jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
What was North fined for in the last week or so?
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
AFC to stand trial
- Thread starter BunjiMac
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Bacon8
Cancelled
Not cooperating with the investigators regarding Lachie Hansen.
The plot thickens...
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/adelaide-salary-probe-widens-20121115-29euo.html#ixzz2CHisTLUa
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/adelaide-salary-probe-widens-20121115-29euo.html#ixzz2CHisTLUa
I hope the Crows lawyer comes out and argues that the sponsors were Crows supporters, therefore they are the 19th man, and therefore part of the club and so they weren't third party deals at all.
Sure, we'd lose, but it'd be pretty funny!
Sure, we'd lose, but it'd be pretty funny!
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Moderator
- May 24, 2006
- 79,773
- 161,921
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
- Moderator
- #80
Can we plead insanity?
We can use the "as far as the eye can see" comments as evidence.
We can use the "as far as the eye can see" comments as evidence.
"No, really. Matthew Clarke is still on our coaching staff."
"Why else would we keep Brad Symes on our list another year..."
"We traded a 1st round compo for Tambling..."
"We actually traded for Angus Graham..."
And now Danger is under investigation.
So if I've got this right, the Tipp, VB and Danger third party deals were worth $20-30k and were signed off as commercial by the AFL. The boys are actually working for the $$. Yet we can cop a fine and draft sanctions because Triggy and Harps were involved in setting up the deals.
At the same time, Dick Pratt, president of Carlton, has his private company (of which he's the chairman) pay Chris Judd $200k per year for five years and that's okay because Dick Pratt didn't arrange the deal with his own private company, it was a deal unrelated to Carlton FC. Fcuking farce.
Another patently obvious AFL farce that Demetrio has been denying for years (just like tanking) is gradually being exposed here. The third party payments system, just like the draft and trade system, are poorly designed and broken. They have been for at least five years.
Time for the AFL to admit that these two pillars have been rorted by all, admit that they got it wrong, drop the proceedings against Melbourne and Adelaide and get on with fixing the systems which clearly don't work.
But they won't. They'll whack Melbourne and Adelaide to set an example and thrust their heads into the sand. Why do we pay these blokes $2mil per year? Honestly!
Here's two suggestions:
Salary cap
Total player payments to remain the same
Additional related party player payments cap set at $1mil per club
Broad definition of related party to include sponsors, companies related to board members, etc.
Draft and trade system
Priority picks eliminated, never to return
Bottom 5 teams go into a lottery for draft picks (with weighting for lower placed teams)
Trading eliminated - it just doesn't work
Free agency expanded with all players able to move freely. Top 10 paid players and players under 24 generate compensation picks, the rest don't.
No netting off of comp picks.
So if I've got this right, the Tipp, VB and Danger third party deals were worth $20-30k and were signed off as commercial by the AFL. The boys are actually working for the $$. Yet we can cop a fine and draft sanctions because Triggy and Harps were involved in setting up the deals.
At the same time, Dick Pratt, president of Carlton, has his private company (of which he's the chairman) pay Chris Judd $200k per year for five years and that's okay because Dick Pratt didn't arrange the deal with his own private company, it was a deal unrelated to Carlton FC. Fcuking farce.
Another patently obvious AFL farce that Demetrio has been denying for years (just like tanking) is gradually being exposed here. The third party payments system, just like the draft and trade system, are poorly designed and broken. They have been for at least five years.
Time for the AFL to admit that these two pillars have been rorted by all, admit that they got it wrong, drop the proceedings against Melbourne and Adelaide and get on with fixing the systems which clearly don't work.
But they won't. They'll whack Melbourne and Adelaide to set an example and thrust their heads into the sand. Why do we pay these blokes $2mil per year? Honestly!
Here's two suggestions:
Salary cap
Total player payments to remain the same
Additional related party player payments cap set at $1mil per club
Broad definition of related party to include sponsors, companies related to board members, etc.
Draft and trade system
Priority picks eliminated, never to return
Bottom 5 teams go into a lottery for draft picks (with weighting for lower placed teams)
Trading eliminated - it just doesn't work
Free agency expanded with all players able to move freely. Top 10 paid players and players under 24 generate compensation picks, the rest don't.
No netting off of comp picks.
Some good points there pext, especially agree about the farce of priority picks and tanking. Melbourne aren't the only club to do it but I blame the AFL.....they set up the system of priority picks which made tanking an entirely logical thing for clubs to do.
The moment I knew Vlad was either a fool or a BS artist who took us for fools was when he started denying there was any tanking.
The moment I knew Vlad was either a fool or a BS artist who took us for fools was when he started denying there was any tanking.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...ays-player-agent/story-e6frecoc-1226519090879
Interesting especially if it's true the AFL wanted the delay
Interesting especially if it's true the AFL wanted the delay
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
I don't think that's true, but it's certainly funny. I'm pretty sure we asked for the adjournment because Harper wasn't charged until later and we were massively peed off with all the leaks from the investigation. Think we wanted to have all our balls in line to show we are not going to lie down as the afl expected us to.
Would it be fair to suggest that the AFL is now desperately seeking something to pin on the Crows?
it appears, once again they have ****ed this up and the only party to suffer will be the AFC?
it appears, once again they have ****ed this up and the only party to suffer will be the AFC?
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
Honestly Cap, I think we have questions to answer and they may even warrant punishment of some sort. I just don't think it's going to be the massive scandal the press have predicted (hoped for?). I think the fact that we have a good record, that we approached the AFL and opened our books for scrutiny will weigh heavily in our favour. The fact that the Third Party agreements rules/guidelines is an unadulterated piece of useless bag of shit will also help us.
Many so called AFC "supporters" on here are going to be disappointed IMO
that's the problem, they weren't sure what they were admitting too - in terms of what rules they may have broken with the Tippet agreement.
I don't think the AFL does either.
I don't think they admitted to anything, I think it was more about seeking clarification on the legalities of the agreement that was made, and whether we were bound by it. My advice is not to believe what the reporters are writing because things are turning out quite differently to what they initially said, specifically about the third party agreements which now seem to be legitimately within the rules, and the wording of the agreement which has recently come into question.
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
I'm pretty sure they approached the afl to say we think we have an issue here. Something they thought was no longer in play, was being used against them (Sydney refusing to make a fair and reasonable offer). Sydney were insisting we take white and we didn't want him. I think that was the straw that broke the camels back. We were looking to trade in good faith and probably would have reluctantly accepted pick 23 based on the agreement with tippet even though we were furious and stunned he had chosen Sydney. But the insistence we take white ruined our trading/drafting plans and the situation became untenable. (there's that word again
). The AFC offer to throw open our books and the AFL come in to investigate. We don't think we've done anything wrong and say we will cop any punishment thinking it will be light if anything, but then the Tippett camp start leaking like a sieve and the media strike like a cobra running story after story how we were cheats and had deliberately tried to deceive the AFL, the afl issue charges and it all gets extremely ugly as someone within the afl start leaking snippets of info, and we are branded guilty from the ensuing trial by media. We can't counter strike on advice, so we are copping hard knocks left and right. I think that's when they decided to bring in the big gun, and it all started to turn around from then.
Date set for 30th November.
So in the end Tippett could be guilty of just wanting to be traded? I know that sounds simple but he seems to be copping it a bit and I'm not really sure why? I know you have to wear a bit from the supporters when you turn your back on a club but is that it ?
The penny might have dropped here. Has Tippett called the Crows out on a deal they made about 2nd round pick and are the Crows pissed because they thought all trade deals were going to be with a weaker club from QLD.
Did Crows renig on a dodgy pre arranged trade agreement or did the AFL smell a rat?
The latter. The Crows, in the end, were about to take the horrible deal Sydney put forward because we knew we had no room to move on the deal. Ken Wood however could see that there is no way we should be realistically accepting that deal and was already starting to look suspciously at us. This was the point that Trigg returned home and spilled the beans.
Tippett is only really "guilty" of signing this dodgy deal, but he hasn't exactly acted fantastically since asking to leave, either.
Tippett is only really "guilty" of signing this dodgy deal, but he hasn't exactly acted fantastically since asking to leave, either.
So far we have been punished for not being able to trade Tippett.
Then punished by keeping him on the list, and punishing Joyce for being sacrificed (for a couple of weeks, is training with our guys now) to keep Tip on the list. We also effectively lose a draft pick to redraft a player we had drafted last year.
We have "lost" two picks in this draft already, ie lost the pick we would have got for Tip and the pick we need to redraft Joyce.
I wonder if this will be considered in assessing the punishment we will cop next week.
Then punished by keeping him on the list, and punishing Joyce for being sacrificed (for a couple of weeks, is training with our guys now) to keep Tip on the list. We also effectively lose a draft pick to redraft a player we had drafted last year.
We have "lost" two picks in this draft already, ie lost the pick we would have got for Tip and the pick we need to redraft Joyce.
I wonder if this will be considered in assessing the punishment we will cop next week.
It's worth pointing out that we haven't really lost a pick by having to redraft Joyce. We only get as many picks as we have spare spots on the list. If we hadn't been forced to take him off the list, we wouldn't have that pick anyway.
Assuming we use our last pick on him, that is.
The "punishment" here is having Tippett on our list still. That's where we've lost a pick, though presumably we'll get one back in the PSD. We might even pick up Joyce there, in which case it won't be a punishment at all (other than the mental duress on Joyce's part).
Assuming we use our last pick on him, that is.
The "punishment" here is having Tippett on our list still. That's where we've lost a pick, though presumably we'll get one back in the PSD. We might even pick up Joyce there, in which case it won't be a punishment at all (other than the mental duress on Joyce's part).
It is lost if we use a pick that is not the last pick.
But yeah, if we use the pick we gain from delisting him we lose nothing.
