Remove this Banner Ad

Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

  • Thread starter Thread starter doodle48
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

Which AFC deserter were/are you most salty towards?

  • Total voters
    33
  • Poll closed .

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
CROUCH #2 said:
if melbourne have the money they will be more likely to take kurt than GWS, sheedz is all talk but i would love to know how kurt is feeling bout all this..
Click to expand...
Given the tanking allegations now getting traction with the Dees (which is a far worse 'crime' than anything we've allegedly done), I don't think they should be in a position to draft anyone. If there are any sanctions against us, there should also be significant penalties against them...maybe we both lose first two round draft picks - and these go to the GWS and GC....which is what the AFL would want anyway.
 
Certainly hope Tippett doesn't end up at Sydney, which it increasingly looks like he won't. I do enjoy reading about Kurt himself in things like Caro's article, noting he is becoming increasingly distressed and what not. Not getting anything he doesn't deserve.

And to all those saying GWS shouldn't take him for the culture he would create with wanting money etc. All of there experienced players have already gotten there through the same reasoning. Scully and Davis wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the coin, so what's the harm in having another money hungry player?
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

go_the_dockers said:
I wonder if the afl well consider that you have already lost Tippett for nothing when considering the penalty?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that will probably be looked upon about the same as if you are caught stealing at work, well you lost your job shouldn't that be penalty enough?
 
cmndstab said:
This would be an almost non-existent punishment (well, other than losing Tippett for nothing of course). We'd use our first round pick, then just upgrade Laird as our second pick and we'd be done.
Click to expand...

This is an enormous loss in and of itself. If Kurt is worth 2 first rounders, then the AFL refusing to allow that trade means that at best we have already lost one first round pick, and more realistically (had we not been so stupid) two. To lose another first rounder smacks as unfair and if we lose anything on top of that in terms of draft picks we should be livid. This is not even in the realm of what Carlton did.
 
The question that keeps bugging me is:

If the Swans were nowhere near the top end of their cap, this year or the previous year as has been suggested, then why exactly is the extra $900,000 in their cap required. You can't claim that it is required to retain your playing roster in Australia's most expensive city and then not spend it, it defeats your own argument.
 
Bacon8 said:
She's still towing the "need to delist a player" line, even though the AFL debunked that yesterday.
Click to expand...

What was interesting is the reference to Kurt and his increase distress over this such that he is now at the door of the aflpa.

The term.....suffer in your jocks....springs to mind!
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Peter J said:
What was interesting is the reference to Kurt and his increase distress over this such that he is now at the door of the aflpa.

The term.....suffer in your jocks....springs to mind!
Click to expand...

Yes the old what goes around comes around, it's quite delicious isn't it?? :rolleyes:
 
Iva Bigun said:
The question that keeps bugging me is:

If the Swans were nowhere near the top end of their cap, this year or the previous year as has been suggested, then why exactly is the extra $900,000 in their cap required. You can't claim that it is required to retain your playing roster in Australia's most expensive city and then not spend it, it defeats your own argument.
Click to expand...

Which is why it should be scrapped. They are not using it to retain players, but to poach one.


For guys earing at least $400k a year such a thing is ridiculous. Maybe they should be allowed to give the guys earning less money an allowance outside the cap to boost the pay to a level that brings their salary's earning power in line with other cities.
 
"Increasingly distraught"???? :eek:

INCREASINGLY DISTRAUGHT ??????:cool:

Stiff shit. :D
 
Geoffa32 said:
Which is why it should be scrapped. They are not using it to retain players, but to poach one.


For guys earing at least $400k a year such a thing is ridiculous. Maybe they should be allowed to give the guys earning less money an allowance outside the cap to boost the pay to a level that brings their salary's earning power in line with other cities.
Click to expand...

I don't really agree with the extra coin myself, but credit where credit's due, a lot of players on that list have been rejects from other clubs, rather than poached as such. Two of their best players over the season, Richards and Kennedy, were both unwanted at their own club, and turned out to be guns. Add in to the mix Shaw, Mattner and Morton in the premiership side, none of these payers really poached.

In terms of Tippett, sure they are, but it looks a lot like they were aware of how cheap he would come in terms of a trade, so why not?

I don't think the extra coin is right, but I don't think they've being using it to poach players either.
 
crowman_23 said:
I don't really agree with the extra coin myself, but credit where credit's due, a lot of players on that list have been rejects from other clubs, rather than poached as such. Two of their best players over the season, Richards and Kennedy, were both unwanted at their own club, and turned out to be guns. Add in to the mix Shaw, Mattner and Morton in the premiership side, none of these payers really poached.

In terms of Tippett, sure they are, but it looks a lot like they were aware of how cheap he would come in terms of a trade, so why not?

I don't think the extra coin is right, but I don't think they've being using it to poach players either.
Click to expand...

Sydney are very good at getting cheap players over and making them better. I agree to give them credit where credit is due. Their coaches are very good at this.

This advantage also gives them more space on their salary cap, along with the cost of living allowance to poach a premier player.

They have worked the system well.






If Tip gets there, I expect him to be a dead eye dick.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Iva Bigun said:
The question that keeps bugging me is:

If the Swans were nowhere near the top end of their cap, this year or the previous year as has been suggested, then why exactly is the extra $900,000 in their cap required. You can't claim that it is required to retain your playing roster in Australia's most expensive city and then not spend it, it defeats your own argument.
Click to expand...

I asked the very same question early on in the piece. The overwhelming response I received from Swans supporters was that I was bitter.
 
Peter J said:
What was interesting is the reference to Kurt and his increase distress over this such that he is now at the door of the aflpa.

The term.....suffer in your jocks....springs to mind!
Click to expand...

They won't, because despite their power they really have no idea what they're doing, but the AFLPA should tell him to get knicked. He and his manager/father got into this mess by holding a club to ransom and demanding he get paid well in excess of his worth. This is not a player who has been hard done by, this is a player who has done extremely well out of the AFL and to this point has given very little back, acting like a pompous, self entitled little prick. This is a guy who is used to getting his way, and has done so all his life, but now things haven't gone to plan he's crying fowl.

Kurt has supposedly had issues with depression and coping with the fishbowl type environment of Adelaide, claiming he wants to get out of Adelaide. Now if this were truly the case he would have been more than happy to work with Adelaide to get a suitable deal for all parties to get him back to QLD or to Sydney, he would have been paid extremely well at all 4 potential clubs and whilst only Sydney has a chance of immediate success, Bris/GC/GWS also have extremely bright futures and in three years time, with Kurt I'd wager all three would be making finals. Instead Kurt just had to have it all, he was more than happy to screw the Crows over to ensure he got the very best deal and so that he could play in the Premiership team. Now he's crying fowl because his illegal deal, that had been set up to ensure he could screw us over and have everything his own way, has fallen over and he expects everyone to feel sorry for him.

There's actually a certain personality disorder that comes to mind when I think about Kurt...
 
Iva Bigun said:
The question that keeps bugging me is:

If the Swans were nowhere near the top end of their cap, this year or the previous year as has been suggested, then why exactly is the extra $900,000 in their cap required. You can't claim that it is required to retain your playing roster in Australia's most expensive city and then not spend it, it defeats your own argument.
Click to expand...

this is the aspect that gets lost in the argument. its easy to prove that Sydney is a more expensive place to live. its very hard for Sydney to prove they pay each of their players about 10% more than they'd get at any other club. at the very least, its wide open to rorting on a scale that would make Adelaide's recent transgressions look like chicken feed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

1970crow
    • Like
    • Haha
Have West Coast gone past us?
2 3
Replies
59
Views
1K
Mr_Moogle
Mr_Moogle
baldandbroke
    • Like
    • 100%
    • Haha
  • Poll Poll
Opinion Non-Crows AFL 14: Brad Scott gone
236 237 238 239 240
Replies
6K
Views
131K
Daniel6
Daniel6
Milo Cyrus
Opinion Fix the Rules and get rid of the whistle!
Replies
16
Views
344
Brasher
Brasher

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom