Opinion Rob Chapman

Remove this Banner Ad

cmndstab said:
According to Chapman, the original penalties were the sacking of Trigg and Harper, $1M in fines and four years of draft sanctions!

Which would have been the most absurd punishment ever handed down by any judiciary body in the history of forever. That's not a "negotiate down to half" type of punishment, that's a "laugh in their face and ask them to call you when they're ready to be serious" type of punishment.
Click to expand...
So we negotiated down all but the penalties that would really hurt us on field - the draft picks. Geez, no wonder we needed those high priced lawyers...

Essendon learnt from our mistakes in their negotiations & reduced the loss of picks.
 
TheLeftFist8 said:
I call BS yet again on Chapman
Click to expand...

I don't know. Chapman strikes me as the kind of guy who, when he wants to BS you, will do it by omission rather than blatantly lying.

Kane McGoodwin said:
So we negotiated down all but the penalties that would really hurt us on field - the draft picks. Geez, no wonder we needed those high priced lawyers...

Essendon learnt from our mistakes in their negotiations & reduced the loss of picks.
Click to expand...


You may have misread my post - four years of draft penalties. So eight picks from the first two rounds.
 
cmndstab said:
According to Chapman, the original penalties were the sacking of Trigg and Harper, $1M in fines and four years of draft sanctions!

Which would have been the most absurd punishment ever handed down by any judiciary body in the history of forever. That's not a "negotiate down to half" type of punishment, that's a "laugh in their face and ask them to call you when they're ready to be serious" type of punishment.
Click to expand...

Careful stab - did he say that?

He definitely said negotiated down 50%.
I got the impression he meant that was 'holistically'.

So fines from 1M down to 300K... that's more than 50%. But maybe the draft picks didn't get negotiated down as much (maybe 3 years down to 2?). And he summarised the whole 'saving' as 50%?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The Adelaide Crows are not interested in the best man for the job, they want the right man for the job.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
 
Mr_Moogle said:
They should have known Tippett would walk. He was living in a small unit in Glenelg. My buddy whose a plumber worked at his place. He told me it screamed temporary accommodation. I knew then he was likely to leave. For some reason the Crows couldn't figure it out.
Click to expand...


Wait, wasn't his house on Better Homes & Gardens? Or was that someone else?
 
Allefgib said:
Careful stab - did he say that?

He definitely said negotiated down 50%.
I got the impression he meant that was 'holistically'.

So fines from 1M down to 300K... that's more than 50%. But maybe the draft picks didn't get negotiated down as much (maybe 3 years down to 2?). And he summarised the whole 'saving' as 50%?
Click to expand...

That's the way I interpreted it as well.

Which is why I would love to know exactly what the proposed draft sanctions were as I dont believe for a second it would have been four years. It's been widely noted that the sanctions imposed on Carlton in retrospect were way too extreme, there's no way that the AFL would go one step further and take a club's first two picks away for four consecutive years for a lesser incident.

Sadly if the club did take a bigger whack with draft sanctions to lessen the fine and save Trigg's hide they'll never come out and tell us.
 
Allefgib said:
Careful stab - did he say that?

He definitely said negotiated down 50%.
I got the impression he meant that was 'holistically'.

So fines from 1M down to 300K... that's more than 50%. But maybe the draft picks didn't get negotiated down as much (maybe 3 years down to 2?). And he summarised the whole 'saving' as 50%?
Click to expand...

I don't have a transcript or anything, but I'm pretty sure that was what he said in one of the recent radio calls he made. I remember those words well. 1 million, four years, sackings.

Admittedly he didn't say specifically what form the four years worth of draft sanctions would take. And I think he said "three or four years" but that's only from memory.

Also from memory he said "sackings" rather than specifically that it would be Trigg and Harper that would be sacked, but I think that's a fair guess for what he meant.

The interview is probably on 5AA somewhere. I might be wrong but that's how I remember it. At the time I remember thinking "what does negotiated to less than half mean precisely?" and then it was almost immediately answered.
 
Cleric said:
So when the situation doesnt change Jenny will get on this forum and defend Triggy for his decision not to give members proper voting rights.
Click to expand...


Absolutely not. As soon as the licence is in our hands, I expect them to change to a member voted board. If they don't I will be along side every one of you in condemning the move.
 
cmndstab said:
I don't have a transcript or anything, but I'm pretty sure that was what he said in one of the recent radio calls he made. I remember those words well. 1 million, four years, sackings.

Admittedly he didn't say specifically what form the four years worth of draft sanctions would take. And I think he said "three or four years" but that's only from memory.

Also from memory he said "sackings" rather than specifically that it would be Trigg and Harper that would be sacked, but I think that's a fair guess for what he meant.

The interview is probably on 5AA somewhere. I might be wrong but that's how I remember it. At the time I remember thinking "what does negotiated to less than half mean precisely?" and then it was almost immediately answered.
Click to expand...


That's what I've been told too Stabby. As our wrong doings involved potential draft tampering, I believe our punishment was in line with the act (ie. harsher on draft penalties) than say Essendon, who did nothing to affect the draft in any way. For them to lose premiership points AND draft penalties is massive. I know some feel their penalties were light on, but if you reference it being purely against the poor governance charges (rather than anything to do with the substances given - which I believe will be addressed by ASADA at a later date) then their penalties were very harsh. Melbourne have had shit governance for years, and they have never been penalised for it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

relapse said:
I would still love to know what the original penalites were ...........

Just imagine if the original offer was to only lose draft picks from 2012 and for Trigg to be sacked and we instead negotiated to take a far bigger draft hit in order to retain Trigg :eek:
Click to expand...

I think you can be fairly confident that the above is exactly what happened.
 
cmndstab said:
I don't have a transcript or anything, but I'm pretty sure that was what he said in one of the recent radio calls he made. I remember those words well. 1 million, four years, sackings.

Admittedly he didn't say specifically what form the four years worth of draft sanctions would take. And I think he said "three or four years" but that's only from memory.

Also from memory he said "sackings" rather than specifically that it would be Trigg and Harper that would be sacked, but I think that's a fair guess for what he meant.

The interview is probably on 5AA somewhere. I might be wrong but that's how I remember it. At the time I remember thinking "what does negotiated to less than half mean precisely?" and then it was almost immediately answered.
Click to expand...
1 million was defiantly mentioned along with sackings and it was 3 or 4 years draft picks
 
jenny61_99 said:
That's what I've been told too Stabby. As our wrong doings involved potential draft tampering, I believe our punishment was in line with the act (ie. harsher on draft penalties) than say Essendon, who did nothing to affect the draft in any way. For them to lose premiership points AND draft penalties is massive. I know some feel their penalties were light on, but if you reference it being purely against the poor governance charges (rather than anything to do with the substances given - which I believe will be addressed by ASADA at a later date) then their penalties were very harsh. Melbourne have had shit governance for years, and they have never been penalised for it.
Click to expand...

Ah fair enough.

I'd not heard the explicit 4 years of picks before. Just the general negotiated down 50% less (context sounding holistic).

That would have killed any club - surprised they even put it up.

Having said that - if AFL had asked us to be clear previously.. and we hand't.. I would smash us as well.
 
jenny61_99 said:
Triggy has talked about it often (that this is something we are working towards). So I believe it will happen.
Click to expand...

'towards'? it will start off that they will maintain the status quo while bedding down the Adelaide oval move and change in license ownership. then it will be, "well, what do you know, we've being rolling along so well under the new license regime without a member elected board that it just doesn't make any sense to implement change just for the sake of it".
 
Allefgib said:
Having said that - if AFL had asked us to be clear previously.. and we hand't.. I would smash us as well.
Click to expand...

Don't know about that. If it were the case that Trigg and Harper kept it hidden from the rest of the board, I'd smash them.

If the AFL felt the board knew and kept it under wraps, then yep - smash the club.
 
cmndstab said:
According to Chapman, the original penalties were the sacking of Trigg and Harper, $1M in fines and four years of draft sanctions!

Which would have been the most absurd punishment ever handed down by any judiciary body in the history of forever. That's not a "negotiate down to half" type of punishment, that's a "laugh in their face and ask them to call you when they're ready to be serious" type of punishment.
Click to expand...

The cynical might say that is so ludicrous as to not be believable.
 
After going to the AGM the past few years, I'm not confident at all that the members will gain voting rights.

The club is trying to get the licence in their hands and once this happens, they will change the constitution to follow the voting rights if the Gold Coast and the GWS.

That's the new way of AFL governance and members won't have the ability to vote in or vote out the entire board. Just a select few representatives.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Opinion Rob Chapman

Similar threads

Rory Walkerfield
2nds How low is the ROB / Strachan Replacement Bar?
Replies
13
Views
557
GrommoT
GrommoT

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top