Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[Allefgib]

I still think we've got an issue with something agreed in 2009. Nobes has had to push as hard as he can til Triggy got back.
Meeting Saturday was likely to discuss whether they 'fight' the previous agreement (which may have been as simple as not sending Kurt into PSD at end of contract i.e. we will trade you and not leave you at the mercy of the PSD) or just accpet that they can't change that and how then to get any leverage.

If true, and all my own guesses based on what I see and nothing more, will be interesting what the club chooses to do.

What makes me believe this?
- nobes backing away from anything to do with knowing what happened end of 2009. Of course he knows - but he is distancing himself as far from it as possible.
- Rowey, and others, talking about 'selling our soul'. I reckon they know something but obviously wouldn't say it in public.
- Yes AFL have knocked back any clauses on specific types of draft picks to be traded instead of Kurt, but is saying 'we won't put you in PSD' something that would be considered draft tampering? I'm guessing its grey - but not unreasonable.
- The confidence of Blucher and Ireland that they can do this trade despite how unbalanced it is. Tippett says 'I want Sydney' and we can't send him to PSD means Sydney can offer us what they want.

 

[.Shotties.]

Read back a few pages, look for a post by one of your BF members which suggests that Sydney need to move White on contract and all inorder to pay premiership bonuses and to fit Kurt under the cap

That was me refuting a scenario that Slice had dreamed up. It has absolutely no basis in reality and relies on a number of really stupid assumptions, i.e: that Sydney are paying below the legal salary cap floor in order to pay 300k in Grand Final bonuses and that premiership bonuses would be paid next year instead of this year, the year the premiership was won.

 

[Mego Red]

I think we are sitting on 95 at the moment with bradshaw contract out and lrt and maybe ROK or matner on veterans list so I think that frees up around 400-500k plus extra cap. I think if we are getting rid of white it was solely for gf bonus

Veterans only buy you $100k each.

I do not believe that you were only on 95% - league minimum - the year that you won the flag. Link for evidence, or GTFO.

Ireland is the one who let slip that the Swans is paying less to Tippett in year one of his contract than the other offers he was receiving. Backloading contracts is very dangerous, so hard to imagine he was doing that unless he had to. You have a bunch of later career players on the highest they have earned. Of course you have a salary cap squeeze. Nothing else is logical.

 

[Mattrox]

Adelaide board - Rumours, bagging Rucci, Sauce, Lube, little to no fact, 507 pages when nothing has actually happened, more rumours
Sydney Board - Bitching and whinging about anything and everything thats being said on the Adelaide board

Not to mentioning telling us how much Sydney don't want or need Tippett despite their offer to him of near 4 million over R years.

 

[Danoz]

- The confidence of Blucher and Ireland that they can do this trade despite how unbalanced it is. Tippett says 'I want Sydney' and we can't send him to PSD means Sydney can offer us what they want.

This is the big one to me. It looks to me like Sydney has come in genuinely believing they can nab him for next to nothing. Any team that comes into a trade for a big target, must know they have to pay to get him. Looks to me like Sydney are sticking to this "agreement".

Was AFGM actually onto something?

 

[Danoz]

Veterans only buy you $100k each.

I do not believe that you were only on 95% - league minimum - the year that you won the flag. Link for evidence, or GTFO.

Ireland is the one who let slip that the Swans is paying less to Tippett in year one of his contract than the other offers he was receiving. Backloading contracts is very dangerous, so hard to imagine he was doing that unless he had to. You have a bunch of later career players on the highest they have earned. Of course you have a salary cap squeeze. Nothing else is logical.

He said this is after taking 400k off for Bradshaw

 

[Mego Red]

I still think we've got an issue with something agreed in 2009. Nobes has had to push as hard as he can til Triggy got back.
Meeting Saturday was likely to discuss whether they 'fight' the previous agreement (which may have been as simple as not sending Kurt into PSD at end of contract i.e. we will trade you and not leave you at the mercy of the PSD) or just accpet that they can't change that and how then to get any leverage.

If true, and all my own guesses based on what I see and nothing more, will be interesting what the club chooses to do.

What makes me believe this?
- nobes backing away from anything to do with knowing what happened end of 2009. Of course he knows - but he is distancing himself as far from it as possible.
- Rowey, and others, talking about 'selling our soul'. I reckon they know something but obviously wouldn't say it in public.
- Yes AFL have knocked back any clauses on specific types of draft picks to be traded instead of Kurt, but is saying 'we won't put you in PSD' something that would be considered draft tampering? I'm guessing its grey - but not unreasonable.
- The confidence of Blucher and Ireland that they can do this trade despite how unbalanced it is. Tippett says 'I want Sydney' and we can't send him to PSD means Sydney can offer us what they want.

I can see why you're drawing this opinion, but it seems pretty light on.

What do you imagine this could be? It can't be an agreement unless it is in the contract. And saying "we won't put you in the PSD" couldn't possibly be in the contract. That is absolutely draft tampering.

They COULD have said that in negotiations, I guess. But I can't understand why they would feel bound by it. Unless Blucher has an email trail that mentioned it.

I guess we'll find out ...

 

[TheLeftFist8]

I agree that the weekend meeting first agenda item would've been The Agreement.

I fear it is there and if it prevents a fair trade then it is a huge error from those who are responsible.

I assume the sticking point is whether the agreement still stands now that Tippett wants Sydney instead of QLD. Were we really dumb enough to be cornered by this

 

[NTRabbit]

- Yes AFL have knocked back any clauses on specific types of draft picks to be traded instead of Kurt, but is saying 'we won't put you in PSD' something that would be considered draft tampering? I'm guessing its grey - but not unreasonable.

It can't just be PSD, because players can now choose to nominate for the ND instead - and any agreement that bans us releasing a player into either draft would not be ratified by the AFL.

In fact, contracts can't contain any stipulations about what happens once that contract has ended, whether that be trade conditions, post-retirement employment, or post contract financial incentives. It just can't happen.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Not to mentioning telling us how much Sydney don't want or need Tippett despite their offer to him of near 4 million over R years.

Fact is, we don't need him, as was proven this year. Obviously the club wants him, but not at any cost.

 

[.Shotties.]

Of course you have a salary cap squeeze. Nothing else is logical.

Next year off the cap:
Bradshaw: 400k odd
Seaby: 250k odd
Onto the veterans list:
Goodes, Malceski, McVeigh, Bolton, O'Keefe, LRT = 600k.

I'm curious, you also said 'You have a bunch of later career players on the highest they have earned.' Who are these players and how much are they on?

 

[NTRabbit]

Fact is, we don't need him, as was proven this year. Obviously the club wants him, but not at any cost.

It must have completely slipped my mind that Sydney went on to win the 2006 flag after winning 2005.

 

[SydCrow]

is this now the Adelaide board thread length record?

 

[SpeciousArgument]

I can only hope you're joking.

Remember? last night you were being all needy about one of you posts being ignored

 

[Hank93]

Just 5 days to go. Its going to feel like the longest 5 days in history. Especially when I have a whole bunch of assignments to complete in just 12 days!

 

[CROUCH #2]

Is your grammar unwell? Please send her my best wishes.

sent flowers

 

[Draft Bored]

Fact is, we don't need him, as was proven this year. Obviously the club wants him, but not at any cost.

He might as well have been playing for you in the semi. Not his finest game

 

[TheRoo32]

Not to mentioning telling us how much Sydney don't want or need Tippett despite their offer to him of near 4 million over R years.

Sydney Board
- Constant Bitching about our board
- We don't even want Tippett. I'd rather we don't get him
- But but but we're not offering anywhere near 1million a year, show me a source for that claim...
- No no no you can't send him to the PSD! We're the only ones who can pay him 1 mill a year so we'll get him anyway!
- No no no you can't have him! He's a 'premiership player'.
- You want one of our young players or anyone with any genuine talent? Your dreaming...
- But but but he's uncontracted so really 23 +White is overs. You'll look like fools accepting nothing.
- But but but we are 'fair and reasonable' traders...
- No we didn't chase him at all! Tippett chose us for our 'Bloods Culture'...

 

[Crowked]

I cant see how it is us that actually sends him to the PSD, so cant see how this could be a condition of his contract. If we cant work a trade and the trade period expires, his contract expires, and he then nominates himself for the ND or PSD. Its his decision to nominate for either draft. We simply choose to receive nothing and delist him.

 

[.Shotties.]

Remember? last night you were being all needy about one of you posts being ignored

I remember, I just have no idea how me highlighting the fallacies of a made up scenario of an Adelaide poster passes as there being a rumor of salary cap issues at the Swans.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

It must have completely slipped my mind that Sydney went on to win the 2006 flag after winning 2005.

This is pretty much the worst logic I've ever read. Congratulations.

 

[Team DJ]

If we are hindered by an agreement in 09.

Whoever made that agreement should be forced to walk out. If a player demands that sort of stuff in his contract its pretty obvious his heart doesnt lie with the club. Shouldve traded him then and there.

 

[Draft Bored]

OMFG hurry up Sydney. Terminate negotiations or offer something decent. I'm so sick of this rubbish.

 

[Mattrox]

Fact is, we don't need him, as was proven this year. Obviously the club wants him, but not at any cost.

This year is this year. Not many teams go back to back, especially with an ageing list..... You need to evolve and improve or get left behind. This is not a whim, this is a paycheck for Tippett that priced Brisbane and Gold Coast out of the market. It does seem like they are offering "at any cost" to Tippett. But leveraging the Crows as much as possible.

I'd just call Sydney out. If Tippett nominates a huge salary and Sydney can pay it, it blows Ireland's argument out of the water about what Tippett will be paid next year. Imagine the destabilising influence it will be to all the contracted "premiership players" that Tippett can waltz in on more money than them. Players who have been loyal and done the hard yards for the club.

This is Adelaide's upper hand and they should be playing it about now.

 

[craig crowing]

What concerns me apart from this lo--o--o--o--o--ng drawn out fiasco itself is not really hearing even any type of word out of Swans another players name that just might be put forward to Crows as alternative to their joke of White + 23 which was more of a joke as would have helped by taking his salary to help pay for Tippett.
But even more scary is that seems we nearly accepted the deal and only mass hysteria from supporters and even other clubs questioning how soft a deal this was seemed to be why changed mind last minute.
Going from this very poor deal to a good deal with their knowledge almost took is going to be tough especially as they have been a lot more bloodied minded than we have .
The only saving factor I see in getting us a good deal is Swans have a lot more to lose than we do when look at reality of .
Any damage of offering him a deal making him one of if not highest paid player has already been done with Swans players .
With them out laying this huge contract to cover a area they believe will keep them ready to back up their premiership and of course this falls over not only have egg on face but will be left with bucket load of money and no possible hope of getting any type of player that can add value to team with only pick 23 in their pocket and no time even if there was a alternative.
FOr Crows.
Nothing is worse than getting a average deal as offered as all dropping if goes into PSD is pick 23 which might have been used to trade for player at best.
Bonuses of course is perception sent to all our players supporters and all other AFL clubs that we are building a wall around our club and players .
Bonus of course is Swans as one of top 3 teams will not get Tippett but lower team Eg GWS -- Lions or Carlton.
But wait there is more --- the man does not go to where he was going to manipulate our club or any other top club but could end up in kindy school with GWS .