Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[scottwade]

How does that work, when compared to para 4.4.3:

The date in this case would be Nov 13th, as per my previous email.

I'm not having a go at you.. I'm trying to make head or tail out of the seemingly contradictory information in the AFL Player Rules document.

I am positive the AFL changed the list lodgements years ago, to allow players coming out of contract to nominate for both the ND and the PSD, where under the previous rules they were only able to nominate for the PSD. How else did Luke Ball end up in the ND?

Fully agree it appears contradictory, but it appears a somewhat catch all clause, whereas clause 4.5.1 states explicitly

(b) the Player must not be bound to an AFL Club;

so I'm more inclined to go with that, particularly as they specifically use the term 'bound', rather than contracted.

Luke Ball was actually delisted by St Kilda prior to the ND;
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/87096/default.aspx

ST KILDA has given itself four picks in the 2009 NAB AFL Draft, with their official second list lodgement confirming the departure of former skipper Luke Ball and the delisting of defender Leigh Fisher.

The Saints have picks 32 and 60, with the lower picks yet to be confirmed as they are dependent on what other clubs do.

The club has officially delisted Ball, after his decision earlier this week to put himself into the draft

Although again there is the sting in the tail;
"...after his decision earlier this week to put himself into the draft.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Let's not split hairs. He's saying that you won it this year, so therefore you have a good enough squad to win next year. Unfortunately elite sport doesn't work that way - you either continue to improve, or you get left behind, and fast.

So you are saying we can't improve if we don't add Tippett to our list? Sorry but as much as you wish we needed Tippett, it's just not true.

 

[db swannie]

Reid will be an absolute monster soon enough.

I agree. The club has worked carefully with him, not wanting him to put on too much bulk too quickly. I think everyone recognizes once he's physically a bit stronger he will become a gun CHF of the comp.

 

[Gary17]

The big question that should be dominating your board is how you're going to replace him. Lose a KPP and you still expect to finish top 4 without trying to bring in some additional talent

No we don't. You might like to check out some of the posts in this thread, the Big Lewie thread and the Angus Graham thread, where there is much discussion about the relative merits of Johnstone, Lynch, White, Graham, Jenkins and McKernan as possible replacements.

 

[AndrewJo]

Can anyone help me?
How do you copy and paste a previous comment or post using an Android Keyboard (Toshiba Tablet)?

Thanks in eager anticipation.

I'm an oldie so I just put the tablet down and trot across to the PC....

 

[jenny61_99]

No they don't.
Any club must merely meet the player's nominated terms;
4.5.2 Nominated Football Payments
4.5.2.1 Offer and acceptance
(a) A Player, (other than a first year draft choice Player or
such a Player in his second year), may specify in the
nomination lodged pursuant to Rule 4.4.3 the Football
Payments which he will require if he is selected at a Draft
Selection Meeting.
(b) By so specifying the Football Payments he will require,
the Player shall be taken to have made an offer to the
Club which selects him at a Draft Selection Meeting, to
accept employment in return for the Football Payments so
specified.
(c) The Club which selects a Player who has specified the
Football Payments which he will require shall be deemed
to have accepted the offer set out in (b) above.
(d) Immediately following the Draft Selection Meeting, the
Player and the Club to whom (c) above applies, shall
execute a Contract of Service providing for the Football
Payments specified by the Player in accordance with (a)
above.
(e) If a Player nominates his Football Payments he must do
so for a minimum period of two years.

There is nothing in those clauses which prohibits a player nominating a four year contract term with specific amounts for each year, if he should so choose.
A similar clause exists for the PSD;
5.3 Nominated Football Payments
A Player (other than a first year draft choice Player or such a player in his
second year), nominating for the Pre-Season Draft may specify in his
nomination the Football Payments which he will require if he is drafted. The
provisions of Rule 4.5.2 will apply to any Player wishing to so nominate to any
Club which selects him at a Pre-Season Draft Selection Meeting.

BUT THE POINT IS - if Sydney have to pay him a lesser amount in year 1, that's the amount he must put in his nomination. There are clubs out there that will be able to afford him at the amount Sydney has offered, particularly if they can similarly back end the contract.

 

[Schulzycrow]

Yep - could well be.

Of course, it is irrelevant. The Swans need to be able to pay the average of the contract next year. There seems substangtial doubt they can do that.

Course it is...I had written more then deleted it thinking what's the point some other Sydney poster will come with the same argument in a couple of pages time.

 

[AndrewJo]

Reid will be an absolute monster soon enough.

You had me worried for a moment.I was skim reading and just read the last line and thought...What has Jon Reid done that will make him a monster???????

 

[Vader]

Here's a couple of other quotes, from official AFL documents.
Taken from The AFL Draft Book, pg9.

Nomination by Uncontracted Player
A player on the list of an AFL Club who is not contracted on or before October 31 for the following year/s will be entitled to nominate for the National Draft.

That's pretty unequivocal. Tippett can nominate for the ND, should he choose to do so - despite being "bound" to the Adelaide Football Club until the conclusion of the ND.

As for your assertion that he can nominate different payments for each year.. I can't see anything that supports this argument. Neither can I see anything that contradicts it. Let's assume, for now, that it's true.

• We know from Ireland's statements that Tippett's salary in the first year of his contract is less than what Adelaide offered.
• We know from Brisbane's CEO (?) statements that Sydney's offer was far greater than anything Brisbane could afford - and their offer was widely quoted as being in the vicinity of $750k per year.
• We know that Sydney have a number of players who will probably retire at the end of 2013. Their retirements would free up a lot of room in the salary cap.

What we can reasonably imply from these facts are that Sydney's overall offer is in the vicinity of $4M over the duration of the 4-year contract, but they are unable to offer him more than $650-750k in 2013. The bulk of the contract would be backloaded into 2015 & 2016, when the likes of Goodes, ROK & Bolton would all be retired.

If we assume that Tippett's salary demands match Sydney's offer, then the most he can specify for 2013 is that $650-750k that Sydney can afford. I think it is quite reasonable to assume that there are several clubs - most notably GWS and Carlton, who are capable of matching these terms, should Tippett end up in the ND or PSD.

If worst comes to worst - and he demands out after 12 months at his new club - then they are in the position of trading a player who is almost literally worth his weight in gold, who still has 3 years remaining on his contract. The only catch is that the contract would be for an average of $1.1M per year, so the number of buyers might be a bit on the low side.

 

[Vader]

Fully agree it appears contradictory, but it appears a somewhat catch all clause, whereas clause 4.5.1 states explicitly

(b) the Player must not be bound to an AFL Club;

so I'm more inclined to go with that, particularly as they specifically use the term 'bound', rather than contracted.

Luke Ball was actually delisted by St Kilda prior to the ND;
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/87096/default.aspx


Although again there is the sting in the tail;
"...after his decision earlier this week to put himself into the draft.

As you've shown, Luke Ball was able to nominate for the draft whilst still on St Kilda's list. This accords with the statement in the AFL Draft Book which I quoted just before - "A player on the list of an AFL Club who is not contracted on or before October 31 for the following year/s will be entitled to nominate for the National Draft."

I think it's safe to say that Tippett will have his choice of drafts, should he not be traded by COB on Friday - and should he not decide to re-sign with Adelaide (as Bolton did with you guys several years ago).

 

[Gary17]

So you are saying we can't improve if we don't add Tippett to our list? Sorry but as much as you wish we needed Tippett, it's just not true.

He's saying that adding Tippett will improve your list, which of course is completely different to saying you can't improve if you don't add him. No one's saying you need him, just that - like all teams - you need to improve, and getting Tippett is one way to do that.

 

[Cap]

I agree. The club has worked carefully with him, not wanting him to put on too much bulk too quickly. I think everyone assumes once he's physically a bit stronger he will become a gun CHF of the comp.

EFA

He won't be as good as Walker by the way

 

[bjn1960]

Andrew - unfortunatelty, my pc is upstairs in my office and the tablet is downstairs, at the kitchen table.
Perhaps I should go on a diet and the problem will be solved.

 

[WAG]

God I hate him

I just threw up in my mouth.

 

[Mattrox]

If this deal is not done, a flurry of delisting would indicate something.

 

[AndrewJo]

Had a bit of time on my hands and thought I'd look at Picks 23 and 54. In theory they would be the different drafts if Sydney gave us pick 23 or we sent Kurt to the draft and had to use our current Pick 2 which is 54.
Pick 23 is the first named.
2011 :Murray Newman or James Sellar.
2010 : Cameron Guthrie or Jordan Schroder
2009 : Koby Stevens or Byron Sumner
2008: David Zaharakis or Jarrad Redden.
2007: Tayte Pears or Cale Hooker
2006: Paul Stewart or Matt Tyler
2005: Ryan Cook or Kristin Thornton
2004: Sean Rusling or Stephen Tiller
2003: Matthew Moody or Pick 55 as Pick 54 Not Used :Sam Fisher
2002: Tom Lonergan or Cameron Hunter.

Apart from a couple of class players this shows that you need a much lower first round pick or it doesn't really matter what pick you have. So my message is a pick lower than 14 or PSD unless a pick can engineer a trade for a current player like GHS.

 

[db swannie]

EFA

He won't be as good as Walker by the way

Maybe, maybe not. Walker is awesome, my favourite Crows player.

 

[Tex200]

I know bashing Rucci is a sport we all enjoy, however Ive no issue with his most recent article and in fact it is a sobering point.

There is clearly a huge wave of public opnion for Tippett to go in the draft and I think Rucci simply looks at the decision which confronts the AFC. If we do send him off for nothing then we are effectively left with 1 draft pick following the Graham trade.

Its a horrible trade but 20 and 23 looks better entering the draft than 20 and whatever out third rounder is 50's or 60's im guessing.

Not saying its right or wrong simply suggesting it was a reasonable article given the public is baying for the draft.

 

[Iva Bigun]

My first marriage was shorter than this thread and only marginally more painful.

Seems to me that both clubs are seeing who's got the bigger Dick the problem is there is only 1 Dick and he used to play forward for the Crows

 

[The Crows Truth]

Agreed - hence I wonder what the enforceability of any agreement is. I reckon that's why we've been waiting for Triggy to get back before real progress and hard decisions can be made.

There is some sort of agreement here IMO. Rowey, Harpers statements and Nobles avoidance Of the subject support this view.
It's in writing but not the main standard AFL contract. It states the crows will trade Tippett back "home" if he chooses. Crows are arguing home is QLD, Bulcher as per statement when $Kurt chose swans is that Sydney is home(town/birthplace).

Perhaps it's a legal definition issue?

 

[SydCrow]

If we have nothing better on the table Friday afternoon, I say take #23. Until then, we shop around and tell Sydney we'll get back to them.

 

[AndrewJo]

I know bashing Rucci is a sport we all enjoy, however Ive no issue with his most recent article and in fact it is a sobering point.

There is clearly a huge wave of public opnion for Tippett to go in the draft and I think Rucci simply looks at the decision which confronts the AFC. If we do send him off for nothing then we are effectively left with 1 draft pick following the Graham trade.

Its a horrible trade but 20 and 23 looks better entering the draft than 20 and whatever out third rounder is 50's or 60's im guessing.

Not saying its right or wrong simply suggesting it was a reasonable article given the public is baying for the draft.

See my rebuttal on Post 12486. Not a great deal of difference between 23 and 54...

 

[SydCrow]

There is some sort of agreement here IMO. Rowey, Harpers statements and Nobles avoidance Of the subject support this view.
It's in writing but not the main standard AFL contract. It states the crows will trade Tippett back "home" if he chooses. Crows are arguing home is QLD, Bulcher as per statement when $Kurt chose swans is that Sydney is home(town/birthplace).

Perhaps it's a legal definition issue?

The tricky legal point is whether we can "agree" to let him go to the draft to be picked up by a club other than Sydney (GWS or GC seem to be the only realistic options) in return for a draft pick. Or is this tampering?

 

[Mattrox]

I know bashing Rucci is a sport we all enjoy, however Ive no issue with his most recent article and in fact it is a sobering point.

There is clearly a huge wave of public opnion for Tippett to go in the draft and I think Rucci simply looks at the decision which confronts the AFC. If we do send him off for nothing then we are effectively left with 1 draft pick following the Graham trade.

Its a horrible trade but 20 and 23 looks better entering the draft than 20 and whatever out third rounder is 50's or 60's im guessing.

Not saying its right or wrong simply suggesting it was a reasonable article given the public is baying for the draft.

It's a reasonable analysis of one side of the argument. But as a journalist shouldn't he be getting an AFC perspective of their list management. He doesn't dig deep enough into Noble's comments on Friday about Adelaide only needing one pick. The first paragraph is a fluff piece. No one will object but he is relying on people to do little or no analysis of AFC's actual needs in the coming draft.

Also, his statement about Adelaide persuing White is misleading in the context of a trade.

 

[King Elvis]

If we have nothing better on the table Friday afternoon, I say take #23. Until then, we shop around and tell Sydney we'll get back to them.

No way.

Hold our nerve, then capitulate at the last minute?

We'd be a joke, and would get walked all over in the future.