Crows' 'tamper' affair

[Carmo]

As far as I can work out there is only ONE established FACT so far.

We promised to trade Kurt to the club of his choice (or 'home', that's still not clear) for a second round draft pick, based on what we would have received if Kurt had walked to GC.

We can accept this as a fact because IIRC Reidy has publicly admitted it.

As far as I can tell we dont even know that much!

I would only go as far as saying we "said" we would try to help get kurt home at the end of the contract. We dont even know that it was for x,y or z draft picks.

We know that something stopped the kurt trade from being done which I think its reasonable to assume has to be a disagreement between Adel and Syd/Blucher. We know adelaide instigated a dispute resolution investigation.

We know that sydney didnt offload any players for low draft picks that would have got kurt there

We know by inference from the two statements above that sydney didnt have reasonable value to offer adelaide, however adelaide still could have accepted the value that was offered, but chose not to

We know the AFL has done an investigation of a number of parties surrounding the situation, including looking at adelaide's accounts at the instigation of Adelaide with the purpose of removing doubt

That is all.


I am sure the main sticking point has to have been, we said something, which we never intended and didnt think could be interpreted to be binding, but that Velocity has interpreted as binding and so the argument is all over - "is what has been said/documented binding or not"? Adel and Sydney couldnt resolve it, so the AFL had to be brought in as third party to make the call one way or another and the one of the other two parties will have to suffer their finding so that they all can move on.

 

[Mike Smyth]

'sold out the clubs future'? ...a tad dramatic there Mike.

However, I must say I have little time to get all the ins and outs, but of the little I've bothered to listen to and read, I gather this -- As far as has been reported, even with the extra tippett payment, AFC was still under the salary cap and included a move-to-club factor(not unprecedented in past AFL-sanctioned contracts) in a contract for a nominated draft pick worth exactly what the AFL said was Tippett's market worth (2nd round draft) should he be taken by Gold Coast when they started up. Contract was written at the same time.

Its not what they have done, its the way they did it.

So unless the AFL find dead people in lockers at AFC, big deal, I don't give a flying rats fart.

Yeah I have been prone to the dramatic ever since my ground breaking performance as Elmo in the 3rd grade production of "Sesame Street on Ice" - the drug not the mineral.

It's going to take along time for me to get over this. Our brand has been seriously damaged. The first thing people will think of when they think of the AFC is "cheat". And its all thanks to two incompetent, arrogant little men.

 

[Carmo]

Yeah I have been prone to the dramatic ever since my ground breaking performance as Elmo in the 3rd grade production of "Sesame Street on Ice" - the drug not the mineral.

It's going to take along time for me to get over this. Our brand has been seriously damaged. The first thing people will think of when they think of the AFC is "cheat". And its all thanks to two incompetent, arrogant little men.

Like what they think about hawthorn, despite not having been investigated for anything?

Like what they think about carlton?

I dont think Adelaide have cheated, YET. If the investigation says we cheated then fine. But its only the knee jerk reactors at the moment that think we are cheats.

[I must admit I am astounded how many people are knee jerk reactors though, far higher than I thought]


HOW CAN RANDOMS KNOW ADELAIDE ARE CHEATS YET THE FRIGGIN INVESTIGATORS WITH ALL THE FACTS STILL DONT KNOW.

SURELY IF IT WAS THAT CLEAR CUT THE AFL COULD HAVE DONE A PRELIMINARY STATEMENT SAYING ADELAIDE HAVE DONE XYZ WRONG AND POSSILBY MORE AND WILL BE PENALISED IN SOME SHAPE OR FORM. WE JUST NEED TO FIND OUT THE FULL DETAILS AND THEN WE WILL ANNOUNCE THE PENALTY THEN.

 

[baldandbroke]

So when will the guessing game stop - when will we know what is going on?

Living in Melbourne means you get a different spin on things - over here there is an expectation of guilt.

There is a lot of (understandable) pent up anger and empathy from Carlton supporters, half of them say "we got stuffed for 10 years, so should you" ... the other half saying "Its not like the Crows are the only ones pushing the boundaries, but like us you'll get smashed by the AFL".

I haven't heard anyone over here yet question the guts of the story, based almost entirely on who broke it. EQ has quite the rep it seems for not diving in too soon.

I really hate the way AFC are handling it communication wise - they should be on the front foot and telling us everything that is going on - timelines for when we will know more etc... If the vibe is anything to go by on what is coming out of the club, then shouldn't they be standing tall and proud and saying "Here is what we did - and we stand by it." ?? (or at least whatever version of that is allowed while an investigation is going on)

One thing that most people I talk to agree on, AFC has long been admired over here for the way they go about stuff ... and this feels out of whack with that image. If it turns out to be true - we will go in with Carlton as "cheats" in a lot of peoples eyes.

The waiting continues ...

 

[dazz69au]

We had our trade period ruined and lost Tippett for nothing.....they better find something!

 

[tigerpremiers]

i must say i was shocked when i heard about this as a supporter of another club looking from the outside i always admired how you guys went about things...im suprised that the club got itself into this situation this has tarnished your brand like it or not..stick together guys you will come out the other side it will take time but eventually you can put this behind you and move forward....as members you have the power to make change at your club....good luck...

 

[*PAF]

... this has tarnished your brand like it or not. ...

Dunno.
If its a once off they will look like idiots more than cheats and I am not sure that will last a long long time as some are suggesting.

If the AFL finds more sus contracts (and I would be surprised) then it becomes a whole new ball game and all bets are off.

 

[Sunshine Saint]

Vader, having re-read this post and the list of the 5 parties involved, I think you are missing one key players in all this. The AFL.

IMO the AFL also have some blood on their hands for creating a compromised and heavily handicapped competition when they introduced the Gold Coast and later GWS.

By setting up these clubs and providing such an enormous leg up, either be it by draft picks or additional salary caps allowances, they damaged the integrity of the competition and this has forced clubs to bend or as in Adelaide's case, break the rules in order to keep key players.

If we remember back to 2009, Adelaide were under extreme pressure to retain Kurt. We were not playing on a level playing field with the about to be formed GC. The credibility of the club would have be damaged if we could not have kept Kurt, so the club did what it thought was the right. Yes it was wrong, and in hindsight we should have let Kurt go. But as they say, desperate times call for desperate measures.

When the AFL are handing out the punishment, they should also acknowledge their own hand in this debacle.

I have been very impressed with the maturity of posters on here, to the infringement and possible sanctions that may be handed to you. Vaders summary was outstanding, as was the general feel that the AFL, or the other clubs, cannot sanction cheating of the salary cap.

But to blame the AFL and the intense competition of new entrants, as the reason for you to cheat lol. Really? This is the justification of a ten year old. Realistic assessment is that a number of people, have let Crows supporters down, very, very badly and there is pain ahead for all.

 

[Big Sim]

So Sydney were trying to force Adelaide to take White in order to offload his 300k contract, even though White was unlikely to be good enough to get a game. Therefore it was a means of getting the Crows to take 300k of Kurt's hefty contract. And as it was done using the only bit of leverage the Swans had, the shonky club of choice clause, (which Tippett senior was so confident in he launched legal action against the Crows to force them to play ball with the Swans), SURELY the Swans are up to their neck in this whole sordid affair?

Why doesn't the media go with this? Why are Sydney now in pole position to get him in the PSD for nix, which would actually reward them for their dirty tactics?

Buggered if I know. Unless of course it is AFL favouritism...surely not? The Swans are a protected species.

 

[Huntercrow]

i must say i was shocked when i heard about this as a supporter of another club looking from the outside i always admired how you guys went about things...im suprised that the club got itself into this situation this has tarnished your brand like it or not..stick together guys you will come out the other side it will take time but eventually you can put this behind you and move forward....as members you have the power to make change at your club....good luck...

Ouch! This is the big one for me the loss of respect from outside the club.

We were perceived in many ways I think depending on the club involved. Victorian clubs in General respected our professionalism and I think admired the way we have built our reputation over the years for getting things done despite the obstacles we faced being the focus of the Adelaide media and the "fishbowl environment" suffered by our players. We also had to prop up 9 SANFL clubs without too much help from their league. Without trying to sound big headed the club managed two premierships without priority draft picks or Father son selections. Tanking was a dirty word at the AFC and If anything our boring goody two shoes reputation may have produced an overreaction to our stupid dealings with Tippet by Jouno's and colleagues from over the border.

It's like an old spinster aunt you remember with fond memories but hardly new much about. Until you had to bail her out of jail for selling Crack.

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

At the moment until we have more facts all the speculation is all duck and no dinner

As I just posted on the Yippett trade thread, I'm still not convinced on the size of the crime

1. Is it draft tampering when Adelaide have used all best endeavors to trade Kurt for market value
2. Is it a salary cap breach if Kurt has legitimately received $100k per year from 3rd party agreements as it is my understanding that these payments sit outside of the cap
3. If Adelaide did make up a short fall of 3rd party payments (as suggested in the email) as yet has there been any evidence to suggest that these payments were not administered through the proper cap mechanism
4. how is Adelaide's email any more draft tampering than a player nominating a club to be traded to and refusing to go anywhere else

Yes the AFC are guilty of being stupid and clumsy in the handling of this saga however until we know exactly the amount of additional payments, who paid the $$$ and by what mechanism the size of the crime would be unclear. For all we know the AFC did stay true to the email and picked up the delta in promised 3rd party payments however did administer these payments through the proper AFL process

Until we get granularity on the lest level of detail we could be jumping to the wrong conclusions

 

[baldandbroke]

Trying to keep my head on where we are actually at ... Am I right in saying that the two things they are investigating are:

(1) We offered to pay KT $200,000 outside of the lodged agreement. We said "In our experience, you should be able to earn legitimate money outside of the agreement from these companies totalling something like $200,000 per year - if you don't, let us know and we will look at covering it in your agreement". That doesn't sound horrible to me, but I don't know the AFL rules that well.

(2) We agreed to swap him for a 2nd round pick in a future draft. This came from what the AFL had said would be given to us as compensation for GC getting him in 2009. I can see why we would say, ok you sign with us for the next 3 years - play for us - develop with us - then GC get you for the 2009 price in a few years. KT would have rather sat at AFC learning in an established environment, not getting smashed on the scoreboard each week, then when the GC should be getting their shit together he jumps across. I can also see how this is "making a deal to influence future drafts" - clearly if this is in writing and agreed to and signed off - we will be in some trouble. The AFL do tend to let really bad deals go through every trade period, and some of the pick swapping appears to be tampering with the draft to me ... but again I'm no expert.

PS - agree with the "Swans are not squeaky clean" angle, but that seems like just a business trying to take advantage of one of it's competitors perceived weaknesses. Can't blame them for trying. They should get no punishment at all - IMO.

 

[FR0GGY]

Trying to keep my head on where we are actually at ... Am I right in saying that the two things they are investigating are:

(1) We offered to pay KT $200,000 outside of the lodged agreement. We said "In our experience, you should be able to earn legitimate money outside of the agreement from these companies totalling something like $200,000 per year - if you don't, let us know and we will look at covering it in your agreement". That doesn't sound horrible to me, but I don't know the AFL rules that well.

(2) We agreed to swap him for a 2nd round pick in a future draft. This came from what the AFL had said would be given to us as compensation for GC getting him in 2009. I can see why we would say, ok you sign with us for the next 3 years - play for us - develop with us - then GC get you for the 2009 price in a few years. KT would have rather sat at AFC learning in an established environment, not getting smashed on the scoreboard each week, then when the GC should be getting their shit together he jumps across. I can also see how this is "making a deal to influence future drafts" - clearly if this is in writing and agreed to and signed off - we will be in some trouble. The AFL do tend to let really bad deals go through every trade period, and some of the pick swapping appears to be tampering with the draft to me ... but again I'm no expert.

PS - agree with the "Swans are not squeaky clean" angle, but that seems like just a business trying to take advantage of one of it's competitors perceived weaknesses. Can't blame them for trying. They should get no punishment at all - IMO.

Am I right in saying there is a 3rd party payment cap? If so, this secret clause of 200 or 300k would surely have been outside that (otherwise the afl would have known about it). so breaching the 3rd party payment cap would surely be just as bad as breaching the normal cap. And if they have kept it under the table surely the ATO would have to be involved as you wouldn't think they would declare it as the AFL check all payments don't they.
I'm struggling to understand how it could be so innocent and not a big deal.

 

[baldandbroke]

Am I right in saying there is a 3rd party payment cap? If so, this secret clause of 200 or 300k would surely have been outside that (otherwise the afl would have known about it). so breaching the 3rd party payment cap would surely be just as bad as breaching the normal cap. And if they have kept it under the table surely the ATO would have to be involved as you wouldn't think they would declare it as the AFL check all payments don't they.
I'm struggling to understand how it could be so innocent and not a big deal.

I went looking for some info on the "3rd Party Cap" - and found this article interesting:

Third-party deals to count in cap

Its about Melbourne trying to keep Scully with a 3rd party deal ... they compare to Judd.

Judd's arrival with the Blues coincided with a contract outside the salary cap with Visy, the company owned by former Carlton president Richard Pratt but Anderson said the Demons would not be able to keep Scully on a similar arrangement.

"The rules have been tightened up since then so any arrangement entered into with the purpose of keeping someone at a club or getting them to move to a club would go into the salary cap," he said.

We know the rule changed after Judd - and that you can't get income moved outside the club. But what about stuff you get on your own? Is that all included as well? Does my entire income go under the AFC cap once I sign an AFL agreement? What are the rules here ... Vader?

I also found it relevant that Carlton always get drawn into the story for anything related to cheating the rules ... that is where AFC are heading if we are caught out here. Notice the "systematic" bit at the end, that might help us lessen the blow.

Also waiting for all the other Presidents to come out and attack the AFL like this:

AFL salary cap rules under fire

 

[Vader]

You'd think this sort of ruling on player deregistration would be in the 'Laws Of The Game' piece...

Talks about not playing an unregistered player, but not the de-registration process itself.

 

[Vader]

We know the rule changed after Judd - and that you can't get income moved outside the club. But what about stuff you get on your own? Is that all included as well? Does my entire income go under the AFC cap once I sign an AFL agreement? What are the rules here ... Vader?

I also found it relevant that Carlton always get drawn into the story for anything related to cheating the rules ... that is where AFC are heading if we are caught out here. Notice the "systematic" bit at the end, that might help us lessen the blow.

Also waiting for all the other Presidents to come out and attack the AFL like this:

AFL salary cap rules under fire

Players are entitled to earn non-Football payments outside the salaries paid by their AFL clubs.

If the arrangement is with an "an Associate of a Club" then the player must:

(a) submit all relevant details, as may reasonably be required, to the AFL General Manager - Football Operations; and
(b) notify the AFL Club of the general nature of the proposed arrangement,
prior to the date of the commencement of the commercial arrangement.

It is then up to the AFL General Manager - Football Operations to approve the arrangement. If it's queried, then it's up to the Investigations Manager to determine whether the arrangement is "Bona Fide". If it is, then there is no problem. If it's not - then prepare to have your backside kicked.

These payments are not included under the salary cap, but I believe there are limits to the $$$ payable outside the salary cap.

The Judd/Visy case is an interesting one. It has always been declared by Judd and Carlton. However, the AFL has said that it would not be approved if it were a new contract today, under the latest version of the rules. As an ongoing contract though, there is nothing they can do about it.

In any case, Adelaide's issue is not about exceeding the salary cap. It never has been. It has always been about failure to declare. Carlton declared and are perfectly legal. Adelaide did not declare this $200k underwritten guarantee and could well be in for a massive fine as a result.

 

[Vader]

(1) We offered to pay KT $200,000 outside of the lodged agreement. We said "In our experience, you should be able to earn legitimate money outside of the agreement from these companies totalling something like $200,000 per year - if you don't, let us know and we will look at covering it in your agreement". That doesn't sound horrible to me, but I don't know the AFL rules that well.

The issue is not the payment itself (which may or may not have ever been made). The issue is Adelaide's failure to declare the payment when lodging the player contract and TPP statements.

 

[weirdtim]

Cross posting this from another thread. Dear Crows fans, please let the club know just how pissed off you are!

I will bet that Trigg and the board will not act with honour. He will not fall on his sword for the good of the club. I know it is pointless, and it may seem like it will achieve nothing, but please send emails/letters/phone calls to both the AFC and the AFL. Send them to the AFC telling them that you will not renew your membership/go to the games while those responsible remain at the club. Contact the AFL telling them how the AFC is ignoring the wishes of the members, appealing for them to step in and force our CEO and board out. While a singular email is unlikely to make a difference, if enough people kick up a protest we may be able to cut these cancerous elements out of our club.

 

[rayven]

I don't know what to make of the AFL's silence.

It's unbecoming of them, well of what we've come to know.

 

[King Elvis]

The best case situation for you guys is that the afl manages to negotiate your licence from the sanfl before the investigation is officially complete - I am sure that will lessen the penalties that you receive. In fact, I would not be surprised if this investigation seems to take quite a while, and the negotiations seem to intensify over the coming weeks.

Screw that for a joke.

The AFL are bigger pricks than the SANFL; no way in hell do I want our license in their hands.

 

[King Elvis]

So Sydney were trying to force Adelaide to take White in order to offload his 300k contract, even though White was unlikely to be good enough to get a game. Therefore it was a means of getting the Crows to take 300k of Kurt's hefty contract. And as it was done using the only bit of leverage the Swans had, the shonky club of choice clause, (which Tippett senior was so confident in he launched legal action against the Crows to force them to play ball with the Swans), SURELY the Swans are up to their neck in this whole sordid affair?

Why doesn't the media go with this? Why are Sydney now in pole position to get him in the PSD for nix, which would actually reward them for their dirty tactics?

Buggered if I know. Unless of course it is AFL favouritism...surely not? The Swans are a protected species.

Agree completely.

Sydney fans on the Main Board can say whatever they want, but with the Ireland/Blucher connections, and the manner in which Sydney went about this trade, it's pretty ****ing obvious they thought they could strong-arm us into handing Tippett over for a pittance.

They were trying to exploit and illegal/invalid 'agreement' for their own gain; that warrants punishment.

We will be sanctioned, and we'll deserve it, but Sydney better not get out unscathed.

Also, funny to hear that Sando basically told the Foot Dept to get stuffed when they told him White was looking likely.


On another note - the AFL has become to rubbery and contrived of late.

Compensation derived from a formula - which is a secret the AFL refuses to disclose.

Priority Picks awarded at the discretion of the AFL.


It's becoming less and less of a playing field every year, and the AFL are now actively interferring with the competition itself.

 

[boffo]

The issue is not the payment itself (which may or may not have ever been made). The issue is Adelaide's failure to declare the payment when lodging the player contract and TPP statements.

And likewise with the on-the-side agreement to trade him in the future for second round pick.....if we had declared it to the AFL they would have said OK/Not OK and we wouldn't be in any trouble now.........

 

[MRB37]

So Sydney were trying to force Adelaide to take White in order to offload his 300k contract, even though White was unlikely to be good enough to get a game. Therefore it was a means of getting the Crows to take 300k of Kurt's hefty contract. And as it was done using the only bit of leverage the Swans had, the shonky club of choice clause, (which Tippett senior was so confident in he launched legal action against the Crows to force them to play ball with the Swans), SURELY the Swans are up to their neck in this whole sordid affair?

Why doesn't the media go with this? Why are Sydney now in pole position to get him in the PSD for nix, which would actually reward them for their dirty tactics?

Buggered if I know. Unless of course it is AFL favouritism...surely not? The Swans are a protected species.

This is what I said on the main board. Swans fans were saying how they obviously didn't know about the agreement due to the offer of a 1st and Jesse White while ignoring the fact that A. #23 is essentially a 2nd round pick and B. they were obviously using it as a means to get rid of a 300K player who was going to be absolutely useless to them if Tippett was on the team. It wasn't out of the kindness of their hearts, it wasn't due to White having potential and needed a change of scenary, they saw a chance to get rid of some salary in a backdoor deal and tried to force him on the Crows.

 

[Vader]

And likewise with the on-the-side agreement to trade him in the future for second round pick.....if we had declared it to the AFL they would have said OK/Not OK and we wouldn't be in any trouble now.........

That one was never, ever, going to be approved by the AFL.

The underwriting of external payments probably would have been approved, provided it had been declared.

 

[Mighty Chinook]

I'm on the side of Tippett may have decided to stay after winning the flag and none of this ever coming to light

Not sure about this; I have some connections inside the club and apparently he was disliked by many players and lived a pretty insular existence within the club. He was never going to stay.