Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[Donkey Magoo]

Nope.

Fair enough, I think trying to dictate 1 club was unreasonable, that's why I am upset by Tippett. Also I think that his camp, had indicated to Sydney, that we would have to trade cheaply for him, further compromising our position.
That's what I think he did wrong.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Fair enough, I think trying to dictate 1 club was unreasonable, that's why I am upset by Tippett. Also I think that his camp, had indicated to Sydney, that we would have to trade cheaply for him, further compromising our position.
That's what I think he did wrong.

My personal belief is, it should never have got that far to start off with. 3 years ago (2009), whom ever instigated the 3rd party deal and extra piece of paper work suggesting that he can go to the club of his choice or home - it should never have gone past that point. If it was Kurt Tippett's end who instigated it; the club should have said no. This is the contract you will sign or we will trade you. End of story. If it was the club who instigated it, they should have known better.

However, the players are only custodians of the club and are under no obligation to stay at a club they never asked to play for. They were drafted to this club and they had no say, yes he made a choice in signing with club and made a choice in agreeing to that under the table agreement but the club have an ethical responsibility to follow the rules of the game. They should have said, no. They should never have offered or agreed to it.

I don't feel Kurt Tippett did anything wrong but due to mitigating circumstances, he will have to face a penalty for part of the agreement.

In any buyer/seller (we are buying his services as a player) agreement, someone has to make an offer and to be responsible for saying yes to the deal and in this case it's the Adelaide Football club. That is why I feel he hasn't done anything wrong BUT will still have to pay a price for his actions.

 

[jackster83]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/tea...ampaign=Feed:+HeraldSunAfl+(Herald+Sun+|+AFL)

His "Woe is me, I'm just a victim" act is getting really tiring.

Why should he be able to pick a club like that?

He said he wanted to go "home" to Sydney. Both Sydney clubs have flagged their interest in him, so what's the problem? Why should the AFLPA care if a cashed up GWS grab him?

He reminds me of a little kid choosing to barrack for Manchester United because they win lots of trophies.

 

[jenny61_99]

Fair enough, I think trying to dictate 1 club was unreasonable, that's why I am upset by Tippett. Also I think that his camp, had indicated to Sydney, that we would have to trade cheaply for him, further compromising our position.
That's what I think he did wrong.

He was complicit with an attempt to manipulate the system using an agreement that was not legal within the AFL system. There is no doubt that Sydney were well aware of the agreement which could have only come from HIS management (most likely) or father. Ireland's steadfast refusal to budge from the crap offer on the table is evidence of that. On the first day this all broke the message from the Tippett camp was that he fully expected to be going to the Club of his choice and was horrified and hurt that we'd renigged on the agreement. Just a week or so later, his lawyer claimed he had no knowledge of it because he's young and stupid. You can't be expecting to go to the Club of your choice if you don't know anything about it.

 

[crowman_23]

As someone else said, it is not like Noble and Hamish are going to come out and go, "we really picked some spuds this year, we could open a smiths factory"

According to all our experts in the thread about Sam Siggins he is the next Dustin Fletcher/better than Davis/9th on our list/guaranteed rising star guy.

But yeah I know they're not, was more interested to know what the tweet Ralph wrote said.

 

[Crow-eater]

According to all our experts in the thread about Sam Siggins he is the next Dustin Fletcher/better than Davis/9th on our list/guaranteed rising star guy.

But yeah I know they're not, was more interested to know what the tweet Ralph wrote said.

Jon Ralph ‏@RalphyHeraldSun
Adelaide says they "hit the jackpot" with late picks in the draft. So does that mean the Commission ignores the picks they handed back?

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

He was complicit with an attempt to manipulate the system using an agreement that was not legal within the AFL system. There is no doubt that Sydney were well aware of the agreement which could have only come from HIS management (most likely) or father. Ireland's steadfast refusal to budge from the crap offer on the table is evidence of that. On the first day this all broke the message from the Tippett camp was that he fully expected to be going to the Club of his choice and was horrified and hurt that we'd renigged on the agreement. Just a week or so later, his lawyer claimed he had no knowledge of it because he's young and stupid. You can't be expecting to go to the Club of your choice if you don't know anything about it.

You still don't believe the club did anything wrong? do you?

You believe this is all Kurt Tippett fault, isn't it?

Did he put a gun to the club head and say, sign it? no he didn't.

It's the responsibility of the club to follow the correct pathway in how contracts are agreed upon. They needed to take responsibility and say no. End of story.

Kurt Tippett has no power in how that should have gone. The club should have said, no that is against the rules and we will not participate in that deal. The club (Trigg, Harper, Reid) have a duty of care to the supporter base to follow the rules and regulations set out by the governing body. To use a parent/child analogy, the club needed to be the adult in this environment, do the right thing and say NO. How many children do stupid things because they are allowed to? Don't blame the kid, blame the parent. The kid doesn't know any better.

Yes Kurt Tippett is acting like a clown but he is only doing it because he was allowed to.

You can whinge, bitch, complain and call him every name under the sun but of the club did the right thing in 2009 and not allowed this deal to proceed, this investigation isn't happening. Stop blaming the player for exercising his rights. Blame the club for not exercising theirs and saying NO.

 

[fabs33]

someone should slip something into his bodyboard bag for the trip home.

Wouldn't do any good, Kurt would just have Super Daddy and his band of merry lawyers rescue him.

 

[crowman_23]

Jon Ralph ‏@RalphyHeraldSun
Adelaide says they "hit the jackpot" with late picks in the draft. So does that mean the Commission ignores the picks they handed back?

Cheers. And here I was reading from some of the other posts that he said we 'should' give them back. Bit of tongue in cheek by Ralph.

 

[Godallblighty]

It's the responsibility of the club to follow the correct pathway in how contracts are agreed upon. They needed to take responsibility and say no. End of story.

Kurt Tippett has no power in how that should have gone. The club should have said, no that is against the rules and we will not participate in that deal. The club (Trigg, Harper, Reid) have a duty of care to the supporter base to follow the rules and regulations set out by the governing body. To use a parent/child analogy, the club needed to be the adult in this environment, do the right thing and say NO. How many children do stupid things because they are allowed to? Don't blame the kid, blame the parent. The kid doesn't know any better.

Except Kurt isn't a child. Both parties are responsible adults and both are complicit in a deal that appears to be dodgy. No way should the club be absolved of responsibility but neither should Kurt.

 

[Wood_Duck]

He was complicit with an attempt to manipulate the system using an agreement that was not legal within the AFL system. There is no doubt that Sydney were well aware of the agreement which could have only come from HIS management (most likely) or father. Ireland's steadfast refusal to budge from the crap offer on the table is evidence of that. On the first day this all broke the message from the Tippett camp was that he fully expected to be going to the Club of his choice and was horrified and hurt that we'd renigged on the agreement. Just a week or so later, his lawyer claimed he had no knowledge of it because he's young and stupid. You can't be expecting to go to the Club of your choice if you don't know anything about it.

Jen, do you think there is a chance that the AFC and Velocity Sports, given that they both have a vested interest in upholding AFL rules both understood that the original 2009 agreement was null and void , but Tippett and his father never realised that it hadn't been in play since late 2009?

Tippett senior had maybe been using it in the process of marketing his son to the Qld clubs as well as Sydney?

 

[jenny61_99]

Jen, do you think there is a chance that the AFC and Velocity Sports, given that they both have a vested interest in upholding AFL rules both understood that the original 2009 agreement was null and void , but Tippett and his father never realised that it hadn't been in play since late 2009?

Tippett senior had maybe been using it in the process of marketing his son to the Qld clubs as well as Sydney?

Possible, sure, but I think it more likely that management (under Daddy's instruction) took advantage of a situation.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Except Kurt isn't a child. Both parties are responsible adults and both are complicit in a deal that appears to be dodgy. No way should the club be absolved of responsibility but neither should Kurt.

No, the buck has to stop with someone and in this case, it's the club.

One that intention to create a legal relationship had been established, they have to become the 'offeror' and then in good faith accept the offer on return of a yes response or become the 'offeree' and accept the offer given to them from the offeror. But in this case and every case of this in AFL- the club become the decision maker on how the proposal and relationship processed.

But I never said Kurt should. He will have his penalty to pay.

The buck stops with the club.

 

[jenny61_99]

You still don't believe the club did anything wrong? do you?

Show me where I've said that?

You believe this is all Kurt Tippett fault, isn't it?

Show me where I've said that? I suggest you look up the term "complicit".

Did he put a gun to the club head and say, sign it? no he didn't.

Effectively, yes. All set to sign, Club has papers drawn up and at last minute Daddy steps in and says, we won't sign unless... the rest is history. There have been AMPLE posts in this monstrous thread that have pointed out why the Club would do anything it could to keep him here, I don't need to go into that again.

It's the responsibility of the club to follow the correct pathway in how contracts are agreed upon. They needed to take responsibility and say no. End of story.

Agreed. But if we are guilty of contract manipulation, so is he. It's as simple as that. He signed the contract.

Kurt Tippett has no power in how that should have gone. The club should have said, no that is against the rules and we will not participate in that deal. The club (Trigg, Harper, Reid) have a duty of care to the supporter base to follow the rules and regulations set out by the governing body. To use a parent/child analogy, the club needed to be the adult in this environment, do the right thing and say NO. How many children do stupid things because they are allowed to? Don't blame the kid, blame the parent. The kid doesn't know any better.

He was 22 for ****'s sake. How could he NOT be held responsible????

Yes Kurt Tippett is acting like a clown but he is only doing it because he was allowed to.

So that excuses his behaviour? WTF?

You can whinge, bitch, complain and call him every name under the sun but of the club did the right thing in 2009 and not allowed this deal to proceed, this investigation isn't happening. Stop blaming the player for exercising his rights. Blame the club for not exercising theirs and saying NO.

He is AS MUCH as responsible for this AS WE ARE. Therefore BOTH should be punished.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Jen, do you think there is a chance that the AFC and Velocity Sports, given that they both have a vested interest in upholding AFL rules both understood that the original 2009 agreement was null and void , but Tippett and his father never realised that it hadn't been in play since late 2009?

Tippett senior had maybe been using it in the process of marketing his son to the Qld clubs as well as Sydney?

I think they knew full well the agreement was in place and knew they were legally right as well.

3 weeks after the original contract and extension (3rd party deal and go home clause was added) was put in place between the club and Kurt Tippett and then Steven Trigg has a moment of clarity by changing his mind and sending a letter of termination of the extension from the original agreement, has it been proven anywhere that they (Kurt Tippett or his management) agreed to terminate the original extension agreement?

If that can not be proven, that original agreement has to stay in place as both parties legally have to agree to the changes. Legally, one party can not just say 'do overs' without the second party agreeing to it.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

In any buyer/seller (we are buying his services as a player) agreement, someone has to make an offer and to be responsible for saying yes to the deal and in this case it's the Adelaide Football club. That is why I feel he hasn't done anything wrong BUT will still have to pay a price for his actions.

Why would only 1 party have to be responsible for saying yes? this doesn't make sense

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Agreed. But if we are guilty of contract manipulation, so is he. It's as simple as that. He signed the contract.

Also signed a stat dec stating there was no other consideration outside what was listed in the contract lodged with the AFL

 

[SydCrow]

Alex - do you know what "agreement" means? You can't argue that Kurt didn't agree to the changes without conceding that he agreed to the original deal.

 

[Wood_Duck]

I think they knew full well the agreement was in place and knew they were legally right as well.

3 weeks after the original contract and extension (3rd party deal and go home clause was added) was put in place between the club and Kurt Tippett and then Steven Trigg has a moment of clarity by changing his mind and sending a letter of termination of the extension from the original agreement, has it been proven anywhere that they (Kurt Tippett or his management) agreed to terminate the original extension agreement?

If that can not be proven, that original agreement has to stay in place as both parties legally have to agree to the changes. Legally, one party can not just say 'do overs' without the second party agreeing to it.

Alex, I have been led to believe that Velocity sports agreed to nullify the original 'agreement' and had accepted Triggs alterations. That's why I'm struggling with this. Blucher is either a complete piece of garbage or Tippett senior is solely responsible for using the original document.

 

[SydCrow]

Alex, I have been led to believe that Velocity sports agreed to nullify the original 'agreement' and had accepted Triggs alterations. That's why I'm struggling with this. Blucher is either a complete piece of garbage or Tippett senior is solely responsible for using the original document.

does that include the underwriting of the third party deals?

 

[crowded house]

I think they knew full well the agreement was in place and knew they were legally right as well.

3 weeks after the original contract and extension (3rd party deal and go home clause was added) was put in place between the club and Kurt Tippett and then Steven Trigg has a moment of clarity by changing his mind and sending a letter of termination of the extension from the original agreement, has it been proven anywhere that they (Kurt Tippett or his management) agreed to terminate the original extension agreement?

If that can not be proven, that original agreement has to stay in place as both parties legally have to agree to the changes. Legally, one party can not just say 'do overs' without the second party agreeing to it.

What puts Tippett in the wrong as well though is that as a part of his AFL contract he has to state that there is no additional contract or plan to break the AFL's rules.
If he signed this and still tries to enforce the other deal (which they obviously did or there would not be an issue) then he is in the wrong and the additional contract is void.

If he signed the additional contract first then his AFL contract should be void and he should have to pay his last 3 years of wages back

 

[Wood_Duck]

does that include the underwriting of the third party deals?

I think they are very separate issues.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Alex, I have been led to believe that Velocity sports agreed to nullify the original 'agreement' and had accepted Triggs alterations. That's why I'm struggling with this. Blucher is either a complete piece of garbage or Tippett senior is solely responsible for using the original document.

The agreement isn't between the club and Velocity Sports. In essence, they are nothing to do with it.

All they do is represent/advise/manage Kurt.

The agreement was between us and Kurt. It was obviously never nullified. Maybe we thought a phone call to Velocity would do the trick then they'd be able to talk Kurt into it.

Either way, gross negligence on our part that has already significantly harmed our club. There is not a single ounce of blame that can be levelled anywhere other than the AFC.

The vain hope that someone else (player, manager, other club) gets in trouble too is futile and irrelevant.

I've said all along that the only way the club can even begin to emerge from this with any semblance of a reputation is for the Board to sack Trigg, then to sack itself. Sure, steer us through the hearing. But once the penalties are known then that is when the hard calls must be made.

 

[Cap]

No, the buck has to stop with someone and in this case, it's the club.

One that intention to create a legal relationship had been established, they have to become the 'offeror' and then in good faith accept the offer on return of a yes response or become the 'offeree' and accept the offer given to them from the offeror. But in this case and every case of this in AFL- the club become the decision maker on how the proposal and relationship processed.

But I never said Kurt should. He will have his penalty to pay.

The buck stops with the club.

Sorry ALex your logic is flawed

whilst the offerer and the offeror are important in confirming that there has been an offer and acceptance and a contract formed, to suggest the offerer is more culpable than the offeree is ridiculous and you are simply creating a situation to benefit your position.

Both parties involved were of legal age and able to execute the agreement in legal terms therefore both are as responsible for the agreement.

The buck does have to stop somewhere - and in this case it is the two parties involved in the contract.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

The agreement isn't between the club and Velocity Sports. In essence, they are nothing to do with it.

All they do is represent/advise/manage Kurt.

The agreement was between us and Kurt. It was obviously never nullified. Maybe we thought a phone call to Velocity would do the trick then they'd be able to talk Kurt into it.

Either way, gross negligence on our part that has already significantly harmed our club. There is not a single ounce of blame that can be levelled anywhere other than the AFC.

The vain hope that someone else (player, manager, other club) gets in trouble too is futile and irrelevant.

I've said all along that the only way the club can even begin to emerge from this with any semblance of a reputation is for the Board to sack Trigg, then to sack itself. Sure, steer us through the hearing. But once the penalties are known then that is when the hard calls must be made.

Its getting really boring seeing posts end with 'oh and Trigg should be sacked'

This point has been done to death, let it go