Message to AFGM

[Glenno23]

It's only three pages long FFS!

I've read this thread, but must have missed what AFGM has said somewhere else to get this thread made for him

 

[Niximus]

I've read this thread, but must have missed what AFGM has said somewhere else to get this thread made for him

He was pushing his 'conspiracy theory' that Kurt Tippett had signed a contract with the Gold Coast Suns 12 months ago at the end of the 2011 season.

He claimed they exploited the loophole that allowed GC and GWS to sign their uncontracted player concessions a year early, and more recently made it possible for any club to do the same with free agents. The loophole never applied to Tippett and AFGM was repeatedly told this.

Despite that he stuck to the claim which included 'the clause' that Adelaide would complete the trade for a mid-late 2nd round draft pick.

He was very obnoxious about the whole thing.

Obviously, Tippett nominating the Swans proves that there is no year-old contract with Gold Coast.

 

[Stripple]

Neil Craig never played the kids!
Craig always prefered the choir boy athletes over real footballers.
Neil Craig stunted the growth of Taylor walker by always dropping him.
Craig always played dangerfield in the forward line.
Also he never traded.

That should get him to post again

 

[Wood_Duck]

The bit I find amusing is, that AFGM may have been right. My mail from a completely separate source maintains that there was definitely some form of agreement in place with GC. The deal fell over when GC refused to match Adelaide's salary offer, giving both parties an out on the agreement.

I don't think this will ever be able to be proved, or for that matter disproved.

 

[Vader]

The bit I find amusing is, that AFGM may have been right. My mail from a completely separate source maintains that there was definitely some form of agreement in place with GC. The deal fell over when GC refused to match Adelaide's salary offer, giving both parties an out on the agreement.

I don't think this will ever be able to be proved, or for that matter disproved.

I think there was definitely an understanding that Tippett was going to be headed home to GC at the end of this contract. I think GC threw Tippett & his manager for a loop with their low-ball salary offer, to which Blucher's response was to put Tippett on the open market, leading to the saga we're experiencing right now.

None of this was formally written into the contract, nor was it legally enforceable - both of which were key to AFGM's assertions.

 

[Wood_Duck]

I think there was definitely an understanding that Tippett was going to be headed home to GC at the end of this contract. I think GC threw Tippett & his manager for a loop with their low-ball salary offer, to which Blucher's response was to put Tippett on the open market, leading to the saga we're experiencing right now.

None of this was formally written into the contract, nor was it legally enforceable - both of which were key to AFGM's assertions.

I guess what Im saying is, that there may well have been a contract that became nul when GC couldn't/wouldn't match Adelaide's offer.

I think its now pretty clear that AFGM was right about the 'gentlemens understanding' in relation to Tippet's current contract with Adelaide.

 

[Heafy83]

I guess what Im saying is, that there may well have been a contract that became nul when GC couldn't/wouldn't match Adelaide's offer.

I think its now pretty clear that AFGM was right about the 'gentlemens understanding' in relation to Tippet's current contract with Adelaide.

He was right in the terms there was an agreement but there was no agreement as to what the compensation was for it. The agreement was just that Adelaide would do its best to facilitate a trade 'home' for Kurt.

 

[Wood_Duck]

He was right in the terms there was an agreement but there was no agreement as to what the compensation was for it.

Shoot me a copy, wouldn't mind a read of it myself.

 

[Heafy83]

Shoot me a copy, wouldn't mind a read of it myself.

Copy of what?

 

[TheMelbourneCrow]

The bit I find amusing is, that AFGM may have been right. My mail from a completely separate source maintains that there was definitely some form of agreement in place with GC. The deal fell over when GC refused to match Adelaide's salary offer, giving both parties an out on the agreement.

I don't think this will ever be able to be proved, or for that matter disproved.

funny that, I was actually thinking that AFGM was probably right and GC backed out of the Heads of agreement/contract, I was guessing due to concussions. Given how they have publicly said now they will not match our offer, im guessing you may be right.

 

[crowsarethebest]

I guess what Im saying is, that there may well have been a contract that became nul when GC couldn't/wouldn't match Adelaide's offer.

I think its now pretty clear that AFGM was right about the 'gentlemens understanding' in relation to Tippet's current contract with Adelaide.

No there can't be any contract that's the thing. It's illegal and there isn't/wouldn't be a contract which has that. Anyway, didn't AFGM admit he made it all up in the first place and he was basically 'guessing'?

 

[Wood_Duck]

Copy of what?

I thought you must have read the agreement.

 

[Wood_Duck]

No there can't be any contract that's the thing. It's illegal and there isn't/wouldn't be a contract which has that.

Really? Illegal? on what basis?

 

[crowsarethebest]

Really? Illegal? on what basis?

I believe Adrian Anderson released a statement saying it's illegal, you can't have something like that written in a contract...

 

[Heafy83]

I thought you must have read the agreement.

Stop being a smart ass.

It has been said by AFC, Syd, and Kurt's manager that the gentlemen's agreement was to facilitate and make easy for Kurt's transition. The point of contention is that Kurt and his manager say it was for his transition 'to another club' whereas Adelaide contest and have said 'home' (aka Bris, GC).

These are facts that we have to work with. Anything else is just heresay.......... including AFGM's predictions which have not come to fruition.

It has been proven there was no contract or clause in his contract that stipulated the compensation Adelaide were to get when it traded Kurt. This means compensation would have to have been included in some sort of gentlemen's agreement as to which has not been mentioned by any party involved to this point. It has only been media speculation.

If you want to live in a fairy tale hypothetical conspiracy land then be my guest.

I chose to use facts and what we have in front of us.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Breaking news.....


AFGM is the very first and only person to talk shit on the internet.

This is a remarkable day in technology and the world of IT will forever be regretful to his advancements.

Serious, who gives a shit. AFGM, I thought you had some plumbs and they'd dropped by now to be able to take this on the chin and not run like the proverbial bitch you're acting like.

If you don't come back, it only make it harder for the rest of us to make idiotic statements.

 

[Wood_Duck]

I believe Adrian Anderson released a statement saying it's illegal, you can't have something like that written in a contract...

Sorry mate, but if Kurt Tippet and the GC wanted to sign a memorandum of understanding, heads of agreement, letter of intent or whatever else you want to call it, Adrian Anderson would have nothing to do with it. An AFL contract of this nature would indeed be illegal under AFL laws as they stand today. I cannot comment on the loophole aspect that AFGM claimed had been exploited.

 

[Wood_Duck]

Stop being a smart arse.

It has been said by AFC, Syd, and Kurt's manager that the gentlemen's agreement was to facilitate and make easy for Kurt's transition. The point of contention is that Kurt and his manager say it was for his transition 'to another club' whereas Adelaide contest and have said 'home' (aka Bris, GC).

These are facts that we have to work with. Anything else is just heresay.......... including AFGM's predictions which have not come to fruition.

It has been proven there was no contract or clause in his contract that stipulated the compensation Adelaide were to get when it traded Kurt. This means compensation would have to have been included in some sort of gentlemen's agreement as to which has not been mentioned by any party involved to this point. It has only been media speculation.

If you want to live in a fairy tale hypothetical conspiracy land then be my guest.

I chose to use facts and what we have in front of us.

Again, you are claiming to have facts that don't exist. You have no more idea than I do as to what the 'gentlemens agreement' actually entailed. I dont think anyone is still arguing about the contents of Tippets AFL contract, the point is none of us actually know what the 'gentlemens agreement' actually entailed, yet you claim to be dealing in facts. Whos living the fairy tale?

 

[Heafy83]

Again, you are claiming to have facts that don't exist. You have no more idea than I do as to what the 'gentlemens agreement' actually entailed. I dont think anyone is still arguing about the contents of Tippets AFL contract, the point is none of us actually know what the 'gentlemens agreement' actually entailed, yet you claim to be dealing in facts. Whos living the fairy tale?

The AFC, SYD, Kurt's Manager have all said it was to facilitate his easy transition and then the point of contention I mentioned above. They have all been quoted as saying so. These are the facts we know at this point. If there is more we don't know. FACT FACT FACT

If there was more too it, such as the compensation as stated earlier in this thread do you not think Sydney would be all over that like a fat kid on a cupcake? Calling Adelaide out? Don't you think Kurt's manager would be doing the same to get him to his destination as quickly as possible?

However the suggestion of agreed compensation is not fact. Not one of the parties have said anything about it being in the gentlemen's agreement thus we can only assume it does not exist.

To suggest anything more is fairy tale talk at this stage. Like I said I am working with Facts. What all parties involved and not media fluff pieces have put in front of us.

 

[fabs33]

I guess what Im saying is, that there may well have been a contract that became nul when GC couldn't/wouldn't match Adelaide's offer.

Given that it's been pretty much proven that there was no clause it's probably safe to assume that there also wasn't any contract either.

 

[craig crowing]

Is AFGM back on Big Footy in the draft & trading posts.
I could be Rory wrong or Rory right

 

[boffo]

You know he/she changed his/her avatar , right?

OK, spell it out for me rayven, what does changing the avatar signify?

 

[PykeDream]

Sorry mate, but if Kurt Tippet and the GC wanted to sign a memorandum of understanding, heads of agreement, letter of intent or whatever else you want to call it, Adrian Anderson would have nothing to do with it. An AFL contract of this nature would indeed be illegal under AFL laws as they stand today. I cannot comment on the loophole aspect that AFGM claimed had been exploited.

AA's rule banning these agreements were after the fact anyway, any written agreement between GC and Adelaide would have been signed off on more than 6 months before.

 

[fabs33]

Neil Craig never played the kids!
Craig always prefered the choir boy athletes over real footballers.
Neil Craig stunted the growth of Taylor walker by always dropping him.
Craig always played dangerfield in the forward line.
Also he never traded.

That should get him to post again

You're doing it wrong. You need to say it three times in a row, all alone, at night and in the dark.

 

[Tarasque36]

He's gone ppl - join the dots -

AFGM is Kurt Tippett!!

He's now posting on the Sydney board as - Happy2BHome