Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[bobshoby]

I agree with much of what you're saying..
I probably lean towards PSD his arse, barely, maybe .. Be a tough decision to make, that's for sure..
Nick Stevens didn't get to where he wanted to go so it was all good.. But..

If Kurt (with that large $$$ on his head) got to Sydney through the PSD though..?
Hmm..

for all of their precious 'Blood's culture' nonsense i think actually seeing the money he's demanding publicly would cause a bit of tension at Sydney, not a terrible outcome.

 

[Wood_Duck]

Not really. It only applies to the trade period. If/when the Sydney trade falls through he'll have no choice - he'll have to open negotiations with someone else, or get used to looking like a traffic cone.

Hard to imagine a club having salary cap room for a million dollar players at PSD time.

 

[feenix67]

There are some clubs who are going to take 5, 6 or 7 players in this draft. Happens every year. I haven't been following the delistings closely enough, but trust me, there will be some clubs for whom an extra 2nd and/or 3rd round pick could prove useful. Last year there were 8 clubs who had 5 or more "live" selections in the ND, I expect a similar number this year.

Yeah but those clubs arent going to give up an early first rounder for it are they?

 

[The Karma Bus]

Hard to imagine a club having salary cap room for a million dollar players at PSD time.

That's what I worry about..
I won't mind letting him go to the PSD, but not for the "There's no I in team, but there is an I in Tippett" Swans to grab him there..

 

[Niximus]

You absolutely never give anything away for free in business. Port did it, and look at them. Congrats on the moral high ground, but hows you balance sheet.

Port deprived Collingwood of Nick Stevens in 2003. Collingwood had played in the 2002 and 2003 grand finals and were expected to be a major competitor against Port for the 2004 flag. Remember who won that flag?

 

[cmndstab]

Nah. The odds, for a player of Tippett's calibre, are excellent. Worst comes to worst, they trade him (as a contracted player) after 12 months on the list - in which case they get to upgrade a PSD pick to 2x 1st round selections. It's a no-lose situation for them.

This point is critical and the only reason I'd still consider picking him back up again.

Last year, while contracted, Brisbane reportedly offered pick 8. Does spending an extra million dollars to get pick 8 in 2013 sound worthwhile? It's certainly worth considering.


Actually, on that point, I had a question. We know that Kurt can nominate a salary if he goes to the draft. Let's say he nominates a million dollars a year, and Sydney pick him up but they backload his contract - let's say they pay him $600K in 2013 and $1.4M in 2014.

Then, at the end of 2013, the club and Kurt have a falling out and they agree to trade him despite him still being a contracted player. Does Kurt get the shortfall of $400K as a lump sum? Does he simply forgo it? Does the next club have to pick it up? Does Sydney have to pay $400K of his next contract?

And what about the reverse situation, where a contract is frontloaded. What if Kurt goes to a club asking for $2M dollar, they pay him $1.4M the first year, then at the end of that year he says screw you guys, I'm demanding you trade me. Is he obligated to pay the extra $400K back?

 

[Kenneth Tron]

I still think we should send him to the PSD. We give something up, to gain something it's hard to put a value on. If we take pick 22/23 we'll be a laughing stock.

 

[Bob Neil]

I reckon most clubs, given the option between nothing and pick 22, would take pick 22. I understand the moral stance, but from a business stand point, it makes no sense. My opinion is based on the fact we cant get a better deal this year anyway, which you've acknowledged too.
.

But it's not (or not just) a moral issue.

Our reputation (particularly as it relates to trading and list management) is a major business asset for the club. If we accept a below value result for trading a key player then we significantly undermine our reputation which will have an impact in the future. Surely that's undeniable.

#22 is better in the short-term, but reputation is better in the long-term.

[And if you don't believe me look what Sydney's reputation (Bloods culture) has helped them achieve in terms of attracting players.]

 

[cmndstab]

Hard to imagine a club having salary cap room for a million dollar players at PSD time.

That's why you make it public knowledge that he's likely to be available. Clubs can pull all kinds of trickery, even after trade week is completed. Move around the loading of existing contracts, perhaps consider delisting one extra player to make room both on the list, and in the salary cap. Look at clearing up enough money the following year to offer a backloaded contract. There are plenty of ways to find extra cash.

 

[Wood_Duck]

This point is critical and the only reason I'd still consider picking him back up again.

Last year, while contracted, Brisbane reportedly offered pick 8. Does spending an extra million dollars to get pick 8 in 2013 sound worthwhile? It's certainly worth considering.


Actually, on that point, I had a question. We know that Kurt can nominate a salary if he goes to the draft. Let's say he nominates a million dollars a year, and Sydney pick him up but they backload his contract - let's say they pay him $600K in 2013 and $1.4M in 2014.

My impression is that if he nominates 1m per year, that is exactly what Sydney have to pay him. No front loading or back loading. If he wants to front load or back load he has to nominate that in his terms.

 

[Niximus]

This point is critical and the only reason I'd still consider picking him back up again.

Last year, while contracted, Brisbane reportedly offered pick 8. Does spending an extra million dollars to get pick 8 in 2013 sound worthwhile? It's certainly worth considering.


Actually, on that point, I had a question. We know that Kurt can nominate a salary if he goes to the draft. Let's say he nominates a million dollars a year, and Sydney pick him up but they backload his contract - let's say they pay him $600K in 2013 and $1.4M in 2014.

Then, at the end of 2013, the club and Kurt have a falling out and they agree to trade him despite him still being a contracted player. Does Kurt get the shortfall of $400K as a lump sum? Does he simply forgo it? Does the next club have to pick it up? Does Sydney have to pay $400K of his next contract?

And what about the reverse situation, where a contract is frontloaded. What if Kurt goes to a club asking for $2M dollar, they pay him $1.4M the first year, then at the end of that year he says screw you guys, I'm demanding you trade me. Is he obligated to pay the extra $400K back?

My understanding is that if Kurt went into the PSD with a $1m figure over his head, you can't backload it. The team that picks him up must match that contract.

 

[SilverCrow]

For those thinking we are cutting off our noses to spite our own face, yes 22 might be turn out to be a decent pick but the numbers dont lie that 22 is a lottery.

Joshua Bootsman, Mitch Wallis, Geerick Weedon, Jackson Trengove, Scott Selwood, Albert Proud, Beau Muston, Jesse Wells, Cameron Thurley, Matthew Ferguson were all pick 22 for the past 10 years. We have had more success finding afl standard players off the rookie list.

If a team manages to strike it lucky and find a Selwood then good luck to them however this is the exception, not the norm.

So what are the AFC actually risking by not accepting pick 22? Answer: A generous 10% strike rate that Sydney find a potentially decent afl player with this pick.... me personally... thats a risk i would be prepared to take.

What would the AFC be gaining by not accepting a shit sandwich from Sydney and sending Tippett to the PSD? Answer: A Spine that other clubs never thought we had and potential lols if Freo/GWS call out Kurts name in the draft

I know what option i would choose.

 

[Wood_Duck]

That's why you make it public knowledge that he's likely to be available. Clubs can pull all kinds of trickery, even after trade week is completed. Move around the loading of existing contracts, perhaps consider delisting one extra player to make room both on the list, and in the salary cap. Look at clearing up enough money the following year to offer a backloaded contract. There are plenty of ways to find extra cash.

Lets say Carlton free up a million and then GWS pick him at pick 1? Surely you would need to be guaranteed to get him to go through the exercise?

 

[cmndstab]

My impression is that if he nominates 1m per year, that is exactly what Sydney have to pay him. No front loading or back loading. If he wants to front load or back load he has to nominate that in his terms.

But wait a minute, didn't Ireland state that Tippett would be on less in 2013 than he was on here? Wasn't the entire basis of the deal that Sydney would pay Tippett less now, but more overall?

If they don't have that much money free in 2013, then the PSD deal is significantly less attractive to Kurt, and the nominated salary significantly less intimidating for rival clubs.

 

[Bob Neil]

Lots of people make ambit claims in a negotiation like 'i refuse to speak to anyone' or 'here's pick 23 and a list clogger, take it or leave it'
My concern with the AFC approach to date is that we've done nothing to shake loose these positions and accepted them at face value.

Kurt Tippett probably does refuse to speak to anyone else, it'll be interesting to see how he was holding up a week after being told that unless Sydney come up with better picks he's in the PSD. It'd be interesting to see how Sydney would be acting if we'd given every club in the competition advance notice that they'd have a good chance to pickup Tippett in the PSD. Perhaps they'd be concerned someone might be able to find a big enough wallet to buy Kurt's affections.

Yes i'd be happy to send him to the PSD if push comes to shove but as much as anything else the serious prospect of the Crows doing so (which absolutely no one believes atm) would've served as a useful bargaining tool

Lovin' your work in this thread bobshoby - think you're spot on

 

[cmndstab]

Lets say Carlton free up a million and then GWS pick him at pick 1? Surely you would need to be guaranteed to get him to go through the exercise?

I must admit I'm not super knowledgeable about this process, but can't they work through contracts (in union with the players) midseason?

If they have a million cleared up, and Kurt slips away, couldn't they work with the players to frontload some of that money into the current contracts? Thereby clearing up money for the following season?

 

[Tex Support]

This is where you're wrong. What he wants is one thing. What he gets, when he nominates for the ND or PSD, is entirely another. GWS and Carlton are both capable of meeting his contractual terms - and both have picks before Sydney. Tippett might not be happy about going there, but I'm sure he'll grow to love the colour orange.

Yeah I know that, but I cant see any club taking a million dollar committment on a bloke who has been so publically happy to declare one club as his only destination. Unless of course, he secretly doesnt care where he plays, as long as he gets paid. But the fact he's basically said "I'm only playing for Sydney" makes me think its a tactic to tell other clubs he's not interested. I understand GWS and Carlton have cap room for him and can accomodate his financial needs, but why would he be so publically set on Sydney? Absolutely nothing stopping him from saying "I'll play whereever". Its not like thats any less damning to his public persona?

My main issue is with people saying "just let him walk" on principle. As I said, you never give anything away for free, especially if you're reprtesenting a multi-million dollar company like the AFC. That would look worse amongst our peers than any sort of moral victory achieved.

 

[Wood_Duck]

But wait a minute, didn't Ireland state that Tippett would be on less in 2013 than he was on here? Wasn't the entire basis of the deal that Sydney would pay Tippett less now, but more overall?

If they don't have that much money free in 2013, then the PSD deal is significantly less attractive to Kurt, and the nominated salary significantly less intimidating for rival clubs.

Correct, if Sydney can only afford 600k in his contract next year, thats what he has to state are his terms. In that sense it makes it more possible for someone to nab him, albeit against his will.

 

[bobshoby]

Lets say Carlton free up a million and then GWS pick him at pick 1? Surely you would need to be guaranteed to get him to go through the exercise?

nah you make it all conditional, there's a lot of flexibility in contracts if both parties are willing to change things around

 

[fabs33]

Doesn't he have to nominate a salary below the supposed $1m anyway, since Sydney can't afford that either, atleast not within the first couple of years? If thats the case there could be many clubs who could afford the same as Sydney willing to pick him up.

 

[Wood_Duck]

nah you make it all conditional, there's a lot of flexibility in contracts if both parties are willing to change things around

Not really the point. Why would you go through the exercise of freeing up a million bucks unless you were assured of picking him up? The only club in the position to do it are GWS.

 

[Hodgy]

What about all the players we approach for trades that wont come to Adelaide?

You listed 6 players that have come back to Adelaide. 3 that have left. So lets do the maths:

Adelaide 3
Collingwood 1
Bulldogs 1
Hawthorn 1
North 1 (technically 2 although they already sacked Carey)
Saints 1

See the maths? Less clubs in a state = higher chance of being bitten by go home factor.

No I can't buy that. The maths is only relavent to the individual club otherwise you're saying that we have a massive advantage because anyone coming back to SA only has 2 options whereas say North Melbourne have to compete against 9 others. The simple fact is we have only had 3 players in 22 years and probably 100 odd picks from interstate, that we have lost to the go home factor. This would have to be the best average of any club in the league and certainly is a small enough percentage to not affect our recruiting of Victorians in the future.

There is a lot more than 6 players that have come back to us as well, I just can't remember them all. Troy Bond, Fitzy, Tony Hall, Greg Anderson and Lewis Johnston are a few more that come to mind. I would be very surprised if any Victorian club has escaped with less than 3 go homes in the last 22 years.

 

[bobshoby]

Not really the point. Why would you go through the exercise of freeing up a million bucks unless you were assured of picking him up? The only club in the position to do it are GWS.

because you're Mick Malthouse at Carlton and looking to stick it up Cwood by winning a flag in 2013

 

[Tex Support]

Port deprived Collingwood of Nick Stevens in 2003. Collingwood had played in the 2002 and 2003 grand finals and were expected to be a major competitor against Port for the 2004 flag. Remember who won that flag?

So your saying, if Port decided to trade Nick Stevens to Collingwood, then Collingwood, and not Port wouldve won the flag?

I cant see how moral stance on d-ckhead player = premiership, unless its some sort of karmic thing?

 

[Donkey Magoo]

A bowl of cornflakes with half a cup of milk.

Yeah but like Kelloggs, or Franklins "flaked Corn Breakfast cereal"?