Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

Which AFC deserter were/are you most salty towards?


  • Total voters
    33
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

JP Sauce

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Posts
16,446
Likes
21,085
Location
Radelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
NAFC
Just woke up in a cold sweat.... fast forward 20 years and we could be in the position to take Kurt Tippett Jr via the F/S rule, and once again have to deal with a Tippett father.
There's a joke I want to make here but I'm sure it would cross a line for some people.

Probably best if I just go to bed, I don't want to disappoint my biggest fan! :p
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

crowsarethebest

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Posts
7,672
Likes
797
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide Crows
Anyone want to take a bet that the AFL will set things up so Tippett winds up at GWS next year for nothing via the PSD?

This would suit the AFL agenda perfectly.
Would suit me fine to be honest. Let the wanker rot over in 'Sydney', his home. Just want the campaigner out of the club ASAP.
 

Magma

Premium Platinum
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Posts
40,594
Likes
28,959
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
West Adelaide Bloods, Man City.

DeadlyAkkuret

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 10, 2007
Posts
27,058
Likes
10,156
Location
Ensconced in velvet
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Lakers, West Ham
It was unders. And I have no love for Adelaide at the trade table after the Jacobs deal left a sour taste in my mouth.

Its concievable that Sydney thought pick 23 = a Brisbane/ Suns second rounder in value and was thus fair considering the 'arrangement'. The back up negotiating position would have been 'take it or he can go for a second rounder to the Suns/ Lions thanks to your little under the table arrangement that you dont want the AFL to know about'

In a sense, the Swans were being 'fair' by offering unders.

Its not beyond the realms of possibility.
It was unders, but he's out of contract. In terms of the arrangement, it's overs.
 

.Shotties.

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 1, 2007
Posts
10,377
Likes
2,009
Location
Camped in the goalsquare
AFL Club
Sydney
Im Neutral in this mate, and pick 23 was unders.

But we can agree to disagree.
Yeah, it was unders, but it wasn't in the world ending catastrophe category of unders. I would have thought as a Carlton fan you would have appreciated the "pick x is the equivalent of pick y in a normal year".
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
33,315
Likes
27,204
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Moderator #15,933
The notion is just about right. Sort of almost expecting that to be the case.
They have form. They smashed us at least partly to get us back in line, and left Melbourne alone re tanking to not create a Carlton basketcase Mk2.

Its a pretty good solution too. Adelaide get punished for the 'arangement' by losing him for nothing, Sydney get punished for being flogs and refusing to budge on pick 23 (by losing him and having him go to cross town rivals), and Tippett gets punished by having to wear Orange and play for GWS (but still gets the dollars and gets to Sydney).

The AFL wins by strengthening GWS and promoting a rivalry with Sydney (and GWS via the controversy). Players know that if they play hardball with demanding clubs of 'choice' the AFL will actually start enforcing the PSD.

Strap on a few fines, deregister the player manager and strip a draft pick or two for good measure.
 

Tedeski

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Posts
14,201
Likes
15,193
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
This is the best thing that has happen just goes to show what sort of person/people the Tippett clan are! whatever the penalty it is better than having a leech in amongst the playing group.....gee I wonder what Sando is thinking right at the moment?
Sydney would have definetly known about the arrangement(Tippett would have told them about it back in August) and were basically black mailing the Crows to which the Crows responded by coming clean with this side agreement.
You may be right, but since you are assuming, let's also assume then that the Swans would have expected this 'agreement' to have been part of the legitimate contract lodged with the AFL since we are one of the most professionally run clubs these days!
 

relapse

Moderator
Joined
Jun 21, 2004
Posts
23,686
Likes
17,320
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
49ers, AFC Wimbledon, Utah Jazz
Moderator #15,935
A first round pick when the arrangement only required a 2nd rounder?
This is what the AFL I guess will discover through their investigation.

Caro has said in the past on 5AA and footy classified when she discussed the deal that she wasnt sure whether the agreement specifically said a second round pick or whether it specified a pick in the 20s (which normally equates to a second round pick).

It will all come out in the wash, if the agreement specifies that the Crows have agreed to trade Tippett for a pick in the 20s it'll be hard to deny that Sydney weren't privy to the agreement prior to attempting to conduct a trade for Tippett.

In the end though Sydney haven't really done anything wrong and it would have been Blucher that would have advised Sydney as to how cheap he believed that they could get Tippett for. The only impact for Sydney will be potentially missing out on recruiting Tippett.
 

MarcusP2

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Posts
8,052
Likes
5,291
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Zona Cardinals, Yankees
If you were professionally run you would've known it's not part of the official contract because they would not approve it. :rolleyes:
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Vader

Sith Lord
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Posts
39,740
Likes
19,793
Location
Canberra
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood, Adelaide Crows
Grab a tape of Carlton matches from 2002-06 and watch the results for yourself.
I still think you tanked in the Kruezer Cup, in 2007. You were bad enough to finish bottom 2 that year, without the need for tanking - but you definitely tanked in that infamous game vs Richmond. Doing so meant you finished 2nd bottom and earned a PP - thus giving you picks #1 and #3. #1 turned into Kruezer, #3 was used in the Judd trade.

That said, I agree on the whole - your team really did stink from 02-07, without the need for taking (other than this one particular example).
 

cmndstab

Premium Platinum
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Posts
28,299
Likes
16,945
Location
Ingle Farm
AFL Club
Adelaide
Yeah, it was unders, but it wasn't in the world ending catastrophe category of unders. I would have thought as a Carlton fan you would have appreciated the "pick x is the equivalent of pick y in a normal year".
It pretty much was in that category, I'm afraid.

It was unders, but he's out of contract. In terms of the arrangement, it's overs.
This however is true. Not that it was particularly magnanimous of you. You were still trying to give up the bare minimum you could without getting caught.
 

.Shotties.

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 1, 2007
Posts
10,377
Likes
2,009
Location
Camped in the goalsquare
AFL Club
Sydney
It pretty much was in that category, I'm afraid.
No, losing a better, contracted player with 0 history of injuries for pick 14 and junk is bad unders. Losing a player with problems with concussion, who is un-contracted and who has performed, being generous, well enough, for a pick 8 spots lower isn't catastrophic.
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Posts
2,989
Likes
1,373
Location
Launceston
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Tasmanians in the AFL
This is becoming incredibly messy. I wonder if clubs will now be reluctant to trade for Tippett in the next day or so, because of this scandal. He may be going to the draft, because it will be very complicated to know how this investigation is going to impact on Tippett, given that he may be punished as a result of this investigation.
 

cmndstab

Premium Platinum
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Posts
28,299
Likes
16,945
Location
Ingle Farm
AFL Club
Adelaide
No, losing a better, contracted player with 0 history of injuries for pick 14 and junk is bad unders. Losing a player with problems with concussion, who is un-contracted and who has performed, being generous, well enough, for a pick 8 spots lower isn't catastrophic.
What an arbitrary example.

Look, the offer you guys made was so absurd (yes, even with White thrown in) that the AFL literally refused to sign off on it because they knew something dodgy must have occurred for us to even entertain the deal.

There's having rose-coloured (or blood-coloured?) glasses, and then there's being delusional. You guys were trying to pull a swift one on the back of our stupidity, plain and simple. The offer was unders at levels never before witnessed in the AFL.
 

Vader

Sith Lord
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Posts
39,740
Likes
19,793
Location
Canberra
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood, Adelaide Crows
Im also intrested if Sydney knew about the arrangement and were using it their advantage. Judging by the offer they put forward and reluctance to budge, it seems at least a possibility.
I think it's fairly safe to say that their entire approach to Tippett was founded on it. They offered him a whopping great contract and never looked offering anything more than chicken feed in return. It's fairly obvious that Blucher (in a clear and massive breach of confidence) told Ireland all about the contract. Note that Ireland is a former Velocity Sports employee himself. Ireland then decided to chase Tippett knowing that he could effectively have him for nothing in terms of trade commodities. Salary cap space was never going to be an issue with so many Swans only 1-2 years away from retirement.
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2008
Posts
1,237
Likes
321
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Sydney
Sydney would have definetly known about the arrangement(Tippett would have told them about it back in August) and were basically black mailing the Crows to which the Crows responded by coming clean with this side agreement.
Underlining a word doesn't make the sentence anymore factual. Got a source though? Plus, apparently Tippett had no knowledge of the meeting in August. He wasn't told about the Swan's offer until after the prelim final. Blucher on the otherhand......Pedantic maybe but there have been too many rumours thrown around over the last two weeks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom