Jay Schultz you IDIOT

[WilliamPowell]

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.

[WilliamPowell]

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

[Roar]

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.

 

[julzqld]

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.

[WilliamPowell]

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

[mjs]

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.

[jezza]

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

[julzqld]

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.

[letsgetiton!]

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.

[mightytiges]

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

[mightytiges]

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 .

i hope an alcoholic company sponsors us now to shove it up them.

CUB sponsors most AFL clubs don't they through the AFL?

[letsgetiton!]

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 .

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!

[mightytiges]

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.

[letsgetiton!]

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

[Roar]

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.