Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[WaynesWorld19]

Some people are presuming that the AFL was not informed of Kurt's third party arrangements. I don't believe that to be the case (Did the AFL think his Balfours ads were a charity event?). There is also a cap for third party arrangements for clubs but it is very unlikely that we breached this cap.

The most likely scenario is that we guaranteed to top up his income if he didn't achieve the required $100,000 p.a. for the last 2 years of his contract extension. He received the $200K from sponsors and we duly sent this

Spot on ......nothing to get into trouble on ......completely different to how media are presenting it though, and they have the same info but it's boring to report the facts .......they need to dramatize the situation for readership

 

[Vader]

I thought that it was mandatory for every club to have at least three picks which can all be upgrades? Can we upgrade rookies without using picks in the ND? Could be wrong.

Yes, that's the AFL rule - 3 mandatory selections.

No, we can't upgrade rookies without using picks in the ND, since the AFL made this the mechanism for their upgrade 2 years ago.

This is why the whole suggestion of us being banned from the draft is ludicrous. They might ban us from the early rounds, but there's no way on earth that we'll be banned from the draft entirely.

 

[Dr B]

Correct ....that's what i have said all along

But it would appear that we failed to report all of the payments we made.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

I sincerely doubt that we'll be banned from the draft entirely. Most likely we will be banned from the first one or two rounds.

If we were to be banned entirely, then we wouldn't be able to upgrade any of our players (Crouch, Callinan) and we would be forced to go into 2013 with just 36 players on our senior list - which is in itself a breach of the AFL rules.

Assuming we're banned from the first two rounds, I think it's likely that we'll upgrade Laird as well as Crouch & Callinan. We'll probably use that one last "live" selection, in R3 or whatever it is. That's my guess anyway.

I assume we'd still be able to participate in 2nd round of FA and PSD to fill list spots?

Highly doubt it would be total exclusion as you say, since we have to fill our list spots up.

Still doubt we'll have draft picks removed ......we've already suffered a big penalty in not being allowed to trade Tippett

 

[skoobydoo]

Yes, it does constitute draft tampering. The AFL Player Rules document is very clear about what constitutes "conduct prejudicial to the draft" and Adelaide's agreement to trade him for a 2nd round pick meets that definition.

No breach, provided that all of these payments were duly reported by KT, as per rule 10.4.1 in the Player Rules document.

The issue is not the commitment, it's the AFC's failure to disclose/report the commitment when lodging their TPP papers.

Then it follows that if all of this would have/did fit within the salary cap, then the AFC's motive for 'non disclosure' must have been to keep the information from the other contracted players. What else could it have been? Surely not a sensitivity to the football public over the total exhorbitant dollars being paid to Tippett? We had the space and the money! Or am I missing something here?

 

[macca23]

Some people are presuming that the AFL was not informed of Kurt's third party arrangements. I don't believe that to be the case (Did the AFL think his Balfours ads were a charity event?). There is also a cap for third party arrangements for clubs but it is very unlikely that we breached this cap.

The most likely scenario is that we guaranteed to top up his income if he didn't achieve the required $100,000 p.a. for the last 2 years of his contract extension. He received the $200K from sponsors and we duly sent this information to the AFL hence believing that all was sweet.

Excellent point AFGM and one which I totally endorse. Kurt's TV profile was large and it was only too obvious that he would have been earning money from it. As we now know, money is his god, and he should have comfortably exceeded the 3rd party minimum that we appear to have guaranteed. If all of this is as we are both assuming it to be, then there are no breaches of the salary cap involved in this area.

The bigger issue, which hasn't come out yet, is the nature of the no disadvantage clause in the "agreement". Kurt was on the final year of his contract in 2010 and could then move to the Gold Coast at the end of 2010 to become one of their marquis players. Gold Coast were approaching their targets at the end of 2009 (e.g. Ablett) and were using the "loophole" in the rules to sign players to contracts for 2011 and beyond. Tippett didn't want to sign with the Crows for longer than 3 years but he also liked the idea of locking in the big bucks for the next 6 years. Not being a greedy type of lad he wanted the certainty of being able to "go home" at the end of 2012 if he so desired but also wanted to lock in an income of $4+million over the next 6 years. I wonder how he could achieve that?

Are you saying here that this was achieved by a contract with the Gold Coast, in line with your earlier confident predictions?

If so, how does this involve the Adelaide Football Club or is there something else that I haven't picked up on??

 

[WaynesWorld19]

But it would appear that we failed to report all of the payments we made.

Wrong ........media reports only based on "never let facts spoil a good story"

 

[Iva Bigun]

Memo to Gold Coast Council

Re: Tony Tippett

Might be a good idea to go back over every property deal TT has done. See if they are 100% ethical.

Look for secret agreements on the side, for approvals that went through ultra quickly, or applications that were opposed by residents but still went through to everyone's surprise. Give indemnity to staff and former staff who are willing to tell all.

Just a hunch.

It's the Gold Coast, development deals are as dodgy as well.........Crows management

 

[Dr B]

Excellent point AFGM and one which I totally endorse. Kurt's TV profile was large and it was only too obvious that he would have been earning money from it. As we now know, money is his god, and he should have comfortably exceeded the 3rd party minimum that we appear to have guaranteed. If all of this is as we are both assuming it to be, then there are no breaches of the salary cap involved in this area.

It is NOT a 3rd party agreement if we "guaranteed" payment. The moment we guaranteed the payment it needed to be included in his contract and on our TPP.

It is of no relevance to the afl in this situation who KT gets the money from. Once we guaranteed it, the afl considers it as payment from us.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Excellent point AFGM and one which I totally endorse. Kurt's TV profile was large and it was only too obvious that he would have been earning money from it. As we now know, money is his god, and he should have comfortably exceeded the 3rd party minimum that we appear to have guaranteed. If all of this is as we are both assuming it to be, then there are no breaches of the salary cap involved in this area.

So Kurt didn't like the fishbowl of Adelaide but lived off it for $$$$$

So he replaces the media 3rd party contracts & $$$$$ with a larger Sydney contract and no media committments

Thats a lazy way or making the same $$$

 

[Dr B]

Wrong ........media reports only based on "never let facts spoil a good story"

Believe what you will. But you need to get an understanding of what a 3rd part agreement is.

Then when the afl whack us you will understand why.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

It is NOT a 3rd party agreement if we "guaranteed" payment. The moment we guaranteed the payment it needed to be included in his contract and on our TPP.

It is of no relevance to the afl in this situation who KT gets the money from. Once we guaranteed it, the afl considers it as payment from us.

you have some experience in this area?

The term used was the amount was underwritten .....think the media added guaranteed ....but who knows ATM as the exact words have been mudied

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Believe what you will. But you need to get an understanding of what a 3rd part agreement is.

Then when the afl whack us you will understand why.

I do

 

[Dr B]

you have some experience in this area?

The term used was the amount was underwritten .....think the media added guaranteed ....but who knows ATM as the exact words have been mudied

Brother is a solicitor. Has worked for two afl clubs. Everyone in the industry understands what underwriter or guaranteed means. And for us it is very very very bad news.

 

[Vader]

I disagree with you on this one.

What I think people are missing here is once we agreed to "guarantee the payment" it no longer becomes a third party agreement. A third party agreement is an agreement that KT and his manager organized themselves at arms length from the club without any involvement or guarantees from the club.

The moment the club "guarantees" something then it becomes part of his contract which the CLUB must declare. The only difference between this and his normal payments is the source of the money.

This is done by the afl to stop under the table payments.

We can not wait to see how much he gets paid and the include the difference we must include the whole amount guaranteed to him in the TPP that we report. In this case it would appear that we have failed to do this.

I am concerned that we could be liable to have to include all of the payments he received here because we declared nothing. And this could be any amount

Nowhere in the AFL Player Rules does it specify anything about these arrangements being done at "arms length" from the club. Here's the relevant quotes from the section on "Arrangements for Additional Services":

10.4 Arrangements for Additional Services
10.4.1 Notification of Additional Services Agreements
In the event that a Club, or any Associate of a Club makes or enters into any contract, agreement, arrangement or understanding, whether formal or informal, whether or not having any legal force or effect and whether by way of variation of an existing arrangement or otherwise:-
(a) to make a payment to a Player or to any Associate of a Player;
(b) to give or provide any consideration, advantage or benefit to a Player or any Associate of a Player; or
(c) to apply any payment, consideration, advantage or other benefit for a Player or any Associate of a Player
in consideration of the Player providing or supplying Additional Services to the Club or to an Associate of a Club (“the Arrangement”), then the Club shall within 28 days, (or such other period specified by the Investigations Manager), give written notification to the Investigations Manager of the Arrangement, setting out full and detailed particulars of the Arrangement and annexing any documents which record, evidence or give effect to the Arrangement.

10.4.3 Notification of Player Arrangements With An Associate of a Club Which Have No Connection With The Club Arrangement
In the event that an Associate of a Club makes or enters into any contract, agreement, arrangement or understanding, whether formal or informal, whether or not having any legal force or effect and whether by way of variation of an existing arrangement or otherwise which has no connection with the Club arrangement with the Associate of the Club:-
(a) to make a payment to a Player or to any Associate of a Player;
(b) to give or provide any consideration, advantage or benefit to a Player or any Associate of a Player; or
(c) to apply any payment, consideration, advantage or other benefit for a Player or any Associate of a Player
in consideration of the Player providing or supplying Additional Services to an Associate of a Club, the Player must:-
(a) submit all relevant details, as may reasonably be required, to the AFL General Manager - Football Operations; and
(b) notify the AFL Club of the general nature of the proposed arrangement,
prior to the date of the commencement of the commercial arrangement.
In the event that the AFL General Manager - Football Operations approves such commercial arrangement under clause 16.7 of the CBA, such approval shall apply for the term of that commercial arrangement.

10.4.7 Bona Fide Arrangements
Without limiting the matters to which the Investigations Manager may have regard in determining whether any Arrangement is bona fide, the Investigations Manager may have regard to the following matters:-
(a) whether the Arrangement is the subject of a signed agreement in writing;
(b) whether the Player is required to perform Additional Services personally, and whether he has done so; and
(c) whether in all the circumstances any fee, charge, payment, consideration, advantage or benefit provided under or in connection with the Arrangement is reasonable in the opinion of the Investigations Manager.
The Club, Player or Associate as the case may be, shall bear the burden of proving to the Investigations Manager that any Additional Services arrangements are bona fide and, without limitation, it shall be incumbent on any person seeking to establish the bona fides of an Arrangement that the fee paid or to be paid in respect of the Additional Services provided is a normal commercial fee relative to such Additional Services.

There is nothing there about the club having to be at arm's length from the payments. Indeed, most of these arrangements would be made through the club. As long as the AFL General Manager - Football Operations is satisfied that it's all above board, then that's all that is required.

 

[Iva Bigun]

Has anyone else noticed that the AFC only started to implode when I started posting on your board

Sorry guys

 

[Vader]

I assume we'd still be able to participate in 2nd round of FA and PSD to fill list spots?

Possibly.. depends upon the AFL's ruling.

Still doubt we'll have draft picks removed ......we've already suffered a big penalty in not being allowed to trade Tippett

I think it's fairly likely that we'll lose draft picks. Shouldn't be anywhere near as bad as what Carlton faced, given that they were repeat offenders who systematically rorted the salary cap. Our situation is a one-off, with a previously clean record.

 

[Dr B]

Nowhere in the AFL Player Rules does it specify anything about these arrangements being done at "arms length" from the club. Here's the relevant quotes from the section on "Arrangements for Additional Services":


There is nothing there about the club having to be at arm's length from the payments. Indeed, most of these arrangements would be made through the club. As long as the AFL General Manager - Football Operations is satisfied that it's all above board, then that's all that is required.

A third part agreement is meant to have NO involvement by the club. The afl and clubs require players to register all 3rd part deals because they are made without any input from them. The registering of them makes sure there is no clash of sponsors and it makes sure that the afl can see that they are bonafide deals. Not just a payment from a club sponsor to get around the TPP.

You will not find your answer in the player rules because they are to do with the club and the TPP.

As I said I have a brother who has worked in this field ( until 18 months ago ) and I checked this with him before posting.

If we guaranteed payment then it was NOT a 3rd party agreement.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Nowhere in the AFL Player Rules does it specify anything about these arrangements being done at "arms length" from the club. Here's the relevant quotes from the section on "Arrangements for Additional Services":

There is nothing there about the club having to be at arm's length from the payments. Indeed, most of these arrangements would be made through the club. As long as the AFL General Manager - Football Operations is satisfied that it's all above board, then that's all that is required.

The club would have to be involved .......what about conflicts of interest if Tippett had independantly organised a 3rd part agreement with a competitor of an AFL or Crows sponsor

 

[WaynesWorld19]

A third part agreement is meant to have NO involvement by the club. The afl and clubs require players to register all 3rd part deals because they are made without any input from them. The registering of them makes sure there is no clash of sponsors and it makes sure that the afl can see that they are bonafide deals. Not just a payment from a club sponsor to get around the TPP.

You will not find your answer in the player rules because they are to do with the club and the TPP.

As I said I have a brother who has worked in this field ( until 18 months ago ) and I checked this with him before posting.

If we guaranteed payment then it was NOT a 3rd party agreement.

Well put

Here's a question though ....was it the intent of the Crows to breach the TPP ?


Understanding that if the guaranteed payments had been included in the TPP we, as i understand, would still have been within our cap

 

[Dr B]

Well put

Here's a question though ....was it the intent of the Crows to breach the TPP ?


Understanding that if the guaranteed payments had been included in the TPP we, as i understand, would still have been within our cap

No

What we have to hope is that we would still be inside the TPP, and that AD liked the movie dumb and dumber.

Then we may be a chance

 

[Heres Waite]

Hey guys, I think that this whole 3rd party deal saga can potentially open up a can of worms.

Have a look at this article about Collingwood re-signing Travis Cloke.

www.sportsnewsfirst.com.au/articles/2012/09/25/cloke-set-to-stay-at-collingwood/




Cloke had balked at accepting a Pies deal that was understood to be for four seasons, while the premiership big man was insisting on at least five more years to potentially play out his career with Collingwood.
Cloke is now destined to play well past a 200-game milestone after 174 senior outings since his debut back in 2005.
It is believed Cloke's new contract includes attractive considerations for his life after football with the famous AFL outfit.

Makes you wonder how 'attractive' are these 'considerations', and whether these considerations have been declared to the AFL and have been signed of on. Are they included in the salary cap? Should they be?

 

[Tex200]

Has anyone else noticed that the AFC only started to implode when I started posting on your board

Sorry guys

Well you can put it all right by making sure GCS beat Sydney to the punch and draft tippett. It's the last small piece of enjoyment we can get.

 

[crow4life]

I found it interesting the AFL blocked the trade of Tippett on the last day but were happy to have trade deals for him tabled. I wonder if any interest was shown.

 

[A FEW GOOD MEN]

Are you saying here that this was achieved by a contract with the Gold Coast, in line with your earlier confident predictions?

If so, how does this involve the Adelaide Football Club or is there something else that I haven't picked up on??

I agree with Dr B that we have clearly breached the rules but our defence is likely to be

1) It was not our intention to break the rules, we're naive and dumb schmucks fro Adelaide

2) The outcome of our guarantees to Kurt could have been covered under the salary cap and did not eventuate so we didn't gain any advantage.

Unfortunately there may be one final twist in the tale. Essentially Blucher and Tippett wanted to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted a huge increase in Kurt's salary in 2010, a relatively short term deal with Adelaide (i.e. an additional two years) without giving up the long term security provided by a switch to Gold Coast in 2011. Our attempt to satisfy all of their requirements will be the key to our final punishment. The irony is that we will not be hung for what we did but more for what might have happened. (i.e. what would happen if no-one wanted Kurt at the end of 2012)