Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[*PAF]

*I hope you noticed I quoted the Adelaide Advertiser version not the full unwatered-down version that can be found at
http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/cooking-the-books-new-charges-laid-20121114-29c9a.html

 

[Cap]

I realise there is a lot of love to EQ on this board, but seriously, her articles read like soap operas,

I have no idea how people lap this crap up.

 

[Cap]

I know I'm on catch up but this is exactly how I feel. What a disgraceful performance.

Especially on top of the disrespect he has labeled the supporters with in recent years.

Pathetic triggy, pathetic

honestly, taking anything from a caro article is like accepting a 3 year olds explanation of how to make a cake.

maybe wait till Monday/tuesday before you start throwing names around

 

[headache1]

I realise there is a lot of love to EQ on this board, but seriously, her articles read like soap operas,

I have no idea how people lap this crap up.

She's now starting to become a mudslinger like most of them unfortunately.

 

[Flynn White]

Not sure if this has been mentioned but why did we NOT hire this guy?

WE NEED SAUL GOODMAN!

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Firstly, yes I am a Port supporter and only am interested observer so tell me to GF'd but the above is total BS. No one backed anyone into a corner. If Tippetts manager started demanding that dodgy additions be made to the contract trigg and reid should have looked down to check they had a pair and then told them to piss off and traded the pr1ck. Simple. All you supporters would have kicked up a stink at the time but would have soon be forgotten when you realised he wasn't a superstar but a money hungry mike hunt with daddy issues.

You make a very fair point.

Reid felt the pressure to re-sign Tippett after coming off a handy season, so when Daddy came up with the extra condition, Reid/AFC decided to accept... when we all wish they would have said - accept the original legal deal without the extra one (but verbally we will try & do the right thing) or head back to Gold Coast.

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

This process is pissong me off

On one hand the AFL have gagged the AFC but on the other hand the investigation is leaking information to the media which we are not allowed to respond to

The process lacks integrity

 

[macca23]

Today's article if true is the bad one. People like Trigg are there to know the rules and the buck has to stop somewhere.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...ing-kurt-tippett/story-e6freck3-1226517318044

Tippett featured in the ads, dubbed "Tippett's Tips", as part of a deal with the iconic SA bakery that was allegedly arranged by the Crows outside the salary cap.
Third-party deals are common in the AFL - Chris Judd's arrangement with Visy is the best known - but it is against AFL rules for clubs to be involved in the deals.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...ing-kurt-tippett/story-e6freck3-1226517318044

According to Cornesy and Rowey today, Caro's information on this is incorrect.

They are saying that Adelaide did not surrender $30,000 of their sponsorship for it to be paid to Tippett. Rather that Balfours advised them that they would be reducing their sponsorship of the Showdown, as it wasn't doing much for Balfours.

However Balfours said that they were prepared to use this reduction to sponsor a player if they could use him publicly and Tippett became that player. They were unsure whether the choice of player was Adelaide's or Balfour's - a very important distinction it would seem - but thought that it was likely to be Balfour's.

Cornesy went on to say that while there would have been a discussion or even correspondence between the two parties, which the AFL seem to be calling being involved in arranging a 3rd party deal, to call this an offence is ludicrous, because he believed that the majority of 3rd party deals between players and Outside Parties would have to have some element of involvement of the club for whom the player plays, no matter even if it is initiated by the outside party.

Presuming that Cornesy and Rowey have it right - and they told Caro directly tonight that she had it wrong - it does seem to be the most trivial of offences. All Caro could respond with was, well we'll find out on Monday. Didn't sound overly confident though.

I'm thinking this is the 3rd and most recently charged offence which has ensnared Harper along with Trigg and the club. If so, Harper's alleged offence would be not including this $30,000 as part of the Total Player Payments because the AFL is arguing that we arranged it and therefore it should be included. We'll be arguing that we didn't and were only indirectly involved.

Personally, I think that Cornes is right in that 90% or more of 3rd party deals would have some element of club involvement in their coming into existence - it's hard to believe that would not be the case, even if the club did not instigate it or formalise it.

Given that Corney and Rowey are right, IMO there should not be a penalty for this charge. A rap on the knuckles and a clarification to ALL clubs of what is and isn't acceptable is more in order IMO.

Having said that, the AFL instead will probably try to belt the living shit out of us for this "horrendous" crime.

 

[King Elvis]

That's what I hate about Australian Culture these days. Too many people want to pass the buck and not take responsibility themselves.
Even if he didn't fully understand everything he was getting into then seek legal counsel or at least investigate it yourself a little.
He signed that contract which means he is ultimately responsible.
Even the dopiest person would pick up on something being not quite right if you received a letter with some of the terms of your employment on it and then at the end it tells you not to show the governing body.

Kurt was a 'young kid' at 22.
Gillard was young and naive at 32.

Is bullshit.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Sorry to intrude guys. Not sure if it's been posted but Emma Quayle's just written another article. Apparently the AFL's now investigating payments made to Nathan Van Berlo.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/adelaide-salary-probe-widens-20121115-29euo.html

 

[Cap]

This process is pissong me off

On one hand the AFL have gagged the AFC but on the other hand the investigation is leaking information to the media which we are not allowed to respond to

The process lacks integrity

We are dealing with the AFL here

the word integrity was removed for their vocabulary years ago.

 

[Crow-eater]

I'm just...WHEN WILL IT END?

 

[*PAF]

Somehow this saga started reminding me of this movie.

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

Re 3rd Party deals

Surely a club needs to get involved at some point in the process, the player is a club asset and represents the club and it's brand, if not we risk players doing commercials for British American Tabacco without the clubs involvement

 

[juzzo]

I realise there is a lot of love to EQ on this board, but seriously, her articles read like soap operas,

I have no idea how people lap this crap up.

She's now starting to become a mudslinger like most of them unfortunately.

Surprised to see this sort of rubbish floating around still. She's reported nothing but facts whilst avoiding the gratuitous hyperbole of people like Rucci and Barrett. In what possible way could her articles be construed as soap operas or mudslinging? About time you looked at your own club before shooting the messenger.

 

[King Elvis]

What macca said has to be right - I can't believe that a third party deal could be confirmed without the Club singing off on it, to insure no conflicts of interest or any concerns over how the club was presented (ie, The Palace trying to sponsor Bernie).

And it'd be informal, but Clubs would facilitate these deals all of the time.

 

[Huntercrow]

I'm starting to think this is less about Adelaide and more about the beat up from the Victorian Press.
Koutafides was just on Fox telling all who were interested that the AFC must be hit with a heavy penalty. This is another report from a growing number of nonsense reports from Journalists who believe they are in the know when it is plainly obvious the amount of real news is limited to press releases and emails from the AFL and the Adelaide Football Club. Emma and Carro have been busy slamming the club without any real insight into what is currently happening. The main problem is the season is over and there are several AFL journos with not much to report on at the moment so our predicament is their only focus. Everyone loves a good story so the media are really playing this up. When they start saying Van Berlo is also involved in salary Cap breaches it becomes comical. No club in their right mind would stoop to that level of stupidity. Nathan is a very good player but he is not worthy of salary cap breaches by us or any AFL club.

 

[ManInTheArena]

Re 3rd Party deals

Surely a club needs to get involved at some point in the process, the player is a club asset and represents the club and it's brand, if not we risk players doing commercials for British American Tabacco without the clubs involvement

On a side note, it's completely bizarre, but BAT are heavily involved in social responsibility programs. When I found this out I was like WTF

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

Surprised to see this sort of rubbish floating around still. She's reported nothing but facts whilst avoiding the gratuitous hyperbole of people like Rucci and Barrett. In what possible way could her articles be construed as soap operas or mudslinging? About time you looked at your own club before shooting the messenger.

Facts, every possibility they got the bs fours facts wrong

Where are the facts in the article supporting the Van Berlo breach

 

[FR0GGY]

Isnt there a 3rd party payment cap? So how can a club manage this if they cannot be involved with the 3rd party deal?

 

[spenze]

Interesting choice of lawyer to represent us. The guy is really, really, really good, Rayney was as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of shit. Everyone in WA thought so but somehow Edwardson convinced 12 people he wasn't which was an amazing effort, I followed the trial and was still slackjawed at the decision.

Will be suprised if we don't get off with a warning and some extra draft picks. Kurt will be going to jail though...for the murder of Raineys wife

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Re 3rd Party deals

Surely a club needs to get involved at some point in the process, the player is a club asset and represents the club and it's brand, if not we risk players doing commercials for British American Tabacco without the clubs involvement

Perhaps time that the AFL put some decent rules around 3rd party contracts/endorsements, including capping them per player & ensuring players are obliged to report their arrangements to the AFL.

The irony is that the AFL allowed the biggest deal of them all with Judd, because they felt sorry after smashing Carlton over their salary cap rorting.

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

On a side note, it's completely bizarre, but BAT are heavily involved in social responsibility programs. When I found this out I was like WTF

I was just using BAT to make a point

 

[macca23]

Re 3rd Party deals

Surely a club needs to get involved at some point in the process, the player is a club asset and represents the club and it's brand, if not we risk players doing commercials for British American Tabacco without the clubs involvement

That's exactly the point that Cornes was making tonight. Like you (and me), Cornes was saying that the club must have some involvement, without instigating it, or finalising it, to make sure that it didn't bring any embarrassment or disrepute to their club.

However, according to the AFL that makes it a club payment and must be included in the Total Player Payments, and not to include it is a breach of rules.

IMO that is so stupid and unfair, that it reeks of Adrian Anderson.

 

[ManInTheArena]

I was just using BAT to make a point

Yes I know, I was just saying a funny unrelated fact about BAT. They kill people but then engage in CSR.