Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[1970crow]

I don't think we'll ever find out, but I'd love to hear from John Reid, Steven Trigg or even the Tippett camp how they expected to trade Tippett for a 2nd round pick and get away with it?

If he was as good as they were predicting to give him that contract, a 2nd round pick was never going to cut it.

And if he (the Tippett camp) insisted on a trade to the club of his choice, why they thought he would stay. Were they that stupid?

All round, it's a total stuff up and I'd love to know how anyone that incompetent can possibly expect to keep there job?

Incompetence doesn't limit itself to paid staff. It can be prevalent in the boardroom too. I like to say that there's no such thing as a bad gm/CEO, just the bad committee/board that keep them on.

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

Wow. He just manages to kick us in the guts over and over again. Some poor kid is going to have to pay the price for his greed and our incompetence.

Not convinced the age has this correct

 

[CrowCro]

I don't think we'll ever find out, but I'd love to hear from John Reid, Steven Trigg or even the Tippett camp how they expected to trade Tippett for a 2nd round pick and get away with it?

If he was as good as they were predicting to give him that contract, a 2nd round pick was never going to cut it.

And if he (the Tippett camp) insisted on a trade to the club of his choice, why they thought he would stay. Were they that stupid?

All round, it's a total stuff up and I'd love to know how anyone that incompetent can possibly expect to keep there job?

I think there is more too this - Lets wait and see

 

[Vader]

Ithoughn lieu of a pick you could use one to upgrade but a pick isn't required, just a spot on the list.

Since 2010 the ND has been the mechanism by which all players are moved to the senior list, including rookie upgrades. No access to the ND = no upgrades.

 

[Schulzycrow]

Kurtz Tippett the **** that keeps on giving. He is such a giver..

 

[Vader]

The draft can go for 11 rounds, if thats how many selections a club needs to balance out its list. It never does though.

We'll just use a pick in the "6th" round to upgrade Callinan. Even if we do lose picks 20 and 54, it won't matter as we also have picks 72, 90, 108, 126 etc.

Yep.. something that many people fail to understand. They seem to think that the draft ends at the 3rd or 4th round. It goes until all clubs have filled every vacancy on their senior list (or passed, leaving a space free for the PSD).

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

I think there is more too this - Lets wait and see

True but my comments were in relation to thinks we could control.

Like making a decision on when we could have traded Tippett and even offering him that contract with the second round pick.

You are correct, there is more to this but from out end - we haven't handled this well at all and if there was any doubt the cause of the issue layed with the Tippett camp they would have allowed us to trade him. Due to the fact the AFL didn't, simply suggest to me we are in some major trouble.

 

[cmndstab]

Not convinced the age has this correct

Neither am I. For starters, unless I misunderstand the system, Doughty leaving doesn't actually count towards a senior list change, right? But two veterans being included does.

Also, I thought nobody knew whether Crouch coming onto the list counted as a mandatory selection yet.

And if the investigation is completed by November 15 (with all indications that it will be) then we can delist him then anyway.

 

[Vader]

I agree that he is more likely than not to end up at Sydney, however I can not see how the afl can or would limit what he can earn. I also can't imagine the aflpa allowing it. I think that would be to make sure that there were no restrictive clauses in it to frighten away other teams.

What is likely to concern teams including the swans is if he is suspended. I think the afl will almost certainly have to suspend him for some period of time. Imagine if he is found to have done nothing wrong, how would the afl then explain not allowing him to be traded. It would leave them open to action from the Tippett camp.

The AFL limiting his minimum salary (as specified in his draft nomination form) would not restrict his ability to earn. There is nothing against the club who drafts him offering him more than the minimum he specified. By limiting his specified salary, the AFL would be opening him up to a whole heap of other clubs who might otherwise be priced out of the market.

 

[rayven]

Something we don't know.

It's like we know the sewage pipe is blocked, but we don't know yet what shit caused it, Nor do we know who is the plumber that is removing it.

 

[Vader]

Neither am I. For starters, unless I misunderstand the system, Doughty leaving doesn't actually count towards a senior list change, right? But two veterans being included does.

Also, I thought nobody knew whether Crouch coming onto the list counted as a mandatory selection yet.

And if the investigation is completed by November 15 (with all indications that it will be) then we can delist him then anyway.

We've had contradictory information on this from the start. Last year we were told that he wouldn't have to be upgraded via the ND. Then this year one of the other journalists said that he did.. now EQ says that he doesn't.

It makes sense that he doesn't, given that we traded for him, exchanging draft picks. Thus, he has effectively been through the ND already.

 

[A FEW GOOD MEN]

We've had contradictory information on this from the start. Last year we were told that he wouldn't have to be upgraded via the ND. Then this year one of the other journalists said that he did.. now EQ says that he doesn't.

It makes sense that he doesn't, given that we traded for him, exchanging draft picks. Thus, he has effectively been through the ND already.

Perhaps the AFL are looking for new and more innovative ways to screw the Crows. Prevent Crouch being placed on our list and put him back into the draft. Now that would really hurt

 

[Realslimshady2]

Yes they are acting as representatives of the club, in much the same way as Bulcher is acting as representative of Dipshitt and just as when a lawyer representing a client gets shafted in court, the client foots the punishment and the bill--> the onus is on the client not to select a Lionel Hutz as his/her Lawyer.

Semantics I suppose. Wish it wasnt like this.

But if Hutz is doing deals on the side then the client is not in any trouble.

 

[scottwade]

The AFL limiting his minimum salary (as specified in his draft nomination form) would not restrict his ability to earn. There is nothing against the club who drafts him offering him more than the minimum he specified. By limiting his specified salary, the AFL would be opening him up to a whole heap of other clubs who might otherwise be priced out of the market.

The rules are quite specific;
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.

What you are suggesting is that the AFL will change its rules to prevent one individual nominating the salary/terms he desires, whilst allowing all other players to nominate their chosen T&Cs.
So if Sydney have offered Tippett say $800k pa, your suggestion seems to be that the AFL says we will only allow you to nominate say $500k pa and if the club which selects you feels like paying you a bit more that is up to them.

You don't think the Courts might take a dim view of this?

 

[headache1]

Isn't it great to see the former Carlton administration people coming out of the woodwork and urging the AFL to be consistent in their rulings? So with that in mind, should we expect to get a slap on the wrist until we've been found to have exceeded the salary cap by $1.3m over 2 years?

In 2001, Carlton were fined $125,150, forfeited their second and third round picks in the 2001 National Draft and were excluded from the 2002 pre-season draft after it was found that they had failed to disclose payments totaling $239,900 to captain Craig Bradley and incorrectly lodged an additional services agreement document during the 1998 and 1999 seasons.

It would seem that of their many breaches, the above is the most similar to what we're currently being accused of. So, $125k fine and we keep pick 20? Cool, where do we sign?

 

[Roo Lives Again]

Not convinced the age has this correct

I was so 'dissappointed' with Emma....um ah um I don't know....Quayle's interview on 5AA and constantly reading how Adelaide 'MUST' lose draft picks and "MUST' be punished (pushing their agenda so the AFL has no choice) that I've stopped reading THE AGE....

I did however catch Gerald Whateley's comments on the Tippett saga on 'Offsiders' this morning and I trust his judgement. If anyone wants to know the difference between a real journalist and a pretend one then look no further than Whateley. If you asked Whateley a question about any sport...without hesitation he'd tell you exactly what was going on...an impressive guy....no um, ah oh I'm disappointed I was actually asked questions in an interview uh der....

He is adamant that Adelaide will lose draft picks and a massive fine and says that we've definately ****ed up. However, more interesting...to me anyway...was that he said:

1. Tippett will be deregistered
2. Tippett will go to GWS who he says will definately take him as long as they can afford him and aren't put off by him nominating the Swans
3. That another team (i.e. Gold Coast) tipped off the AFL about the well known secret deal between Tippett and Adelaide...

I'm guessing that GC thought that if they can get Tippett to the PSD they'd have a good chance of getting him so why not blow the whistle and help cripple another club while they're at it?

 

[Roo Lives Again]

Perhaps the AFL are looking for new and more innovative ways to screw the Crows. Prevent Crouch being placed on our list and put him back into the draft. Now that would really hurt

no way...if that happend and the Crows didn't sprint to take the AFL to court I'd walk into AFL house and smash VLAD in the balls and then do the same to Chapman....

 

[Geoffa32]

We've had contradictory information on this from the start. Last year we were told that he wouldn't have to be upgraded via the ND. Then this year one of the other journalists said that he did.. now EQ says that he doesn't.

It makes sense that he doesn't, given that we traded for him, exchanging draft picks. Thus, he has effectively been through the ND already.

We picked him up in the GWS mini draft, my reading on that is that he has already been drafted and was an inactive member of our playing list. Like a Rookie, but we could not upgrade him.

 

[headache1]

I was so 'dissappointed' with Emma....um ah um I don't know....Quayle's interview on 5AA and constantly reading how Adelaide 'MUST' lose draft picks and "MUST' be punished (pushing their agenda so the AFL has no choice) that I've stopped reading THE AGE....

I did however catch Gerald Whateley's comments on the Tippett saga on 'Offsiders' this morning and I trust his judgement. If anyone wants to know the difference between a real journalist and a pretend one then look no further than Whateley. If you asked Whateley a question about any sport...without hesitation he'd tell you exactly what was going on...an impressive guy....no um, ah oh I'm disappointed I was actually asked questions in an interview uh der....

He is adamant that Adelaide will lose draft picks and a massive fine and says that we've definately screwed up. However, more interesting...to me anyway...was that he said:

1. Tippett will be deregistered
2. Tippett will go to GWS who he says will definately take him as long as they can afford him and aren't put off by him nominating the Swans
3. That another team (i.e. Gold Coast) tipped off the AFL about the well known secret deal between Tippett and Adelaide...

I'm guessing that GC thought that if they can get Tippett to the PSD they'd have a good chance of getting him so why not blow the whistle and help cripple another club while they're at it?

I read that in one of the various articles going around. They were probably pissed that they weren't the ones who were going to be on the receiving end of the agreement.

If the investigation turns up nothing more than what we're being accused of, the precedent has been set with the 2001 fine, and loss of second and third round draft picks that Carlton received for their undisclosed payments to Craig Bradley in 1998/1999. If we receive Carlton 2002 like penalties, then it will be an absolute joke.

 

[Roo Lives Again]

I don't want the Crows to delist Tippett...I don't want him to be rewarded for his bad behaviour by being able to simply go to the swans as he would be able to if he was delisted by us...

I want him to go to the PSD...be picked up by the Giants and then have us belt the shite out of him and the Giants for the next couple of years...that would give me endless satisfaction.....in fact I reckon I'd be so happy about that I'd probably crap my pants

 

[Elite Crow]

You've got to laugh at Matt Finnis claiming Tippett has already been punished by not being able to be traded. Realistically he might still get to Sydney whereas we will never get anything for him so we are the ones who have been punished you tool.

I still can't believe we agreed to that clause. Why would we keep a player that intended on hurting us when he left.

 

[headache1]

I don't want the Crows to delist Tippett...I don't want him to be rewarded for his bad behaviour by being able to simply go to the swans as he would be able to if he was delisted by us...

I want him to go to the PSD...be picked up by the Giants and then have us belt the shite out of him and the Giants for the next couple of years...that would give me endless satisfaction.....in fact I reckon I'd be so happy about that I'd probably crap my pants

I don't think he would be a free-agent, even if we did delist him, as we offered him a contract which he chose not to sign.

 

[Roo Lives Again]

I read that in one of the various articles going around. They were probably pissed that they weren't the ones who were going to be on the receiving end of the agreement.

If the investigation turns up nothing more than what we're being accused of, the precedent has been set with the 2001 fine, and loss of second and third round draft picks that Carlton received for their undisclosed payments to Craig Bradley in 1998/1999. If we receive Carlton 2002 like penalties, then it will be an absolute joke.

Whateley was also saying that the AFL will make an example of us to set a precedent...so that'll be a heavy heavy whack....but I'd like the Crows to pushback and challenge any unduly harsh punishment by taking the AFL to court based on prior precedents

 

[Roo Lives Again]

You've got to laugh at Matt Finnis claiming Tippett has already been punished by not being able to be traded. Realistically he might still get to Sydney whereas we will never get anything for him so we are the ones who have been punished you tool.

I still can't believe we agreed to that clause. Why would we keep a player that intended on hurting us when he left.

There are so many flogs out there lining up to stick the boot in it's unbelievable...but then again considering the media bias that's always against us it probably isn't surprising at all...

Imagine if Collingwood did this....the media reaction would be very different...'it's not that bad'...'a light punishment would be adequate'....etc etc

 

[Elite Crow]

Whateley was also saying that the AFL will make an example of us to set a precedent...so that'll be a heavy heavy whack....but I'd like the Crows to pushback and challenge any unduly harsh punishment by taking the AFL to court based on prior precedents

We've already said we will accept any punishment which is stupid given we dont know what it will be