News "Essendon needed a Rob Chapman"

[ftmch]

Interesting perspective on the Essendon saga in today's Indaily.

Essendon Needed a Rob Chapman

Basically lauds Chapman's handling of the Tippet fiasco:

If you’re looking for someone to admire for how they handle a crisis generated by poor decisions, look no further than Adelaide Football Club and its chairman Rob Chapman.

The club acknowledged its errors, took its punishment and got on with it.
Essendon’s self-commissioned Zwitkowski report found in May the football administration had created “a pharmacologically experimental environment”.
If the Rob Chapman rules of accountability had been applied at Essendon, then those responsible would have voluntarily stood down, minimising damage to the club and the game.
Instead, in the almost four months since that finding, Essendon has allowed the man in whose office the buck stops – coach James Hird – to hang on , and hang on.
It may find out today just how much that so-called resilience has cost them.
Adelaide, meanwhile, finishes 2013 almost untarnished by its error of judgement, having taken its punishment and kept its future intact.

 

[xchadders]

Interesting perspective on the Essendon saga in today's Indaily.

Essendon Needed a Rob Chapman

Basically lauds Chapman's handling of the Tippet fiasco:

except we havent kept our future intact, we've lost important draft picks. this year moreso than last.

 

[JP Sauce]

What an enormous pile of horse shit.

Who voluntarily stood down at the Crows? Trigg and Harper were suspended by the AFL and still claim that it was merely an admin error and that they did nothing wrong.

And how exactly have we finished 2013 untarnished by our error?

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

If the Rob Chapman rules of accountability had been applied at Essendon, then those responsible would have voluntarily stood down, minimising damage to the club and the game.

Oh really?

 

[TheLeftFist8]

Yeah, the AFC managed this perfectly...I'm looking forward to our top 10 pick this year so we can enjoy moving on......Wait, what??

Oh well, at least we got rid of the incompetent that probably ruined our shot at a premiership in the next 5 years so we can start with a clean slate......dear, oh dear

 

[Allefgib]

I think for everyone bar the AFC this probably rings true.

Problem is that rob was supposed to represent the best interests of the AFC.

Given the full details didn't come out - who knows, maybe there was worse to tell and we did get off easy. If so, well played Rob.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Yeah, the AFC managed this perfectly...I'm looking forward to our top 10 pick this year so we can enjoy moving on......Wait, what??

Oh well, at least we got rid of the incompetent that probably ruined our shot at a premiership in the next 5 years so we can start with a clean slate......dear, oh dear

I liked this and agreed that he needed to go but I don't think this is true.

I feel we have the key players on our list to challenge for a top 4 spot, it's then putting it all together in September and getting the job done.

Next year has to be our year

Jenkins and Johnston
Walker
Sloane, Dangerfield, Thompson and Crouch
Talia
Rutten

IMO, that a spine who can lead a team to a top 4.

 

[Elder van Berlo]

I will make an assessment of the merits of the Essendon approach vs the Crows approach when findings are made and punishments handed down to Essendon. Any assessment prior to that is just fantasy.

 

[weekend at bernies]

I wonder if they also need a Steven Trigg?? surely we are willing to trade him for some draft picks??

 

[Godallblighty]

I will make an assessment of the merits of the Essendon approach vs the Crows approach when findings are made and punishments handed down to Essendon. Any assessment prior to that is just fantasy.

Yeah, let's see who ends up with a punishment commensurate with the crime.

 

[adelaidecrows]

lol, just lol. Those responsible would have stood down. bahahahahahahaha What a joke that is.

 

[crows1991]

The trouble is that Essendon have seen how the Crows were absolutely reamed for a minor infringement that did not even include any actual salary cap breach. The Crows cooperated with the AFL and were absolutely shafted. What incentive is that for Essendon to cooperate in any way. They will fight and threaten legal action and will end up with less penalties for a systematic drug program then the Crows got. A big thing will be made of them losing this years premiership points which at the end of the day is a minor penalty in a year when they are never going to progress in the finals any way. The rest of the penalties will be a slap on the hand

 

[rayven]

Essendon shouldn't be in the league. This whole saga is unprecedented. I don't think you can make comparisons in this case (although i quite like the bit about Chapman did good)

 

[cmndstab]

Bit of an odd article. The one thing that didn't happen was people standing down at the Crows. Very odd that they would hold us up as the model for this outcome.

I do think it's a bit much for people here to blame Chapman for us not having our first two picks this year, though. Not his fault that occurred and nothing he did was going to prevent that. All of this bluster about "we should have fought it, we should have stood up for ourselves" is missing the point. We didn't have anything to fight. We broke the rules and copped the punishment.

I think Chapman handled the situation itself just fine, considering the shit sandwich he was handed - it is the direction of the club afterwards that has been lacking. "Business as usual" just wasn't an option we could afford to take here.

 

[cmndstab]

The trouble is that Essendon have seen how the Crows were absolutely reamed for a minor infringement that did not even include any actual salary cap breach. The Crows cooperated with the AFL and were absolutely shafted.

Don't mean to pick on you specifically here, but I'm really sick of reading this. Despite what Adelaide-based media will try to tell you, it was not a "minor infringement". We deliberately broke the rules in order to retain our highest-paid player. In fact, we did it twice!! We would not have been able to keep him without both acts. And then tried to hide the evidence so we wouldn't get caught. The fact that we never ended up needing to deliver on the promises that we made is completely inconsequential.

We were not shafted. We received exactly what we deserved, and I'm sick of Adelaide supporters trying to pretend we were in any way a victim in this saga. We brought the penalties entirely on ourselves and we deserved everything we got.

Yeah, our "negotiations" didn't gain us much - but they did gain us something. We were able to take part of our punishment during a time where it hurt less than it likely will next year. Not a huge gain, but a step forward (after so many backwards) nonetheless.

 

[Doc_]

i would of preferred the Essendon model. If we showed some fight we too could of lessened the penalty. All this meeting at AFL house the last 2 days has been Essendon getting the charges downgrraded. They will probably only loose the same amount of draft picks we did.

 

[crows1991]

Don't mean to pick on you specifically here, but I'm really sick of reading this. Despite what Adelaide-based media will try to tell you, it was not a "minor infringement". We deliberately broke the rules in order to retain our highest-paid player. In fact, we did it twice!! We would not have been able to keep him without both acts. And then tried to hide the evidence so we wouldn't get caught. The fact that we never ended up needing to deliver on the promises that we made is completely inconsequential.

We were not shafted. We received exactly what we deserved, and I'm sick of Adelaide supporters trying to pretend we were in any way a victim in this saga. We brought the penalties entirely on ourselves and we deserved everything we got.

Yeah, our "negotiations" didn't gain us much - but they did gain us something. We were able to take part of our punishment during a time where it hurt less than it likely will next year. Not a huge gain, but a step forward (after so many backwards) nonetheless.

Happy to disagree.We never payed a player outside off the salary cap. Sure we made some agreements but I am sure this was/is common place around the AFL. We were guilty of putting it in writing so it could be tracked. To me a major infringement would be actually paying players secretly outside of the salary cap or as is the case at Essendon allowing a supplement program to get out of hand to the extent where nobody is sure what was actually injected into the players. If something of this magnitude had occurred at the Crows we would deserve any penalties we were given. My concern with Essendon is that they are playing hard ball which will lead to them getting less overall penalties then we ended up with

 

[cmndstab]

We agreed to secretly pay a player outside the salary cap. The fact that it never ended up being necessary is besides the point - we agreed to exactly what you are claiming would be a major infringement.

Doc_ - I suspect the majority of discussion over the last two days has been on the topic of whether penalties will be issued now (and the right to contest them later be revoked), or whether the penalties will wait until a future date. I don't think for a second there has been a "two day negotiation" on the penalties to be received by Essendon. Again, you don't get to negotiate your own penalties! You can contest them, and drag the process out, or you can accept them in a timely fashion, and clubs/officials will choose the option least harmful to them/the club.

I don't believe we could have lessened the penalty, like you are claiming. This seems to be based on nothing more than blind hope.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

If Trigg had been sacked I would agree with this. As it stands, Chapman is just representing the old boys club. Not interested in any fluff pieces about this guy. Not entirely convinced the board has the best interests of the AFC at it's core.

 

[King Elvis]

I do think it's a bit much for people here to blame Chapman for us not having our first two picks this year, though. Not his fault that occurred and nothing he did was going to prevent that. All of this bluster about "we should have fought it, we should have stood up for ourselves" is missing the point. We didn't have anything to fight. We broke the rules and copped the punishment.

Trigg and Reid broke the rules - 'we' didn't.

Same as Bailey and Connolly broke the rules - Melbourne didn't.

Our punishment is completely disproportionate to the crime. Forgetting the shit article, if you plead guilty, you're meant to reduce the punishment - where as it seems the only punishment we pleaded down was Trigg's position.

Trigg should've been thrown under the bus, sacked on the spot, and then we should've fought tooth and nail to reduce the sanctions against the Club itself.

 

[Godallblighty]

Don't mean to pick on you specifically here, but I'm really sick of reading this. Despite what Adelaide-based media will try to tell you, it was not a "minor infringement". We deliberately broke the rules in order to retain our highest-paid player. In fact, we did it twice!! We would not have been able to keep him without both acts. And then tried to hide the evidence so we wouldn't get caught. The fact that we never ended up needing to deliver on the promises that we made is completely inconsequential.

Look, I don't think what we did was minor either, but I can't agree with this. What you're effectively saying here is that conspiracy to commit a felony is the same as committing the felony. Not sure that's a principle held up in too many legal codes.

IMO our penalty was too lenient on Trigg and too harsh on the club. Nevertheless, the club definitely had to be penalised significantly. We deliberately broke the league rules.

 

[hugecannon]

I get the salary cap bit, but can anyone explain how agreeing to trade Tippett to the club of his choice and putting it in writing is draft tampering, yet Tippett or Gunstan for that matter can refuse to be traded to any other club and that's not draft tampering. I still don't see how they can do it, but if we put it writing its a punishable offence.

 

[King Elvis]

We were stupid and deserved a whack, but, as you say, the reality is that what we did is commonplace within the AFL - we were just stupid enough to formalise it, and deliberately do so outside of the scope of the AFL contracts.

 

[Interloperer]

Rob Chapman's actions during the Tippett drama were notable for not being the absolute worst possible course. Certainly not as bad as Essendon's handling of the drugs controversy, but theres a long gap between that and actual good practice. Chapman's actions sit somewhere in this gap.