Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[Donkey Magoo]

Pretty sure the 3rd party agreements people are speaking of is as they are discussing, out of the cap. It does need to be disclosed to AFL. From what I've gained from the media, which seems as much as anyone else, is the Crows promised him they would get an extra $200,000 for him in third party deals, with the dark part sounding as if they didn't, the club would pay it themselves. As things seemed to having been getting less serious, it would appear they got him the third party deals, and did disclose it to the AFL, thus making the 'draft tamporing' the more serious crime.

I'm sure someone like Vader could give you all the correct legal side of it though.

That would be ideal in my mind, I was always concerned about the extra payments a lot more. I know that the draft tampering is serious but, as it didn't eventuate we might get away a little lighter, perhaps attempted draft tampering.
If we are found not to have done wrong what then, maybe they could reopen a 2 day trade window.

 

[Dr B]

Pretty sure the 3rd party agreements people are speaking of is as they are discussing, out of the cap. It does need to be disclosed to AFL. From what I've gained from the media, which seems as much as anyone else, is the Crows promised him they would get an extra $200,000 for him in third party deals, with the dark part sounding as if they didn't, the club would pay it themselves. As things seemed to having been getting less serious, it would appear they got him the third party deals, and did disclose it to the AFL, thus making the 'draft tamporing' the more serious crime.

I'm sure someone like Vader could give you all the correct legal side of it though.

Again, it is not a 3rd party agreement once a club guarantees it. The fact that the club discloses them as 3rd party agreements to the afl would help with their argument but dosn't dissolve the club from the fact that they paid a player without declaring it. That will cost us.

And Vader will be able to tell you the same if he understands the afl rules on 3rd party agreements.

 

[craig crowing]

That would be ideal in my mind, I was always concerned about the extra payments a lot more. I know that the draft tampering is serious but, as it didn't eventuate we might get away a little lighter, perhaps attempted draft tampering.
If we are found not to have done wrong what then, maybe they could reopen a 2 day trade window.

As good as thought as it is to think get away close to scott free ,think been too much negative press for AFL not to wield big stick especially when seem to want to continue to push the Melbourne match fixing under the carpet.
But really believe what we have done is nowhere as bad as press made us believe.
What gets me though is when suggested that Blucher could not get punished .
Surely nobody with any sanity could possibly suggest that Crows suddenly decided they would risk the club by thinking up the easy way out and bonuses for Tippett.

 

[jenny61_99]

Again, it is not a 3rd party agreement once a club guarantees it. The fact that the club discloses them as 3rd party agreements to the afl would help with their argument but dosn't dissolve the club from the fact that they paid a player without declaring it. That will cost us.

And Vader will be able to tell you the same if he understands the afl rules on 3rd party agreements.

Dr b the word is (not sure how accurate though) that we guaranteed payment if his third party deals didn't reach a particular value. There was no word though if we actually paid anything. So again, it's an intent rather than an act if we didn't actually pay him anything.

 

[Dr B]

As good as thought as it is to think get away close to scott free ,think been too much negative press for AFL not to wield big stick especially when seem to want to continue to push the Melbourne match fixing under the carpet.
But really believe what we have done is nowhere as bad as press made us believe.
What gets me though is when suggested that Blucher could not get punished .
Surely nobody with any sanity could possibly suggest that Crows suddenly decided they would risk the club by thinking up the easy way out and bonuses for Tippett.

Whilst we will get punished, Blucher must be deregistered. KT also can not walk away untouched, I know the aflpa have been loathed to punish players in the past but these are extraordinary circumstances.

 

[Dr B]

Dr b the word is (not sure how accurate though) that we guaranteed payment if his third party deals didn't reach a particular value. There was no word though if we actually paid anything. So again, it's an intent rather than an act if we didn't actually pay him anything.

A 3rd party agreement is an agreement between a player and a 3rd party (Telstra) without any involvement from the clubs. Clubs are strictly forbidden from guaranteeing payments in 3rd party agreements as this would allow a club to sign players for much less than there value with added guarantees. Then you would get a sponsor to employ the player and pay half his salary. Then the club provides the sponsor with free advertising.

So once we guaranteed KT payments by 3rd parties it no longer became a 3rd party agreement it had to be included on his contract and in our TPP.

Everyone at the club would have been fully aware of these rules and the consequences for breaching them. Which it would appear we did.

The thing I can still not get my head around is Caroline Wilson has said we would not have breached the cap if we had. Madness.

 

[Realslimshady2]

Yes

Well please share then

 

[jenny61_99]

A 3rd party agreement is an agreement between a player and a 3rd party (Telstra) without any involvement from the clubs. Clubs are strictly forbidden from guaranteeing payments in 3rd party agreements as this would allow a club to sign players for much less than there value with added guarantees. Then you would get a sponsor to employ the player and pay half his salary. Then the club provides the sponsor with free advertising.

So once we guaranteed KT payments by 3rd parties it no longer became a 3rd party agreement it had to be included on his contract and in our TPP.

Everyone at the club would have been fully aware of these rules and the consequences for breaching them. Which it would appear we did.

The thing I can still not get my head around is Caroline Wilson has said we would not have breached the cap if we had. Madness.

My understanding is that the third party agreements were lodged with the AFL - not the underwriting? Is that right?

 

[Hank93]

What's the past 1000 posts been about? Basically switched off this thread once trade period finished.

 

[Dr B]

My understanding is that the third party agreements were lodged with the AFL - not the underwriting? Is that right?

Yes that is my understanding, they were lodged as 3rd party agreements. However the point you are missing is that once we guaranteed payment the agreements were no longer 3rd party agreement according to the afl rules.

They had to be included in his contract and added to the TPP. True 3rd party agreements are not included in your salary cap. These should have been.

 

[SydCrow]

What's the past 1000 posts been about? Basically switched off this thread once trade period finished.

 

[JP Sauce]

What's the past 1000 posts been about? Basically switched off this thread once trade period finished.

Mostly Tippett but with a generous amount of sauce.

Oh and a few pages of AIOF getting mad.

 

[bjn1960]

he has only one priority in life as is his perogative

this has become the uberpresent matra of our times and is becoming a destructive mindset for sport and the community as a whole.

Liberty, Equality & Fraternity!

 

[crowman_23]

A 3rd party agreement is an agreement between a player and a 3rd party (Telstra) without any involvement from the clubs. Clubs are strictly forbidden from guaranteeing payments in 3rd party agreements as this would allow a club to sign players for much less than there value with added guarantees. Then you would get a sponsor to employ the player and pay half his salary. Then the club provides the sponsor with free advertising.

So once we guaranteed KT payments by 3rd parties it no longer became a 3rd party agreement it had to be included on his contract and in our TPP.

Everyone at the club would have been fully aware of these rules and the consequences for breaching them. Which it would appear we did.

The thing I can still not get my head around is Caroline Wilson has said we would not have breached the cap if we had. Madness.

So you actually believe Carlton weren't involved and offering Juddy Visy when in negotiations? And Eddie doesn't drop how he can get Pies players involved in Channel 9 and Triple M by staying with the Pies. Your head is in the sand if you don't think clubs and the AFL know how it works. And by all reports the money we said we would get him was got from third parties, thus meaning we did NOT pay him the money. So as long as it was reported to the AFL, whether in your definition of third party or not, I doubt we will be punished for that.

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

Again, it is not a 3rd party agreement once a club guarantees it. The fact that the club discloses them as 3rd party agreements to the afl would help with their argument but dosn't dissolve the club from the fact that they paid a player without declaring it. That will cost us.

And Vader will be able to tell you the same if he understands the afl rules on 3rd party agreements.

Understand your point which I accept

However the point I was making is that the media has assumed that by guaranteeing this payment we have done so outside the cap however at this stage there is no evidence to suggest that we have not included it in the TPP

 

[Jetwa5h]

Understand your point which I accept

However the point I was making is that the media has assumed that by guaranteeing this payment we have done so outside the cap however at this stage there is no evidence to suggest that we have not included it in the TPP

I always thought that yes we guaranteed we would make up any shortfall in his 3rd party arrangements, and if we had to it would then have to be reported to the AFL regarding our salary cap, but as we didnt have to make up the extra money we didnt have to report it.

 

[Ramify]

I always thought that yes we guaranteed we would make up any shortfall in his 3rd party arrangements, and if we had to it would then have to be reported to the AFL regarding our salary cap, but as we didnt have to make up the extra money we didnt have to report it.

Yeah to me this is the logical assumption based on what we have been told.

 

[ftmch]

Oh and a few pages of AIOF getting mad.

That description is too generic to be meaningful

 

[Dr B]

So you actually believe Carlton weren't involved and offering Juddy Visy when in negotiations? And Eddie doesn't drop how he can get Pies players involved in Channel 9 and Triple M by staying with the Pies. Your head is in the sand if you don't think clubs and the AFL know how it works. And by all reports the money we said we would get him was got from third parties, thus meaning we did NOT pay him the money. So as long as it was reported to the AFL, whether in your definition of third party or not, I doubt we will be punished for that.

Sorry. What is it you don't get.

Either it is a 3rd party deal or it isn't. If it isn't a :rd party deal then it has to be included in his contract and in our TPP. We didn't. We are in trouble. Forget about draft tampering the penalty there will be minor. Here we have failed to disclose in the TPP all payments to players. Major breach and we will be punished severely ie: draft picks. Draft tampering, debatable, probably a fine.

If you can't see the difference between what is included in a players contract and 3rd party agreements then I can't help you. Just wait till next week when the penalties are issued and an explanation is given.

As far as Judd is concerned, the Afl have come out and said that no agreements like his will be approved in the future. They know they have got that one wrong.

 

[ftmch]

I always thought that yes we guaranteed we would make up any shortfall in his 3rd party arrangements, and if we had to it would then have to be reported to the AFL regarding our salary cap, but as we didnt have to make up the extra money we didnt have to report it.

This was my take as well.

If he makes the full $200K out of 3rd Party arrangements, I'm assuming that is not reported under salary cap. The only thing we are on the hook for is the shortfall that we would make up, should he not realise that value. Without being able to put a specific figure on that figure at the time the player payments are lodged though, how could we accurately reflect that?

What we are definitely guilty of is not at least consulting the AFL about it. If everyone on this board acknowledges that this underwriting of the TPP's is at the very least flirting into dodgy territory, you would have thought / hoped our illustrious leaders would have recognised the same and treated it accordingly.

Trigg is too smart not to recognise that, which is what casts doubt over whether his actions were deliberate.

 

[Dr B]

Understand your point which I accept

However the point I was making is that the media has assumed that by guaranteeing this payment we have done so outside the cap however at this stage there is no evidence to suggest that we have not included it in the TPP

Good point.

It is a reasonable assumption though if it was not on his contract that they would not have included it in the TPP.

The thing here is that the agreement to guarantee KT monies from 3rd parties would have to have happened at the same time as he signed his contract. Otherwise he would not have signed. Thus by not including it the afl would most likely conclude the it was an intentional act to deceive. Somehow we would need to explain that away. Don't know how but then I am sure that those involved would have been able to come up with something that is semi plausible. How good their explanation will go a long way towards how sever our sanctions are.

 

[crowman_23]

Sorry. What is it you don't get.

Either it is a 3rd party deal or it isn't. If it isn't a :rd party deal then it has to be included in his contract and in our TPP. We didn't. We are in trouble. Forget about draft tampering the penalty there will be minor. Here we have failed to disclose in the TPP all payments to players. Major breach and we will be punished severely ie: draft picks. Draft tampering, debatable, probably a fine.

If you can't see the difference between what is included in a players contract and 3rd party agreements then I can't help you. Just wait till next week when the penalties are issued and an explanation is given.

As far as Judd is concerned, the Afl have come out and said that no agreements like his will be approved in the future. They know they have got that one wrong.

So what happens if someone signs a 5 year deal, like has happened with many players this season, then companies want to jump on them in year three? They can't have third party deals because it wasn't in the initial contract?

From what I've been reading, the third party deals were shown to the AFL, whom unless have solid evidence where we have said we will pay him if we can't get those deals for him, how can it be proven that whomever paid the third party deals didn't decide to do that once they heard he re-signed?

As long have we have shown that to the AFL, third party deals, and other payments to players can spring up during a contract, as long as it's granted by the AFL and not as such like a Judd deal to just keep at the club (which the majority are anyway)

 

[Dr B]

So what happens if someone signs a 5 year deal, like has happened with many players this season, then companies want to jump on them in year three? They can't have third party deals because it wasn't in the initial contract?

From what I've been reading, the third party deals were shown to the AFL, whom unless have solid evidence where we have said we will pay him if we can't get those deals for him, how can it be proven that whomever paid the third party deals didn't decide to do that once they heard he re-signed?

As long have we have shown that to the AFL, third party deals, and other payments to players can spring up during a contract, as long as it's granted by the AFL and not as such like a Judd deal to just keep at the club (which the majority are anyway)

All players are allowed to sign 3rd party deals provided they do not clash with afl or club sponsors. They must also do those deals independently from the club. And they are reported to the club and afl at time of signing and are NOT included in the clubs TPP.

However, the moment a club guarantees the payment of an amount (say 100k a year) then any subsequent deals are no longer considered to be 3rd party deals by the afl. On the players contract the club must include not only the amount that they are going to pay but also any amounts that they have guaranteed , in this case 100k. Both the contract amount and the full 100k are then included in the TPP.

It would seem that we did not include the guaranteed amount on his contract. And I can tell you this would not have been an oversight.

 

[crowman_23]

All players are allowed to sign 3rd party deals provided they do not clash with afl or club sponsors. They must also do those deals independently from the club. And they are reported to the club and afl at time of signing and are NOT included in the clubs TPP.

However, the moment a club guarantees the payment of an amount (say 100k a year) then any subsequent deals are no longer considered to be 3rd party deals by the afl. On the players contract the club must include not only the amount that they are going to pay but also any amounts that they have guaranteed , in this case 100k. Both the contract amount and the full 100k are then included in the TPP.

It would seem that we did not include the guaranteed amount on his contract. And I can tell you this would not have been an oversight.

We're finding common ground here, I agree with all that.

My point is at the moment, we are all still just going on what journalists were saying, which was getting extreme. From all reports, what we know for sure is that we agreed to send him to his club of choice etc etc. No one is really debating that, nor an email being around that said that.

Does the email/paper trail actually have anything regarding the extra payments, or was this something the media created? If there is no proof of this, how can it not be known that he signed his deal, mid to early in the season the extra offers were there, and he reported to both club and AFL? If the AFL knew about the third party payments which is what we have been reading of late, the AFL would have surely known they were deceiving them? It's the reports that Adelaide guaranteed to pay these if not met etc, that has been the main reason for the investigation.

If there is no proof that it was said, and was just a rumour and being investigated, there is no real way to proof that extra payments from Adelaide based companies didn't want to then engage him in third party deals as they then knew he would be playing in Adelaide rather than GC.

 

[Dr B]

We're finding common ground here, I agree with all that.

My point is at the moment, we are all still just going on what journalists were saying, which was getting extreme. From all reports, what we know for sure is that we agreed to send him to his club of choice etc etc. No one is really debating that, nor an email being around that said that.

Does the email/paper trail actually have anything regarding the extra payments, or was this something the media created? If there is no proof of this, how can it not be known that he signed his deal, mid to early in the season the extra offers were there, and he reported to both club and AFL? If the AFL knew about the third party payments which is what we have been reading of late, the AFL would have surely known they were deceiving them? It's the reports that Adelaide guaranteed to pay these if not met etc, that has been the main reason for the investigation.

If there is no proof that it was said, and was just a rumour and being investigated, there is no real way to proof that extra payments from Adelaide based companies didn't want to then engage him in third party deals as they then knew he would be playing in Adelaide rather than GC.

Yes it was reported that the guarantee was in writing and the afl were in position of it.

If that is the case then don't worry about draft tampering. This is the one that will hurt. Because for it to have happened it would have almost certainly been deliberate.