Kurt Tippett retires due to injury and fitness concerns.

Remove this Banner Ad

2x 1st's
2x 2nd's

+ TIPRAT COMPENSATION (LIKELY A 1ST)

AND YOUR TELLING ME WE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN BETTER??!!! WE LOST THE GF BY FORTY POINTS, WE GOT DECIMATED. 20 YEARS WE WAITED FOR ANOTHER SHOT AT THE FLAG AND WE THREW IT IN THE BIN, STRAIGHT IN THE BIN. IT'S OVER, NOW LETS SIT BACK AND WAIT FOR ANOTHER 20 YEARS JUST FOR A SHOT...

 
Fair enough, reasonable career even though I never really rated him. The type of player he is has gone out of fashion and been out of fashion for a while with teams doing a good job defending the ball in the air and ground level pressure and intensity becoming so important.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

2x 1st's
2x 2nd's

+ TIPRAT COMPENSATION (LIKELY A 1ST)

AND YOUR TELLING ME WE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN BETTER??!!! WE LOST THE GF BY FORTY POINTS, WE GOT DECIMATED. 20 YEARS WE WAITED FOR ANOTHER SHOT AT THE FLAG AND WE THREW IT IN THE BIN, STRAIGHT IN THE BIN. IT'S OVER, NOW LETS SIT BACK AND WAIT FOR ANOTHER 20 YEARS JUST FOR A SHOT...
It's the "illegal" contract that Adelaide was penalised for. Surely Adelaide Football Club are to blame for the deals they did which caused the loss of picks? Players and agents will always try and extract as much as they can. Clubs are always the ones with the final say.
 
Had the swans won either the 2014 or 2016 Grand final, I reckon some people would of seen the Kurt tippet deal in different light.

When teams win a flag or make a grand final, they either Keep the same team together if they are young enough or become weaker if a Stalwart or a club hero retires after the grand final win. Swans of 2012 became stronger after getting Kurt tippet controversially.

I will only mention the COLA once. People were either blinded with hatred or blinded with a drunken rage saying the Swans Used the COLA to get Kurt tippet. After doing the Research, They fitted him under the cap.

Here is what people forget. When the Swans won the Flag in 2012, Swans had a spare $600,000 in the cap, how was it possible? Heres how... Back in the end of 2009, they needed a tall forward to replace Barry Hall. They got Daniel Bradshaw from Brisbane in the PSD. They gave him a 3 year deal at $600,000 a year from 2010-2012. Bradshaw retired in the middle of 2011 due to injuries. The swans still had o pay his final year in 2012 out.

Essentially it was the Bradhaw money was used to get tippet, not the COLA.

I was just joking. I rated Tippett, was disappointed that injury stopped him being the player he could’ve been, appreciated his attempt to battle through, and am sad he retired.
 
Are there any Crows fans who don't think the club stuffed up with Tippet-gate?

I don't recall anyone defending the club - just one poster defending Trigg only.

Most of our board went feral over Tippett-gate, so don't think you know what you are talking about!

Btw, Tippett himself was also to blame.

All parties were rightly penalised.
It was the Crows administration who are to blame for the deal in the first place and should bear the blame for that. The fact that Rob Chapman survived and Trigg was able to secure employment at Carlton really gets me down. It's bloody hard to have any faith in an organisation when the guys in charge can blunder so badly and come out of it unscathed.

The reason I loathe Tippett is because he was a willing participant in a salary cap rort and decided to use it as leverage against the Crows when they had the "audacity" to demand a fair trade from Sydney. Essentially he's a rat ****.
Look, I don’t have time to trawl back through the posts. Maybe it was a few knobheads hopping in to the Swans board, who clearly wanted to vent about Tippett and wouldn’t accept any alteration to their narrative that involved their club in any degree, but I clearly remember it.

Anyway, play on and all the best for 2018.
 
When you said extremely terse I wasn't sure what I was expecting. But after reading the statement - wow that was extremely terse.

The Sydney Swans have today delisted Kurt Tippett.

In keeping with AFL rules and regulations, it is the club’s intention to re-draft Tippett in the upcoming AFL Rookie Draft so that the club can fulfil the terms of an agreed settlement.

Tippett, who retired from AFL football in January 2018 due to injury problems, is not fit for football and has no intention of returning to the AFL.

With this statement we consider the matter closed. No parties will make any further comment.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Payments to rookie listed players get a discount in terms of their impact on TPP. I'd say the reason for rookie listing him is the same as Hawthorn rookie-listing Langford - it's way to minimise the impact of the negotiated settlement on your salary cap.

I reckon we'll start to see this happen a fair bit for players who 'retire' while contracted. Unless the AFL decide they don't like the 'optics' of it and change the rules.
 
I find these two excerpts from this article to be an interesting comparison:

“Tippett, who retired from AFL football in January 2018 due to injury problems, is not fit for football and has no intention of returning to the AFL.”

Despite the surgery, the injury wasn’t career-threatening
So he just couldn't be arsed getting back to full fitness and wanted the cash anyway?
 
I find these two excerpts from this article to be an interesting comparison:




So he just couldn't be arsed getting back to full fitness and wanted the cash anyway?

I think it was that he could still rehab and come back to play as it wasn't a potential career-ending injury like a broken leg or the like, but he no longer wanted to risk further damage to his body or make things worse.
 
I think it was that he could still rehab and come back to play as it wasn't a potential career-ending injury like a broken leg or the like, but he no longer wanted to risk further damage to his body or make things worse.
That's fine, but my issue is with him putting out his hand for the cash despite not doing the yards to even present as fit for work.
 
Guessing it falls into kind of a legal grey area over whether Tippett has voluntarily retired or whether he medically can't play.

What a surprise. It's not as if he has a history of problematic contracts.
 
Guessing it falls into kind of a legal grey area over whether Tippett has voluntarily retired or whether he medically can't play.

What a surprise. It's not as if he has a history of problematic contracts.

We did it with Patful. It's just the club acting in it's own interests and taking the opportunity to move payments outside the TPP because it can.
 
That's fine, but my issue is with him putting out his hand for the cash despite not doing the yards to even present as fit for work.
Guessing it falls into kind of a legal grey area over whether Tippett has voluntarily retired or whether he medically can't play.

What a surprise. It's not as if he has a history of problematic contracts.

It would be pretty standard in this situation where a player retires while contracted that there would be a negotiated settlement. There was nothing stopping Tippett from simply hanging around rehabbing for the rest of the contract and getting the full amount. So negotiating to pay him a lesser amount in exchange for releasing him from any contractual requirements is of benefit to both parties. Tippett is free to do whatever he likes and Sydney get to pay him less money.

There's no real grey area here - either party is entitled to enforce the contract but it's in both their interests to negotiate a settlement instead and so that is what happens.
 
It would be pretty standard in this situation where a player retires while contracted that there would be a negotiated settlement. There was nothing stopping Tippett from simply hanging around rehabbing for the rest of the contract and getting the full amount. So negotiating to pay him a lesser amount in exchange for releasing him from any contractual requirements is of benefit to both parties. Tippett is free to do whatever he likes and Sydney get to pay him less money.

There's no real grey area here - either party is entitled to enforce the contract but it's in both their interests to negotiate a settlement instead and so that is what happens.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top