Rumour 2023 Rumours and Speculation (Rumours total 33!, 1 BIG FISH ALERT last October 4th) (7 confirmed! 11 Busted!)

[1970crow]

Nah, wasn't like that. Was more about making an argument he would have an income post football if he stayed in Adelaide because of the profile plying for AFC would give him locally. But it was a genuine 3rd party contract in that he did actually do the advertising work.
Other teams merely received a token fine for " late lodgement of paperwork"

no, you're wrong and worse, you're actually just making stuff up. We told Balfours to divert sponsorship $ due to us to Tippett. The value of services performed become irrelevant, deals between players and club sponsors cannot be brokered by the club, they need to be organised totally independently by the player/manager. End of story.

 

[1970crow]

Well you see conspiracy, I just see gross incompetence.

does gross incompetence not include breaking any of the numerous and unambiguous rules regarding TPP, ASA's and sourcing of 3rd party revenues from existing sponsors. And what evidence do you have that the trade deal was the most damaging breach, let alone clearly. Is this something else you manufactured or do you have something to back it up?

 

[1970crow]

True. To have the contract trade promise written down was stupid. But in reality every player picks the club the go too (as per the reasoning provided in the AFL statement) and look at the trades GWS and Gold Coast have done over the years. If we chose to accept lower value so be it
There are a heap of examples where clubs have accepted way unders. We were just stupid and wrote it down


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Why didn't we include it in the contract we lodged with the AFL?

 

[1970crow]

Oh, I think we were hard done by.

The zero push back we offered at any point made it easy for them to take a stand against us.

The transfer thing was ridiculous. Trade him, if he chooses, to a club of his choice? What's the alternative - trade him to a club NOT of his choice?

We did the crime, sure - but our panicked admission of everything and throwing ourselves on the mercy of the AFL was a cowardly move.

We did push back, when they told us we had to sack Trigg, we refused to. Hence, 1 year of penalties became two.

 

[1970crow]

From Vlad

Crows penalties announced

Kurt Tippett has been hit with an 11-match suspension and Adelaide will lose their first two draft picks for 2013 over the AFL draft tampering and salary cap breach saga.

www.theage.com.au

Demetriou spoke glowingly of Trigg, saying he had made a stupid mistake but he would be welcomed back into the industry after serving his punishment. he went so far as to urge Crows supporters to forgive Trigg and his fellow officials, who had served Adelaide so well for so long. He asked for the football world to grant the offenders a second chance.

re Fitzpatrick comments on clubs cooperation

The Crows had been predicted to be penalised more heavily, with draft picks at multiple drafts and a bigger fine expected. Fitzpatrick noted the full co-operation of the club in the investigation, its previously unblemished record, its guilty plea, the fact it voluntarily gave up its first two draft picks at the recently completed national draft, and its expressions of remorse as factors taken into account when considering the penalties.


doesn’t exactly back up your previous points

I never made any comments about anything Fitzpatrick said. Try again son, yothe adults will remember what I'm referring to.

 

[1970crow]

What a way to enable the AFL though..after that, they coerced us to sack rendell over nothing but just a few months later happily allowed said 'disgraced' rendell to head up collingwoods trade and draft team..but it got better. Melbourne get done for tanking and who do they punish????..no prises for guessing..Adelaide by stripping us ofour senior assistant coach for a season. Now melbourne tanked to engineer a better draft pick yet no draft sanctions.

So i'd love an explanation how the tippet saga was worth 2 full years of no 1st and 2nd round picks..yet manipulation of the draft by melbourne came with no draft penalties.

Sorry bit i see us getting treated very differently to the treatmemt of vic clubs and its all there in the history books

The AFL's clear preference is to punish individuals rather than clubs. Punishing clubs too hard hurts the competition as a whole. If you don't offer up a sacrifice, Hird, Bomber, Rendell then the club has to wear it. Of course it's even easier when the individual has left the club for an interstate side, but the AFL's MO in these matters is not inconsistent. At least since the Blues were decimated for a decade. The AFL know better now.

 

[1970crow]

It’s no coincidence that the club has turned around since that cancer Chapman has been removed

he had a right hand man as well that tends to escape criticism, but who was an absolute hack.

 

[1970crow]

I mean, we’re the club that gets penalised when Melbourne tanked for draft picks. We’re the club that has our recruiting officer removed by the league and almost immediately reappointed at Collingwood. We’re the club who gets told we can’t be part of a salary dump deal the year before they sign it off for Geelong. We’re the club who gets threatened with draft sanctions for a camp while Collingwood and Hawthorn skip away without a care after systemic racism within.

We never had a chance with the Tippett stuff. The AFL will take us to the cleaners any chance they get. We don’t get to play by the same rules as the Victorian teams.

I think you're ignoring the difference in the salary dump scenarios. It's perfectly ok to salary dump, Carlton had been benefitting from this well before everybody's body side Geelong did it. The difference was that we were prepared to take on a dump in exchange for our player getting an increased offer and therefore getting a higher RFA compensation band. The first is a trade where 1 club jettisons cap overspend in favour of lesser trade value and the other absorbs the big contract and pays less trade value. Our scenario was a deal that extracted a higher pick from a party not involved in the trade via a subsequent independent event. Totally different.

The rest of your gripes are equally as vapid.

 

[1970crow]

Stuffed us around multiple times with Brad Crouch too. Wouldn't let us trade him to the Suns at the end of 2019 (for what became pick 15 in the 2020 draft) and then kiboshed various trades we were working out with the Saints too around salary dumps.

of course none of that came out until after we shafted ourselves by not matching Saints pretty reasonable offer and forcing them to the trade table. But he'd been caught with coke, so he just had to go and it seems everyone but our supporters knew that.

 

[1970crow]

So the story goes...

We wanted to trade Brad to GC, AFL said nose beers trade, bad influence on playing group, nose beers way we'd allow that trade

and even if it's true, noting it only leaked out after the RFA debacle, it's an indictment on us for not saying 'eff off, we've agreed on the deal, they know the risks, we're lodging the paperwork and you c's can explain why you're denying it'. But, if true, we just rolled over like good little beaches'.

 

[1970crow]

Yet waves through the Bowes trade. And the Daniher deal…

nothing wrong with the Bowes trade, but the Daniher extension is one that is very, very wrong. The AFL said after the Ball extension, and many times thereafter, that Ken Wood would be watching subsequent contracts to make sure that there was no artificial increase in the initial contract to ward off other clubs or increase FA compo. And then it appears that Lions did exactly that with Daniher.

 

[1970crow]

I don’t think there is any defending the Bowes trade.

The AFL are meant to do a reasonableness test on trades. There is now way that pick 7 plus Bowes equals a F3. That is in no way reasonable.

But because it was GCS and Geelong = tick

Depends on the penalty imposed by blowing the cap if they can't offload Bowes. Have any other salary dumps besides the Dunstan/Crouch/Compo uplift been vetoed by the AFL?

 

[1970crow]

Yes the year before when Lions wanted him was the huge ** up as we were offered a top 10 pick (might have been top 6 even). To roll the dice in such a risk taking manner was truly ridiculous by the club back then when they were already pinned into a corner with the email that has the potential to BlOW up at any stage. In hindsight, having a pick 6 in 2011 and then a First and second round picks in 2012 and 2013 would have made the team undoubtedly stronger in the decade since. Very painful and our biggest ** up. Up there with Vlad demanding we sack Rendell after his “one non indigenous parent“ comment which saw AFL indigenous liaison officer highly offended before he then went doing multiple dodgy things himself over coming years

The best bit about that piece of excrement AFL Diversity Officer was that the convo with Rendell was a couple of months prior. It only came out after Liam Jurrah broke his machete attack cherry. It was nothing more than a fire being started to avert eyes away from the exact topic that Rendell was warning them about.

 

[1970crow]

I understand that the trade clause was against the rules.

But that rule, to an extent, has always befuddled me. Under the CBA a club can't trade a player to a club not of his choice anyway. If the club is only offering a second rounder, that's what you get.

maybe had we included in the contract lodged with the AFL and not signed stat decs stating the contract contained all the terms and conditions, we wouldn't have been penalised.

 

[Slippery Pete]

The best bit about that piece of excrement AFL Diversity Officer was that the convo with Rendell was a couple of months prior. It only came out after Liam Jurrah broke his machete attack cherry. It was nothing more than a fire being started to avert eyes away from the exact topic that Rendell was warning them about.

Then Rendell went on to service Collingwood for a number of years after that.

The AFC truly had a handle on coming out of a situation worse off than all other involved parties.

 

[1970crow]

Then Rendell went on to service Collingwood for a number of years after that.

The AFC truly had a handle on coming out of a situation worse off than all other involved parties.

he did complete a course though . Reality is the AFL don't care, they just want the head on a pike and then the person is welcome back soon enough. Assuming it's not from within their own ranks, in which case it's piles of cash and NDAs all round.

 

[Mostyn]

Then Rendell went on to service Collingwood for a number of years after that.

The AFC truly had a handle on coming out of a situation worse off than all other involved parties.

The talk was, with Rendell, the Crows were looking for a reason to cut him loose. He was considered a bit of a pain in the ass, supposedly.

Still, it's a bad look doing it by cowtowing to City Hall.

 

[MRB37]

The talk was, with Rendell, the Crows were looking for a reason to cut him loose. He was considered a bit of a pain in the ass, supposedly.

Still, it's a bad look doing it by cowtowing to City Hall.

A pain in the ass cause he called out some who needed to be called out. That never goes down well.

 

[1990crow]

A pain in the ass cause he called out some who needed to be called out. That never goes down well.

Steven Trigg survived Tippett gate thankfully though! Good thing we lost another year of first and second round picks (Patty Cripps) to keep him.

 

[Peter Doherty]

Little bit of a strange one, because I don't believe it myself. I know people will call bs on it, so let me be the first.

We are into Jack Lukosius

13

Jack Lukosius

Age

24

Ht

195cm

Wt

91kg

Pos.

D/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

14.8

4star

K

11.5

4star

HB

3.3

3star

M

3.4

3star

T

1.8

4star

MG

369.3

5star

D

14.8

4star

K

11.5

4star

HB

3.3

2star

M

3.4

3star

T

1.8

3star

MG

369.3

5star

D

13.6

4star

K

11.2

4star

HB

2.4

3star

M

4.2

4star

T

2.2

4star

MG

358.0

5star

.

The Power tried but apparently we have him stitched up.

He's contracted and apparently been playing well. We'd have to hugely overpay in a trade offer to even get GC considering letting him go.

Trying to make sense of it, maybe they have a FA locked in? Then a Lukosius/Redman (as a midfielder) combo for 'X' trade capital could be swallowed.

 

[Scorpus]

Little bit of a strange one, because I don't believe it myself. I know people will call bs on it, so let me be the first.

We are into Jack Lukosius.

The Power tried but apparently we have him stitched up.

He's contracted and apparently been playing well. We'd have to hugely overpay in a trade offer to even get GC considering letting him go.

Trying to make sense of it, maybe they have a FA locked in? Then a Lukosius/Redman (as a midfielder) combo for 'X' trade capital could be swallowed.

He's contracted until the end of 2026. Basically makes the trade impossible

 

[Danger in Texas]

Little bit of a strange one, because I don't believe it myself. I know people will call bs on it, so let me be the first.

We are into Jack Lukosius.

The Power tried but apparently we have him stitched up.

He's contracted and apparently been playing well. We'd have to hugely overpay in a trade offer to even get GC considering letting him go.

Trying to make sense of it, maybe they have a FA locked in? Then a Lukosius/Redman (as a midfielder) combo for 'X' trade capital could be swallowed.

If we want him this year, then Tex must be considering retirement

Otherwise I don’t see the fit (yet)

He’d take at least our first while he’s in contract, which I’m not sure I’m totally comfortable with

 

[Danger in Texas]

He's contracted until the end of 2026. Basically makes the trade impossible

Yep this as well

Can’t see GC doing us any favours after Rankine

 

[Golumless]

If we want him this year, then Tex must be considering retirement

Otherwise I don’t see the fit (yet)

He’d take at least our first while he’s in contract, which I’m not sure I’m totally comfortable with

I see the fit, but it's playing him off the half back line (or wing).

I mean, he's talented and young enough to probably be worth it. Still, it seems a bit much of muchness at this point.

Yep this as well

Can’t see GC doing us any favours after Rankine

They wouldn't anyway. Luko is contracted.

Unless of course their cap situation is still that dire they need him off their books to afford others. That's the only way I see this one being remotely realistic.

 

[GreyCrow]

Little bit of a strange one, because I don't believe it myself. I know people will call bs on it, so let me be the first.

We are into Jack Lukosius.

The Power tried but apparently we have him stitched up.

He's contracted and apparently been playing well. We'd have to hugely overpay in a trade offer to even get GC considering letting him go.

Trying to make sense of it, maybe they have a FA locked in? Then a Lukosius/Redman (as a midfielder) combo for 'X' trade capital could be swallowed.

Cheers. Look forward to seeing how this plays out