One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: Roar on March 31, 2005, 01:19:46 PM
-
News has just broken that Jay Schultz was last night done on a drink driving charge this has huge ramifications for the club as Major sponsor TAC had inserted a disqualification clause.
This clause states that should any player/official of the club be found guilty of drink driving they had the option of pulling their sponsorship of the club.
Previosly Royce vardy had been done for drink driving and cost the club a $50,000 penalty and nearly cost us the TAC sponsorship but the rift was mended and TAC continued their sponsorship but with the above clause inserted.
TAC are now likely to withdraw their sponsorship which will be a total disaster and leave the club in the lurch and looking for another major sponsor which is not likely to happen this season.
This news is devastating for both Richmond and it's supporters :banghead
-
I'm a supporter and I'm disappointed but not devastated. If guilty then I think Jay was stupid and should be punished through the courts. If TAC wants to pull out then that's disappointing, especially in the short term. In the longer term I would prefer to avoid having a major sponsor that a) major sponsors other clubs (and shows more interest in them) and b) magnifies such events.
Also, as a payer of third party insurance (albeit in SA at present) I also resent the TAC tossing money at football teams, even when its the one I barrack for.
-
If TAC wants to pull out then that's disappointing, especially in the short term. In the longer term I would prefer to avoid having a major sponsor that a) major sponsors other clubs (and shows more interest in them) and b) magnifies such events.
In a market where 10 clubs are competing for the same sponsorship $$$ we need sponsors like the TAC.
Also, I think you'll find that going into 2005 and before this "incident" the Club's relationship with the TAC was the strongest it's been in yonks and that they were showing a lot of interest in us over the other mob.
I am very angry at the moment and will get angrier if we lose the TAC over this. We were warned after the Royce Vardy incident - a contract was signed, everyone was made aware of the consequences of being in breach of the clause in the contract. But again it's case of a footballer not thinking. >:(
For crying out loud it aint that hard :banghead :banghead :banghead
-
Wish I could be as calm about it as you PS.
No use making rash statements full of emotion, but it’s hugely disappointing. There’s an understatement. How many clues do players need?
french connection united kingdom.
:banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead
-
Can I just add..
There is ways to lose sponsors and there are ways to lose sponsors.
If the TAC turned around said we want out -simply because they want out. then you say "fair enough thanks for the 16 years it's been great"
If you lose them because of this sort of thing then it is embarassing and shameful.
It could also make it difficult to get a new sponsor
-
Im biting my toungue for the time being.
-
Can I just add..
There is ways to lose sponsors and there are ways to lose sponsors.
If the TAC turned around said we want out -simply because they want out. then you say "fair enough thanks for the 16 years it's been great"
If you lose them because of this sort of thing then it is embarassing and shameful.
It could also make it difficult to get a new sponsor
I'm extremely angry about this specially as it is a 2nd offence there are no excuses for the player or the club, if TAC pulls their sponsorship there is virtually no chance of us gaining another major sponsor this season and that affects the bottom line.
We have budgeted to grab back most of our losses from previous years and this will be just a kick in the guts. There are those that say lets wait and see what happens but I see iot as a clear demarkation does the club support it's sponsor and deal with Jay in the most serious way possible or do they support Jay to the exclusion of the TAC.
I'm sure the players assossiation will want a say in this as well so Richmond may find themselves in a lose/lose situation. For god sake when will Richmond get their act together.
-
Wish I could be as calm about it as you PS.
No use making rash statements full of emotion, but it’s hugely disappointing. There’s an understatement. How many clues do players need?
french connection united kingdom.
:banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead
Always calm on a Thursday TS. Usually a different story on a Sunday evening. As to your question - players probably need many, many clues. But mostly they're too stupid to process even one. (Says I mispelling they're in my 1st go).
-
:banghead @ stupidity (and just in time for the lead story on footy show tonight :banghead).
41 car immobilisers coming right up for dumb footballers ::).
-
Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse...
====
Schulz charged with drink-driving
March 31, 2005 - 4:24PM
Richmond key position player Jay Schulz was charged with drink-driving and speeding, which could again place the AFL club's major sponsorship deal with the Transport Accident Commission in jeopardy.
The incident occurred at 1am (AEST) on Thursday in inner suburban Prahran.
The 19-year was fined and will lose his licence for six months.
Schulz was also fined $5,000 by the Tigers.
A similar incident a couple of years ago involving former Tigers defender Royce Vardy nearly led to the ending of the TAC's major sponsorship deal.
"It goes without saying that the club is bitterly disappointed with Jay's actions," Richmond said in a statement.
"While Jay is only 19, he is in his third season with Richmond and throughout that period he has been educated numerous times on his social responsibilities, including road safety and drink-driving.
" ... Jay has not only let down the Richmond Football Club, its members and supporters, but also a long-term partner of the Club, the community as a whole, and himself."
© 2005 AAP
http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,12712170-23211,00.html
-
Everyone is talking about the ramificiations that this will have on the club's sponsorship deal. What does this mean for Jay? Now me personally, when Vardy committed the offence I was happy to offload him to make an example. Jay is a future key-position player and leader......does that change things?
This is a very tricky situation. On top of that, the guy is meant to be in rehab and he is drinking? Where is the baseball bat?
-
Let's see if Mcguire milks this story for all it's worth, It would be right up his alley to do so.
-
Everyone is talking about the ramificiations that this will have on the club's sponsorship deal. What does this mean for Jay? Now me personally, when Vardy committed the offence I was happy to offload him to make an example. Jay is a future key-position player and leader......does that change things?
This is a very tricky situation. On top of that, the guy is meant to be in rehab and he is drinking? Where is the baseball bat?
Vardy was also fined $5,000 and suspended for around a month. Cost the club $50,000 to the TAC as well. Might find a similar punishment for Jay as the AFLPA wouldn't be happy about young players being sacked over non-footy issues.
As for the RFC: If TAC stay on board it could cost a fair bit of $$$ which we don't exactly have.
---------------------
Vardy awaits fate
9:12:18 AM Thu 24 January, 2002
Sportal
Richmond youngster Royce Vardy is expected to know tomorrow if he faces any further penalty after being charged with drink driving last month.
Vardy was suspended from pre-season training until the end of January when the club heard about the offence, which has placed Richmond’s TAC sponsorship of 10 years in jeopardy.
The Tigers board is set to meet tomorrow night at 7pm AEDT to decide if he should be punished further, with chief executive Mark Brayshaw saying the club will announce its findings on Friday morning.
A TAC spokeswoman said the commission was still reviewing its sponsorship deal with Richmond, believed to be worth about $750,000 a season.
http://richmondfc.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=14562
Vardy still a Tiger
9:12:24 AM Mon 28 January, 2002
Sportal
Richmond's Royce Vardy has escaped the axe from the club but has been fined $5000 following his drink-driving charge.
Vardy was charged by police after recording a blood alcohol reading of 0.14 in late December.
The incident had put the Tigers' lucrative sponsorship with the Transport Accident Commission (TAC) in serious jeopardy and and prompted speculation the club may sack Vardy.
The TAC's contract with Richmond required players and officials to adhere to its drink-driving policy.
The Commission said it was considering the matter and would let Richmond know next week whether it would continue to sponsor the club.
Vardy will also miss the pre-season competition and carry out community service.
"Royce has had an extremely difficult month being apart from the team and with this decision pending," chief executive Mark Brayshaw said.
"The Club is satisfied that he fully understands and regrets the enormity of the mistake he made and we feel the severity of the punishment is appropriate."
"I wish to sincerely apologise for my totally irresponsible behavior/action on December 29, which led to my drink-driving charge," Vardy said.
"It's been very difficult to live with the humiliation and shame that I have let down so many people -- the Richmond Football Club, my teammates, friends, family, the TAC and myself.
"I am extremely grateful to the Club for giving me another chance and fully accept my punishment. The positive to come out of this for me has been the fact that, thank God, nobody was injured and I have learned one of life's most valuable lessons.
"I hope that I can now repay the Club for allowing me to continue playing, and I'll be doing everything I can to uphold the values of the Club."
http://richmondfc.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=14647
Tigers keep TAC - at a cost
12:12:57 PM Thu 7 February, 2002
Richmond has kept its lucrative sponsorship with the Transport Accident Commission but at a high cost.
The AFL club has been forced to pay $50,000 to the TAC to keep the deal intact as punishment for one of its players – Royce Vardy – breaching the TAC’s “Drink/Drive – Bloody Idiot” message.
Vardy was caught over the legal limit of .05 back in December and almost lost his place on the senior list as the Tigers contemplated the difficult task of having to find a new major sponsor on the eve of the 2002 AFL season.
However just as the Tigers gave Vardy another chance, the TAC has also given Richmond another chance but the club has been warned that if another employee is caught drink/driving then the sponsorship deal will be terminated.
The Tigers have also had to pay $50,000, which the TAC will give to the support groups for victims of road accidents, while the club will also have to introduce a new program to show its commitment to the anti drink/driving policy as well as being involved in additional promotions to reinforce the TAC’s “Drink/Drive – Bloody Idiot” message.
Richmond chief executive Mark Brayshaw said the club agreed to the strict conditions imposed by the TAC, recognising the seriousness of Vardy’s offence.
“As a club, we ultimately accept responsibility for the actions of our players and officials,” Brayshaw said. “For the past 13 years, we have worked well with the TAC and actively promoted the Drink, Drive, Bloody Idiot message.”
“So we are obviously committed to doing everything within our power to ensure this type of incident will not occur again.”
TAC chief executive Stephen Grant said it was “very disappointing to learn one of (Richmond’s) representatives had undermined what this partnership has been striving to achieve.”
“We can only be grateful that the incident has just led to a loss of license, not a loss of life,” he said.
“Our focus is now to work with the club to learn from this incident and look at new opportunities to show the community the importance of heeding the anti drink-driving message.”
http://richmondfc.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=16925
-
Tigers fine Schulz $5000
4:31:01 PM Thu 31 March, 2005
Sportal for afl.com.au
Richmond has fined Jay Schulz $5000 after the emerging key defender was charged with drink-driving and speeding offences in the early hours of Monday morning.
Schulz has had his license cancelled.
The Tigers released a statement on Thursday afternoon, branding the fine amount as "insufficient" but that it was the maximum amount allowed under the AFL Player Coxdde of Conduct.
Saying it would have fined Schulz a larger amount if it could have, the club has ordered Schulz to undertake extensive work with road trauma victims.
"Jay has not only let down the Richmond Football Club, its members and supporters, but also a long-term partner of the Club, the community as a whole, and himself," the club said in a statement.
The incident is particularly embarrassing for the Tigers, who are sponsored by the Transport Accident Commission, whose key messages are "Drink, Drive Bloody Idiot” and “Wipe off 5”.
And it comes less than two years after another Richmond player, Royce Vardy, was involved in a drink-driving incident in northern Victoria.
http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=193140
-
The club has decided it is innapropriate to suspend Schultz as he is on the long term injury list but instead have left it to his peers the playing group to take further action against him, it will be interesting what they come up with.
-
The club has decided it is innapropriate to suspend Schultz as he is on the long term injury list but instead have left it to his peers the playing group to take further action against him, it will be interesting what they come up with.
I just hope it isn't left to Brown, Simmonds and Campbell to inflict the "punishment" on Jay!
-
The club has decided it is innapropriate to suspend Schultz as he is on the long term injury list but instead have left it to his peers the playing group to take further action against him, it will be interesting what they come up with.
seems to be to be pretty weak that
its like letting a bunch of preps decide on the punishment for a school mate
his punishment will probbly be he has to supply all the booze at the next booze up
i dont think he should be sacked but he should be suspended until half way through the year or even longer..
something more than the token punishment he will get...
-
Official statement on Jay Schulz
5:10:38 PM Thu 31 March, 2005
richmondfc.com.au
The Richmond Football Club is well aware of the responsibility that it has to uphold the law and set an example to the community.
The Club has many young players on its list and we have spent considerable time working with them on education of key social obligations, particularly the drink-driving message of the Transport Accident Commission, which has been a key partner of the Tigers for more than 16 years.
It is therefore with great regret, that the Club advises Jay Schulz was this morning charged with driving a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol limit exceeding .05, but less than .07, as well as driving over the speed limit.
The incident occurred at 1am in Malvern Road, Prahran. Jay fully co-operated with police, and has subsequently been fined and had his licence cancelled for six months.
It goes without saying that the Club is bitterly disappointed with Jay’s actions. While Jay is only 19, he is in his third season with Richmond and throughout that period he has been educated numerous times on his social responsibilities, including road safety and drink-driving.
The Transport Accident Commission’s key messages are “Drink, Drive Bloody Idiot” and “Wipe off 5”. These are messages which we believe are of great importance in society and the Club has gone to great lengths to ensure that these messages are broadly published in the community. Richmond’s commitment to road safety messages through education, training programs, country, hospital and school visits is extensive.
Jay has not only let down the Richmond Football Club, its members and supporters, but also a long-term partner of the Club, the community as a whole, and himself.
The Club has fined Jay the maximum allowable under the AFL Player Code of Conduct, which is $5000. We believe this is inadequate and we would have fined him more if we could. Furthermore, the Club will ensure that Jay undertakes extensive work with victims of road trauma to further understand the types of outcomes this unacceptable behavior can lead to.
Jay has asked us to apologise to the Club’s members and supporters, key partners, the community, and especially the Transport Accident Commission. He knows he has let everyone down.
http://richmondfc.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=193148
-
I saw Channel 7's news and they showed Jay leaving Punt Road Oval with his manager Liam Pickering who uttered something like....
"it's fair to say the young bloke is feeling pretty low at the moment"
FFS!!!!! pretty low - give me a break.
I can think of 750K reasons why we all should feel pretty low at the moment :banghead :banghead :banghead
-
CEO Steven Wright will be having talks with TAC in the next few days in regard to the situation of the club following Jay Schultz's drink driving charge. I have to admit when i first came across this news I blew my top to say I was peeed off would be an understatement.
Having had a few hours to digest the matter I have calmed down and after at first believing the TAC would pull their sponsorship now think seeing it is only a 1 year deal they may just fine the club, the fine of course would be substantial and there would be further conditions put on it.
As for Sarge I guess he'd be feeling pretty crap at the moment and is still to find out what his teamates have in store for him and it could get worse for him if the TAC withdraw it's sponsorship. I live in hope the talks with the TAC go well and that means we only cop a fine around $100,000 dollars.
I don't know what the players can do to him, make him play for coburg for the rest of the year after he's over his injury. I don't think they can impose a financial penalty.
If this costs us the sponsorship who knows what the consequences will be for Schultz.
-
First off the bat is that these young kids should not be held up as role models and kids that look up to them as anything other than just the kid next door need more direction.
The other thing is these kids(Players) are old enough to know thier responsibilities - especially in this case with our sponsor and past events. If it comes down to keeping the sponsor or player it has to be the sponsor. That is the way it is these days and more than ever now the club is BIGGER than the individual.
I was trying to wait for this - Thanks a bloody lot Jay youv'e brought him out to early in the season for mine :banghead :banghead
Drink Drive Bloody Idiot :banghead
-
Jay Schultz you are a bloody idiot.
That just about sums it up.
I do not think sacking Jay from the RFC is the solution at all AND This behaviour is the perfect reason the TAC need to sponsor an AFL Club and in particular Richmond (with a young list).
It highlights the very important point that if you drink and drive, you pay the consequences, no matter who you are, or when, why or how you have broken the law.
Unfortunately for Jay, in his position, he should know better. His fine is significant, his name is tarred, his punishment is tough, and his rehabilitation will be much more thorough than most that drink drive.
As a healthcare professional having dealt with Transport Accident victims before, there is nothing more gut wrenching and awakening than seeing what damage drink drivers can do. Jay has to go through this, and my only wish would be that he continues to spread the "drink drive bloody idiot" message to all and sundry for the rest of his life because of his behaviour.
I hope the TAC can see the opportunity to promote the message that this bloody idiot has underlined.
And I am sure the RFC should make an example of Jay, and promote the TAC message throughout Jay's rehab.
Stick with RFC - It promotes the full message. Punishment - Rehabilitation - Future promotion of the message
Drink Drive Bloody Idiot.
-
Ok is it just me or have I missed a major sticking point.......he is 19!?!?!??! Meaning his reading should be .00. This is even more farcical than what I thought........
-
I do not think sacking Jay from the RFC is the solution at all AND This behaviour is the perfect reason the TAC need to sponsor an AFL Club and in particular Richmond (with a young list).
It highlights the very important point that if you drink and drive, you pay the consequences, no matter who you are, or when, why or how you have broken the law.
Agree LT although after another incident the TAC may lose patience. The media has them dumping us but let's wait and see what comes from the meeting between the RFC and TAC.
Jay's stupidity shows that you will be caught if you D&D and/or speed even at 1 am in the morning.
Ok is it just me or have I missed a major sticking point.......he is 19!?!?!??! Meaning his reading should be .00. This is even more farcical than what I thought........
Yep....Sarge is a P-plater.
Where was he drinking? If he was with "mates" at a pub why didn't they stop him from driving home.
-
Tigers to lose sponsor
By Caroline Wilson and Lyall Johnson
The Age
April 1, 2005
Footballer Jay Schulz has cost the Richmond Football Club an estimated $500,000, with the Transport Accident Commission expected to sever ties with the Tigers as early as today.
The TAC, reeling from the Victorian Easter road toll, will end its multimillion-dollar 16-year sponsorship with the club.
This follows Schulz's drink-driving and speeding transgression on Wednesday.
Schulz, 19, who has an ankle injury, has been fined the $5000 maximum allowed under AFL Players Association rules.
He told the club he was picked up by police in Malvern Road, Prahran, at 1am on Wednesday, travelling at 80 km/h in a 40 km/h zone and recorded a blood alcohol level of .065. Schulz, a probationary licence holder, has lost his licence for six months.
He is the second Richmond footballer to have violated the TAC sponsorship conditions - Royce Vardy was charged with drink driving in 2001.
The TAC, Richmond's major sponsor since 1989, now shares that role with Motorola and had re-signed with the Tigers for 12 months. There were conditions to the agreement, with every employee at the club having training and acknowledging the sponsorship rules.
Richmond chief executive Steven Wright yesterday refused to say how he thought the TAC might react, but said he would meet the commission soon.
"We've spoken to the TAC several times today but it's too premature to make any comment about the outcome," he said. The TAC targets young men and women with a road safety message in its attempt to reduce deaths on Victoria's roads. The 2005 road toll stood late yesterday at 106, including eight deaths at Easter and a triple fatality yesterday, 22 more than at the same time last year. The TAC deal with Richmond is worth an annual $600,000. The club has received the first instalment of about $200,000 but stands to lose the remaining $400,000 and a further $100,000 in incentives.
Richmond football manager Greg Miller said he would have liked to have fined the player as much as $15,000 "given our relationship with the TAC as the major sponsor".
Schulz will face the players this morning, who are expected to impose a further penalty.
Miller said the match committee would discuss a ban on drinking for players. He said the offence was unlikely to cost Schulz his career at Punt Road Oval and there was no point suspending him, given that he is not due to play again until midway through the season because of injury.
"I don't think it will affect his future but it is certainly (something) he is going to have to carry for the rest of his football life," Miller said.
The loss of a sponsor could not come at worse time for Richmond, which lost more than $2 million in 2004.
The TAC board was split last year when it voted to enter into new agreements with Richmond and Collingwood. The Magpies' current one-year deal is worth about $750,000. The club also violated its sponsorship agreement last year when player Jason Cloke was caught speeding and lost his licence.
Another former Richmond player, Ty Zantuck, was booked last year for driving while talking on a mobile phone but the sponsor took no action.
http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2005/03/31/1111862536555.html
-
Schulz puts TAC deal in doubt
31 March 2005
Herald Sun
By Adam Cooper of AAP
RICHMOND'S sponsorship with the Transport Accident Commission (TAC) is once again in grave danger after Jay Schulz became the second Tiger in four years to lose his licence for drink-driving.
Schulz, 19, was pulled over at 1am (AEST) today in inner-suburban Prahran and charged on summons with driving with a blood alcohol level of between .05 and .07, and speeding.
He had his licence cancelled for six months.
The 21-game player, currently sidelined with an ankle injury, is believed to have been on his way home from a friend's home when he was pulled over.
Richmond immediately fined the promising utility player $5,000.
The Tigers were so furious their 16-year association with the TAC - which uses the motto `Drink, Drive, Bloody Idiot' - was at risk, they wanted to impose a far greater penalty.
"Given our relationship with the TAC as a major sponsor and the education process and all the things we've been through, I think five grand is the maximum fine under the (AFL Players') Code of Conduct and I think it's too low," said Tigers football director Greg Miller.
"Somewhere in the order of 10 ($10,000) or 15 ($15,000) would have been more appropriate, I would have thought.
"We're shocked because he's a fine young man and he's been in the system three years, so the amount of education he's had on this has been extensive ... and our relationship with the TAC is paramount to our ongoing viability, and unfortunately, Jay's let us all down."
In December 2001, former Richmond player Royce Vardy also jeopardised the club's TAC sponsorship when he was arrested with a blood alcohol level of .14.
The Tigers suspended Vardy for the 2002 pre-season before the TAC fined Richmond $50,000 and imposed a zero tolerance regime on the club.
That means the current year-to-year deal - worth an estimated $750,000 annually - might not be renewed at the end of 2005, if it lasts that long.
Richmond officials will meet with TAC representatives over the coming days to discuss the issue, but neither party would speculate on possible ramifications today.
The TAC said in a statement it viewed the incident "extremely seriously and has expressed its anger and bitter disappointment" to Richmond, and would consider all penalties.
The TAC said it was fortunate no-one was killed "as a result of Schulz's actions".
Richmond chief executive Steven Wright said it was premature to comment, but made clear his anger with Schulz.
"It's totally unacceptable behaviour and Richmond have an obligation, not only through the TAC, but through our own community network, to be fine upstanding citizens in the community and to do what he has done was totally irresponsible and I made it clear to him in no uncertain terms," Wright said.
Miller will discuss a ban on drinking with Richmond's football department, but dismissed claims the club had a drinking culture.
Former players Nick Daffy, Brad Ottens and Andrew Mills were all arrested in 2001-02 over alcohol-related incidents.
Schulz's manager Liam Pickering said his client understood the magnitude of his actions.
"The kid is, as you'd imagine, feeling pretty low at the moment and he's made a big mistake," Pickering said.
"So from a club perspective ... he'll have to face the playing group tomorrow and the coach and that's part of the game, and as far as the TAC is concerned it's not a great message to send and he knows that, so hopefully we can move forward from here."
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,12714942%255E19771,00.html
-
Where was he drinking? If he was with "mates" at a pub why didn't they stop him from driving home.
The 21-game player, currently sidelined with an ankle injury, is believed to have been on his way home from a friend's home when he was pulled over.
Anyone heard of calling a cab :help
-
Ok first of all, I'm not happy that Jay has put our sponsorship deal into jeopardy. Secondly, as a non-drinker, I think he was mad to be over the limit when everyone knows that P platers have a 0.0 limit. But I wonder whether having TAC as a sponsor has placed too much pressure on our young guys, especially those that like the odd drink or two. If we still had Tetley or Esso as a sponsor it wouldn't be a problem. Didn't Collingwood receive a big wrap over the knuckles with the Cameron Cloke incident or did Eddie managed to get as little publicity as possible? Also we have Silver Top Taxi as a sponsor - how come they haven't issued cabcharge vouchers to the players?
-
"We're shocked because he's a fine young man and he's been in the system three years, so the amount of education he's had on this has been extensive ... and our relationship with the TAC is paramount to our ongoing viability, and unfortunately, Jay's let us all down."
This is why I am so angry.
But I wonder whether having TAC as a sponsor has placed too much pressure on our young guys, especially those that like the odd drink or two. If we still had Tetley or Esso as a sponsor it wouldn't be a problem. Didn't Collingwood receive a big wrap over the knuckles with the Cameron Cloke incident or did Eddie managed to get as little publicity as possible? Also we have Silver Top Taxi as a sponsor - how come they haven't issued cabcharge vouchers to the players?
Who's to say they haven't been issued with cab vouchers?
But we have 3 sponsors TAC, Motorola & Silver Top Taxis. Who along with the club have been trying to promote road safety. He has a mobile phone, like we all do and all members were advised prior to the first Wizz Fizz Cup game of a special Silver Top number to get quick cabs - the players were told too.
Quite frankly there is no excuse for this.
As for C'wood - Eddie McEverywhere said last night on the Footy Show (yes I watched it for the first time in 2 years) that after last season the Pies were put on notice too by the TAC.
Geez I am so peeed off it aint funny :banghead :banghead
-
sacking isnt the answer, poo he never raped, murdered or committed a terrorist act! he broke the law and should suffer the consequences, why should he lose his job , he dosnt need a licence to play footy. so if the tigers were sponsored by jim beam that would make it ok then!! no , but the tac should not pull out, this is highlighting the message and giving the tac more exposure. they sponsor the club and dont own the club, if they pull out they should pull out of the pies too, they are known to speed there also , i wont mention his name,rip, but u all know who im talking about, he killed himself smashing into a truck ! jay hasnt done that!
jay should be punished, forced to do charity work with victims from drink driving accidents and learn from his mistake. i bet there are pl at the tac who have been nabbed for drink driving, polititians, lawyers etc, they dont lose there jobs!
if the tac pull out they are hypocrits!
if i were the tigers i would get investigators and publicly humiliate all tac staff that have been nabbed for speeding and/or drink driving! ie of course if they pull out of our sponsorship!
-
This is a difficult and emotive issue and we all differing views and I appreciate that fact. However, to say perhaps we should look at new sponsors is a bit simplistic IMO and if I may put on my corporate hat for a minute I’d like to make a couple of points that hopefully will show why I take this view.
Firstly, there are 10 AFL teams in Victoria all chasing sponsorship dollars. They not only compete against one and another but they also compete against the Melbourne Storm (NRL), Melbourne Tigers (NBL) and other sporting events (e.g. golf, tennis, horse racing). Everyone wants a “piece of the pie” so if you have a sponsor it is imperative that you try and keep them if they want to stay.
Contrary to the perception there are not queues of sponsors out there waiting for a chance to sponsor a footy club or sporting event. History tells us this – look at Carlton in 2004, they could not get a major sponsor and had to settle for Toshiba sponsoring them for a certain amount of games. Go back further and look at the Western Bulldogs in 2002 who had no major sponsor for nearly half the season, they in fact sold sponsorship match day by match day.
I don’t want to be in that position and however harsh it may sound we should not be faced with being in that position 2 weeks into the season.
We have been with the TAC for 16 years. It is the second longest continuos sponsorship in the AFL behind Geelong and Ford. Believe it or not we have been envied by other clubs because of the longevity. Let’s not forget they were there when we were broke, through the SOS campaign, poor season after poor season. It has been a strong and beneficial relationship for both parties. We are required as with any sponsor to promote their brand and product. Part of that brand promotion means being ambassadors for their message – getting pinged for drink driving is a direct breach of the agreement. We were warned in 2002 and were told that if it happened again then we would lose them. The players have been told time and time again. How much education do we have to give them?
Finally it is important to realise the impact this will have on the club if we lose this sponsor. We as members have been promised a $2 million turn around in club finances. We lost $2.2 million in 2004, for over 6 months in 2004 we were bombarded with the Club’s financial problems, we had a bitter election over the very issue and now we face the possibility of the promised turnaround not eventuating because of a major loss of revenue that we (or any club for that matter) would find hard to recover in this current climate. Greg Miller said it yesterday, the TAC as a major sponsor is crucial to our viability as a Club.
The consequences the Club faces if we lose the TAC are massive both short and long term. Short term the financial implications are clear for everyone to see.
But what about the long term?
Long term - IMO (if and it is still and IF at this stage) to lose a sponsor in these circumstances would be embarrassing, almost shameful. And it could impact on our ability to attract any new sponsor and we definitely cannot afford that. This may seem harsh but the Richmond Football Club means a great deal to me and it is now in a vulnerable position and for me at least that is unacceptable.
I hope the TAC sticks with us but I could not blame them if they terminate their association with the RFC.
-
if the tac pull out they are hypocrits!
if i were the tigers i would get investigators and publicly humiliate all tac staff that have been nabbed for speeding and/or drink driving! ie of course if they pull out of our sponsorship!
Why are they hyprocrites X?
Because they didn't give the Pies the flick last season? 2004 was their first offence - they received the same punishment as we did after the Vardy incident. They are on notice as well
No hyprocisy there I reckon.
This is the second time in 4 years a players been pinged for Drink Driving. We were told if it happened again they end their association with the RFC
It's happened again - hell if they don't give us the flick there's an argument for the TAC being called hypocrites
-
There are more issues here than just drink driving Jay Schultz by his actions broke every rule in the book as regards the TAC there are 4 of them .05, zero tolerance on P plates, but also by speeding doing 82kph in a 40 kph zone he also ignored the other 2 key nessages the TAC want to put out in the community.
They are 'speed kills'and 'wipe off 5 and save lives' this puts our relationship with the TAC even more serious, let alone that Silver Top as another sponsor has made available cab vouchers to the club.
I agree with CUB if it comes down to the being forced to choose between it's Major sponsor and a player no matter what his potencial the sponsor has to be looked after for the good of the club. There is no doubt there will be serious finacial losses whichever way it goes.
Our ability to obtain a major sponsor in the future has also been put at risk.
Personally I hope that jay can come through this if the talks go well and use this ordeal to his advantage and come out and proove to everyone he is back on track by performing onfield to his full potencial, he will cop a lot of flack from this but it just might make him a better person and a better footballer.
-
Post from Khan from Big Footy:-
Jay did the wrong thing, Yes
BUt the expectations of the TAC is above what can honestly be accepted. The club is penalised if an individual makes a mistake. This is too much like an axe hanging over our head. Hopefully Mister Wright will be out prowling for a new sponser as soon as possible. We need to concentrate on footy now to see if we can get us out of this.
How about the supporters sponser the club for a year. If we all gave $25 each at 22,000 member that would be 550,000 for one year. I know it is a lot to ask but at least we could feel like we are doing something
Khan
p.s And while we are at it, sack anyone who talks to Caro. I used to think that the North boys were being paranoid but she is seriously a tick on this club, give her back her membershipo and say no thank you. Once the sponsership has been withdrawn then report it on the front page, the carp on the age is just another opinion peice.
and
Jay did the wrong thing, Yes
BUt the expectations of the TAC is above what can honestly be accepted. The club is penalised if an individual makes a mistake. This is too much like an axe hanging over our head. Hopefully Mister Wright will be out prowling for a new sponser as soon as possible. We need to concentrate on footy now to see if we can get us out of this.
How about the supporters sponser the club for a year. If we all gave $25 each at 22,000 member that would be 550,000 for one year. I know it is a lot to ask but at least we could feel like we are doing something
Khan
p.s And while we are at it, sack anyone who talks to Caro. I used to think that the North boys were being paranoid but she is seriously a tick on this club, give her back her membershipo and say no thank you. Once the sponsership has been withdrawn then report it on the front page, the carp on the age is just another opinion peice.
This is exactly what I'm trying to get at. Maybe it's time to sever ties with TAC.
-
This is exactly what I'm trying to get at. Maybe it's time to sever ties with TAC.
I appreciate what you're saying Julz (Khan too) but replace them with who?
As I said or tried to say sponsors don't grow on trees.
It is a congested market.
You just have to look at the trouble other clubs have had trying to get sponsors - it can be a long drawn out process and in the short term we need the $$$$. And in my view is we've been very happy to take their millions over the years when no-one else would touch us you have to expect them to want some socially responsible behaviour in return
-
It isn't simple - here is an article from Moi's favourite website www.crikey.com.au
4. How Crikey helped save Richmond's TAC sponsorship
By Stephen Mayne, paid-up Richmond member
If the Richmond Football Club is really fearful that Victoria's monopoly
third party accident insurer, the Transport Accident Commission, will
withdraw its $500,000 sponsorship after 19-year-old backman Jay Schulz got
pinged for drink driving, maybe they should pull out that old favourite
tactic of political interference.
Remember how all those politicians forced Telstra to reinstate its funding
to Lifeline? Well, the TAC is also a political football because it's owned
by the Victorian government. Richmond supporters should start deluging
Labor MPs threatening to never vote for them again if the TAC pulls out.
Back when Crikey was press secretary to Victorian treasurer Alan
Stockdale, I played a role in stopping the TAC cancelling what was then a
$400,000 sponsorship.
The Kennett Government had just fired TAC CEO Leon L'Huillier and
installed Margaret Jackson as the new chairperson as controversial
privatisation plans were pushed before later being abandoned. John Stanway
was the acting CEO and then Richmond consultant and former Laurie Connell
mate Mal "biffer" Brown decided to call him a "f*ck wit" during
negotiations over the sponsorship.
The legal letter cancelling the deal was all set to be written when Mal
Brown pulled two political strings. The first was to lobby then transport
minister Alan Brown who was a keen Richmond supporter and the second was
to ring yours truly who was also a keen Richmond supporter.
I immediately bounded into Stockdale's office and said that some
controversy was brewing over TAC dumping Richmond and it could send the
club into insolvency. "There's no votes in sending a big club like
Richmond broke," I counselled.
Stockdale, a passionate Melbourne supporter, then muttered something about
Alan Brown also pushing the same line and immediately rang Stanaway and
said words to the effect of "I don't want to tell you how to run your
business but I'm being told that Richmond is under financial pressure and
might face serious problems if you pull out."
Game over. Stanway was only the acting CEO and with privatisation
beckoning, the last thing he was going to do was defy his shareholder
minister.
Fast forward 12 years and all this will require is one of the Richmond
directors to have a direct line to Labor treasurer John Brumby. One such
person who could have made that call is Colin Radford, the former press
secretary to John Brumby and Steve Bracks who is a passionate Richmond
supporter and just happens to be in charge of corporate affairs at the
TAC.
However, Radford was on the losing team during the recent bitter boardroom
battle at Richmond. How ironic that he now might be the man
delivering a financial bullet.
Radford will need to be careful here that a perceived over-reaction by the
TAC won't be seen as him exacting some revenge. TAC chairman James
MacKenzie is a well connected figure around town and close to both Brumby
and Bracks. Maybe the three of them should keep an eye on the situation
given the past baggage between the incumbent Richmond board and Radford.
-
It's official, TAC have given us the boot:
http://www.tac.vic.gov.au/jsp/content/NavigationController.do?areaID=23&tierID=1&navID=63CC12CD7F00000101A5D19311EC6AC2&navLink=null&pageID=1022
-
Oh dear. And on April's Fools Day as well. And I had a car run up the back of me this morning :(
Still, I think it's hard that the whole club and its supporters have to suffer the actions caused by one individual. Sounds likes Messrs Casey and Wright will have to earn their money and find a sponsor and quickly.
-
wp, they are hypocrites bc , i am sure if a pie players gets caught speeding tomorrow they wont treat them the same!
reg whether th emessage is alcohol or speed the tac represents both!
so how can jim beam sponsor th epies as well as the tac?
how can lexus spomsor the pies as well as the tac? toyota owns lexus, toyat eads depict fast cars speeding etc to sell, so th epies play a game , one add says wipe of 5, the next add is a toyaota or lexus hugging curves driving fast!
the tac are morons and im glad they are gone, 4 th elong term we will be better off.
does ford run away from geelong because most geelong players drive holdens?
the tac are pricks and i am sure if a staff member of theirs getys caught drink driving they have counselling., education , u just dont sack ppl willy nilly, or terminate contracts! they are a shameful organisation, and i hope an alcoholic company sponsors us now to shove it up them.
its time tigers bonded , look after jay, punish him but help him, the tac were just looking for an excuse and a young kid now has this on his head, i hope he is mentally strong enough and has support to get over this.
-
Wallace promotes education
3:47:30 PM Fri 1 April, 2005
Matt Burgan
Sportal for afl.com.au
Richmond coach Terry Wallace believes key defender/forward Jay Schulz should be 'educated not assassinated' after his drink-driving charge led to the termination of its 16-year association with the TAC.
Despite conceding that Schulz had made an 'enormous blunder', Wallace said the best course of action was to continue to educate the 19-year-old as well as the overall playing group on their social responsibilities.
"The message of the TAC is firmly getting across and we are educating society, because if this was something that happened 10 or 20 years ago, we would not be getting anywhere near the airplay on the radios or anything that it is now getting so," Wallace said on Friday morning at Punt Rd Oval, before the TAC had officially announced it had severed ties with the club.
"We haven't solved our problems, but we're getting to the stage where we're recognising them far greater than what we ever have before."
Other than further education for Schulz on the issue of drink-driving, Wallace did not confirm whether the 21-game player will be sanctioned in any other way.
Wallace met Schulz with the club's management, leadership and playing group on Friday morning. The first-year Richmond coach added that the club would not be terminating Schulz's contract.
"The message from the whole football club - the coaching staff and the playing division - is that we couldn't be more disappointed," Wallace said.
Wallace said the incident would have no bearing on the club's match against Hawthorn at the MCG on Sunday.
"This shouldn't have any effect whatsoever on what you're doing on a footy field and that's basically where we sit," Wallace said.
Meanwhile, Wallace did not confirm whether ruckman/forward Greg Stafford would be added into the 22 for round two.
http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=193488
-
Whatever we think of the TAC decision, we agreed and signed the contract so only have ourselves (via Sarge) to blame.
It'll be interesting seeing the 'G without any fence signage again at our next home game :P.
i hope an alcoholic company sponsors us now to shove it up them.
CUB sponsors most AFL clubs don't they through the AFL?
-
Whatever we think of the TAC decision, we agreed and signed the contract so only have ourselves (via Sarge) to blame.
It'll be interesting seeing the 'G without any fence signage again at our next home game :P.
i hope an alcoholic company sponsors us now to shove it up them.
CUB sponsors most AFL clubs don't they through the AFL?
true cub do, but toyato sponsors the afl too, and lexus owned by toyato sponsor the skunks
isnt it funny how jim beam , lexus and tac sponsor the skunks!
drink drive bloody idiots!
-
isnt it funny how jim beam , lexus and tac sponsor the skunks!
drink drive bloody idiots!
Does Jim Beam sponsor the Pies or just the footy show?
In any case I bet there's no clause about being sponsored by a alcohol or motor company in the TAC contract but there is one about the agreement becoming null if a player or official commits a driving offence such as D&D or speeding. Forgetting the morality of the issue for the moment, we through Sarge's actions broke a legal binding agreement and have paid the consequences as a Club.
-
isnt it funny how jim beam , lexus and tac sponsor the skunks!
drink drive bloody idiots!
Does Jim Beam sponsor the Pies or just the footy show?
In any case I bet there's no clause about being sponsored by a alcohol or motor company in the TAC contract but there is one about the agreement becoming null if a player or official commits a driving offence such as D&D or speeding. Forgetting the morality of the issue for the moment, we through Sarge's actions broke a legal binding agreement and have paid the consequences as a Club.
dont quote me but im sure that who ever sponsors the show also sponsors the pies
-
wp, they are hypocrites bc , i am sure if a pie players gets caught speeding tomorrow they wont treat them the same!
reg whether th emessage is alcohol or speed the tac represents both!
so how can jim beam sponsor th epies as well as the tac?
how can lexus spomsor the pies as well as the tac? toyota owns lexus, toyat eads depict fast cars speeding etc to sell, so th epies play a game , one add says wipe of 5, the next add is a toyaota or lexus hugging curves driving fast!
the tac are morons and im glad they are gone, 4 th elong term we will be better off.
does ford run away from geelong because most geelong players drive holdens?
the tac are pricks and i am sure if a staff member of theirs getys caught drink driving they have counselling., education , u just dont sack ppl willy nilly, or terminate contracts! they are a shameful organisation, and i hope an alcoholic company sponsors us now to shove it up them.
its time tigers bonded , look after jay, punish him but help him, the tac were just looking for an excuse and a young kid now has this on his head, i hope he is mentally strong enough and has support to get over this.
It's time now to move on Sarge has copped his fair whack and the club is standing behind him he could never imagined the trouble he would cause let's face it he's 19 only a kid the thought of TAC and their sponsorship would never have crossed his mind at the time.
Sure he broke almost every rule in the book but weve had our say and we were entitled to it, now we need to stick fat and give the kid the chance to repay the club and the members in the best way possible and thats on the ground. Sure he has shamed and embarrassed us and himself and will cop more crap fom opposition supporters when he comes back, we need now to not let him fall into depression and should encourage and support him in his endeavors to come back from this.
I agree X The TAC are a bunch of morons and shouldn't be allowed to sponsor any sporting club or assossiation or be able to put a kid in this positiion again.
-
I think TAC should do a check on all its employees and if anyone has a speeding ticket or has ever been convicted of drink-driving, they should get the sack........
Only our club is dumb enough to sign such deals.
-
wp, they are hypocrites bc , i am sure if a pie players gets caught speeding tomorrow they wont treat them the same!
reg whether th emessage is alcohol or speed the tac represents both!
You'll have to trust me X - when I say that the Pies were put on notice after last year's Cloke speeding incident. As I've said before they got their one and only warning - like we did.
so how can jim beam sponsor th epies as well as the tac?
Jim Beam do not sponsor the Pies they sponsor the Footy Show.
Unless Jim Beam is owned by CUB they are unable to sponsor an AFL team.
There are a number of "protected" sponsors under the AFL that does not allow team to be sponsored by companies in direct competition to these protected sponsors. A great example is Brisbane copping it last year for taking out a sponsorship with Cadbury Schweppes (which includes Pepsi Cola) as opposed to Coca Cola.
Also, CUB is a sponsor of the Tigers and was while we were sponsored by the TAC
how can lexus spomsor the pies as well as the tac? toyota owns lexus, toyat eads depict fast cars speeding etc to sell, so th epies play a game , one add says wipe of 5, the next add is a toyaota or lexus hugging curves driving fast!
The same way we can be sponsored by Nissan ;D
In any case I bet there's no clause about being sponsored by a alcohol or motor company in the TAC contract but there is one about the agreement becoming null if a player or official commits a driving offence such as D&D or speeding. Forgetting the morality of the issue for the moment, we through Sarge's actions broke a legal binding agreement and have paid the consequences as a Club.
Spot on MT.
As to why we signed the deal in the first place - because we need and chase corporate $$$ to help us survive.
People can blame the TAC, Eddie and whoever else but at the end of the day IMO the RFC stuffed up and breached their contract and we have paid the price
This is a mute point now as the contract's been terminated - it is time to move on.
-
Apology from Jay Schulz
1:39:47 PM Mon 4 April, 2005
richmondfc.com.au
I would like to apologise for my recent speeding and drink-driving offence. I accept I am totally to blame. It was a stupid decision to drive my car after drinking alcohol, and one which I totally regret. I cannot change what's happened, so I need to move on and learn from my mistake.
As you would understand, it has been extremely tough to handle, not just for me, but for my manager, all the Club's officials, players, my family and friends. The support I have had from all these people, has been amazing. I was prepared for whatever decision the Richmond Football Club made, but I am extremely thankful that they believe I still have a future at Tigerland.
I had the opportunity to catch up with a friend from interstate, who I had not seen for a long time, at a mate's house last Wednesday night. The decision to have a few drinks and drive my car home - about 10 minutes away - was totally wrong, and one I clearly now regret. I am lucky I did not injure someone, or myself, but now I have to live with the consequences of my actions, which are even more serious because of my role as an AFL player, and a member of a club supported by the TAC.
To everyone affected by this, please accept my apologies. I accept full responsibility for my actions and the punishment handed to me. I know I have let myself and everyone else down, including the Club's sponsors and supporters. What I need to do is regain the respect of my teammates, and all of you. I would like to move on and improve my footy, so I can repay the faith and support of the Richmond Football Club by being part of its future success.
I would hope that through my indiscretion, the awareness of the importance of not drinking and driving, has hit home to others. Maybe some lives being saved would be a positive to come from this.
I am prepared to assist the TAC in promoting this awareness, if they would accept my apology and could see some value in my involvement.
Again, I am sorry for my actions and would like to thank all those who have encouraged and supported me.
Yours sincerely,
Jay Schulz
http://richmondfc.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=193883
-
I thought it was mighty decent of Jay to take the time to personally apologise to me. No hard feelings lad - live and learn. Just don't do it again.
-
This was my reply to Jay.
I emailed it back to him at the club.
Dear Jay,
Thankyou for your e-mail and your apology regarding your actions of the past week.
I would also like to thank you for giving me due consideration by sending me this e-mail, I didn't expect it and I dare say other supporters wouldn't have either. You are of course completely forgiven for your indiscretion.
What I need and want from you as a supporter from this point forward is:
1. Always follow team rules and policy.
2. Commit to making yourself the best possible footballer you can be for your own sake and the sake of the club.
3. Wear the colours of the Richmond football club with pride, passion and determination.
Jay, the past is the past, the future is in front of you, make of it what you will, go get em Tiger.
Sincerley
Real Name
-
Good on ya RR and well said :thumbsup.
Let's hope Sarge can put all this behind him and follow those 3 important points in your email. There'll be heaps of pressure on Jay to repay the Club on-field when he returns from his ankle injury.