Yeah, but that may just be a written report that has all of the details of what was said.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Crows' 'tamper' affair
- Thread starter sliver member
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Now I fail to understand becuase we didn't accept the deal on friday this has all come to ahead.... surely the people in the know would want to keep their jobs and just would have bent over and taken the crap offered. Supporters and the Community would have been outraged but that's not as bad as the AFL hunting you down.
- Sep 17, 2011
- 2,191
- 2,321
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
The issue is that AFL needs deem the deal as commercially viable and approve the deal. There have been rumblings for a week now that the AFL and the general football community was suspicious of the proposed deal and most likely would have blocked it because it was not fair and equitable.
This was going to come to the surface one way or another and we just happened to come forward and said we have been naughty! The only way this would have stayed hush hush was if Sydney made a genuine trade offer which Tippett was worth. In other words 2 first round picks, one inside top 10 and the other from 15-20 range or their pick 23.
These guys are not stupid. Everyone with a hint of intelligence could tell that the proposed deal was significantly one sided and in no way fair and equitable.
- Oct 8, 2012
- 16,281
- 19,964
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Can someone lend Stephen Trigg a sword to fall on? Was he holidaying or hiding in France?
So it’s likely that not only will we end up getting peanuts for tippet but we may also get a hefty fine for draft tampering. We really do have some incompetent people running this club.
So it’s likely that not only will we end up getting peanuts for tippet but we may also get a hefty fine for draft tampering. We really do have some incompetent people running this club.
I don't really know what to make of this. I think its clear that signing Tippett in 2009 was one of the greatest blunders in the history of the club. If the AFC are guilty of breaking the rules, we deserve everything we get. Trigg surely has to go. The buck stops with him.
A complete disaster.
Why the **** did we put ourselves in this position for a bloke who doesn't want to be here?
The fact this clause was even discussed should've been enough to terminate our offer to him at the time.
We've allowed one player to do massive damage to our Club; why?
I expect;
- We will be fined.
- Blucher de-registered.
- Trigg stood down.
- Tippett wont be de-registered, but he wont end up at Sydney.
And this should see the AFL put an end to players nominating Clubs to deal with; it's draft-tampering, plain and simple, and is more damaging than the breach we're alleged to have made.
Crows4Eva
Club Legend
Alot of hysterics in here right now. Personally, I'm going to wait and see how this pans out before I start imploding over how stupid it was. All the talk about this agreement has been so vague that it's impossible to know how 'formal' it was. Could've been nothing more than a 'If you want to go home, we'll do our best to make it happen.'
Come on now, if it was just that, why would he and or his management hold onto a copy of this supposed agreement? To hold onto something tangible it must have been in writing, and to be in writing, it would have had to have been a signed agreement, which in my humble opinion is a formal agreement, don’t you agree?
Crows4Eva
Club Legend
I agree that if it was in writing then that would be a formal agreement, but as of right now, it's only a rumor by the press that it was written. I just would prefer not to get too worked up until we know where this is going and just how guilty we are.
Hearing that SEN has reported that Adelaide will cop a $800,000 fine, the AFL will deregister Kurt Tippett and Blucher, andAdelaide of their first round draft pick if found guilty of trade tampering.
Wooah
Wooah
Emma Quayle is an actual journalist though, unlike those that peddle in "what-if" and what "clubs should do" articles. Odds on there is some documentation. What exactly is stated is anyones guess. Some guesses will be more educated than others.
if that is true, which I doubt it is a HUGE win for the club.
TubbsFarquhar
TheBrownDog
, I'm just baffled as to why we didn't trade Yippett to Brisbane last year when the opportunity was there. Would've been a win-win for both clubs.
This is a really good point. Given it was outside of the contract - i.e. not a formal agreement, I'm not sure it's any different to say Carlton offering Judd incentives to sign (i.e. Visy role) which aren't within the AFL's jurisdiction to adjudicate on. To me it's more likely that we stated something along the lines that we'd assist Tippett, when and if he left, in his desire to return home and a club of his choice (I would be surprised, however, if the wording included specific acceptance of a second round pick - although if GC was the likely option at the time, then one of their second round picks was possibly in their thinking). I can't see how that would be construed as draft tampering - it's no different to what many clubs have been doing, other than being in writing. Blucher and Tippett tried to milk it for all it's worth by nominating Sydney, and it's now come back to bite everyone one involved on the backside.
Hope I'm right!
The difference is the AFL introduced the rule requiring all trades to be of commercial value, effectively in responce to the veale deal. Adelaide signed a secret understanding to trade tippett for less than commercial value.
I think there needs to be some room for compassionate reasons. Though since there are 2 teams in each "footballing" state perhaps they should only be able to choose a state.
Emma must have some good contacts at the AFL to get the story. And an even better reputation as a journalist if no one is questioning the article. If it was any other journo, we might call it BS.
Any chance the AFL told Trigg to get back from his holiday and get to AFL House and do some explaining ?
How many times has the crows and other clubs helped a player wanting to leave, find the club of their choice. Stenglein & Johnson are a couple that come to mind, hell even Gunston got where he wanted too.
Doesn't really seem a big deal. Hopefully just a storm in a tea cup.
I wonder if we have to just let him go without a trade and he finds himself in the ND ?
Any chance the AFL told Trigg to get back from his holiday and get to AFL House and do some explaining ?
How many times has the crows and other clubs helped a player wanting to leave, find the club of their choice. Stenglein & Johnson are a couple that come to mind, hell even Gunston got where he wanted too.
Doesn't really seem a big deal. Hopefully just a storm in a tea cup.
I wonder if we have to just let him go without a trade and he finds himself in the ND ?
800k fine would be worth every cent to see skurt and blutcher deregistered, but seriously why would our club agree to something like this, if he didn't want to be here piss him off to the Gold Coast and we probly would have had 3 years development into a top 10 pick right now, I've seen a year 7 school dance ran better than the Adelaide Football Club.
footy_noob
Club Legend
That fine is too much. Way too harsh. $100-200k fine and no stripping of draft pick sounds about right to me. Plus losing Tippett for nothing.
Can't believe that this has ended up becoming possibly our biggest issue in the 22 years we've been in the AFL, cannot fathom how they would be so stupid and narrow minded to not believe that when the 'gentleman's agreement' saw the light of day they would be facing please explains and possible sanctions from the AFL.
Also to use a term Trigg is fond of himself his position is almost totally untenable if the club faces any serious sanctions and John Reid should also either be financially fined by the AFL and or be banned from associating with any AFL club - especially ours, a little extreme but he was the main orchestrator and should face just ramifications for that.
I suppose the only positive is that Tippett and his management could also face ramifications for forcing the stipulation (can only hope) but in all seriousness what the hell has happened to the club this last month it has honestly been nothing but downhill ever since the Prelim.
Also to use a term Trigg is fond of himself his position is almost totally untenable if the club faces any serious sanctions and John Reid should also either be financially fined by the AFL and or be banned from associating with any AFL club - especially ours, a little extreme but he was the main orchestrator and should face just ramifications for that.
I suppose the only positive is that Tippett and his management could also face ramifications for forcing the stipulation (can only hope) but in all seriousness what the hell has happened to the club this last month it has honestly been nothing but downhill ever since the Prelim.
Alby_Green
Debutant
IF Blucher was found to be "in the wrong" in this situation, would there be implications for the management group that he works for as well?
