Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[Damp Squarie]

Imagine how tainted our flag would have looked now if we got into and won the GF.
Cousins-like

 

[Crow-eater]

Now we need the AFL's punishment for Muppet to be he cant nominate a salary, and he'll be partying in orange next year

 

[Geoffa32]

I wonder how fearfull the AFL are of Tip snr taking the AFL to court if his son does not end up at Sydney if he goes to the draft.



AFL will ensure no other club picks him........

 

[WaynesWorld19]

What gives me the irates is ...we were primed for a Golden period

Likely to get good draft picks for Tippett, $800K spare in salary cap, Crouch coming in .....and now we have this hanging over our heads and nothing for Tippett an no trades to speak off.

I have gone from extreme optimism to .........well don't know how i feel ATM .....angry

 

[Mismatched]

Wonder if the extra deal was some sort of financial guarantee about the price KT received for his property in Adelaide. To be an exit clause it has to be something like this to make sense.

Either that or to cover relocation costs or something, but the sounds in itself isn't something that is too bad and would have been all okay, just that we didn't disclose it to the AFL.

 

[Gets!]

I wish KT never came into the halls of the AFC. Absolute waste of space. Him and his father can get ****ed. And Triggy you can too...wtf.

 

[Nesqua]

Can sydney afford tippet if they cant get rid of white?
White was linked to crows and brisb but if they dont want him anymore wonder what will happen.

So Kurt has screwed the Crows, potentially screwed Joel's chances of being drafted and possibly screwed White over into the bargain.....so all round good guy who'd fit in perfectly in any TEAM!

 

[FullyBigKPro]

What gives me the irates is ...we were primed for a Golden period

Likely to get good draft picks for Tippett, $800K spare in salary cap, Crouch coming in .....and now we have this hanging over our heads and nothing for Tippett an no trades to speak off.

I have gone from extreme optimism to .........well don't know how i feel ATM .....angry

THIS.

It truly is the biggest act of incompetence in the clubs history.

We will all look back on this and see how the likes of Dawes/Lee/Hickey et al, all went for picks 20 and higher yet we are looking to not only get nothing, but a sullied reputation.

Incredible.

 

[Draft Bored]

THIS.

It truly is the biggest act of incompetence in the clubs history.

We will all look back on this and see how the likes of Dawes/Lee/Hickey et al, all went for picks 20 and higher yet we are looking to not only get nothing, but a sullied reputation.

Incredible.

You are acting like we've been penalised harder then Carlton! Take a step back and wait for a verdict. Even if they take away our draft picks for the next 2 years it wont affect our starting lineup.

I'm still massively confident for the next 2 years! Might be tough in 2015 and 2016 though if we lose picks.

 

[boffo]

Wonder if the extra deal was some sort of financial guarantee about the price KT received for his property in Adelaide. To be an exit clause it has to be something like this to make sense.

This could actually be true, except Kurt (property developing family) would probably keep it as an investment.

You Carlton dudes sure are creative thinkers though (when it comes to deals).

 

[jt_mcleod]

What gives me the irates is ...we were primed for a Golden period

Likely to get good draft picks for Tippett, $800K spare in salary cap, Crouch coming in .....and now we have this hanging over our heads and nothing for Tippett an no trades to speak off.

I have gone from extreme optimism to .........well don't know how i feel ATM .....angry

feel like this?

 

[Mong]

Can anyone remember how we landed Brett Chambers?

I recall it being a trade but how?

Was he originally drafted by Collingwood, then the AFL investigated and found him guilt of draft tampering and then we traded for him?

I think you have it right although my memory is very hazy. What I do know is Chalmers was taken at number 10 in the 1992 draft and traded to Adelaide a year later in 1993 for Brenton Sanderson.

Wikipedia has him not playing any games for Collingwood in 93 so I suspect he was suspended for that entire season and forced by the AFL to leave Collingwood. I do remember something like that being the case but as I said my memory is very hazy.

Interestingly the Nathan Buckley situation in 1993 was allowed by the AFL.

From Wikipedia:

"In early 1992 struggling Australian Football League (AFL) club Brisbane Bears drafted him through its Northern Territory state zone. Buckley challenged the AFL draft system and sparked controversy by initially resisting a move to Brisbane. His dreams were to play in Melbourne due to its culture in the sport, therefore felt the Bears were an undesirable career option. However AFL draft rules prevented him from playing with another AFL club and so remained in the SANFL.
Buckley signed with the Bears for the 1993 AFL season as part of a deal between Buckley and the Bears that allowed him to go to the club of his choice the following season. Brisbane hoped his time in Queensland would be long enough to change his mind."

 

[BrissyCrow]

Why would they get any penalty ? Adelaide, Tippett and Blucher did the tampering 3 years ago. Sydney just made an offer to Tippett that could have been bettered by any other club.

Sydney would have been well informed by Blucher about the agreement. Knowing this and then trying to get a cheap trade makes them implicit of the whole saga.

 

[Mighty Chinook]

Vader

Here's my take on the Player Rules re draft tampering.

For convenience I'll post the relevant rules again:

“conduct prejudicial to the Draft” means conduct which has the purpose or has or is likely to have the effect of hindering, prejudicing, interfering with or preventing the natural operation of the Draft as provided for by these Rules and without limiting the foregoing, includes entering into, making or being a party to any agreement, arrangement, understanding, promise or undertaking, whether express or implied and whether or not enforceable or intended to be enforceable, or entering into or carrying out any scheme, plan, proposal, action, course of action or course of conduct:-

(d) whereby a Player or Players or Club shall become bound or obligated whether directly or indirectly to an exchange pursuant to Rule 4.3 or whereby a right is conferred on any Player pursuant to any contract, agreement, arrangement or understanding, to be exchanged to a Club or Clubs of his choice, at any time prior to the 15th day of October immediately preceding the date of the National Draft Selection Meeting, at which such exchange becomes or is intended to become effective.

Now it's all well and good to post these provisions and bold the bits you think support your "doom and gloom" premonitions, but we need to actually interpret and dissect these provisions to suit the current situation.

Now if I'm interpreting 17.1(d) literally, I'd say that "to be exchanged to a club or clubs or his choice" may refer to Player X having in his contract "at the conclusion of the contract, X will be traded to Collingwood" rather than "X will be traded to a club of his choice". The latter is the (supposed) clause in Tippett's side agreement.

Now you may disagree with this, but the fact of the matter is, 17.1(d) is not explicit on this point, and it is this confusion which may cause this investigation to drag on for a while. It doesn't provide any examples - and so it can be read either way, but I think this clause was designed to stop the Buckley situation, i.e. "Buckley is contracted for 1 year, yada yada, at the conclusion of which he shall be traded to Collingwood". Now THIS is draft tampering, as it is likely orchestrated just as much by Collingwood as it was Buckley. (BTW using that purely as a hypothetical, sort of...)

My other concern with 17.1(d) is that it is an outdated law in this age of footy. Think of all the players in the trade period this year who have “nominated” their club of the choice and forced their club to make a deal with that club. Whilst it is not a contractual agreement per se, the club still ‘confers a right on a player pursuant to an agreement or understanding to be exchanged to a club of clubs of his choice’. By that reckoning, the following clubs have engaged in “conduct prejudicial to the Draft” or DRAFT TAMPERING in the last 3 weeks:

• Western Bulldogs (Brian Lake)
• Collingwood (Sharrod Wellingham)
• Gold Coast (Josh Caddy, Tom Hickey)
• Probably many others that I can't think of

So even if the AFL believe that the Crows have taken part in "draft tampering" as far as the wording of 17.1(d) is concerned, they either punish us along with the abovementioned clubs, or they decide that this clause is archaic given the state of trading in AFL right now, and don't punish the Crows at all for this.
So the way I see it, we should not be punished for this, however the investigation seems to be inquisitorial rather than adversarial so I don't think the Crows or the Crow lawyers will have a chance to press our case. It is in the hands of the AFL now.
As for the possible salary cap situation, that is another story, and until more info comes to light it's a bit of a guessing game.

 

[Macca19]

Chalmers was banned from playing AFL for 12 months and banned from playing for Collingwood for a certain amount of time (might have been 3-4 years?) so they traded him to Adelaide for pick 34. He played for Port in 1993.

 

[Roo Lives Again]

I would prefer that if the Crows were going to tamper they did a better job of it.

This tampering scenario is to the Crows detriment. Which club would agree that they would trade a valued player for a second round draft pick.

There is no gain to this for Adelaide unlike the other tampering scenarios we had in past i.e Carlton



Sounds to me like this was demanded by the Tippets thus I don’t think Adelaide should bear the brunt of this. When you tamper with something you would think the outcome

Needs to be positive- the only ones with positive outcome was Kurt.



Secondly if the Crows paid for Joel Tippets relocation- what is wrong with this? he is a footballer in his own right and the Crows may have wanted to

Keep an eye on his progress. If it was another player there would be no issue. Plus when Tippo signed the contract extension that was 2009 and Joel

Was still on the Gold Coast list. Thus this is a totally independent matter and is a storm in a tea cup in my opinion made up by Rucci.

Forget the draft tampering allegation....this is about extra payments not put under the salary cap...that's what will heck us.....

 

[boffo]

Buckley signed with the Bears for the 1993 AFL season as part of a deal between Buckley and the Bears that allowed him to go to the club of his choice the following season. Brisbane hoped his time in Queensland would be long enough to change his mind."

This is the nearest there is to a precedent.

But we all know the AFL makes it up as they go along - who are they accountable to? - and could do anything or nothing to us.

 

[Macca19]

hope port pick him up

If we couldnt afford to pay Pearce $450k a year I dont see how we'd be able to afford to pay him his ridiculous salary demands

 

[Roo Lives Again]

Vader

Here's my take on the Player Rules re draft tampering.

For convenience I'll post the relevant rules again:

“conduct prejudicial to the Draft”means conduct which has the purpose or has or is likely to have the effect of hindering, prejudicing, interfering with or preventing the natural operation of the Draft as provided for by these Rules and without limiting the foregoing, includes entering into, making or being a party to any agreement, arrangement, understanding, promise or undertaking, whether express or implied and whether or not enforceable or intended to be enforceable, or entering into or carrying out any scheme, plan, proposal, action, course of action or course of conduct:-

(d) whereby a Player or Players or Club shall become bound or obligated whether directly or indirectly to an exchange pursuant to Rule 4.3 or whereby a right is conferred on any Player pursuant to any contract, agreement, arrangement or understanding, to be exchanged to a Club or Clubs of his choice, at any time prior to the 15th day of October immediately preceding the date of the National Draft Selection Meeting, at which such exchange becomes or is intended to become effective.

Now it's all well and good to post these provisions and bold the bits you think support your "doom and gloom" premonitions, but we need to actually interpret and dissect these provisions to suit the current situation.

Now if I'm interpreting 17.1(d) literally, I'd say that "to be exchanged to a club or clubs or his choice" may refer to Player X having in his contract "at the conclusion of the contract, X will be traded to Collingwood" rather than "X will be traded to a club of his choice". The latter is the (supposed) clause in Tippett's side agreement.

Now you may disagree with this, but the fact of the matter is, 17.1(d) is not explicit on this point, and it is this confusion which may cause this investigation to drag on for a while. It doesn't provide any examples - and so it can be read either way, but I think this clause was designed to stop the Buckley situation, i.e. "Buckley is contracted for 1 year, yada yada, at the conclusion of which he shall be traded to Collingwood". Now THIS is draft tampering, as it is likely orchestrated just as much by Collingwood as it was Buckley. (BTW using that purely as a hypothetical, sort of...)

My other concern with 17.1(d) is that it is an outdated law in this age of footy. Think of all the players in the trade period this year who have “nominated” their club of the choice and forced their club to make a deal with that club. Whilst it is not a contractual agreement per se, the club still ‘confers a right on a player pursuant to an agreement or understanding to be exchanged to a club of clubs of his choice’. By that reckoning, the following clubs have engaged in “conduct prejudicial to the Draft” or DRAFT TAMPERING in the last 3 weeks:

• Western Bulldogs (Brian Lake)
• Collingwood (Sharrod Wellingham)
• Gold Coast (Josh Caddy, Tom Hickey)
• Probably many others that I can't think of

So even if the AFL believe that the Crows have taken part in "draft tampering" as far as the wording of 17.1(d) is concerned, they either punish us along with the abovementioned clubs, or they decide that this clause is archaic given the state of trading in AFL right now, and don't punish the Crows at all for this.

So the way I see it, we should not be punished for this, however the investigation seems to be inquisitorial rather than adversarial so I don't think the Crows or the Crow lawyers will have a chance to press our case. It is in the hands of the AFL now.
As for the possible salary cap situation, that is another story, and until more info comes to light it's a bit of a guessing game.

sigh....people aren't listening....FORGET THE DRAFT TAMPERING

a bonus payment was paid to Tippett at the completion of his contract....it hasn't been declared towards the salary cap...the AFL are going through Tippett's bank records and verifying the money and the source of that money....this is the problem....

 

[DJ75]

So let me see if I have this right;

1. Gold Coast enter the comp and take our CHB
2. GWS enter the comp and take our CHB whilst we are asleep
3. In a panic over 1. and 2. we do everything possible to sign Kurt Tippett, a man who has made it clear he wants out and soon
4. We overpay Kurt on his contract, agree to trade him at the end of his contract for less than market worth AND make third party payment promises along with a bonus good-bye payment
5. We don't lodge the 3rd party payments because we know they are illegal
6. We consistently deny any knowledge of an additional deal
7. Kurt plays average for 2 years
8. Brisbane offer a good draft pick for Kurt - we decline
9. Sack the best recruiter in the because of an interpretation of what was said in a private conversation
10. Kurt puts all negotiations on hold
11. Kurt wants out - we are shocked
12. We begin trade negotiations with his desired destination (and then it gets a bit murkier)
13. We screw around for two weeks while our CEO is on holidays
14. The sh!t hits the fan
15. We are exposed as having a second contract the whole time, with illegal 3rd party promises
16. We don't pay 3rd party promises and renege on the deal
17. Tippet's father sues us for failure to make all promised payments and agreements
18. We come clean to the AFL and claim we have always been good boys and didn't mean it

Does that sound right?
So effectively our management has:

1. Lost 2 All-Australian calibre CHB's
2. Sold our soul signing the worst deal in football
3. Reneged on our promises
4. Ensured that no future players or managers are ever going to trust us again
5. Damaged our brand beyond anything that has ever happened before
6. Owned up to the boss well after the horse had bolted
7. Ensured that not only is our recruiting department weakened, but they have no picks to work with
8. Strengthened two of our rivals significantly (Collingwood and most likely Sydney)
9. Achieved nothing in the draft period
10. Ensured what looked like a possible golden era is going to be well and truly screwed through lack of draft picks
11. And in all likelyhood made it nearly impossible for us to keep Dangerfield, Sloane, Crouch etc... come their next contract negotiations - hence future is screwed as well

Yeh I'm thrilled with how this has all worked out. Management is doing a terrific job, nothing to see here.
Bloody hell.

 

[Stiffy_18]

So the AFL forensics are coming to Adelaide to examine paperwork and computers. Triggy is screwed as his secret stash of pr0n featuring Sienna Milano will be exposed

 

[DJ75]

So the AFL forensics are coming to Adelaide to examine paperwork and computers. Triggy is screwed as his secret stash of pr0n featuring Sienna Milano will be exposed

We all have that....

 

[Woodie99]

Sydney would have been well informed by Blucher about the agreement. Knowing this and then trying to get a cheap trade makes them implicit of the whole saga.

Using that logic, so would GC & Bris who also offered hm a deal, he just choose Syd.

 

[Nesqua]

Using that logic, so would GC & Bris who also offered hm a deal, he just choose Syd.

I'd hazard a guess that since Blucher is a mate of the CEO from Sydney, that information was for his ears only, and GC and Bris weren't privy to it

 

[Roo Lives Again]

Using that logic, so would GC & Bris who also offered hm a deal, he just choose Syd.

it looks like GC are also trying to manipulate things thinking Tiprat might end up in the pre-season draft if things blow up in the Crows face...

"Trigg's decision to hand the document to the AFL on Friday appears to have been triggered, in part, by rival AFL club Gold Coast becoming aware of Tippett's letter of arrangement with the Crows and seeking AFL scrutiny of the 2009 document"