Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[Hodgy]

Not too bright are you.

Maybe if you took your head out of cyberland for 5 minutes you would get some perspective mate, they did nothing or very little wrong. You have 700 full time media involved in AFL and they have no games to comment on for 5 months but have to justify a paycheck, you do the maths. Also the AFL get their product on the back page during a cricket series, does that put any lightbulbs on for you as to why Emma Quail was getting information that could only come from the AFL.

Just a guess but is "Today Tonight" your favourite show.

 

[ftmch]

It's just all the stuff from this thread people have been asking. In hindsight I asked too many questions. Should have kept it to 2-3 key ones.

All really good questions Carl

 

[asdfasd]

Chapman and Trigg just need more fans like you

Unfortunately it appears they have plenty of fans like this.

 

[headache1]

Maybe if you took your head out of cyberland for 5 minutes you would get some perspective mate, they did nothing or very little wrong. You have 700 full time media involved in AFL and they have no games to comment on for 5 months but have to justify a paycheck, you do the maths. Also the AFL get their product on the back page during a cricket series, does that put any lightbulbs on for you as to why Emma Quail was getting information that could only come from the AFL.

Just a guess but is "Today Tonight" your favourite show.

I'm not arguing against the oversaturation of AFL media that takes place, but the facts are, that we were charged with breaching rules that constitute cheating, and we pled guilty to these charges, yet the same ****wits who were responsible for putting us in that situation are still in charge. Now, if we had been banned for the next 5 drafts and stripped of all premiership points for this period as well, you may have a point that it was all a media beat up.

I would have thought Today Tonight was more up the alley of the flogs who believe every last bit of shit forced down their throat by this club. That show is nothing but contradictions, much like the various statements coming from the club over this whole saga.

 

[Smoooothy]

i for one think its good today tonight aren't covering it. i don't want to know how many diseases my membership card can potentially hold

 

[Hodgy]

Unfortunately it appears they have plenty of fans like this.

Ahh the universal argument of the vocal minority. We are right, if only everyone else could see that we are right we could change things for the better.
Wouldn't it be great if we could have a society were the opinion of the majority was considered right, what could we call that? I know... democracy sounds like a good word.

 

[headache1]

Ahh the universal argument of the vocal minority. We are right, if only everyone else could see that we are right we could change things for the better.
Wouldn't it be great if we could have a society were the opinion of the majority was considered right, what could we call that? I know... democracy sounds like a good word.

And this has what to do with the Adelaide Football Club, where members have no voting rights? Sounds like fascism to me.

 

[Jars458]

Ahh the universal argument of the vocal minority. We are right, if only everyone else could see that we are right we could change things for the better.
Wouldn't it be great if we could have a society were the opinion of the majority was considered right, what could we call that? I know... democracy sounds like a good word.

Intergity isn't decided by a vote. Some things we hold to be self-evident.

 

[Hodgy]

I'm not arguing against the oversaturation of AFL media that takes place, but the facts are, that we were charged with breaching rules that constitute cheating, and we pled guilty to these charges, yet the same ****wits who were responsible for putting us in that situation are still in charge. Now, if we had been banned for the next 5 drafts and stripped of all premiership points for this period as well, you may have a point that it was all a media beat up.

I would have thought Today Tonight was more up the alley of the flogs who believe every last bit of shit forced down their throat by this club. That show is nothing but contradictions, much like the various statements coming from the club over this whole saga.

Just because we pleaded guilty doesn't mean the charges were true or accurate. In business myself I have had several times where a client has taken us to court over a total crock of shit complaint but our lawyers have advised doing a deal instead of fighting. This is because the 10% chance that you will lose $100k has to be weighed against giving up $5k in a settlement. This happens all the time and while it absolutely grates to have to give them any satisfaction, it is better for your organisation in the long run. Honestly our Club has done very little wrong here if anything and the unified support that we are showing now is just what good organisations do and will hold us in good stead for the future.

I have regular dealings with 2 of our current board and I can assure you that they both are really good at what they do. I for one am backing their judgement all the way.

 

[Hodgy]

Intergity isn't decided by a vote. Some things we hold to be self-evident.

No but if more people think you have integrity than those that think you haven't then you probably have integrity. This is after all the premise of our justice system, that's how a jury works.

 

[Hodgy]

And this has what to do with the Adelaide Football Club, where members have no voting rights? Sounds like fascism to me.

You can run for a position on the board if you want.

 

[Deaneus!]

Wouldn't it be great if we could have a society were the opinion of the majority was considered right, what could we call that? I know... democracy sounds like a good word.

If the opinion of the majority was considered right, our textbooks would say the Sun revolves around the Earth

And, so I can come off all well-read and wanky or cool for the second time in two days, have a read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Enemy_of_the_People

 

[Sanders]

Ahh the universal argument of the vocal minority. We are right, if only everyone else could see that we are right we could change things for the better.
Wouldn't it be great if we could have a society were the opinion of the majority was considered right, what could we call that? I know... democracy sounds like a good word.

Ok so you are proud of being different.

Now what?

 

[Deaneus!]

Just because we pleaded guilty doesn't mean the charges were true or accurate. In business myself I have had several times where a client has taken us to court over a total crock of shit complaint but our lawyers have advised doing a deal instead of fighting. This is because the 10% chance that you will lose $100k has to be weighed against giving up $5k in a settlement. This happens all the time and while it absolutely grates to have to give them any satisfaction, it is better for your organisation in the long run. Honestly our Club has done very little wrong here if anything and the unified support that we are showing now is just what good organisations do and will hold us in good stead for the future.

I do not disagree with your assessment of what happens when your company is taken to court. Have also been through it.

What concerns me about your statement, is that the loss of R1 & R2 picks for 2 years + $300k + 2 months off for Harper + 6 months off for Trigg + $50k fine for Trigg, is the $5k settlement in your argument. I'd love to have seen the upper penalty we were trying to avoid, given we never actually made any illegal payments, etc.

 

[Elder van Berlo]

There is a big difference between negotiating an out of court settlement in a civil action and pleading guilty in a criminal action.

Carl Spackler, Rob Chapman called me yesterday and, amongst other things, he said he was absolutely flat out. I'm not sure when you emailed him but I would give him the benefit of the doubt for now. My email was probably longer than yours so I doubt that he looked at it and put it in the too hard basket based on the length of it alone.

Before anyone asks, I'm not prepared to go into the detail of what was discussed, suffice to say that it was largely along similar lines of what has been said already in this thread.

 

[cmndstab]

Hodgy - if all we did was agree to trade someone if they wanted, and pay someone money we were allowed to spend, why didn't we declare it to the AFL?

Are you claiming this entire situation is based on an oversight? That we were above board, but just forgot to tell the AFL what we were doing?


It doesn't matter whether or not the breaches seem significant to you or not. There are rules by which we have to obey, and we either deliberately chose not to do so, or were somehow incompetent enough not to even realise we weren't doing so. And we all see the result.

The thing I don't get is, if the club is running with the line that Trigg didn't initiate the deal, tried to kill it as soon as it happened, and simply failed to dot the i's and cross the t's once he thought he had killed it, why had nobody heard of it before now? If Reid had pissed off as many people as jenny says, why wouldn't Trigg have mentioned it? It's not like he would have been trying to protect Reid by keeping it under wraps. Surely he'd be saying "you wouldn't believe what Reid wrote into that contract".

Surely the instant Sydney started coming up with ridiculous suggestions of 23 + White, Harper would be saying "waaaait a minute, I thought we killed this? I'll just get Trigg on the phone and ask what's going on" instead of waiting for two weeks and eventually intending to actually accept the deal. Failing that, surely he would ask Blucher? Are you still operating under the assumption that this deal is on? Because our understanding was that it was annulled three years ago. What gives? There is no way that conversation would have taken two weeks.

And most pertinently, why isn't Trigg running with the line now? He's coming out and claiming he's not a cheater, but he follows it up with absurd statements about how we didn't gain any benefit out of the contract and didn't go over the salary cap. If he thought he had killed the contract, and was never responsible for writing it to begin with, why wouldn't he explain himself? All he'd have to do is say "I didn't write the contract, I tried to kill it as soon as I heard of it and all I'm guilty of is making a mistake by not getting the agreement to void the contract in writing". It's not as though the AFL has told the club they can't mention it - Chapman is running around giving the explanation to everyone. So why isn't Trigg? If it's true, it would be both in his interest, and the club's interest, for him to be telling people, as it would paint Reid squarely as the culprit, conveniently the only party here who isn't still in the employ of the club.


It seems to me that the club is hedging their bets between "what we did wasn't really that bad" and "also, we didn't really do it anyway". It's a very poor look.

 

[ftmch]

Some of the questions asked by some of you are entirely legitimate and would be very interesting to know the answers. But in my mind the answers are not necessarily relevant to how we will operate going forward, nor should they necessarily determine our future strategic direction. I really think our Board is looking at this issue in isolation, and making decisions based on the bigger picture of where we have come from, what we have achieved overall, and what we need to do in the future. As distinct from who has done what and how we should be punish them.

As mentioned in a previous post, the AFC board comprises of respected and highly experienced business people who are infinitely more qualified, and who have access to significantly more of the facts and background information, to make an informed and unemotional decision about the future of this club.

If their unanimous recommendation is to lick our wounds, learn our lessons but ultimately move on with Trigg at the helm, I honestly see that as a sign of strength and a vote of confidence in the direction our club is/was heading before this debacle went down (taking this saga out of the equation, who could argue that we weren't otherwise doing things really well on and off the field. That certainly is the popular perception across the league).

Throw in what certainly appears to be the genuine support of our playing group, and all of our key sponsors (who have no obligation to throw their support behind Trigg), and my comfort levels with the Board's decision are high.

This is not me drinking the Kool Aid, and I really don't feel I'm being naive in this. I have no bias or persuasion either way. I know my perceptions are being ‘managed’ by the club, and that I’m probably not getting the full picture of everything that went down. And honestly, I’m OK with that - it's what ALL large organisations do. As long as I have a confidence that the club us genuinely making decisions on what is best for us in the future. Which I do.

 

[Hodgy]

I do not disagree with your assessment of what happens when your company is taken to court. Have also been through it.

What concerns me about your statement, is that the loss of R1 & R2 picks for 2 years + $300k + 2 months off for Harper + 6 months off for Trigg + $50k fine for Trigg, is the $5k settlement in your argument. I'd love to have seen the upper penalty we were trying to avoid, given we never actually made any illegal payments, etc.

You are quite right, it does seem high, but if you look closer the club actually didn't lose too much. We lost pick 20 this year and probaly picks 20 and 40 odd next year and have Crouch coming in this year and a war chest for free agency next year. When you consider the odds the club were fighting with media all over the country and the AFL this might have seemed worth while compared to losing in a dog fight. The $300k is insignificant because they make a profit anyway and this goes to the SANFL and the fact that Trigg took a hit doesn't really hurt the club (and might well be why they are staying loyal now). People have compared us to Carlton a few years ago but really they lost picks 1 and 2 and had a crap list so the comparison is not relavant.

 

[cmndstab]

There's no doubt we got off lightly, given the gravity of the allegations that we then admitted guilt to.

However, even though they were light compared to what they might have been, they were damn heavy compared to sticking by the rules and not getting sanctions at all.

 

[The Karma Bus]

Why did Trigg reportedly call off the gentleman's agreement in early October because Kurt wasn't going home to GC or Brisbane?

I thought it had been called off a long time ago..

I like John Reid's comments when asked back then about it: it's a myth, that is not in his contract..

Be nice to get the facts and truth from someone eh..

 

[Hodgy]

Hodgy - if all we did was agree to trade someone if they wanted, and pay someone money we were allowed to spend, why didn't we declare it to the AFL?

Are you claiming this entire situation is based on an oversight? That we were above board, but just forgot to tell the AFL what we were doing?

Look I think in hindsight they would prefer to have told the AFL but I would think that the minimum of a second round thing they certainly would have thought was OK. The third party stuff I don't know enough about but was probably thought to be close to the edge but that would apply to many deals done all the time.

If you look at the second round clause I/m sorry but I just can't see what is even remotely wrong with this. If Tip came to us 6 weeks from the end of this year and said "sorry guys I'm leaving Adelaide, can't cope here, are you OK if I choose GC to go to?" and we replied "Sorry to hear that Tip we really thought you would learn to love it here, but if you really want to go we won't stop you and GC will be fine but just to let you know that we will need at least their second round pick for you as that is what we would have got in compensation 3 years ago." then how can that be wrong. A player can and does nominate the club they want to go to all the time and the club is then hamstrung into dealing with that club. Surely this happened last year with Gunstan and just because the club and player have the discussion 3 years before the fact instead of 3 weeks before doesn't change anything.

As far as the third party deal it seems to me so poorly worded that clubs probably avoid taking things to the AFL in fear. I mean as far as I can see if Balfours come to the club and say "triggy our board has decided to get more face to face with our customers so we are going to drop our sponsorship by $50k this year and get some famous faces to do adds with this extra money. Oh by the way can you give me Tippett's manager's number as we wouldn't mind getting him." then this would be perfectly all right but the result would be exactly the same as if Triggy rang up Balfours and said "We have a player looking to get into TV stuff, do you reckon you could divert $50k from your sponsorship towards giving this bloke a role with your promotion section this year?" Everything ends up the same except one is illegal under AFL rules and the other is not. Pretty hard for any of us to point a finger at the morality of the situation really, especially when these same AFL rules are clearly in breach of the country's rules on restrictions of trade.

Overall we really are just guilty of getting caught which I am sure all 18 clubs are just as potentially guilty of.

 

[Godallblighty]

Just because we pleaded guilty doesn't mean the charges were true or accurate. In business myself I have had several times where a client has taken us to court over a total crock of shit complaint but our lawyers have advised doing a deal instead of fighting. This is because the 10% chance that you will lose $100k has to be weighed against giving up $5k in a settlement.

So, only a 90% crock of shit then. Nobody takes a deal when they are 100% in the right. AFC took the deal option because it knew that they could defend and lose.

 

[Hodgy]

I would have thought Today Tonight was more up the alley of the flogs who believe every last bit of shit forced down their throat by this club. That show is nothing but contradictions, much like the various statements coming from the club over this whole saga.[/quote]

Today Tonight is a show that is aimed at the charming section of our community that prefer to see the bad in the one electrician than the good in the other 99, seems to make them feel better about their own lives. Just saying.

 

[Crow-eater]

Kevin Sheedy ‏@Kevin_Sheedy
Good luck to Kurt Tippett. 900k a lot of money. Even PM doesn't get that but wish him and the Swans all the best.

 

[Hodgy]

So, only a 90% crock of shit then. Nobody takes a deal when they are 100% in the right. AFC took the deal option because it knew that they could defend and lose.

Yes you do, because the legal system is not perfect and the 10% is always a realistic chance when you go to court. I remember a few years ago our lawyer saying that it really depended on which judge we got and when you consider we are talking about the AFL the the figure probably jumps to 40%. We all saw what happened to that North Melbourne player Ziebell this year when he tried to fight a charge that he was clearly 100% in the right with.