Opinion Rob Chapman

[Elder van Berlo]

Presumably, something that will occur behind closed doors rather than playing out in any public forum.

Probably photoshopping his head into pictures with Andy D.

I like the second answer better.

 

[*PAF]

Doubtful since neither Chapman or Demetriou intimated as such. ...

I think you should listen to it again.
http://www.fiveaa.com.au/audio_crow...back-at-afl-boss-andrew-demetriou_107368?s=22

Demetriou said:

“This club (Essendon), unlike the Crows, cooperated fully, they actually self reported, they came to us ... every individual fully in that club cooperated fully and openly”
He also said " ... and I've got to tell you that when we with dealt with Adelaide that didn't happen."


That is exactly in line with what you posted.

AFL chairman Mike Fitzpatrick said we did, so it's his word against Demetriou's.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-05-...sion-fitzpatrick-and-demetriou-notes-attached

Mr Fitzpatrick said he wanted to acknowledge for the record the Adelaide Crows Football Club, led by club chairman Rob Chapman, had co-operated fully with the AFL, once the Investigative process had begun, including opening all records to auditors and making all relevant staff available at all times, including those individuals facing charges.


http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-05-...sion-fitzpatrick-and-demetriou-notes-attached

whereas Chapman said he discovered the issue and called the AFL within hours of Trigg landing in Adelaide he personally rang Andrew Demetriou. In other words AFC self reported not the other way around.

What Chapman said does not line up with the above quote where Fitzpatrick is quoted as saying that Adelaide co-operated fully after the Investigative process started.

Chapman ==> before
Article and 5aa interview ==> after.

 

[Adelaide Cows]

I don't believe it for a second. Chapman isn't an idiot, and this is the perfect way of telling the supporters they fought tooth and nail for the club whilst having to do absolutely nothing to prove it. Sorry, but I'm not just going to take his word for it.

I think you first point is correct, Demetrio gave Chapman an opportunity to give a little more insight into how hard they fought as a rebuttal after talking out of school about the negotiations.

Unfortunately part of the wheeling and dealings will mean you will have to take his word for it unless Demetrio lets more slip which we can question or defend.

 

[rayven]

god this is messy...

 

[fabs33]

I think you should listen to it again.
http://www.fiveaa.com.au/audio_crow...back-at-afl-boss-andrew-demetriou_107368?s=22

Demetriou said:

“This club (Essendon), unlike the Crows, cooperated fully, they actually self reported, they came to us ... every individual fully in that club cooperated fully and openly”
He also said " ... and I've got to tell you that when we with dealt with Adelaide that didn't happen."


That is exactly in line with what you posted.




whereas Chapman said he discovered the issue and called the AFL within hours of Trigg landing in Adelaide he personally rang Andrew Demetriou. In other words AFC self reported not the other way around.

What Chapman said does not line up with the above quote where Fitzpatrick is quoted as saying that Adelaide co-operated fully after the Investigative process started.

Chapman ==> before
Article and 5aa interview ==> after.

So where is the difference? Chapman calling the AFL to let them know of the problem doesn't constitute self reporting? Furthermore did the AFC not make everyone and everything available to the AFL's investigators? And how exactly are we supposed to "fully cooperate" with investigators before any investigation has even begun?

 

[weekend at bernies]

I think the question is more: had Trigg's head rolled, could we have suffered even less draft sanctions?

I.e. rather than getting everything down 50%, maybe we could have stayed at 100% in some respects which might be seen as less harmful to the club (i.e. sacking the CEO) and gone down to 20% in respects which might be seen as more harmful to the club (i.e. losing draft picks).

I'm not proffering an answer to the question as I clearly don't know, all I am saying is that Chapman didn't really answer it either.

I would like to think if Trigg had been booted out we have this years picks, but still missed out on last year.

 

[Godallblighty]

Chapman answered it. He said ALL of the sanctions were negotiated down - 50% less than the starting point. Fair to assume then that there were additional years of draft picks reduced with negotiation, not added.

You believe that? For what you keep describing as an 'administrative error'?

 

[icrow32]

So where is the difference? Chapman calling the AFL to let them know of the problem doesn't constitute self reporting? Furthermore did the AFC not make everyone and everything available to the AFL's investigators? And how exactly are we supposed to "fully cooperate" with investigators before any investigation has even begun?

There is none, its a load of bullshit. Demitriou is lying to cover his inconsistent fat lazy arse.

PAF maybe one of the few reasonable Port supporters on this planet but unfortunately he has fallen into the Port Power mentality that everything to do with the Crows is bad no matter what. Look at the Port boardm they have 3 threads dedicated to us (hi to all the Port w***ers reading this, i hope you realise how obsessed you are with us, get some help please).

How can we cooperated with investigaters before an investigation? Either we cooperated or we didnt, fitpaterick says we did, 12 months later Demetioru, when pushed to explain his leagues inconsistent treatment of the Crows and the Bombers, says we didnt, do you think Rowe and McDermott asked Demitriou how we didnt cooperate??

 

[Vader]

Dank admitted giving TB-4 to Essendon players in an interview, then tried retract it after when the reporter told him it was banned. This along with Essendon ordering (through Dank), paying for it (they have a copy of the invoice) & players signing a consent form, should be plenty of circumstantial evidence.

I don't think is the last penalty on the matter...

The only question is who took what? If ASADA can conclusively link (banned) drug X with player Y, then player Y will get banned. Right now though, Essendon's inability to keep records, together with Dank's refusal to be interviewed by ASADA, means that they don't have enough evidence to convict any individual player.

The players were given a whole cocktail of drugs - most of them legal, some possibly not. Not every player was on the same mix of drugs. Until they can sort out who took what, then ASADA's hands are tied.

That said, Watson's admission that he was on AOD should be enough to convict him as far as I'm concerned.

 

[jenny61_99]

I think the question is more: had Trigg's head rolled, could we have suffered even less draft sanctions?

I.e. rather than getting everything down 50%, maybe we could have stayed at 100% in some respects which might be seen as less harmful to the club (i.e. sacking the CEO) and gone down to 20% in respects which might be seen as more harmful to the club (i.e. losing draft picks).

I'm not proffering an answer to the question as I clearly don't know, all I am saying is that Chapman didn't really answer it either.

As I've said before, I personally believe the AFL needed to use Trigg as a precedent for the Melbourne saga which was next cab off the rank. They had to find a way to hit Melbourne without killing the Club off entirely. By imposing a fine they would never have to pay (and couldn't in any case) and then throwing personal sanctions on the people involved, they were able to limit the damage to the Club. Had they ever sanctioned personnel in these salary cap things before? No. So there's no doubt in my mind here they had an ulterior motive to keep Trigg on.

 

[fabs33]

There is none, its a load of bullshit. Demitriou is lying to cover his inconsistent fat lazy arse.

PAF maybe one of the few reasonable Port supporters on this planet but unfortunately he has fallen into the Port Power mentality that everything to do with the Crows is bad no matter what. Look at the Port boardm they have 3 threads dedicated to us (hi to all the Port ******s reading this, i hope you realise how obsessed you are with us, get some help please).

How can we cooperated with investigaters before an investigation? Either we cooperated or we didnt, fitpaterick says we did, 12 months later Demetioru, when pushed to explain his leagues inconsistent treatment of the Crows and the Bombers, says we didnt, do you think Rowe and McDermott asked Demitriou how we didnt cooperate??

I'm of the mind that what Demetriou meant to say is that we didn't cooperate with the AFL during the negotiations of our penalties, as in we fought them, not that we didn't cooperate with the investigation itself. That would better explain both Demetriou's comments of not cooperating, Fitzpatrick's comments about us cooperating with the investigations and Chapman's comments of fighting tooth and nail to lessen our penalties.

 

[Godallblighty]

Personally, I think 'Essendon's inability to keep records' is 'Essendon's refusal to produce records'. It's the most outrageous case of 'Dog ate my homework' ever. At least, in footy. Maybe not in the history of the universe.

 

[*PAF]

So where is the difference? ...

Reading back it looks as if you may be the only one in this thread that fails to see the difference.

... Chapman calling the AFL to let them know of the problem doesn't constitute self reporting? ...

This is the really really important part:
Chapman implied the AFL knew nothing about it until he personally called his mate Andrew. Andrew implied otherwise. At least that is the way it comes across to many if not most of us.
See the difference?

... Furthermore did the AFC not make everyone and everything available to the AFL's investigators? ...

Yep, everyone agrees this did happen once the investigative process got underway.

... And how exactly are we supposed to "fully cooperate" with investigators before any investigation has even begun?

This is the $M dollar question that people would like to see answered isn't it because by the sounds of it did influence the penalties.

I suppose it depends on who knew about it and the time difference between knowing about it and "self reporting", or if people continually denied it existed until they were put in a corner with no exit. Million dollar question.

 

[jenny61_99]

You believe that? For what you keep describing as an 'administrative error'?

All I am saying is what he said. I'm in no position to believe otherwise - he was there, I wasn't. Everybody agrees it was a ridiculous punishment for what it was and in comparison to Essendons, ludicrous. Thing is, you can't look back and say "Oy, that's not fair". We obviously felt we got the best deal possible given the AFL's state of mind at the time.

 

[CrowAboutIt]

Reading back it looks as if you may be the only one in this thread that fails to see the difference.


This is the really really important part:
Chapman implied the AFL knew nothing about it until he personally called his mate Andrew. Andrew implied otherwise. At least that is the way it comes across to many if not most of us.
See the difference?


Yep, everyone agrees this did happen once the investigative process got underway.


This is the $M dollar question that people would like to see answered isn't it because by the sounds of it did influence the penalties.

I suppose it depends on who knew about it and the time difference between knowing about it and "self reporting", or if people continually denied it existed until they were put in a corner with no exit. Million dollar question.

Unlike the bombers hiding an injection conveyer line?

 

[*PAF]

There is none, its a load of bullshit. Demitriou is lying to cover his inconsistent fat lazy arse.

PAF maybe one of the few reasonable Port supporters on this planet but unfortunately he has fallen into the Port Power mentality that everything to do with the Crows is bad no matter what. Look at the Port boardm they have 3 threads dedicated to us (hi to all the Port ******s reading this, i hope you realise how obsessed you are with us, get some help please).

How can we cooperated with investigaters before an investigation? Either we cooperated or we didnt, fitpaterick says we did, 12 months later Demetioru, when pushed to explain his leagues inconsistent treatment of the Crows and the Bombers, says we didnt, do you think Rowe and McDermott asked Demitriou how we didnt cooperate??

I think the Essendon saga was played out in a large room full of ceiling fans. In that room there were hundreds of people throwing shit and it splattered everywhere and atm we have no idea what is really happening and that includes within my club, not just Essendon and the Crows.
One thing that I do believe is that out of these two sagas we will have better recording/monitoring of contracts and better recording/monitoring of the medical side of things. This will be a good outcome.

As far as the Demitriou Chapman difference of opinion goes, isn't Demetriou putting the Crows in a bad light?
Easy to fix, Chapman should call him and get Vlad to apologise on air. Surely if he has been misquoted he will be more than happy to do it and then Chapman should ask him (on air) why Adelaide cannot have an end of first round pick back.

 

[headache1]

Personally, I think 'Essendon's inability to keep records' is 'Essendon's refusal to produce records'. It's the most outrageous case of 'Dog ate my homework' ever. At least, in footy. Maybe not in the history of the universe.

It's unbelievable. ASADA should just tell them that unless they produce records of which players were injected with what, they'll have to assume that all players were injected with each substance listed on the consent forms signed, and will consequently be banned.

 

[Bacon8]

The only question is who took what? If ASADA can conclusively link (banned) drug X with player Y, then player Y will get banned. Right now though, Essendon's inability to keep records, together with Dank's refusal to be interviewed by ASADA, means that they don't have enough evidence to convict any individual player.

The players were given a whole cocktail of drugs - most of them legal, some possibly not. Not every player was on the same mix of drugs. Until they can sort out who took what, then ASADA's hands are tied.

That said, Watson's admission that he was on AOD should be enough to convict him as far as I'm concerned.

Watson actually said "I believe I was given AOD", which he might have been. But he could also have been given a saline solution and told it was AOD. I don't think it's 100% enough to hang him.

But then, the javelin (?) guy got banned for missing tests.

Hopefully, the redacted bits had more info re drugs taken by whom.

 

[*PAF]

Unlike the bombers hiding an injection conveyer line?

The way it sounds now is that everyone at Essendon co operated fully for the "internal review" and then they realised just how big the issue was.

 

[Tex Support]

I tend to agree with this, which makes me wonder exactly what the hell Chapman was working on at 11pm on Tuesday night...

His game?

 

[The Karma Bus]

I would like to think if Trigg had been booted out we have this years picks, but still missed out on last year.

You're meant to be hurt by penalties when you do something wrong and are penalised.. Each penalty would have started above, with the AFL knowing full well we would try get them reduced.. They would have brought them down to what they wanted to give all along, and look like nice guys for doing that.. They want to hit you on each base..

People don't realise how seriously the AFL took our situation, and how much they want other clubs to not even think about playing with that fire.. You're not getting only 1 year of picks taken away for salary cap crimes, let alone while also committing draft tamper crimes at the same time..

I think the other thing is that Trigg knew about the deal for a while and did nothing/hoped it went away or Tiprat just stayed, it took Chapman to "self report" once we hit trade time.. That could be what they mean.. But Essendon "self reported" the moment they realised there was something maybe wrong.. That's not to say Essendon didn't know though, but that's how it seems to the AFL obviously

AFL also won't give 3 years of picks penalties as they know it will ruin a club, so they smashed them harder with the fine.. The AFL don't seem to believe Essendon actually did anything wrong, just that they had woeful procedures/accountability etc.. And these procedures etc resulted in one of the worst and most dangerous situations in AFL history.. But in their eyes we actually did something wrong.. They also had a writ lodged by Hird and wanted it to go away, and a man claiming the AFL tipped them off and had the inside info from the ACC..

If the club/individuals deserve a roast, I'm happy for that to take place and I will give them one myself..
But people are simply looking for more mud to throw at them it seems..

 

[Godallblighty]

There is a curious resemblance between the Adelaide and Essendon situations, wouldn't you agree? Both took the high moral ground early, promised vindication when they had the chance to get the full story out, lawyered up with every appearance of arguing their case, only to emerge from negotiations accepting significant penalties. They then both refuse to produce the information they said would constitute their side of the story but, nevertheless, assert that they haven't really done anything terribly wrong.

I don't believe Essendon now, and I didn't believe Adelaide at the time. Plea-bargaining by definition involves you taking a lesser penalty than you would receive if you fight. You don't negotiate a settlement if you think you are going to win. Actions > words.

 

[fabs33]

This is the really really important part:
Chapman implied the AFL knew nothing about it until he personally called his mate Andrew. Andrew implied otherwise. At least that is the way it comes across to many if not most of us.

May I ask who you're referring to when you say "us"? Because to me it sounds like you're basing your logic entirely on the assumption that we only fessed up when the handcuffs where about to be applied, that's not exactly the sort of picture the AFL where putting out there when they handed us our penalties. You're also overlooking the fact that Essendon and all their people have had a very defensive attitude during this whole saga, to the point that there was even a threat of legal action, is this cooperating fully? Is conveniently having no paperwork relating to their activities for investigators to examine also cooperating fully?

 

[JP Sauce]

His game?

The email replies were sent from his iPad, so my guess is he was stuck on a really tough Candy Crush level.

 

[fabs33]

As far as the Demitriou Chapman difference of opinion goes, isn't Demetriou putting the Crows in a bad light?
Easy to fix, Chapman should call him and get Vlad to apologise on air. Surely if he has been misquoted he will be more than happy to do it and then Chapman should ask him (on air) why Adelaide cannot have an end of first round pick back.

I agree with you on this part, Demetriou's words are damaging to our club and he should be made to explain them or apologise, or both.