Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[Heeney2Franklin]

If Sydney didn't have an illegal side agreement to blackmail us with we would have got market value.

What do you mean mate? are you saying we knew about the clause when we approached him in August?

 

[jenny61_99]

Tough to prove I'd think.

Do you think? Not willing to provide market value for someone who they would pay a million bucks a year is fairly obvious.

 

[Defacto]

Do you think? Not willing to provide market value for someone who they would pay a million bucks a year is fairly obvious.

were sydney stupid enough to put that in writting though....no one would be that stupid to do that....oh wait....

 

[Draft Bored]

Steven

 

[jenny61_99]

What do you mean mate? are you saying we knew about the clause when we approached him in August?

Absolutely. Ireland/blucher connection a deadset giveaway.

 

[jenny61_99]

were sydney stupid enough to put that in writting though....no one would be that stupid to do that....oh wait....

No, good point.

 

[MarcusP2]

If Sydney were going to be charged with anything it would've happened at the same time.

 

[jenny61_99]

Stephen

At least spell his name right.

 

[JasRulz63]

Do you think? Not willing to provide market value for someone who they would pay a million bucks a year is fairly obvious.

Unless it's written down somewhere or someone from Sydney is willing to come out and admit it, it's circumstantial at best (quite sure that's the word).

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Do you think? Not willing to provide market value for someone who they would pay a million bucks a year is fairly obvious.

Well then what is the absolute figure that is "market value" it doesn't exist clubs will offer what they deem of value considering the cirumstances off the player and the current club is well within their rights to knock it back

- Out of contract
- Wants out of his existing club

All devalue what the current club is expected to receive.

 

[jenny61_99]

Unless it's written down somewhere or someone from Sydney is willing to come out and admit it, it's circumstantial at best (quite sure that's the word).

The fact the afl wouldn't sanction the trade shows they are aware that Sydney was aware of it too. By having that inside information, Sydney were trying to manipulate the situation in their favour (and who could blame them!). Fact is though, if OTHER clubs also had the same information, they too may have made a play for Tippett.

 

[tinman]

Well then what is the absolute figure that is "market value" it doesn't exist clubs will offer what they deem of value considering the cirumstances off the player and the current club is well within their rights to knock it back

- Out of contract
- Wants out of his existing club

All devalue what the current club is expected to receive.

Can someone please translate this post into English?

 

[jenny61_99]

Well then what is the absolute figure that is "market value" it doesn't exist clubs will offer what they deem of value considering the cirumstances off the player and the current club is well within their rights to knock it back

- Out of contract
- Wants out of his existing club



All devalue what the current club is expected to receive.

Whilst offering him a $4 million contract? They certainly were not prepared to offer true value - because they knew about the agreement.

 

[Schulzycrow]

That was to send a strong message to other clubs and our players that we won't be bent over but in the end we've bent ourselves over

And had been for a good couple of years.

 

[Paladin]

What do you mean mate? are you saying we knew about the clause when we approached him in August?

Ah of course. Are you suggesting they didn't? What are the odds of Tippett's manager not passing that info on?

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Whilst offering him a $4 million contract? They certainly were not prepared to offer true value - because they knew about the agreement.

Could it be we planned to get him cheaply knowing he walked out on your club and you held little bargaining power?

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Can someone please translate this post into English?

Can you tell me what defines Market Value of a player? its subjective per club not written in stone of what a club should offer

 

[Sanders]

Bit rough to lay it all on him, considering he was our lead goalscorer in 2010 and only one goal away from the same distinction in 2011.

They weren't great years but he wasn't the problem.

Very true he was our highest paid and one of our best performed

That's why he was a consistent top 5 finisher in the b&f

 

[SydCrow]

Well that's a straight out lie.

Not if we never intended to honour the illegal and unenforceable agreement or paid any amounts in breach of the cap.

 

[jenny61_99]

but melbourne are safe.
for this year at least.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/mor...next-weeks-draft/story-e6frf9jf-1226515379853

So pick 4 is safe!

 

[Stripple]

Could it be we planned to get him cheaply knowing he walked out on your club and you held little bargaining power?

So the swans approached him in August prior to him saying he was leaving us. You also offered more than any other club and then were only willing to trade 23 and white?

 

[SpeciousArgument]

What do you mean mate? are you saying we knew about the clause when we approached him in August?

No one at SFC or any of their friends or family members ever read or heard of the Caroline wilson article and the question was never put to blucher 'does it exist?'

If you think your club would offer a player $4mil and wouldnt trade better than White/23 for him without knowing about it youre a fool

 

[Allefgib]

I found this - amendments that have been made THIS year to rule 17:

Amendments to Rule 17
Clarified the definition of conduct prejudicial to the Draft by:
o Expressly prohibiting arrangements which would have the effect or purpose of preventing or
discouraging a Club from drafting a particular Player;
o Clarifying that players who nominate terms before entering the draft, must not have a side
agreement to provide their services to the new Club on different terms to those nominated which could discourage other Clubs (ie. 3 year $1.5 million deal cannot in reality be a 4 year $1.6 million deal);
o Expressly prohibiting conduct by a Club or Associate of a Club in connection with the drafting of a Player in contravention of the proposed new ‘no commissions’ rule (see below).
Introducing a new offence of ‘conduct prejudicial to the Player Movement Rules’. This offence relates to conduct that has the purpose or effect of prejudicing the natural operation of the rules relating to exchanges (Rule 4.3) or free agency (Rule 38). Conduct that is prohibited by these rules expressly includes:
o Where players receive benefits in cash or kind other than as contemplated by the Rules; o Where contracted players receive benefits in cash or kind less than what is specified in
documents lodged with AFL under the Free Agency Rule;
o Where a player is contracted through the Free Agency process and agrees or is likely to
provide services on terms other than those specified in documents lodged with AFL under the Free Agency Rule. For example in the matching offer process a 3 year $1.5 million deal cannot in reality be a 4 year $1.6 million deal;
o Where a player(s) or Club becomes bound to an exchange under Rule 4.3 prior to the exchange period;
o Where a Club or Associate of a Club engages in conduct by a Club or Associate of a Club in connection with an exchange or other player movement mechanism (other than the Draft) in contravention of the proposed new ‘no commissions’ rule
Provided the General Manager – Football Operations with power to appoint an investigator. Currently the process of making appointments is cumbersome as it relies on Commission resolution.
Provided more serious sanctions for failing to co-operate with an investigation. Investigations in relation to Rule 17 involve serious matters and the previous sanctions (10 units) did not reflect this. Failure to co-operate may now be dealt with at the discretion of the Commission or General Manager – Football Operations as the case requires.

Presumably the bold bit is a key aspect to the charges?

I'm not surprised this is taking some time - they need to get this stuff air tight.

How much do we think will fall on Trigg/Reid vs the Club?

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

So the swans approached him in August prior to him saying he was leaving us. You also offered more than any other club and then were only willing to trade 23 and white?

Why do you guys keep making the connection of what we were willing to offer must be because we knew of the clause?

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Could it be we planned to get him cheaply knowing he walked out on your club and you held little bargaining power?

Your club held little bargaining power also. as has been pointed out here many times to many sydney supporters, PSD isnt going to get him there. you wanted him enough for $4mil with a trade being the only realistic way to get him, and yet you still only offered scraps.

Either your club knew or were incompetent.