaches the spirit of the rules.

Unless of course that deal involves Chris Ju$$. The AFL seem to let those deals go through.

[Nasher 33,607]

The great thing about CLUBS is that sometimes you get to meet influential people who can help you meet your own goals.

I think the difference between here between this deal and the Visy fiasco is that in this case, Judd has made a legitimate investment; i.e. he has paid good money to get involved. With the Visy deal he got paid money for seemingly doing sweet FA. The Visy deal was a clear leg up; this is a business deal that carries the same risks and rewards as any other business deal. The fact that he did it through an influential member of the club has nothing to do with it - condemning that would be the same as saying a player is not allowed to hook up with another player's sister - after all, they'd probably have never met if the club hadn't been involved.

An absolute non-issue.

[Sir Why You Little 36,670]

The great thing about CLUBS is that sometimes you get to meet influential people who can help you meet your own goals.

I think the difference between here between this deal and the Visy fiasco is that in this case, Judd has made a legitimate investment; i.e. he has paid good money to get involved. With the Visy deal he got paid money for seemingly doing sweet FA. The Visy deal was a clear leg up; this is a business deal that carries the same risks and rewards as any other business deal. The fact that he did it through an influential member of the club has nothing to do with it - condemning that would be the same as saying a player is not allowed to hook up with another player's sister - after all, they'd probably have never met if the club hadn't been involved.

An absolute non-issue.

The deal is a non issue. Good luck to him.

Trying to keep it quiet is an issue.

[mauriesy 7,160]

Trying to keep it quiet is an issue.

Only to the extent that the gaming register requires investors to notify it of investments made in gaming companies ... presumably to determine possible conflicts of interest (by any citizen).

If it was an normal investment in company shares, property etc. he has no legal requirement to be open about it. He is not a member of parliament or a public officer, for example.

Edited May 4, 2012 by maurie

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Only to the extent that the gaming register requires investors to notify it of investments made in gaming companies ... presumably to determine possible conflicts of interest (by any citizen).

If it was an normal investment in company shares, property etc. he has no legal requirement to be open about it. He is not a member of parliament or a public officer, for example.

Spot on. Absolute non issue.

[Sir Why You Little 36,670]

Only to the extent that the gaming register requires investors to notify it of investments made in gaming companies ... presumably to determine possible conflicts of interest (by any citizen).

If it was an normal investment in company shares, property etc. he has no legal requirement to be open about it. He is not a member of parliament or a public officer, for example.

I agree. But if the deal has been kept quiet for taxation reasons then it is a serious issue. Glen Wheatlley learnt that one.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I agree. But if the deal has been kept quiet for taxation reasons then it is a serious issue. Glen Wheatlley learnt that one.

Whether he registered his interest on the public register for gaming is for the reason Maurie stated.

The issue for taxation is whether he discloses his taxable income on his tax return each year. It a completely seperate issue. And Glenn Wheatley undertook various scham and illegal schemes to avoid disclosing and paying tax. Completely different situation.

[Jordie_tackles 354]

Well, if you read the article, you will see that Judd took out a personal loan from the bank for half of the funding and the other half came from his earnings which surely he is allowed to spend in any way he sees fit. The only issue was his non declaration on the public register.

I just dont see much of a difference whether it is good for Judd or not between getting paid overs to work for VISY or being given lucrative business options from wealthy connected supporters. I understand he has to invest his money somewhere and it is hard to determine what is open and what is through connections, but a lucrative business option could work out to be a more enticing perk than a players actual salary in the long run, and factor in staying or going to a club.

[mauriesy 7,160]

I agree. But if the deal has been kept quiet for taxation reasons then it is a serious issue.

The matter before the County Court was an issue involving the Victorian public gaming register, controlled by the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation.

If it was a taxation avoidance issue it would be before the Federal Court and it would involve the Taxation Department or ASIC.

[mauriesy 7,160]

I just dont see much of a difference whether it is good for Judd or not between getting paid overs to work for VISY or being given lucrative business options from wealthy connected supporters. I understand he has to invest his money somewhere and it is hard to determine what is open and what is through connections, but a lucrative business option could work out to be a more enticing perk than a players actual salary in the long run, and factor in staying or going to a club.

Any footballer, or indeed any citizen, could make the investment Judd did. It is not related to salary cap issues etc. because it used Judd's own or borrowed money.

[Sir Why You Little 36,670]

The matter before the County Court was an issue involving the Victorian public gaming register, controlled by the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation.

If it was a taxation avoidance issue it would be before the Federal Court and it would involve the Taxation Department or ASIC.

Of course i know they are separate issues. But one could easily influence the other.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Of course i know they are separate issues. But one could easily influence the other.

They couldn't and you never learn.

Any footballer, or indeed any citizen, could make the investment Judd did. It is not related to salary cap issues etc. because it used Judd's own or borrowed money.

Its not that hard.

The matter before the County Court was an issue involving the Victorian public gaming register, controlled by the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation.

If it was a taxation avoidance issue it would be before the Federal Court and it would involve the Taxation Department or ASIC.

Right on the money. But its wasted good sense Maurie.

[Satan 2,856]

hypothetically

carlton officials go to the pokie venue and lose thousands of dollars of carltons money, losses are profit to venue and its shareholders including c..., nice way of getting around salary cap

just sayin....

a few years ago a few richmond players invested in a richmond president real estate venture, did they get land below commercial price? , and sell for a profit? ..nice way of getting around salary cap

players making deals with club officals and coterie members make the deal reek of a bad odour

Edited May 4, 2012 by Satan