Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[alex_is_on_fire]

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.

Yes, I do know what an agreement is. But if Steven Trigg acting on behalf of the Adelaide Crows changes that agreement and he doesn't gain a response, he can not just assume the changes have been agreed upon.

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.

That's my point.

Where has this been publicly stated?I haven't seen it. I'm not saying you are wrong, I just have not read it or heard about the additional agreement.

I can not remember reading that the ratification to the agreement has been approved by both parties.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

BigFooty 101: When you're argument falls to shit, try to score minor points.

We didn't sit out of the draft... we had picks in the 60's and 80's!

Boo-yah!

See if you can pick up a few typos as well.

Isnt that exactly what youre doing? your argument has been dissected, demonstrated as flawed, now youre attacking me?

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Show me where I've said that?

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

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.

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

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

So that excuses his behaviour? WTF?

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

Semantics Jenny.

At the end of the day, if the Crows say no to any agreement - this doesn't happen. Plain and simple, like drugs....just say NO

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Semantics Jenny.

At the end of the day, if the Crows say no to any agreement - this doesn't happen. Plain and simple, like drugs....just say NO

which is why we never prosecute drug dealers...

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

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.

The buck has to stop with the Crows. That deal should never have gone any further than a discussion. End of story.

Kurt will face his changes because of mitigating circumstances but the Crows should never have allowed to even get that far.They should have been strong enough and simply said NO. Why didn't they, I don't know.

I still don't think Kurt is in the wrong but will admit he does have some penalty coming his way for simply being involved. Like it or not, his manager and the club have a duty of care to give him the best advice. That is their professional and moral obligation, this is why I feel the club is in the wrong for simply going ahead with it. They should have known better.

 

[Wood_Duck]

Yes, I do know what an agreement is. But if Steven Trigg acting on behalf of the Adelaide Crows changes that agreement and he doesn't gain a response, he can not just assume the changes have been agreed upon.



That's my point.

Where has this been publicly stated?I haven't seen it. I'm not saying you are wrong, I just have not read it or heard about the additional agreement.

I can not remember reading that the ratification to the agreement has been approved by both parties.

Alex, the club has said nothing publicly, for good reason.

 

[Cleric]

After all the crap that our supporters have gone through with this Tippett circus, after all the clubs emails asking we have faith in them, after loss of draft picks and more punishment to come, if they DARE delist Kurt so he can walk to Sydney that will be the last straw for me. I will not renew my membership.

 

[IddyBiddy]

Oh really?

>>>>

What I don't understand with the "wait and see" posters, is that both scenarios you've painted here are disgraceful.


The club made noise about mounting a strong defence to the charges. I seem to recall something from the Chairman containing words to that effect. Then shortly afterwards we forfeited our picks this year

Their idea of a "strong defence" is a bit different to mine.

Screaming "We plead guily, please have mercy!!!!!" at the top of our lungs doesn't cut it.

The difference between your assumptions and mine is that I acknowledge that we don't know everything, hence reserving judgement. The problem with the shadow jumpers is you cannot put a rational argument forward because it is impossible to do so without all the facts - so instead we are stuck rantings, which while entertaining lack validity. I may very well line up beside you on the firing range once I know more but for now i can see no issue with reserving overall judgement.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Alex, the club has said nothing publicly, for good reason.

So you don't feel Caro or Emma Quayle would just ignore this and not report on it?

I'm sure they would be looking for every bit of information to report. If they had this information, they would write an article about it.

Like I said, I take your word for it.

 

[skoobydoo]

Disturbing that Sando appears to have not been consulted over the decision to 'goodwill' the 2 draft piicks. I always thought that the coach had a strong say in club decisions re anything football. Maybe I am mistakenly assuming he was just told after the decision was made and not otherwise consulted or involved? Hope not, for if so it could be a situation born of the cumbersome governing levels of the AFC (SANFL etc), which could add more weight to Stabby's concern about Administration possibly looking to save itself.

 

[Allefgib]

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.

THis is the bit I'm struggling with in terms of competency of our management.

A verbal agreement to nullify a written agreement that we violently disagree with? Amateurish at best.

 

[Tex200]

Oh really?

>>>>

What I don't understand with the "wait and see" posters, is that both scenarios you've painted here are disgraceful.


The club made noise about mounting a strong defence to the charges. I seem to recall something from the Chairman containing words to that effect. Then shortly afterwards we forfeited our picks this year

Their idea of a "strong defence" is a bit different to mine.

Screaming "We plead guily, please have mercy!!!!!" at the top of our lungs doesn't cut it.

Carl what you refer to as ...wait and see....I refer to as procedural fairness or due process.

Quite simply there are multiple charges against multiple parties. I've no doubt we are mounting a defence to some charges, but passing in draft picks indicates there are some we will plead to.

Now I don't know which is which. Therefore I remain non committal. In the meantime the board has acted entirely appropriately in non taking any action against anyone.

 

[Stripple]

Of course, we passed on our two best picks (which werent great anyway) that has been assumed to be an effort to show contrition, but contrition for what? we dont know yet how this is going to play out as a component of our defence. Im not judging anyone for their role in this (other than tippett cos hes fun to make memes out of) until the parties charged have had a chance to present their case. Im not trying to make the case that Trigg is innocent because i dont know taht any more than carl knows hes guilty. I just dont have a problem waiting to see what happens

Doesn't matter how weak the draft was or how low our picks were we have shown an act of contrition for something by giving up a valuable commodity. We have lost commodities for some act. An act that occurred under our current administration plus JR. If you can paint one scenario in which Trigg is not culpable for this loss I will relent and hold judgement, hypothetical of course none of us know what happened we just know what we have already lost and who was in charge when we lost it.

Put it this way if noble had traded pick 20 and pick 54 for pick 62 and 81 would you have been happy?

Pretty sure we would all be asking for him to be sacked for incompetence.

 

[Stripple]

Semantics Jenny.

At the end of the day, if the Crows say no to any agreement - this doesn't happen. Plain and simple, like drugs....just say NO

And if Tippett ha said no? He has a right to try to get the best benefits out of his career but he also has a responsibility to adhere to the rules of his work place. He doesn't have to be a footballer but he chose to be so he chose to abode by thoes rules.

 

[jenny61_99]

After all the crap that our supporters have gone through with this Tippett circus, after all the clubs emails asking we have faith in them, after loss of draft picks and more punishment to come, if they DARE delist Kurt so he can walk to Sydney that will be the last straw for me. I will not renew my membership.

What part of the afl won't let us don't you understand?

 

[Donkey Magoo]

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.

I see where you are coming from that you don't believe that Kurt has an obligation to the club.
I just feel that he had the ability to request a trade and to do the right thing by the club. I think both of our interests could of been looked after. Steve Nash asked for a cap and trade to the Lakers instead of signing him up as a free agent, he did this to make sure that they were compensated adequately.
I feel that Kurts actions undermined our ability to get a good deal.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

And if Tippett ha said no? He has a right to try to get the best benefits out of his career but he also has a responsibility to adhere to the rules of his work place. He doesn't have to be a footballer but he chose to be so he chose to abode by thoes rules.

In 2009, if Kurt Tippett says no, we trade him or allow him to go to the Gold Coast.

It's that simple. "We sold our football soul" was one quote. The club are the decision makers in this process. Not Kurt Tippett.

 

[jenny61_99]

In 2009, if Kurt Tippett says no, we trade him or allow him to go to the Gold Coast.

It's that simple. "We sold our football soul" was one quote. The club are the decision makers in this process. Not Kurt Tippett.

Omg Alex. I cannot believe that you think Tippett is the innocent party here. So a 22 year old man is part of a group that robs a bank. He's driving the car. He knows it's wrong, but hey, he's going to get a cut so what's the big deal? And besides he didn't rob the bank his mates did. Is he innocent?

 

[bjn1960]

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

This is a salient point!

I know...I know... salient...is not de rigueur anymore.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

I see where you are coming from that you don't believe that Kurt has an obligation to the club.

No he doesn't. No player does. Players are delisted every year, what part of loyalty in AFL football still exists. Where was the player loyalty to the 2nd year players delisted this year?

I just feel that he had the ability to request a trade and to do the right thing by the club. I think both of our interests could of been looked after. Steve Nash asked for a cap and trade to the Lakers instead of signing him up as a free agent, he did this to make sure that they were compensated adequately.
I feel that Kurts actions undermined our ability to get a good deal.

Look, I agree and dislike Kurt Tippett for that reason. If it was me, on the Monday after the first week - I would have been asking Sydney to increase their offer and get a deal done as that would be the fair and reasonable thing to do.But he didn't and I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Saying that, the agreement under minded the ability to get a fair trade. Kurt just didn't give a continental anymore.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Isnt that exactly what youre doing? your argument has been dissected, demonstrated as flawed, now youre attacking me?

Tippett gone for nothing + picks gone = guilty.

Please show me the flaw.

No assumptions required.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Omg Alex. I cannot believe that you think Tippett is the innocent party here. So a 22 year old man is part of a group that robs a bank. He's driving the car. He knows it's wrong, but hey, he's going to get a cut so what's the big deal? And besides he didn't rob the bank his mates did. Is he innocent?

No. Not innocent.

He is the non decision maker in the deal. He just accepted what the Crows were willing to say yes to him.

 

[Wood_Duck]

THis is the bit I'm struggling with in terms of competency of our management.

A verbal agreement to nullify a written agreement that we violently disagree with? Amateurish at best.

No arguement, but there is a healthy level of assumption at play here.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Omg So a 22 year old man is part of a group that robs a bank. He's driving the car. He knows it's wrong, but hey, he's going to get a cut so what's the big deal? And besides he didn't rob the bank his mates did. Is he innocent?

Who gets a larger sentence Jenny?

The man who holds the gun in the bank robbery or the person driving the get away car?

The decision maker for the robbery or the accessory to the incident?

 

[jenny61_99]

No. Not innocent.

He is the non decision maker in the deal. He just accepted what the Crows were willing to say yes to him.

Non decision maker??? Thats bullshit. He made the decision to sign the contract AND the affadavit attesting to there being nothing more forming the contract. By doing so, he has become complicit in the whole saga. Like it or not, he is a responsible adult who chose to deceive the AFL for his own purposes.