Opinion Rob Chapman

[fabs33]

Who gives a flying fig about Essendon in this thread?
Andy made it quite clear that Adelaide were not helpful until after the "Investigative process" started and Chapman said otherwise.
You misquoted Fitzy in post #24 to supposedly prove that Chapman is a good fella and Vlad a lying prick. That is what my original post was about, your misquote.
Now you're going off on all sorts of 12 year old tangents.

That's amusing, I don't recall ever wanting to prove that Chapman is a "good fella", far from it, I don't want him or Trigg at my club. Why would you assume that from me disagreeing with Demetriou? Andy did not make it quite clear at all, his comments about us in that interview said nothing about what we were uncooperative with, all they did was go against the picture they themselves (AFL) painted of the AFC last year.

Who gives a flying fig about Essendon in this thread? Are you serious? We're not the only ones discussing them in this thread you know.

 

[The Karma Bus]

Bingo.

Essendon self reported after they found out what Hird had been up to, despite being warned about it by the AFL/ASADA and having Reid and Bomber try and stop it.

We self-reported when we found at what Trigg had done (according to the narrative that both the Crows and the AFL have been happy to present).

So what's the difference?

Because they would then basically have to smash Essendon into oblivion with the penalties..
And they don't want to do that.. For many reasons.. And rea$onS..

As I've said, Vlad creates the reality he wants and then tries to make it everyone else's reality.. Tell a lie long enough and it will become truth.. to some..

 

[Elite Crow]

Because they would then basically have to smash Essendon into oblivion with the penalties..
And they don't want to do that.. For many reasons.. And rea$onS..

As I've said, Vlad creates the reality he wants and then tries to make it everyone else's reality.. Tell a lie long enough and it will become truth.. to some..

You dont think we are guilty of the same?

 

[*PAF]

...

Who gives a flying fig about Essendon in this thread? Are you serious? We're not the only ones discussing them in this thread you know.

Do you need people to keep saying that what Essendon did is worse than what Adelaide did in every thread? You have other threads for that.
Read the posts before yours and you will see that this thread is about what Vlad said and Chapman's reply.
Here is your first post in case you have forgotten it.

Demetriou said that part of the reason each team got the penalties they got was because Essendon fully cooperated with investigations and we didn't, which goes against what was declared by the AFL themselves when we got done.

You then used this to apparently "prove that Andy was wrong.

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

But conveniently choose to ignore ", once the Investigative process had begun,". The commas are there for a reason one would think.

That's amusing, I don't recall ever wanting to prove that Chapman is a "good fella", far from it, I don't want him or Trigg at my club. Why would you assume that from me disagreeing with Demetriou? Andy did not make it quite clear at all, his comments about us in that interview said nothing about what we were uncooperative with, all they did was go against the picture they themselves (AFL) painted of the AFC last year.
...

Your quotes above to me read as if Vlad is full of shit and Chapman set the record straight.

 

[The Karma Bus]

You dont think we are guilty of the same?

Not sure what you're asking exactly..

 

[jenny61_99]

Essendon's self reporting is a crock of shit. They knew they had issues back in August when they sacked Dank. They were sweeping it under the carpet, unaware that the ACC had been conducting an investigation all year. Remember they threatened legal action against reporters that threatened to run with the story prior to Christmas? They knew.

 

[*PAF]

Essendon's self reporting is a crock of shit. ...

Not too many would disagree with you there Jen.

 

[fabs33]

Your quotes above to me read as if Vlad is full of shit and Chapman set the record straight.

I'm not trying to absolve Chapman of anything, if you thought that then you're mistaken, it was never my intention to imply anything of the sort. I hope that's settled.

But conveniently choose to ignore ", once the Investigative process had begun,". The commas are there for a reason one would think.

I didn't ignore anything, I stated that Demetriou's comments on 5AA were broad reaching and non-specific, and that they suggested that we were as general rule uncooperative. And that goes contrary to what I quoted from Fitzpatrick in that early post which states we were cooperative during the investigation. Regardless of whether we were uncooperative before the investigation, the cooperation we showed after was ignored by Demetriou yesterday and that narrative of his was used to partly justify the respective penalties handed out to both clubs.

Do you need people to keep saying that what Essendon did is worse than what Adelaide did in every thread? You have other threads for that.
Read the posts before yours and you will see that this thread is about what Vlad said and Chapman's reply.

It's not really up to you to decide what we discuss in each thread, this thread has plenty people discussing the same thing as us, that's their choice.

 

[*PAF]

I'm not trying to absolve Chapman of anything, if you thought that then you're mistaken, it was never my intention to imply anything of the sort. I hope that's settled.
...

Settled.

...
I didn't ignore anything, I stated that Demetriou's comments on 5AA were broad reaching and non-specific, and that they suggested that we were as general rule uncooperative. And that goes contrary to what I quoted from Fitzpatrick in that early post which states we were cooperative during the investigation. Regardless of whether we were uncooperative before the investigation, the cooperation we showed after was ignored by Demetriou yesterday and that narrative of his was used to partly justify the respective penalties handed out to both clubs.
...

Demetriou simply said Essendon co-operated before the Investigation and the Crows didn't.
He did not say you didn't co-operate during the investigation.
That is the only dispute now that the above has been "settled".

...

It's not really up to you to decide what we discuss in each thread, this thread has plenty people discussing the same thing as us, that's their choice.

A few, most have posted about Chapman and are wondering why he isn't making a stronger stance.

 

[fabs33]

Settled.

Demetriou simply said Essendon co-operated before the Investigation and the Crows didn't.
He did not say you didn't co-operate during the investigation.
That is the only dispute now that the above has been "settled".

At what point in the interview did he actually say "before"? Honestly what I remember is what has been written on the 5AA website, which was;

“This club (Essendon), unlike the Crows, cooperated fully.”

“They actually self reported. From the chairman through to the coaching staff through to every player… every individual in that club cooperated fully and openly with ASADA and the AFL in the investigation."

“That carries weight in sanctioning and I’ve got to tell you when we dealt with Adelaide that didn’t happen.”

As far as I can tell he says Essendon and it's people cooperated with the investigation, just as he said they cooperated fully, "unlike the Crows". But there was no mention specifically of what either club did before the investigations commenced. What's confusing is that he was so damning of our lack of cooperation in this interview when he, Anderson and Fitzpatrick all praised the Crows for their cooperation last year. Hence why I believe that he is deceiving us this time around to suit the penalties handed to Essendon.

A few, most have posted about Chapman and are wondering why he isn't making a stronger stance.

I think there is a possibility that there was more to the Tippett fiasco that either party is willing to admit, either that or Chapman and Demetriou have become too friendly.

 

[The Karma Bus]

At what point in the interview did he actually say "before"? Honestly what I remember is what has been written on the 5AA website, which was;





As far as I can tell he says Essendon and it's people cooperated with the investigation, just as he said they cooperated fully, "unlike the Crows". But there was no mention specifically of what either club did before the investigations commenced. What's confusing is that he was so damning of our lack of cooperation in this interview when he, Anderson and Fitzpatrick all praised the Crows for their cooperation last year. Hence why I believe that he is deceiving us this time around to suit the penalties handed to Essendon.



I think there is a possibility that there was more to the Tippett fiasco that either party is willing to admit, either that or Chapman and Demetriou have become too friendly.

That, and also he hates being under the pump in interviews like that.. He gets mad which you hear in his voice and usually grabs at a lame reason or excuse.. Doesn't care or think that people will say "wait.. wut?".. Seen it all before Vlad..

 

[Sanders]

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.

<3

 

[Sanders]

Doesn't your theory, that they wanted to set a precedent of punishing individuals rather than clubs, support the suggestion that had Trigg walked or been pushed (as opposed to suspended), it might have led to lesser penalties for the club itself?

If they didn't need a precedent to ban trigg why did they need one for melbourne?

 

[*PAF]

...
At what point in the interview did he actually say "before"? Honestly what I remember is what has been written on the 5AA website, which was;





As far as I can tell he says Essendon and it's people cooperated with the investigation, just as he said they cooperated fully, "unlike the Crows". But there was no mention specifically of what either club did before the investigations commenced. What's confusing is that he was so damning of our lack of cooperation in this interview when he, Anderson and Fitzpatrick all praised the Crows for their cooperation last year. Hence why I believe that he is deceiving us this time around to suit the penalties handed to Essendon.
...

Listened to it again and you're right he didn't use the term before but he was talking about "coming to us prior to the investigation starting" type thing. Put that and Fitzy's quote together and IMO 2+2 = 4

...

I think there is a possibility that there was more to the Tippett fiasco that either party is willing to admit, ...

That unfortunately is what it now appears to be.

...
either that or Chapman and Demetriou have become too friendly.

Dunno, the last 6 or so months plus listening to both interviews on 5aa one gets the feeling that Andrew is very much "Vlad the boss of all bosses" and no one ****s with "The Vlad".

 

[Stripple]

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.

Chapman stated during the interview Andrew agreed that's how it went down that we called and then he said this will hold you in good stead.

Also the fact Hird put in court action, and little calling the AFL billigerent disputes the cooperation further.

 

[Cleric]

Who gives a flying fig about Essendon in this thread?
Andy made it quite clear that Adelaide were not helpful until after the "Investigative process" started and Chapman said otherwise.
You misquoted Fitzy in post #24 to supposedly prove that Chapman is a good fella and Vlad a lying prick. That is what my original post was about, your misquote.
Now you're going off on all sorts of 12 year old tangents.

Its an Adelaide thread about whatever Adelaide supporters want it to be. Its not for you to come here and tell us what should or shouldn't be mentioned in this thread. If an Adelaide supporter was arguing on your list as you have here your posts would have been deleted and you would have yourself a card.

 

[brucetiki]

Chapman on FiveAA is akin to Kim Jong-un appearing on North Korean State Television - FiveAA is a propaganda machine for the Adelaide Football Club, where stooges like Chapman and Trigg can go on, sprout all sorts of propaganda rubbish, and it will be treated as gospel.

I'm half expecting Trigg and Chapman to announce they're going to build giant statues of themselves outside the Westpac Centre for the members to worship

 

[xchadders]

as much as all this craps me off, none of it would be in discussion if we werent a bunch of cheating maggots.

 

[Sanders]

Its an Adelaide thread about whatever Adelaide supporters want it to be. Its not for you to come here and tell us what should or shouldn't be mentioned in this thread. If an Adelaide supporter was arguing on your list as you have here your posts would have been deleted and you would have yourself a card.

Lets not be such rednecks that we invalidate a perfectly reasonable view because of the posters affiliations

 

[Carmo]

At what point in the interview did he actually say "before"? Honestly what I remember is what has been written on the 5AA website, which was;





As far as I can tell he says Essendon and it's people cooperated with the investigation, just as he said they cooperated fully, "unlike the Crows". But there was no mention specifically of what either club did before the investigations commenced. What's confusing is that he was so damning of our lack of cooperation in this interview when he, Anderson and Fitzpatrick all praised the Crows for their cooperation last year. Hence why I believe that he is deceiving us this time around to suit the penalties handed to Essendon.



I think there is a possibility that there was more to the Tippett fiasco that either party is willing to admit, either that or Chapman and Demetriou have become too friendly.

I wonder if John Reid counts as "Adelaide"?

 

[Cap]

Lets not be such rednecks that we invalidate a perfectly reasonable view because of the posters affiliations

I don't think the posters affiliation invalids his argument.

 

[amer]

You still haven't answered what specific fact I listed you dispute. Strange since you were so so strong in your opinion you know better.

There is clear evidence that Essendon paid of banned substances & others not yet passed fit for human consumption. There is clear evidence players signed consent forms to take these drugs. Dank has admitted to injecting Thysomisen-4, thinking wrongly it wasn't banned.

So you would prefer to ignore the evidence & go on the word of Sam Newman - someone who counts Dank as a personal friend - I'm sure he is objective in this!

You may as crawl back under your rock if you want to ignore all this evidence & take your opinion on someone who is not going to be objective.

What evidence?

You understand that you have spouted words, and I am pulling you up because you haven't provided any basis for titling them facts. By basis, I mean actual evidence. Not "reference" to other parties saying they are facts, and "reference" to there being evidence.

I am not the one making claims. This isn't on me.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

What evidence?

You understand that you have spouted words, and I am pulling you up because you haven't provided any basis for titling them facts. By basis, I mean actual evidence. Not "reference" to other parties saying they are facts, and "reference" to there being evidence.

I am not the one making claims. This isn't on me.

I gather you have not read the interim report nor the interview with Dank. I suggest you do as it is far more informative/unbiased than Sam Newman on this matter.

The AFL have a copy of a paid invoice which includes payment for receiving banned substances.

The AFL have copies of consent forms for Essendon players to take banned substances.

Dank has admitted on record to 2 journalists injecting Essendon players with banned substances - which he incorrectly didn't realise were banned as he failed to check.

But, hey keep living in denial under a rock if you want.

 

[Stripple]

Just had a call with Rob. Said I could share it. Unfortunately he had lost my email (see below) which followed another one saying how disappointed I was with his response on 5AA. Due to not having my email, and me not having it at hand I didn't really get a direct answer for much of the below and I'm not as good in verbal debates, so nothing really new in regards to the whole saga.

Said events in the saga played out as Jenny has described. Said who do you believe Steven or the Tippett camp in regards to re-negging on the deal. Said three people did something wrong and it has tainted the club. Said trust needed to be earnt, and he believes in actions not words. Said he had talked to Andrew about whether Adelaide had done anything to offend him, his answer was of course no and just basically there was no inequity in the penalties (Chapman kind of agreed regarding losing out on finals being a huge penalty).

One nice tid bit was to do with trading. Mentioned about making claims such as Trading Aggresively into the first round and then taking actions that did not reflect that. He stated he had been in a meeting regarding the matter yesterday and was very excited with what was on the cards. Probably meant Betts but it was nice none the less.

I commend the man for his efforts and his time. But still feel there is a lot of work to be done on so many fronts before trust can be restored.

Really wish I had my email with me.

___________________
Rob,
Thank you for replying I do appreciate it and the fact you take time to respond to fans such as myself, despite my disappointment with your comments. Please understand this comes from a love of the club.
In regards to your comments I have summarised them below.

• You contacted Andrew when you first learned of the issue, and he replied this will "hold you in good stead".
• We fully complied and even invited an investigation
• This was a one off offence
• You did not enquire as to the reasoning behind the draft penalty difference
• We were hard negotiators, "bare knuckled fight"as you put it.
• reduced the penalty by 50%
• there where 1 mil in fines, sackings, and harsher draft penalties.
• You regard our punishment as harsh
• You deemed chest beating would provide no benefit.

Firstly, the sanctions you mention we started at would have to be deemed as harsher than what Carlton received, for what was a one off offence as opposed to their systematic cap breaches. We received a harsher draft penalty for what essentially boils down to an administrative failing(in which we did not exceed the cap), as opposed to a player welfare failing. How is this fair when the effects of draft picks are felt for 10 years? As mentioned in my previous emails, there are also inequities in the suspensions (Hird being able to attend games as opposed to Trigg). Now when questioned on the differential in penalties Andrew mentioned the uncooperative nature of our club and Essendon, considering the links I attached to a previous email and your own recollection of events this is a reason enough to question why the differential exists, cause clearly it is not as Andrew stated. Or to at least ask for Andrew to explain himself, not leave it up to 5AA to do it.
The fact of the matter is for years our club has been at the wrong end of a (at least perceived) bias from the AFL. Wether it was setting up a father son rule (and changing said rule) that would never eventuate in us receiving these picks. Consistent biased umpiring (see the prelim last year and the overall differential for each year of our existence even when we were an ultra disciplined team under Craig). The expansion poaching (loopholes). The back and forth over Rendell (Demitriou stating on the couch the recruiter should be looking for another job then claiming he did not force us to fire him). Adelaide being the only club actually penalised over Melbourne (non) tanking (with the AFL to help them financially after fining them). And of course the lesser draft penalties to a larger Victorian club.
This whole saga (the Tippett affair) has alienated many a fan and member, and being called an agitator because I want some accountability at the club does not help. Raising our fists in anger would alleviate some of this, it may not get us much out of the AFL but it would go along way toward building trust back with the members, to let us see you and Steven fight for the club "Bare Knuckled" as it were. To know that our admin is fighting as hard as Danger, Tex and Sloane. You stated chest beating would achieve nothing, it would begin building trust again.
The only information we fans have regarding what happened in that room when we received our penalties is the AFL's statement and what we were told by the club, which was very little. We are told that we are told very little as it is best for the club. We have to trust the club blindly, but when the club retains the services of the very person responsible (the buck stops and mud sticks) for landing us in that room, and then tells us to trust its all for the best, surely you can understand why that trust is eroded.
All I want is to trust my club again, to be proud again.
Thanks for your time.

 

[King Elvis]

Good on you stripple!