Stephen Trigg petition

[blighty]

If ever there was an issue/s to bombard the AFC with a petition or email from all Crows supporters on this forum...its the father/son rule specifically as it relates to the Gibbs eligibilty...
I'm also led to believe some of the early AFC players Craven, Rowe Lee, Krug etc[should they have sons] don't qualify because they don't fit the current criteria.
Surely with that extraordinary notable on the board Paul Rofe QC he can provide a real service to the board & take it up to the AFL.

can someone provide Triggy's email address?

 

[- PC -]

They should have sacked Cornes game 1 1995

 

[relapse]

can someone provide Triggy's email address?

check your private messages

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

I've sent my email. Like i said in the other thread, Reid and Fantassia jobs should be riding on the outcome of this issue. How many stuff ups can we allow them to get away with?

 

[Mong]

I've sent my email. Like i said in the other thread, Reid and Fantassia jobs should be riding on the outcome of this issue. How many stuff ups can we allow them to get away with?

What exactly should they lose their jobs for? For the fact that the AFL had a rule in place? Or because our club mistakently thought he was eligible?

I thought Neil Craig summed it up beautifully. He said Gibbs was never ours in the first place, and we haven't done anything to lose him. The only mistake was thinking we could get him and he took the blame for that. Do we sack Craig?

Let's face it, this is only an issue now because Gibbs isn't eligible. 2 weeks ago everyone was extremely happy with the rule and only because it hasn't gone our way we all of a sudden want to blame someone. There is no one to blame. All we can do is hope the AFL show some leniency and change the rule. But really, we have no right to expect them to. Afterall, the rule was fine 2 weeks ago.

 

[GoSarge]

If ever there was an issue/s to bombard the AFC with a petition or email from all Crows supporters on this forum...its the father/son rule specifically as it relates to the Gibbs eligibilty...
I'm also led to believe some of the early AFC players Craven, Rowe Lee, Krug etc[should they have sons] don't qualify because they don't fit the current criteria.
Surely with that extraordinary notable on the board Paul Rofe QC he can provide a real service to the board & take it up to the AFL.

can someone provide Triggy's email address?

If you send an email that says "if you dont chase Bryce Gibbs I'll tear up my membership blah blah" it will get sent straight to the bin.

I propose we collate some anomalies relating to the rule in this thread and send this to the AFC to pursue. Advise them that any correspondence to the person who sends the email will be made public on this forum and at www.asthecrowsfly.com, and thus may force their hand a little. I think it's important that the email doesn't reek of sour grapes but is logical and points out the different flaws of the rule as we see it.

The Brett Ebert example andthe eligibility period should be two strong examples. I think also, if we should also email the 4 clubs aligned to us and ask for a list of players that played 200 games between 1970 --> 1990 to include in the email. I am prepared to help in digging up some facts if you're serious.

 

[Mego Red]

I think also, if we should also email the 4 clubs aligned to us and ask for a list of players that played 200 games between 1970 --> 1990 to include in the email. I am prepared to help in digging up some facts if you're serious.

SOMEONE needs to do this ...

 

[Mong]

The Brett Ebert example andthe eligibility period should be two strong examples. I think also, if we should also email the 4 clubs aligned to us and ask for a list of players that played 200 games between 1970 --> 1990 to include in the email. I am prepared to help in digging up some facts if you're serious.

I also think the fact that we missed out on both Cornes boys because the rule at the time was inadequate (so much so that they overhauled it) might give us a case for some latitude, and we should pursue that. The AFL does have a history of providing compensation where teams have been hard done by. Examples - Freo getting compensation for losing Jeff White from nothing in the Preseason Draft; Teams given priority picks for losing uncontracted players to new teams Freo and Port (eg. WC got Gardiner for losing Downsborough and Essendon got Lloyd for losing Delaney).

 

[NikkiNoo]

I am willing to help to collate the information to send, as long as the email / letter that is sent assures the club that we are assisting and not accusing.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

What exactly should they lose their jobs for? For the fact that the AFL had a rule in place? Or because our club mistakently thought he was eligible?

I thought Neil Craig summed it up beautifully. He said Gibbs was never ours in the first place, and we haven't done anything to lose him. The only mistake was thinking we could get him and he took the blame for that. Do we sack Craig?

Let's face it, this is only an issue now because Gibbs isn't eligible. 2 weeks ago everyone was extremely happy with the rule and only because it hasn't gone our way we all of a sudden want to blame someone. There is no one to blame. All we can do is hope the AFL show some leniency and change the rule. But really, we have no right to expect them to. Afterall, the rule was fine 2 weeks ago.

Slight exagerration on my part. However, I do believe the AFC acted incompetently by allowing the media and public to believe we could draft Gibbs. Considering the amount of times we have been shafted by the AFL in the past, surely this should have been checked, double-checked and then triple checked. I don't believe that it is Craigies fault unless he is now also acting as our Recruitment Manager.

 

[GoSarge]

I also think the fact that we missed out on both Cornes boys because the rule at the time was inadequate (so much so that they overhauled it) might give us a case for some latitude, and we should pursue that. The AFL does have a history of providing compensation where teams have been hard done by. Examples - Freo getting compensation for losing Jeff White from nothing in the Preseason Draft; Teams given priority picks for losing uncontracted players to new teams Freo and Port (eg. WC got Gardiner for losing Downsborough and Essendon got Lloyd for losing Delaney).

I'll draft an email if others can do some research and dig up the 200 game players from our aligned SANFL clubs (between 1970 and 1990). If we get 4 people (1 per SANFL club to get this information), then we can provide this information in the email I will send. Volunteers ? Can someone also provide a link to the 200 game SANFL players ? I used to have it, but can't find it anymore.

In the meantime, any other pertinent points that I should mention in the letter, please bring up in here.

Can we sticky this thread ?

I am willing to help to collate the information to send, as long as the email / letter that is sent assures the club that we are assisting and not accusing.

Rest assured, no accusations will be made. This is purely an attempt to state the facts and inadequacies of the rule. What the AFC does with the facts we provide, is purely up to them.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

I am willing to help to collate the information to send, as long as the email / letter that is sent assures the club that we are assisting and not accusing.

I've already sent one.. I had to rewrite it a couple of times to take out the negative/bad bits. Not much point sending a negative email full of accusations as I would assume it will get filed unread under "rubbish".

 

[NikkiNoo]

ok just did a quick troll back through past posts and found this link http://www.sanfl.com.au/default.aspx?pg=history&spg=display&articleid=24422

This is the list of all 200 gamers from the sanfl - we would then have to check to see what period they played the 200 games in.

 

[arrowman]

I agree that letters and emails of support, or pushing the club to pursue the inconsistencies in the rules, are in order. Accusations of incompetence or criticism of club officials are not - the only incompetent thing they have done is to let themselves and the public believe Gibbs was within the rule, the club has done nothing to "lose" Gibbs. It's pointless having a shot at the club for something as relatively minor as this, it just obscures the main message.

I propose we collate some anomalies relating to the rule in this thread and send this to the AFC to pursue. Advise them that any correspondence to the person who sends the email will be made public on this forum and at www.asthecrowsfly.com, and thus may force their hand a little. I think it's important that the email doesn't reek of sour grapes but is logical and points out the different flaws of the rule as we see it.

As one of the moderators of ATCF I am not prepared to support "Advise them that any correspondence to the person who sends the email will be made public on this forum and at www.asthecrowsfly.com".

Of course people can publish whatever they like on ATCF (within the rules) but
- I don't see that advising them in advance that the correspondence will be published "forces their hand" at all, it just makes the email look more like a threat than an encouragement, if you take my meaning.
- I don't like the idea of ATCF being used as some sort of (albeit mild) threat just at the time we are trying to establish a relationship with the club. I'm not saying we need to kowtow to the club on everything and try not to offend them - just that I don't like the atmosphere this suggestion creates.

By all means we can (and should) publish correspondence on ATCF (within the bounds of privacy laws), but let's not make it some sort of threat that we will.

 

[dA Crow]

I agree that letters and emails of support, or pushing the club to pursue the inconsistencies in the rules, are in order. Accusations of incompetence or criticism of club officials are not

Completely agree, because at the end of the day, both Triggy, the AFC and the supporters all want what is best for the Club; the Crows normally dont let bitch and complain via the media, unlike certain other clubs, they just try to solve issues as effeciently and proffessionally as possible. I'd be sure that behind the scenes, alot of effort is being put into getting the sorted out.

 

[GoSarge]

I agree that letters and emails of support, or pushing the club to pursue the inconsistencies in the rules, are in order. Accusations of incompetence or criticism of club officials are not - the only incompetent thing they have done is to let themselves and the public believe Gibbs was within the rule, the club has done nothing to "lose" Gibbs. It's pointless having a shot at the club for something as relatively minor as this, it just obscures the main message.
As one of the moderators of ATCF I am not prepared to support "Advise them that any correspondence to the person who sends the email will be made public on this forum and at www.asthecrowsfly.com".

Agree completely. The idea of the email was to collate as puch pertinent information as we could and then send it to the AFC. They then could decide how best to use that information in making amends to the Father Son Rule. I never considered accusing anybody of anything.

Of course people can publish whatever they like on ATCF (within the rules) but
- I don't see that advising them in advance that the correspondence will be published "forces their hand" at all, it just makes the email look more like a threat than an encouragement, if you take my meaning.
- I don't like the idea of ATCF being used as some sort of (albeit mild) threat just at the time we are trying to establish a relationship with the club. I'm not saying we need to kowtow to the club on everything and try not to offend them - just that I don't like the atmosphere this suggestion creates.

By all means we can (and should) publish correspondence on ATCF (within the bounds of privacy laws), but let's not make it some sort of threat that we will.

Fair call, the 'forcing the hand' bit was over the top and I shouldn't have mentioned it. I guess I just let my emotions get in the way as I am pretty passionate about us getting a fair go with this issue. I'll ensure that the email is based purely on facts and numbers.

 

[GoSarge]

ok just did a quick troll back through past posts and found this link http://www.sanfl.com.au/default.aspx?pg=history&spg=display&articleid=24422

This is the list of all 200 gamers from the sanfl - we would then have to check to see what period they played the 200 games in.

Thanks NikkiNoo.

Of the 4 clubs aligned to us, there are approximately 102 players. Ie 25 per club. Can we have some volunteers to check with the following clubs (Sturt, South, Glenelg, Norwood) to check when the relative players :

1) - Played their 200 games and
2) - How many they actually played during the 1970 --> 1990 period.

Any help would be appreciated.

 

[-VC-]

Thanks NikkiNoo.

Of the 4 clubs aligned to us, there are approximately 102 players. Ie 25 per club. Can we have some volunteers to check with the following clubs (Sturt, South, Glenelg, Norwood) to check when the relative players :

1) - Played their 200 games and
2) - How many they actually played during the 1970 --> 1990 period.

Any help would be appreciated.

EDIT: I'm only using the web here and am having a hard time with Norwood already. I'm going to give Glenelg a shot.

 

[SBR_04]

Thanks NikkiNoo.

Of the 4 clubs aligned to us, there are approximately 102 players. Ie 25 per club. Can we have some volunteers to check with the following clubs (Sturt, South, Glenelg, Norwood) to check when the relative players :

1) - Played their 200 games and
2) - How many they actually played during the 1970 --> 1990 period.

Any help would be appreciated.

I'll help out, I'll try Sturt.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

Thanks NikkiNoo.

Of the 4 clubs aligned to us, there are approximately 102 players. Ie 25 per club. Can we have some volunteers to check with the following clubs (Sturt, South, Glenelg, Norwood) to check when the relative players :

1) - Played their 200 games and
2) - How many they actually played during the 1970 --> 1990 period.

Any help would be appreciated.

It would also be handy if we could then compare the number of eligible players for the AFC with the number for The Power. Is there anyone from the dark side we can trust with this task. We need a professional. It's a pity the PAFC Big Footy Gang aren't still in operation.

 

[arrowman]

Agree completely. The idea of the email was to collate as puch pertinent information as we could and then send it to the AFC. They then could decide how best to use that information in making amends to the Father Son Rule. I never considered accusing anybody of anything.

Understand, Sarge. That part wasn't directed at you.

Fair call, the 'forcing the hand' bit was over the top and I shouldn't have mentioned it. I guess I just let my emotions get in the way as I am pretty passionate about us getting a fair go with this issue. I'll ensure that the email is based purely on facts and numbers.

Cheers. Good luck with the email etc.

 

[ignoranus]

How do you know those 200 games didnt include non-eligible games such as state games or pre-season games?

The AFC has already said they were working with incorrect data when trying to assess Gibbs' eligibility. Why do you think this web data would be more accurate than what the AFC had access to?

 

[GoSarge]

How do you know those 200 games didnt include non-eligible games such as state games or pre-season games?

The AFC has already said they were working with incorrect data when trying to assess Gibbs' eligibility. Why do you think this web data would be more accurate than what the AFC had access to?

Exactly. Just do the best you can At least we will have a rough idea of the numbers.

You may have to contact the SANFL club itself and see what information they can provide.

Edit: Further to this: try http://www.fullpointsfooty.net/

Go to the biographies section and check the players stats. It doesn't actually say WHEN they played all of their games, but you can work a lot of them out based on their debuts and the year that they finished. For instance, Sturt players, Halbert, Short and Schoff can be ruled out as their debuts were well before 1970 and so would be the majority of their games played.

 

[outback jack]

What exactly should they lose their jobs for? For the fact that the AFL had a rule in place? Or because our club mistakently thought he was eligible?

I thought Neil Craig summed it up beautifully. He said Gibbs was never ours in the first place, and we haven't done anything to lose him. The only mistake was thinking we could get him and he took the blame for that. Do we sack Craig?

Let's face it, this is only an issue now because Gibbs isn't eligible. 2 weeks ago everyone was extremely happy with the rule and only because it hasn't gone our way we all of a sudden want to blame someone. There is no one to blame. All we can do is hope the AFL show some leniency and change the rule. But really, we have no right to expect them to. Afterall, the rule was fine 2 weeks ago.

I disagree with this ****. I think the rule has so many holes in it if done properly then it would not of been a issue. For instance brisbane apparently have some guy thats a top3 this yr, who they are trying to get for the father son and you dont hear anything about it media wise. Its probably harder in adel, but we should of kept it as quiet as possible then a little while out say hes eligible and we're taking him. It is incompetence and embarrassment to the club as well. We have had some weak leadership at the top for a long time too. I'm not sure who makes all these decisions but we missed on a home final and said nothing, our trading is terrible, we've travelled to wcoast on round 22 for most of the last 5 or 6 yrs, we let port kick and scream about everything and say nothing. Thats off the top of my head. Basically the leadership has been very poor.

Now thankfully there has been some change this yr. However, i cannnot think that G Ayres is responsible for all those decisions. Someone else is making crappy decisions that should at least be addressed further. Maybe it took at port premiership to kick them into action, if so its rather disappointing.

 

[Eggzoi]

Was also thinking that some of this stuff should be mailed to the Advertiser, just to point out some things. They seem to be keen on writing about it.