Mega Thread Crows deal for Tippett lands them in hot water?

[Wagamama]

I'll be interested to see the role Tippett's manager played in this. Did he have knowledge of a written contract and did he negotiate it?
A sign that all clubs will be under some sort of scrutiny whilst the AFL understands if this problem is wider.
Keeps coming back the problem that S.A. clubs seem to be facing in retaining players. If this is what they have to do to keep players at the club then the AFL must step in and help both Crows and Port to find better ways to help manage this.
I'd like Tippett at the Swans but certainly not thru any sacrifice of the integrity of the competition. I sincerely hope that the Swans have not knowledgeably been trying to exploit or take advantage of this agreement.
Feel for Jesse White who is a decent and nice bloke and has served the club really well. What are his chances of moving clubs now given he's been viewed by all other clubs as tied up in this deal? He does not deserve to be shafted by this shit storm.

 

[IanW]

No......I dont think they did. The agreement, if it did exist, was an inducement from the club to keep Tippett at the club for another 3 years in the hope he might have a change of heart in that time and re-sign at the end of 2012.

Yup. It was concerning player movement, and it was an inducement that was kept secret from the league.

Thats why the League can, should and I hope will go in hard against it.

 

[IanW]

I'll be interested to see the role Tippett's manager played in this. Did he have knowledge of a written contract and did he negotiate it?

The original article is stating his manager had a copy of it.

Yeah, I'd say that qualifies.

 

[Wagamama]

The original article is stating his manager had a copy of it.

Yeah, I'd say that qualifies.

Surely his license is gone. Wonder what other players he's managing?

 

[weneverland]

Adelaide should just trade away their picks for players now, while they can. Once they no longer have picks the AFL can't go taking them off them. Sure they might lose picks next year instead, but next year is an unknown. There is no way at all the AFL would send a player traded to Adelaide back to his original club.

The AFL are gonna have to make up the rules on the fly today or risk having the trade period derailed by the uncertainty of the Adelaide penalty.

Isn't that exactly what they did with Brett Chalmers?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

From the original post's linked article:

"The Tippett camp has a copy of that note, too. While no club was stipulated, the Crows had believed that if the Queenslander went anywhere, he would go to one of his home clubs. He chose Sydney instead."

That's not what I'd call a gentleman's agreement.

There haven't been any gentleman in this agreement!

 

[headache1]

Hardly a legal definition.........should we wait for you to catch up.
Maybe you can quote the Urban dictionary next time

Ok, then seeing as you're obviously a sarcastic w***er, and a lawyer. Enlighten us all as to what constitutes a legally binding verbal contract.

 

[Andrew Mc]

The original article is stating his manager had a copy of it.

Yeah, I'd say that qualifies.

He came out at the very start and said there was an agreement - noone believed him. Well, I didn't believe that Adelaide would be that stupid. Seems we were wrong.

 

[Vikingblood]

Strip them of their first and second round draft picks in 2013.

We will be stripped of the compensation we got for Chris Knights under free agency.

 

[Vikingblood]

He came out at the very start and said there was an agreement - noone believed him. Well, I didn't believe that Adelaide would be that stupid. Seems we were wrong.

It is stupid on AFC's behalf, but potentially even more stupid on Tippetts management team's behalf. This will come down to who positioned and proposed the clause. If it was Tippetts side, then he is in serious trouble.

 

[Andrew Mc]

It is stupid on AFC's behalf, but potentially even more stupid on Tippetts management team's behalf. This will come down to who positioned and proposed the clause. If it was Tippetts side, then he is in serious trouble.

Disagree. Both sides are to blame, no matter who proposed it. Simply by being complicit.

 

[baja]

It is stupid on AFC's behalf, but potentially even more stupid on Tippetts management team's behalf. This will come down to who positioned and proposed the clause. If it was Tippetts side, then he is in serious trouble.

Wouldnt Kurt have a case himself against his management?

 

[MarkT2]

Its an additional clause that had real value to Tippett. The fact that it had value meant a player was retained that may otherwise have gone elsewhere. If all clubs were to have had these conditions, he may not have stayed with Adelaide.

I presume it did have value for Tippett. Logic says he would be the one that wanted it. I just don't see what the issue is. there is value in location, profile, playing for the team you supported as a kid, recruiting a players brother...plenty of things but they aren't and can't be valued into a salary cap.

 

[Vikingblood]

Disagree. Both sides are to blame, no matter who proposed it. Simply by being complicit.

Not saying AFC won't be penalised. Just think the party that proposed the clause will wear a heavy cost.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Is Sydney complicit in all this?

 

[Pevers-Legend]

None at all I am just going by what I have read.

Difference between my commenst and yours of course is that I am not accusing the Swans of salary cap cheating. Just speculating whether they can fit him in without getting rid of Jesse White, who nobody seems to want.

You say potato, I say pota-to.

Same difference mate.

 

[MarkT2]

It is consideration in that it was an additional inducement for Tippet to sign. I dont see how this is not clear, especially given that Adelaide didnt declare it to the AFL. It is a benefit offered to Tippett in return for re-signing with the Crows.
Therefore it is a benefit to Tippett that was not declared to the AFL by Adelaide for obvious reasons. If it is not a benefit why did they not simply declare it to the AFL to save having this problem now?

Not the same thing as moving a player to the club of his choice at the end of his contract, unless that move was already used as an inducement to sign the player. The Crows are in trouble here.

IMO, hefty fine and warning to Adelaide that if they do this again, they lose draft picks. A real penalty would be OTT at the moment.
Tippetts manager should be deregistered as an agent.
Tippet will get out of it by pleading stupidity.

It is very clear but so what? The issue is that is was undisclosed and that is all IMO. There is no regulation against benefits per-se. I would imagine neither party wanted it disclosed because there would be a supporter backlash and constant media speculation. That is unhealthy for all parties.

 

[Vikingblood]

Wouldnt Kurt have a case himself against his management?

I would think so too, although apparently his father is a big part of what occurred too. Would he sue his Dad?

 

[MrKK]

It is stupid on AFC's behalf, but potentially even more stupid on Tippetts management team's behalf. This will come down to who positioned and proposed the clause. If it was Tippetts side, then he is in serious trouble.

I don't understand the witch-hunt for who proposed it - if both parties agreed to it then it's a moot point as far as I'm concerned. Neither party is going to seriously claim they were coerced by the other, are they?

 

[bumsonseats]

Ok, then seeing as you're obviously a sarcastic Moo, and a lawyer. Enlighten us all as to what constitutes a legally binding verbal contract.

Sarcastic yes.......lawyer def not......as I indicated in my previous post.
I am merely asking the question based on my experience working with contracts and how careful I have to be when talking to contractors.
I am sure there are some suitably qualified pers on this board that could add a more educated perspective, but I hardly think they will be quoting a free online dictionary as the basis for their legal arguement.
The whole notion of a gentlemans agreement is merely how the so called agreement is described after the fact. Gentlemans agreement or not, did this so-called verbal undertaking constitute expectation on behalf of Tippett regardless if it was written in his contract or not. If so, then it may well be considered as part of his contract IMO.

 

[MickyG]

Just had the Sydney Channel 7 6pm news on - no mention.

 

[baja]

I would think so too, although apparently his father is a big part of what occurred too. Would he sue his Dad?

Ok I havent been following closely as others first Ive heard about his fathers involvement. Geez this is messy. Needs to be played out on Jerry Springer.

 

[windyhill]

Is it really that bad ? Am I missing something here ?

 

[slashin_velvet]

I presume it did have value for Tippett. Logic says he would be the one that wanted it. I just don't see what the issue is. there is value in location, profile, playing for the team you supported as a kid, recruiting a players brother...plenty of things but they aren't and can't be valued into a salary cap.

Not really the same things. All the other things are implicit or easily understandable from the outset. The issue here is that it was hidden from view.

 

[Maddhew]

Is Sydney complicit in all this?

Given the breach occurred 3 years ago, i doubt it.