Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[JP Sauce]

You've never disappointed me.

Even after my night with Allergic?

 

[BUTTON 92]

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.

- Very subjective. Play different positions
- He's over his concussion problems
- 9 spots lower
- Jolly was also 28
- Collingwood weren't offering Jolly a mill a year...

 

[cm_perfect]

This whole process has been a cluster **** from the beginning...all I can take from this now is:

• Our list is in good shape, if we are stripped of draft picks it wont be the end of the world...we have always done well in the rookie drafts and we can upgrade a couple earlier than anticipated.
• A fine will only hurt us (SANFL) in the short term, we will bounce back pretty quick (Adelaide's Oval)
• Trigg to fall on his sword
• Tippett is no longer wearing the tri-colours
• Blucher will get de-registered for a period of time, then good luck getting any players to sign with him when he returns.
• Sydney will not be improving their premiership squad via a cheap as chips deal (hopefully)
• Although it has been handled in an amatuerish way, at least the AFC has tried to bend the rules for a change, why they decided to do it with a Spud and on paper is beyond me but I guess this shows their complete lack of nouse when it comes to exploiting the sysytem.

The bit that makes me smile out of all this is.........Tippett would be currently shitting broken glass at the thought of:

• Being de-registered
• Playing as a witches hat (GWS) or in Melbourne
• Not getting his retirement fund from his next contract if he goes to the PSD....oh daddy what have you done !!!

 

[matty p]

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.

Sorry to burst your bubble mate, but as I've said earlier in this thread, Tippett had decided he was moving to Sydney by June. He came back to Adelaide after the bye week and told his girlfriend he was moving to Sydney. They started planning their move there until he dumped her.

 

[Vader]

No, its the equivalent of pick 23 in a normal year, which would sit in the second round. doesn't matter who owns the picks before and after, pick 23 is still pick 23. The value loss is in ladder positioning.

With the 2x GWS mini-draft picks taken into account there's a fair argument that it's the equivalent of pick #25 in a normal year.

 

[D Style]

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!

No, because 'Ireland' was on record in the first week in the Trade period saying they were aware of his contract, and there was no clause in it....

They knew about the 2nd round draft pick clause, hence we were only offered pick 23 for our highest paid player. Then when they realised that the AFL would approve it as a fair and equitable trade Mr Jesse White was introduced as a 'good player' to help sweeten the deal. Still the AFL saw it was suss, and instead of Sydney going back and getting us a real deal, Mr Tippett and his numpty manager got the sooks, and called the lawyers in, because they are selfish and only think about themselves. Problem is, they arent that smart.

So, by threating legal action, the AFC knew either way the information will be out in the open, and due to this, we might as well get on the front foot and be the ones to announce, hopefully getting an easier treatment.

 

[.Shotties.]

The offer was unders at levels never before witnessed in the AFL.

No, it wasn't. It was unders, but it wasn't ridiculously under. I'd say the ongoing speculation about the side agreement had a fair bit to do with the deal being scrutinised more than the offer itself.

- Very subjective. Play different positions

Jolly was one of the best in his spot.

He's over his concussion problems

That's an extremely stupid thing to say.

- Jolly was also 28

Jolly was 28 for the season he was traded into, Tippett will be 26.

With the 2x GWS mini-draft picks taken into account there's a fair argument that it's the equivalent of pick #25 in a normal year.

I think your trading team from 2010 would disagree with that assessment.

 

[Mark Dreher]

From my point of view, If Trigg was outside of the buddy system that had developed (the promote from within) would he have been a part of this deal. Probably not.
This needs to be a catalyst of a complete review of how Adelaide Football Club do things. Go and get the best available for the position and not just promote within because this can breed complacency and a culture of not questioning decisions made.
As much as it hurts me , it kind of reminds me of Port Adelaide coaching .

 

[Vader]

So do the Crows need to disclose how much they are paying the janitor?

Depends.. is the janitor "a Player or an Associate of a Player"? If the janitor is the player's brother, who happens to be earning $250k for cleaning the toilets.. then I think the AFL might be interested in that. If the janitor has no ties to any of the players and is earning minimum wages, then that wouldn't exactly constitute a "football payment".

In the case of Adelaide paying JT to move to Adelaide, it's fairly clear cut. Here's the definition of what needs to be included under Football Payments for the purposes of the TPP:

10.3.2 Extent of Player Payments
The Investigations Manager may determine that the value of all or any part of any payment, consideration, advantage or other benefit given or provided to, or applied for the benefit of, a Player or an Associate of a Player by or at the direction of a Club or any Associate of a Club, or pursuant to any contract, agreement, arrangement or understanding between a Club, an Associate of a Club, and a Player or an Associate of a Player, constitutes a Football Payment for the purpose of these Rules.

Read the bolded bits and you'll understand why payments to JT need to be disclosed. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with making these payments. The problem lies with the fact that they should have been disclosed and included with our TPP calculations.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Even after my night with Allergic?

One night with Allergic does not a summer make.

 

[The_Answer3]

No, it wasn't. It was unders, but it wasn't ridiculously under. I'd say the ongoing speculation about the side agreement had a fair bit to do with the deal being scrutinised more than the offer itself.

 

[Vader]

EQ has said it's not the JT thing that's got us in trouble. It's something about a payment in the email.

Rucci was talking about JT payments last night.

EQ hasn't provided any details about these other payments, so I can't discuss why or how they might breach the rules.

 

[MaccaKnowsBest]

Sorry to burst your bubble mate, but as I've said earlier in this thread, Tippett had decided he was moving to Sydney by June. He came back to Adelaide after the bye week and told his girlfriend he was moving to Sydney. They started planning their move there until he dumped her.

I'm only go what has been reported and that is Tippett wasn't aware of the deal until after the prelim (happy to be proven wrong). If the initial meeting between Blucher and Sydney was held in August, what's all this June business?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Please find a single post on here where i have ever been wrong?

That's a tough ask.

Most people don't read your posts.

 

[Vader]

quick question.

can we still do deals outside of tippett? so like trade tambling or something? or are we completely frozen?

Let's just say that trading for a 1st round draft pick would be fraught with danger.

 

[Draft Bored]

No, it wasn't. It was unders, but it wasn't ridiculously under. I'd say the ongoing speculation about the side agreement had a fair bit to do with the deal being scrutinised more than the offer itself.

 

[xchadders]

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 only a father-son rule.
not a ******-son rule.

 

[Nesqua]

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.

I'm thinking that they won't be too harsh on Crows given the basket case across town, they need to have 1 team in SA who are actually performing or they'll lose interest here and whilst they treat the SA/WA teams like crap, they still need them for the $$$$$

 

[Nesqua]

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!

I call bullshit!!!

 

[Vader]

I think your trading team from 2010 would disagree with that assessment.

Since when was 2010 (or 2011 for that matter) normal draft years? In 2010 GC had something like 10 picks in the first round, with everyone else shuffled down accordingly. In 2011 it was GWS' turn, made even worse by the fact that every man and his dog sold them a 1st round pick as well.

The last "normal" draft was way back in 2008, noting that 2009 was a 2/3 draft due to the AFL changing the age eligibility criteria such that there were only 8-months worth of "new" draftees to choose from.

Even in an 18-team competition, it takes an extra-ordinary year for pick #25 to be considered as part of the first round.

 

[Hodgy]

Depends.. is the janitor "a Player or an Associate of a Player"? If the janitor is the player's brother, who happens to be earning $250k for cleaning the toilets.. then I think the AFL might be interested in that. If the janitor has no ties to any of the players and is earning minimum wages, then that wouldn't exactly constitute a "football payment".

In the case of Adelaide paying JT to move to Adelaide, it's fairly clear cut. Here's the definition of what needs to be included under Football Payments for the purposes of the TPP:

Read the bolded bits and you'll understand why payments to JT need to be disclosed. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with making these payments. The problem lies with the fact that they should have been disclosed and included with our TPP calculations.

Surely if you are interested in a player in their own right, as JT actually looks a very good prospect to me, you are able to treat that player as though he has no relative at the club. It would be crazy to say we can pay for John Smith say to come and play at Westies because we want to have a close look at him but we can't do the same with Joel Tippett.

 

[Rave Slave]

Let's be real for a moment here Swans fans. Your club isn't in trouble because there's literally no way to prove you were aware of this agreement existing and all the evidence is circumstantial so you can walk away pleading ignorance. With that said, to then try and argue your club was unaware of it even existing or 'assuming' it was legal is a pile of frogshit. Your CEO denied any knowledge of a 2nd rounder clause ever existing but it certainly didn't stop him from offering us up a bag full of scraps and a complete and utter spud when it came to trade time...

Or was it all just an enormous coincidence that you offered us such garbage for a bloke yet he'd be one of the top 10 earners in the country salary wise?

 

[.Shotties.]

Since when was 2010 (or 2011 for that matter) normal draft years? In 2010 GC had something like 10 picks in the first round, with everyone else shuffled down accordingly.

Rendall on the skewing of the draft in 2010:

"Unfortunately for the system this year and next year, everyone is out 10 picks," Rendell said. "If you have players coming in, you're getting bargains, if you have players going out and nothing coming in, you're in a worse position. The 33 really was 23 last year, so it's actually a better deal than Mumford, it was our second-round pick."

I thought the reference would have been pretty well known.

Let's be real for a moment here Swans fans. Your club isn't in trouble because there's literally no way to prove you were aware of this agreement existing and all the evidence is circumstantial so you can walk away pleading ignorance. With that said, to then try and argue your club was unaware of it even existing or 'assuming' it was legal is a pile of frogshit. Your CEO denied any knowledge of a 2nd rounder clause ever existing but it certainly didn't stop him from offering us up a bag full of scraps and a complete and utter spud when it came to trade time...

Really? Apparently Reid, Rohan, Mitchell, Parker et al were being shopped around for high picks in order to satisfy the trade. Indeed, there were crows fans on this thread's partner gloating about how Sydney were going to have to lose Parker or Rohan.

That said, I think the club was aware of it, considering everybody in the league who had an interest would have been aware of it, but if given the choice between 23 and 33 I would have thought the choice would have been pretty easy. Unless Brisbane or the Suns decided they were going to disregard that agreement.

 

[Heafy83]

I'm thinking that they won't be too harsh on Crows given the basket case across town, they need to have 1 team in SA who are actually performing or they'll lose interest here and whilst they treat the SA/WA teams like crap, they still need them for the $$$$$

If you haven't noticed that basket case across town has been doing everything right in the off season. Have made some really good moves and are getting their shit together.

 

[feenix67]

The salary cap issue is not about Joel... the word is apparently there was an "exit payment" included in that godforsaken gentlemen's agreement, contained in that email from JR to Tippett Camp.

Unconfirmed, but if so... say bye bye draft 2012-2014.