I've been following this thread with great interest, and my independent objective opinion is that AFGM scores the points hands down.
My only question concerns the gentleman's agreement specifying the trade compensation:
"There was a "Gentleman's Agreement" at the end of 2009 that if Kurt extended his current one year contract to a three year contract then Adelaide would trade him to the Gold Coast Suns at the end of 2012 if Kurt wanted to go home. The compensation for the trade would be comparable to the compensation for losing a player to Gold Coast at the end of 2010. No, it wasn't written in the contract, but the agreement was well known to Kurt and his management, the AFC and the GCS.
...... "arrangement" may have included a third party. Now such an agreement may not hold up in a court of law but reneging on the deal has enormous ramifications for future trading with not only the Gold Coast but all other clubs"
Reading between the lines of the comments made by various parties, it seems that such a gentleman's agreement existed, and i can understand (as per AFGM) that the Crows would see the trade compensation to be along the lines of a mid round 1 pick plus end of round 1 whereas GC could argue only a mid to late first round pick.
I can accept that Tippett signed with GC last year under the loophole and that there was a gentleman's agreement previously in existence between i presume Tippett & the AFC re the compensation payable. What i cannot yet understand , however, is that since that gentleman's agreement is probably legally non-binding and depends on the good faith of both parties, then what are those "enormous ramifications for future trading" if the AFC reneges on it.
Furthermore, is it reneging if the AFC argues that the comparable compensation under the agreement should be defined as a mid-range round 1 pick plus end/late of round 1 pick (or player equivalent)?
To me , that is no more reneging on it than the GC arguing that it should be a mid/late round 1 pick only.
It is all a matter of interpretation.
I would think that the GC itself would recognize that a simple mid/late round 1 pick is insufficient trade compensation for Tippett and for the sake of its future trading with the Crows and other clubs, would do the fair and right thing and trade a mid round 1 pick plus end of round 1 pick (or player equivalents).
IMO this would still be consistent with the terms of the agreement (given that the interpretation of the trade compensation is the sticking point).
That scenario would be in keeping with AFGM's statements, and also i think would satisfy most parties and supporters from both the GC and the Crows.