WE need to appeal our sanctions

[johnnypanther]

People continue to battle with this concept.

They bleat "but we didn't go over the cap anyway" as though that matters.

The major benefit we got from the illegal deal was that Tippett signed to play for us, rather than disappear to Gold Coast when his contract was up.

This is why Trigg could never "come clean" on the deal when he found out about it. Because as soon as Tippett put pen to paper it had already delivered the intended benefit to our club. We were 100% guilty with no going back the second Tippett signed.

That's why "reneging the second round pick deal" was neither here nor there as well. It didn't matter.

I actually DO understand the concept and recognize that the benefit we got was that Tippett signed to keep playing for us.
Nevertheless, in the context of my argument with cmndstab re the value of Tippett's loss, the fact remains that he was on our list, both pre & post the "illegal" contract and his loss was worth something to the Club, whether that be a 1st round pick pre-illegality or a mere 2nd round pick post.

 

[Crow-eater]

During the Essendon saga there were leaks of "possible happenings" and further down the track whenever negotiations stalled we got to find out more about those "possible happenings".
When the Crows were "pre negotiating" we too got a number of rumours/leaks but once negotiations finished we got to find out that those rumours apart from the Tippett ones were false alarms.

True, over the last few months Baker/McKenzie/Caro articles have been perfectly timed. Almost too perfectly. Is like they were playing a chess game.

 

[Elder van Berlo]

the draft scenario needs explanation beyond what we have had - I will be seeking that.

I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry.

I like Rob Chapman. I think he's an honest bloke, I think he respects the supporters and that is shown by the fact that he is willing to give us the time of day. I just don't think he's much good at his job.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I actually DO understand the concept and recognize that the benefit we got was that Tippett signed to keep playing for us.
Nevertheless, in the context of my argument with cmndstab re the value of Tippett's loss, the fact remains that he was on our list, both pre & post the "illegal" contract and his loss was worth something to the Club, whether that be a 1st round pick pre-illegality or a mere 2nd round pick post.

He wasn't worth anything to us. It was like we had a whole briefcase full of "marked bills" that we couldn't legally spend.

Players are only worth something to you while they are contracted. If their contract runs out and you haven't traded them, then they disappear in the drafts with no compensation.

Tippett's legal contract ran out in 2010. We chose to try to re-sign him illegally instead of submitting to a trade at that time. That decision wasn't part of the penalties. In fact it happened years before.

We lost the "value" of Tippett when he signed the illegal deal at the end of 2009. The benefit we gained was his services in 2010-12 and were punished for this.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

21 pages of wasted energy.

The AFC will do nothing. And you, as the yes men - who see handing money and attendance support to the organisation mocking and using you to be honourable in some way; and consider those who vote with their feet to be the ones doing the wrong thing - will lap it up.

Ironically, your blind dedication keeps the Adelaide Football Club in the doldrums.

So things get fixed in society by saying/doing nothing? Not likely.

AFC may do nothing, but it is important that if we feel strongly about an issue like most do with our penalties v Essendon we let them know.

Personally I'm reducing my membership at AFC next season as I'm far from happy about the last 12 months. I have been going since the 1st (pre-)season game against Sheedy's bombers.

 

[cmndstab]

You 've said this before & its still not right. The asset we lost had a value, we didn't recieve that value - so we lost it

If you want to claim we swindled gcs, then we lost the 1st round pick we'd have gotten in compo & AA defender in nathan bock

Either way we lost 6 picks or 5 + a very good player (worth a time a first rnd pick)

Yes, we lost the value of that asset, but it wasn't part of our punishment. I don't see why people are struggling so hard with this concept.

Let's break it down. We had an asset in Tippett. His contract was due to run out. In order to get him to sign a new contract, we made offers which are illegal under the AFL rules.

When Tippett's party and the Crows came to terms on that deal, we had very literally obtained Tippett's services illegally. Prior to that point, we had the option to trade him and get some of his value back in draft selections, but we waived that right.

Now, move forward to 2012. We get found out. The AFL is aware that our deal with Tippett breaks their rules. At that point, we have no legal claim over the value of Tippett. We didn't obtain him legally. We don't get an opportunity to trade what isn't ours.

Yes, I agree that we lost the value of our asset, but it was our own choice to do so. We had the opportunity to trade him while he was legally on our books, and we passed over it. After that point, Tippett was not legally ours. You can't trade what you don't legally have!

The AFL stripped us of four draft picks. We cost ourselves the right to trade Tippett. It was not part of any punishment.

 

[johnnypanther]

He wasn't worth anything to us. It was like we had a whole briefcase full of "marked bills" that we couldn't legally spend.

Players are only worth something to you while they are contracted. If their contract runs out and you haven't traded them, then they disappear in the drafts with no compensation.

Tippett's legal contract ran out in 2010. We chose to try to re-sign him illegally instead of submitting to a trade at that time. That decision wasn't part of the penalties. In fact it happened years before.

We lost the "value" of Tippett when he signed the illegal deal at the end of 2009. The benefit we gained was his services in 2010-12 and were punished for this.

C'mon DABM, you full well know that uncontracted players are not free agents and still need to be traded unless they walk to the PSD.
Tippett was only ever worth nothing to us after the AFL itself prevented us from trading him.

 

[*PAF]

True, over the last few months Baker/McKenzie/Caro articles have been perfectly timed. Almost too perfectly. Is like they were playing a chess game.

This whole saga has made me sceptical of the AFL. I now do not know what to think about what has happened in the past and to be honest I am not sure that the way the behaved during the Essendon saga will not hurt them in the long run.
It looks as if the will try to protect the brand at all cost, prefer to keep things in house and will punish clubs as hard as possible without hurting them too much, as having badly damaged clubs is not a good thing for the brand in the long term.

 

[johnnypanther]

Yes, we lost the value of that asset, but it wasn't part of our punishment. I don't see why people are struggling so hard with this concept.

Let's break it down. We had an asset in Tippett. His contract was due to run out. In order to get him to sign a new contract, we made offers which are illegal under the AFL rules.

When Tippett's party and the Crows came to terms on that deal, we had very literally obtained Tippett's services illegally. Prior to that point, we had the option to trade him and get some of his value back in draft selections, but we waived that right.

Now, move forward to 2012. We get found out. The AFL is aware that our deal with Tippett breaks their rules. At that point, we have no legal claim over the value of Tippett. We didn't obtain him legally. We don't get an opportunity to trade what isn't ours.

Yes, I agree that we lost the value of our asset, but it was our own choice to do so. We had the opportunity to trade him while he was legally on our books, and we passed over it. After that point, Tippett was not legally ours. You can't trade what you don't legally have!

The AFL stripped us of four draft picks. We cost ourselves the right to trade Tippett. It was not part of any punishment.

You are WRONG!!!

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

C'mon DABM, you full well know that uncontracted players are not free agents and still need to be traded unless they walk to the PSD.
Tippett was only ever worth nothing to us after the AFL itself prevented us from trading him.

Uncontracted players who don't get traded go into the draft and their club gets nothing.

Tippett didn't have a legal contract with us. We couldn't trade him in 2012. We could have traded him at the end of 2010 but chose not to.

That's not the AFL's fault, it's ours and it shouldn't be bundled in with the penalties we received.

It should however be bundled in with the Trigg/AFC incompetency.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Yes, we lost the value of that asset, but it wasn't part of our punishment. I don't see why people are struggling so hard with this concept.

Let's break it down. We had an asset in Tippett. His contract was due to run out. In order to get him to sign a new contract, we made offers which are illegal under the AFL rules.

When Tippett's party and the Crows came to terms on that deal, we had very literally obtained Tippett's services illegally. Prior to that point, we had the option to trade him and get some of his value back in draft selections, but we waived that right.

Now, move forward to 2012. We get found out. The AFL is aware that our deal with Tippett breaks their rules. At that point, we have no legal claim over the value of Tippett. We didn't obtain him legally. We don't get an opportunity to trade what isn't ours.

Yes, I agree that we lost the value of our asset, but it was our own choice to do so. We had the opportunity to trade him while he was legally on our books, and we passed over it. After that point, Tippett was not legally ours. You can't trade what you don't legally have!

The AFL stripped us of four draft picks. We cost ourselves the right to trade Tippett. It was not part of any punishment.

Part of our penalty from the AFL was that we were prevented from trading our highest paid player & we were forced to let him go into the PSD.

If the AFL hadn't stopped us from trading Tippett, we would have got a minimum 1st round pick for him & a player. Rough value say a 1st & 2nd round pick, which is our effective penalty in addition to the other 4 picks, fine & suspension of personnel.

 

[feenix67]

This whole saga has made me sceptical of the AFL. I now do not know what to think about what has happened in the past and to be honest I am not sure that the way the behaved during the Essendon saga will not hurt them in the long run.
It looks as if the will try to protect the brand at all cost, prefer to keep things in house and will punish clubs as hard as possible without hurting them too much, as having badly damaged clubs is not a good thing for the brand in the long term.

Indeed, it's not a league, it's a business. Why would a business hurt itself by devaluing it's assets (the clubs) too much?

The whole thing is a joke and I can't support it any longer. Hopefully Sturt survive and the SANFL comp retains some semblance of integrity with the AFL ressies moving in, or else I will have completely lost any attachment to the sport I love and grew up with. With Port looking like ditching the Maggies, it's even worse for you.

We all got sucked in.

 

[cmndstab]

Part of our penalty from the AFL was that we were prevented from trading our highest paid player & we were forced to let him go into the PSD.

If the AFL hadn't stopped us from trading Tippett, we would have got a minimum 1st round pick for him & a player. Rough value say a 1st & 2nd round pick, which is our effective penalty in addition to the other 4 picks, fine & suspension of personnel.

I feel like I'm starting to repeat myself here.

Tippett wasn't "our" highest paid player. We didn't have any legal ownership of him, any more than I would have of your TV if I stole it. Any more than I would have of stocks if I obtained them via corruption.

Yes, if the AFL had allowed us to trade a commodity we didn't own, we could have received something for him. But why would we be allowed to trade something we don't own? That would be ridiculous.

I'm not even sure where the disagreement is starting here. Are you saying that we did still own Tippett? Because that's what it sounds like. Or are you saying that we should have been allowed to trade him even though we didn't obtain his services legally? What are you disagreeing with?

 

[cmndstab]

You are WRONG!!!

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, which part do you disagree with? Or was I just wrong from the first word typed?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I feel like I'm starting to repeat myself here.

Tippett wasn't "our" highest paid player. We didn't have any legal ownership of him, any more than I would have of your TV if I stole it. Any more than I would have of stocks if I obtained them via corruption.

Yes, if the AFL had allowed us to trade a commodity we didn't own, we could have received something for him. But why would we be allowed to trade something we don't own? That would be ridiculous.

I'm not even sure where the disagreement is starting here. Are you saying that we did still own Tippett? Because that's what it sounds like. Or are you saying that we should have been allowed to trade him even though we didn't obtain his services legally? What are you disagreeing with?

Tippett was still on our books as a player when our trade to Sydney was blocked by the AFL. We were stopped from getting trade value for him as part of our penalty. We effectively lost the equivalent of a 1st round pick & another player because we were prevented from trading Tippett. Simple as that.

 

[feenix67]

I feel like I'm starting to repeat myself here.

Tippett wasn't "our" highest paid player. We didn't have any legal ownership of him, any more than I would have of your TV if I stole it. Any more than I would have of stocks if I obtained them via corruption.

Yes, if the AFL had allowed us to trade a commodity we didn't own, we could have received something for him. But why would we be allowed to trade something we don't own? That would be ridiculous.

I'm not even sure where the disagreement is starting here. Are you saying that we did still own Tippett? Because that's what it sounds like. Or are you saying that we should have been allowed to trade him even though we didn't obtain his services legally? What are you disagreeing with?

I think you're wrong here. The contract we signed with Tippet was still a legally binding contract. We paid for his services and he provided them. What was at issue is the inducements negotiated outside the contract in order to persuade him to stay. There was nothing wrong with them, except that we didn't declare them. The contract itself was valid, however we breached the rules by not disclosing them in our TPP. Our penalty was for that aspect. Kurt was still legally our player for that period. and thus a tradeable commodity.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

People think we should have added dealing in stolen goods to our list of crimes!

Even if we pulled a swifty and got Pick 18 + Jesse White before the shit hit the fan then we'd have got whacked twice as hard we did.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I think you're wrong here. The contract we signed with Tippet was still a legally binding contract. We paid for his services and he provided them. What was at issue is the inducements negotiated outside the contract in order to persuade him to stay. There was nothing wrong with them, except that we didn't declare them. The contract itself was valid, however we breached the rules by not disclosing them in our TPP. Our penalty was for that aspect. Kurt was still legally our player for that period. and thus a tradeable commodity.

None of the side deals were valid

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Tippett was still on our books as a player when our trade to Sydney was blocked by the AFL. We were stopped from getting trade value for him as part of our penalty. We effectively lost the equivalent of a 1st round pick & another player because we were prevented from trading Tippett. Simple as that.

It isn't that simple.

If we traded a player who we'd illegally signed in the first place...

The AFL stopped us hurting ourselves even further.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

It isn't that simple.

If we traded a player who we'd illegally signed in the first place...

The AFL stopped us hurting ourselves even further.

Sure, but it is still a penalty no matter how you look at it!

 

[feenix67]

None of the side deals were valid

Only because they weren't declared in the TPP, and that's what we got whacked for. The contract itself was valid.

 

[rayven]

It looks as if the will try to protect the brand at all cost, prefer to keep things in house and will punish clubs as hard as possible without hurting them too much, as having badly damaged clubs is not a good thing for the brand in the long term.

Unless your the AFC, it doesn't matter what the damage is. The sad thing is the next club that decides to cheat will work out if they can get more out of the cheating before they get caught than what the penalty will be..

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Sure, but it is still a penalty no matter how you look at it!

A self inflicted penalty, not an AFL penalty

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Only because they weren't declared in the TPP, and that's what we got whacked for. The contract itself was valid.

Uh uh.

The second rounder go home deal was draft tampering.

Underwriting the sponsorship stuff and not putting it in the official contract kept it out of the salary cap. This was done to give us the option of going over the salary cap if we needed to. Ok, we didn't in the end but at the time we kept this deal off the books deliberately and our intentions were to cheat.

And funneling the club sponsorship money to Tippett is also not allowed. It couldn't be put into the official contract because it was illegal.

The AFL Commission findings spell all this out.

 

[johnnypanther]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, which part do you disagree with? Or was I just wrong from the first word typed?

answer below:

I think you're wrong here. The contract we signed with Tippet was still a legally binding contract. We paid for his services and he provided them. What was at issue is the inducements negotiated outside the contract in order to persuade him to stay. There was nothing wrong with them, except that we didn't declare them. The contract itself was valid, however we breached the rules by not disclosing them in our TPP. Our penalty was for that aspect. Kurt was still legally our player for that period. and thus a tradeable commodity.

cmndstab - if you want a legal opinion, i can give you 2 in support of the above.
(PS i'm sure that you could probably also get opposing legal opinions too such is the way of the legal profession).

Anyway, l would suggest that we are arguing semantics, legal or otherwise - the fact is we lost a playing asset for zero.