It's an obvious exaggeration.
The point is that it's not pragmatic, realistic or workable for the CEO to tell the board every detail. It's now easy in hindsight to say he should have told them THAT particular one.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Its time to go Trigg!!!!
- Thread starter Team DJ
- Start date
- Tagged users None
It's an obvious exaggeration.
The point is that it's not pragmatic, realistic or workable for the CEO to tell the board every detail. It's now easy in hindsight to say he should have told them THAT particular one.
No one is saying he should tell the board every detail so why do you keep bringing that up? And there's nothing about hindsight in this one, speculation was in the public domain and he should have told the board especially if they asked him which no doubt they must have.
None more extreme I'd suggest apart from Hitler judging Idi Amin.
You don't know that.
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
Exactly!
But your saying he should have told the board about this, which is easy to do in hindsight. I've already demonstrated why that might not have happened and why it might not be sackable.
I think it's pretty obvious he told them about the gentleman's agreement. The email from Reid is the 'detail' I'm talking about.
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Moderator
- May 24, 2006
- 79,800
- 162,018
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
- Moderator
- #507
We just lost our highest paid player for nothing.
Straight away that's the biggest self inflicted balls up in our club's history, and that's if there are NO added penalties.
And it's the height of arrogance to think that we will be unaffected by losing Tippett. We won a couple of games without him? Big whoop. Let's go into a season with teams having to plan for only one tall attacking target and see how it pans out.
It's the sort of misplaced arrogance St Kilda had when they let Joel Smith and Shanahan walk in the late 90's for nothing. They were a FINALS CLUB now, who cares if they lost two starting 18 players for nothing? And Joel Smith had been injured anyway. They had heaps of other good players.
We lost him alright, but however good or bad he was for us, we had him the year before and last year and wouldn't have had him without whatever deals were made. Hindsight is a marvellous thing. Better deals could have been made. No one has a crystal ball.
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Moderator
- May 24, 2006
- 79,800
- 162,018
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
- Moderator
- #509
Sorry, what?
This is not just any detail and he'd have to be a fool to think he could spend 18 months or however long denying such a major risk to the board on such a flimsy basis as thinking i sent the tippets a email 3 weeks after signing the contract so thats ok
This was a term agreed to convince tippett to sign his contract you need more than one side to nix that after signing
Few things could be more important to the board than a non compliant illegal side contract deal that has not only been done but has now gone public
And shouldn't the board be the ones to decide whether this in writing, ticking time bomb has been diffused?
Trigg seems to have decided he can pull out of an favourable contract just by clicking his fingers, then he's decided on his own steam that "he's got this" and the board doesn't need to know.
He's cost us not only tippett's trade value but at least one of bock/davis plus fines, plus draft picks...
And he didn't think it was worth mentioning to the board this little detail was in writing?
Is he out of control?
Trigg seems to have decided he can pull out of an favourable contract just by clicking his fingers, then he's decided on his own steam that "he's got this" and the board doesn't need to know.
He's cost us not only tippett's trade value but at least one of bock/davis plus fines, plus draft picks...
And he didn't think it was worth mentioning to the board this little detail was in writing?
Is he out of control?
Perhaps I don't understand your post. Sure, losing Tippett is huge for us on field. I've never thought otherwise.
The hype I was concerned with, and that about which I don't care, is the hype about AFC's method of acquiring Tippett.
We only had him to lose in the first place, because of whatever side deal was made.
AFC didn't go through with it, planning to lose him for nil return. It's clearly obvious now that it would have been better to let him go back then, and trade for someone else. The gamble didn't pay off. And if they had let him go instead of pulling out all stops to get him, everyone would have been calling for Trigg's head for not being able to clinch a deal. Damned if he didn't and damned if he did, as it turns out.
Was it a balls up to have him playing for us by securing him the only way possible? In hindsight it was a ballsup because it all turned to crap. But who knew it would all turn to crap? They got him the only way open to them, through means that by some accounts on the Adelaide board included the killing of Mother Teresa.
How can you compare this to St Kilda arrogance letting players 'walk'. Did you ever think AFC was letting Tippett 'walk'?
Losing Tippett isn't petty. AFC's 'crimes' in gaining him in the first place are, which is why I'm questioning the
sack Trigg mentality because of the Tippett thing, which is the way this thread has gravitated.
Sorry, but you don't need a crystal ball to foresee that we were absolutely ****ed the moment we gave an in writing guarantee to the Tippett camp, stipulating that we'd trade him to a club of his choice for a second round pick. Anybody who can't see that causing problems down the track, has no business running a football club.
At this point in time it is all speculation. I'm asserting that there are various (legitimate) reasons why many details don't get reported to the board. For whatever reason, perhaps Trigg thought he'd dealt with it, he didn't report the email. I could also suggest that he didn't think it was a major risk at the time.
Like I said its speculation until the investigation is completed but there are plausible, even probable reasons that the board didn't know about the emails.
It wasn't a contractual term.
In hindsight, which is my point. I'm sure if he had his time again it would have been reported to the board but this image that is being painted of Trigg deliberately hiding the truth and lying to the board is completely unfair considering my account of what governance reporting involves, pragmatically.
Anybody who didn't secure him by the only means possible (short of paying over the salary cap or underestimating his worth, which the AFL itself at the very time set as being that very second round draft pick), has no business running a football club. This is the real world. Ask every other club in the AFL.
Southerntakeover
Too Sweet
I dont think you had to have the benefit of hindsight to see a bad idea amongst what was being proposed at the time.
Yes it was. There is only an investigation because it was a contractual term. That is the issue, we agreed to illegal side terms
It was an inducement, an extra incentive to sign
If its not a contractual term we won't be punished in any way because we won't have done anything wrong
we lost davis &/or bock because we overcommitted to tippett.
If he signs with GC we get compensation, protection over bock from league rules, and cap space - maybe enough to help with Davis?
getting caught up in keep tippett at any and all costs has had all sorts of foreseeable consequences that makes it not a good decision
But anyway, you don't want to hear it, and I don't want to repeat this any further
Making that guarantee, in a competition where trades are examined and need to be deemed as commercially viable, was always going to screw us. Regardless of what the AFL thought Tippett's value was at that point in time via some artificially derived formula, we should have known full well that a trade for him on an open market involving a second round pick was always going to arouse suspicion. The real world as you put it, is what we are now dealing with, and that is having lost a very valuable asset for nothing, and facing possible fines and loss of draft picks, not to mention being labled as cheats. We are facing that real world, due to utter incompetence from the top of our administration.
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
Why so? At the time it was the only way the Crows could secure one of the hottest properties in football, by agreeing to something that had been sanctioned by the AFL in previous contracts. According to the AFC, they didn't think they were doing anything wrong at the time....not telling the AFL is the crux of the matter. Indeed a crystal ball would have been handy.
We have to live in the real world. Sometimes it comes back to bite. You would have labeled Trigg and co as being incompetent had they not secured Tippett. That is also the real world.
If our management stated that we could not secure Tippett due to his management/father demanding conditions that fell outside of the AFLs rules and regulations, no, I wouldn't have.
The deal was just stupid beyond belief. If we were willing to pay Tippett $700k a season, who in their right mind would think that his value at the end of that contract would be a 2nd round pick? We were setting ourselves up to:
a) lose Tippett for bugger all, AND
b) due to all trades being evaluated for commercial viability, be investigated by the AFL
Instead, we ended up losing Tippett for NOTHING, and being investigated by the AFL. It was always going to end badly for us, and it has.
Plus we've rewarded a player who by demanding the clause would make our team weaker when he left by ensuring we didn't get fairly compensated. In a team sport knowingly keeping a player who couldn't give a shit about the team is stupid beyond belief. Trigg has to go and Kurt is a selfish arseh*le. If he ends up at the Swans as their highest paid player, watch that "bloods" spirit evaporate when their no dickheads policy is wiped out.
Similar threads
