Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[Tex200]

If, as I suspect, the AFL either pulled or threatened the pull the original trade, Im not sure how it could now be revisited. Its not a commercial trade and does not become a commercial trade just because the reasons for it have been made known.

I would have thought that if the AFL permit the trade, it will need to be a trade which they can approve as commercial.

 

[UpTheGuts]

Hi
I sincerely hope things go OK for you in all this.
No issues with Crows, or their fans, and you have some ripping posters.
Cheers
UTG

 

[Hodgy]

Which I think everybody agrees was way, way over the top.

You can't seriously compare this to salary cap rorting. In this instance we are offering something which is perfectly OK for us to offer as it is our trade to make. We can accept what trade we like at the time (as long as it is passed by the AFL), this is done all the time (like we did last year with Gunston) if a player is home sick, the issue is wether we are allowed to offer it 3 years before the event. and I doubt this has been seriously considered before by the AFL and as such is a bit of a test case. How can it be illegal when the AFL have to sanction the trade anyway and that would obviously over ride any agreement we had with Kurt so we are promising something that will be perfectly legal at the time.

Salary cap breaches are clearly a deliberate attempt to cheat the system whereas this was in all probability a simple attempt to look after one of our players. No one seemed to have an issue with it when we all thought that it was just a gentlemans agreement, I can't really see the difference

 

[relapse]

Even though we have no more facts than we did 24 hours ago?

Of course we do, you need to get your head out of the sand.

We have gone from Sydney attempting to screw us over with the Tippett trade to now the AFL investigating the club into revealations that the Crows had forged a secretly written deal with Kurt management in 2009 that was never advised to the AFL. Also throw in that we were giving money to Joel Tippett without notifying/seeking clarification the AFL which should have been included on our cap.

Over the last 24 hours the administration of the club has gone being the potential victim at the hands of Tippett and Sydney at the trade table to now being exposed as an incompetant organisation that had signed off on a deal that they knew was outside of AFL regulations and the ramfications of which could be extremely detrimental to the short term future of the club.

I'm am not sure how anyone could argue that the whole saga hasn't taken a massive turn for the worst for our club over the last 24 hours.

 

[JP Sauce]

If someone stuck a loaded gun to your head, are you responsible for your incontinence?

I don't think the 'agreement' was of our doing. Sounds very much like it was a gun to the head type of 'agreement'. In retrospect we should have told them to go jump. At the time it probably didn't seem that big a deal.

Gun to our head?

If a player makes ridiculous contract demands and won't back down then you trade that player.

 

[relapse]

You can't seriously compare this to salary cap rorting. In this instance we are offering something which is perfectly OK for us to offer as it is our trade to make. We can accept what trade we like at the time (as long as it is passed by the AFL), this is done all the time (like we did last year with Gunston) if a player is home sick, the issue is wether we are allowed to offer it 3 years before the event. and I doubt this has been seriously considered before by the AFL and as such is a bit of a test case. How can it be illegal when the AFL have to sanction the trade anyway and that would obviously over ride any agreement we had with Kurt so we are promising something that will be perfectly legal at the time.

Salary cap breaches are clearly a deliberate attempt to cheat the system whereas this was in all probability a simple attempt to look after one of our players. No one seemed to have an issue with it when we all thought that it was just a gentlemans agreement, I can't really see the difference

The difference is that the Crows had created an addendum to a contract that was never filed with the AFL. The Crows were also paying the brother of a player who had no connection to the club at all in an agreement that was never approved by the AFL and was not included in our salary cap. If we were close to the cap last year the Joel Tippett deal might have us over the salary cap.

Irrespective of what the club tries to claim about not thinking they were doing anything wrong, ignorance is no defence. If the allegations are true then I am expecting us to be caned by the AFL for this and if we are in deed punished by the AFL and it's true then Steven "pathetic" Trigg needs to be given his marching orders for bringing the club into disrepute.

 

[rayven]

Gun to our head?

If a player makes ridiculous contract demands and won't back down then you trade that player.

Do you remember the movie called 'the club'? written by a South Australian an all.

I think parts of that storyline are quite relevant to this story, with what happens when gun players from another state starts playing with the admins weakness's. He doesn't care about the supporter base, the finances, the press, the enemy. He recognises what it does to an admin and uses it against them to get some sociopathic fix

 

[PaulyShore98]

I would love to see a copy of the contract the club offered him this year.....which he promptly stalled, stalled and then eventually deferred to the end of the season to 'avoid distracting the team'.

I wonder what sort of 'clauses' were included?

• His own personal concubine to feed him grapes and cater to his every whim?
• A padded bubble, a PopeMobile of sorts (in a fishbowl shape of course) for him to travel around in, to minimise the chance of another concussion occurring in his activities of daily life? And to block out the sound of those 'pesky' Crows supporters bothering him, asking after his wellbeing?
• A new reality show 'The Tippetts' (a la the Kardashians) to be filmed so every single member of his family could get in on the AFC payroll?

Never again AFC. Never never again.

 

[Bluesince62]

given that it is so late in the year I think your sanctions will be next year. Otherwise it is impossible to end up with the required number of players. Both the club and KT are in deep shit. KT signed a stat dec saying there were no outside deals but there was. AFL has a quandary regarding any transfer which is easily solved by deregistering him for 2013 which given the Diesel precedent many years ago is not over the top. He is immediately punished and so is AFC as they receive no compensation.

As a side note given the much vaunted no dickheads policy at the Swans why would they look at him anyway

 

[DJ75]

Ultimately the AFL need to make a call today, so that we can get through the rest of the trade period. If possible make a trade for Kurt, perhaps make trades for others to gain draft picks etc... Not sure what will work, but they can't leave us in limbo through tomorrow and then make a call surely...

 

[skoobydoo]

Don't agree with this. Sure they played it hard. But that was because they had us over a barrel (thank you Kurt) with or without that agreement. In fact, the AFC took that agreement off the table early on.

Taking it 'off the table' didn't remove it!

 

[Big Gazoongas]

The difference is that the Crows had created an addendum to a contract that was never filed with the AFL. The Crows were also paying the brother of a player who had no connection to the club at all in an agreement that was never approved by the AFL and was not included in our salary cap. If we were close to the cap last year the Joel Tippett deal might have us over the salary cap.

Irrespective of what the club tries to claim about not thinking they were doing anything wrong, ignorance is no defence. If the allegations are true then I am expecting us to be caned by the AFL for this and if we are in deed punished by the AFL and it's true then Steven "pathetic" Trigg needs to be given his marching orders for bringing the club into disrepute.

Hang on a minute, you are just making shit up now.
There is nothing that I have read or heard that proves what you are saying, this is your perception and your perception only.
In actual fact the rumour is that the Tippett camp were the ones that had drafted the agreement and presented it to the Crows, not the other way round.
Stop misrepresenting the little facts we all know!!!

 

[spexau]

Rucci brought up the Joel Tippett situation as "maybe" playing a part.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Curious comment by Greg Denim on SEN. Said the threat of court action that triggered this shit-fest came from Tippett AND/OR the Swans. If it turns out the Swans were party to that threat, gets harder for them to divorce themselves from the fallout imo.

 

[Smoooothy]

Do you remember the movie called 'the club'? written by a South Australian an all.

I think parts of that storyline are quite relevant to this story, with what happens when gun players from another state starts playing with the admins weakness's. He doesn't care about the supporter base, the finances, the press, the enemy. He recognises what it does to an admin and uses it against them to get some sociopathic fix

not trying to be a smart ass here, but The Club wasn't written by a South Australian

David Williamson is the playwrights name, magnificent one at that.

but yes, you are right, there are some parts of that story which are relevant today. Particularly, the president writing a personal check on behalf of his company to the gun Tasmanian player

 

[jo172]

given that it is so late in the year I think your sanctions will be next year. Otherwise it is impossible to end up with the required number of players. Both the club and KT are in deep shit. KT signed a stat dec saying there were no outside deals but there was. AFL has a quandary regarding any transfer which is easily solved by deregistering him for 2013 which given the Diesel precedent many years ago is not over the top. He is immediately punished and so is AFC as they receive no compensation.

Seriously? Wtf were his lawyers thinking?

 

[CROUCH #2]

all eyes on kurt 2013, better put on a good show big fella

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

There is something Rotten about Blutcher

He managers Skully and landed father and son to GWS and now the Tippett saga

Both transactions have been managed poorly and been underpinned by factors outside of the AFL's protocols

 

[Cap]

Hang on a minute, you are just making shit up now.
There is nothing that I have read or heard that proves what you are saying, this is your perception and your perception only.
In actual fact the rumour is that the Tippett camp were the ones that had drafted the agreement and presented it to the Crows, not the other way round.
Stop misrepresenting the little facts we all know!!!

I agree, but relapse isnt alone on this.

Any notion of fact has been removed by both the media and this board. You only have to look at some of the articles which quote other articles turning the original article from speculation to truth, this is then reqouted here with the assumption that the two sources provide verification of fact rather than two instances of speculation and rumour .

 

[Bluesince62]

Seriously? Wtf were his lawyers thinking?

All AFL players are required to do so.

 

[Danoz]

No but I cringed a little.

I laughed...

 

[Jars458]

A) I didn't mock anybody.
B) I don't give a damn what you think of me.
C) Pull your head in or your return to the Adelaide Board will be considerably shorter than you planned. Your smug arrogance act has worn thin, to the point where it will no longer be tolerated.

This is your first, last and only warning.

Come on Vader, power corrupts. AFGM is bloody annoying buy last time I looked smug arroagance wasn't soemthing you could be banned for or else we would have shit loads less posters on BF.

 

[relapse]

Hang on a minute, you are just making shit up now.
There is nothing that I have read or heard that proves what you are saying, this is your perception and your perception only.
In actual fact the rumour is that the Tippett camp were the ones that had drafted the agreement and presented it to the Crows, not the other way round.
Stop misrepresenting the little facts we all know!!!

Who cares who wrote it, the Crows agreed/signed to it so they are equally a party to the agreement as the poeple who drafted it. The Crows should have gone to the AFL for clarification, but for whatever reason they decided not to (more than likely for fear that the AFL would refuse it) so they just agreed to it and now they will be punished accordingly for it.

Yes it would be nice if we could use semantics to expell any blame from our club, but once the Crows agreed to the deal and was paying Joel without getting it clarified from the AFL they left the club wide open for criticism and potential punishment by the AFL.

 

[Wood_Duck]

Gun to our head?

If a player makes ridiculous contract demands and won't back down then you trade that player.

It seems like the logical thing to do.

 

[jo172]

All AFL players are required to do so.

So Blucher/Tippett/Tippett's lawyers thought it was a good idea to blackmail someone with the risk this could mean that him knowingly lying on a stat dec would come to light? Insanity