Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[Brenton Davy]

Agree, also pick 23+White is better that a second round pick, so how were they holding the AFC to the agreement?

Maybe, but White plus his 2013 Sydney salary - definitely not

 

[Super sub]

Maybe, but White plus his 2013 Sydney salary - definitely not

Was always the problem. Would be interesting to know if we offered to pay any of it.

 

[Moonwatcher]

Agree, also pick 23+White is better that a second round pick, so how were they holding the AFC to the agreement?

It would have added $300K to Adelaide's books for a Norwood reserves player . Adelaide could have reasonably considered this to reduce the value to less than a second round pick.

 

[Moonwatcher]

Once the AFL knew it was game over. Sydney & Adealide were told NO TRADE by the AFL on the 23rd.

Sydney had no knowledge of the contract, there was no game. I think the poster you were responding to was asking why you didn't trade White to another team. There were no restrictions on trading White (even to Adelaide), just a restriction on trading Tippett.

 

[Woodie99]

Maybe, but White plus his 2013 Sydney salary - definitely not

Still, it's not forcing the agreement, I also posted ages ago that IMO Sydney would have picked up some of his pay.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Agree, also pick 23+White is better that a second round pick, so how were they holding the AFC to the agreement?

Because we don't want Tippett to go to Sydney - would prefer to get nothing (as we have) & he ends up at a non-premiership threat like GWS. Sydney knew of the agreement & were trying to take advantage, so most supporters happy it fell through.

 

[Crowfoot]

I don't see how they could be implicated. They weren't involved in the initial agreement, and hence how could they have done anything wrong? Knowing of the agreement shouldn't be enough to land them in hot water, as much as I'd like it to.

Maybe they are investigating WHEN Muppet chose to go to Sydney and WHAT EFFECT that had on his abysmal performance in the Preliminary Final against his "new" team?

 

[Woodie99]

Sydney had no knowledge of the contract, there was no game. I think the poster you were responding to was asking why you didn't trade White to another team. There were no restrictions on trading White (even to Adelaide), just a restriction on trading Tippett.

True, IMO White would have benefited by changing clubs, was suprised no-one took him.

PS The word GAME wasn't saying that Sydney viewed it that way.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Everyone knew about the agreement. Caro wrote about it 12 months earlier and a CEO and a list manager would not have missed that piece of news.

However having said that knowing that there is an agreement and knowing all of the details so as to use it to your advantage are two things. The alf would need to prove that Sydney knew about the specifics of the agreement and then used them to their advantage. Sydney would argue that Tippett nominated them and them only so they did not need to offer anymore than 23. They would also argue that 23 and white is better than 23.

Now if in there dealings with Adelaide the swans mentioned the agreement of if tippets management tell the afl that the swans were informed of it the they are gone. And will get there right wack. No argument, you break the rules you cop the punishment.

But it can't just be "they must have known". We all think they probably did, but the afl must have proof.

You would want to hope that there isnt a paper trail. look back over the last 2 weeks on this thread to see how quickly things can change. dont forget that the tippetts like to have things in writing. if Tippett is faced with a year off football and handing over the letter from ireland which one do you think he'll choose based on his conduct to date?

you dont know that there isnt proof out there, and you also dont know that the AFL wont simply infer knowledge of the contract based on your actions.

 

[Tex200]

Everyone knew about the agreement. Caro wrote about it 12 months earlier and a CEO and a list manager would not have missed that piece of news.

However having said that knowing that there is an agreement and knowing all of the details so as to use it to your advantage are two things. The alf would need to prove that Sydney knew about the specifics of the agreement and then used them to their advantage. Sydney would argue that Tippett nominated them and them only so they did not need to offer anymore than 23. They would also argue that 23 and white is better than 23.

Now if in there dealings with Adelaide the swans mentioned the agreement of if tippets management tell the afl that the swans were informed of it the they are gone. And will get there right wack. No argument, you break the rules you cop the punishment.

But it can't just be "they must have known". We all think they probably did, but the afl must have proof.

Fair enough

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Rowey just stated on 5AA that the whole Tippettgate investigation will continue until around mid-November due to its scope being widened to examine Sydney's integrity in this whole matter.

Cornesy confirmed that and said the AFL's integrity officers really had something to sink their teeth into for a change, along with the Melbourne tanking issue, and were pursuing both these matters really hard and in depth.

Looks like we might not be the only club to get penalties once the whole Tippettgate matter is finally washed up.

Maybe Andrew Ireland is not as smart as he thinks he is.

If Sydney had only been half reasonable, Tippett would have been a Swan and they would have had no problems.

Now their role is being investigated and they don't have Tippett. Clever stuff, Andrew Ireland..

What would the odds be now of Tippett becoming a Swan??

What a fk-up The Tippett clan have caused wherever they go.

Sydney knew of the illegal agreement & wanted to take full advantage of it. Whilst they won't get near the penalties we will get, they should be penalised something as they wanted to take advantage of an illegal contract. If you buy knowingly stolen goods, the fact you didn't steal them is not a valid excuse.

Reckon there is buckleys that the AFL will let Tippett get to Sydney & they will do something (either banning Sydney &/or making him nominate a salary closer to his worth) to ensure he gets to a lower club like GWS. This suits the AFL making another club more competitive & is a better outcome for us than #23 & White.

The biggest loser in this will be Tippett - he is no more in the public eye & under pressure (most hated in AFL) ... & won't get to his club of choice ... which he probably would have if not for this illegal contract as AFC has a history of trading players to clubs they want to go to.

 

[Super sub]

You would want to hope that there isnt a paper trail. look back over the last 2 weeks on this thread to see how quickly things can change. dont forget that the tippetts like to have things in writing. if Tippett is faced with a year off football and handing over the letter from ireland which one do you think he'll choose based on his conduct to date?

you dont know that there isnt proof out there, and you also dont know that the AFL wont simply infer knowledge of the contract based on your actions.

The answer is yes we have no idea if there is a paper trail or if there is any proof that Sydney has done wrong.

And I'll say it again, if it is proven they have done the wrong thing then they will get deservedly punished.

Your last point that the afl will just infer knowledge just won't happen. You can't be found guilty because it looks like you probably were. Adrian Anderson as a solicitor would understand this better than most.

 

[Woodie99]

Maybe they are investigating WHEN Muppet chose to go to Sydney and WHAT EFFECT that had on his abysmal performance in the Preliminary Final against his "new" team?

Adelaide played Hawthorne in that game & he played well. LOL

 

[Crowfoot]

Adelaide played Hawthorne in that game & he played well. LOL

Yeah. I meant the QF.

 

[bjn1960]

For a minute there, I thought I was on the Swans Forum.

 

[bjn1960]

For a minute there, I thought I was on the Swans Forum.

 

[Tex200]

Agree, also pick 23+White is better that a second round pick, so how were they holding the AFC to the agreement?

We obviously didnt think so. We only wanted 23.

What is becoming clearer although not confirmed as fact, is that you commenced negotiations offering your second rounder which accorded with your obligation under the agreement. We were pushing for 23 or a player, probably trying to convince you that a 2nd rounder would never make it past the AFL. You ended up agreeing to trade 23 provided we took White and his inflated salary which would keep things around the 2nd rounder mark.

If thats how it played out, and Im only speculating, then you clearly had the knowledge and acted upon it. That would make you complicit in the tampering.

 

[Donkey Magoo]

And as a female, I object that just because of my sex I am considered to have a soft mental approach.

Fair cop, I apologise, I didn't think that one through.

I was commenting on a man in a skirt, rather that him being a woman, if that makes sense.
Sorry to offend

 

[SpeciousArgument]

The answer is yes we have no idea if there is a paper trail or if there is any proof that Sydney has done wrong.

And I'll say it again, if it is proven they have done the wrong thing then they will get deservedly punished.

Your last point that the afl will just infer knowledge just won't happen. You can't be found guilty because it looks like you probably were. Adrian Anderson as a solicitor would understand this better than most.

The AFL isnt a court of law. If Tippetts ex-gf signs a stat dec that an agreement had been reached in august and he purchased a property there prior to the trade period it becomes hard to deny.

I agree that they probably wouldnt look at the trade offer completely in isolation and then based soley on white +23 punish you, but there are a lot more rumours than that going around and the loss of COL can be a very big threat to the swans that may motivate them to come clean when questioned by the AFL.

its possible that sydney didnt try to take advantage of the situation but based on the sequence of events it doesnt look likely.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

It also seems highly likely that if GCS had a copy of the agreement the other suitors would also.

 

[Tex200]

It also seems highly likely that if GCS had a copy of the agreement the other suitors would also.

Bingo. Blucher was obviously waving it around to all and sundry....like a get out of jail free card.

 

[Super sub]

The AFL isnt a court of law. If Tippetts ex-gf signs a stat dec that an agreement had been reached in august and he purchased a property there prior to the trade period it becomes hard to deny.

I agree that they probably wouldnt look at the trade offer completely in isolation and then based soley on white +23 punish you, but there are a lot more rumours than that going around and the loss of COL can be a very big threat to the swans that may motivate them to come clean when questioned by the AFL.

its possible that sydney didnt try to take advantage of the situation but based on the sequence of events it doesnt look likely.

Agree. Once there is proof then you can proceed.

The COL will be dealt with by the commission. The investigators sent going to make threats. They would be dealt with the contempt they deserve.

And yes I agree that the sequence of events looks poor. However proof is needed.

 

[scottwade]

It also seems highly likely that if GCS had a copy of the agreement the other suitors would also.

Caro article;
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...tt-scandal-20121029-28fo2.html?skin=text-only

It is understood Gold Coast chief executive Travis Auld contacted the AFL after a report on Saturday that his club had sought legal advice regarding the Tippett letter. Auld insisted the report was factually incorrect and his club had not been shown the email.

Who wrote the 'Saturday article', about GCS having a copy of the agreement and seeking legal advice?
Yep you guessed it, the fantasist that is Rucci.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Would anyone tell Triggy to his face he should be sacked?

Sure, if circumstances dictated. I likely wouldnt call him a weak prick however (and I in general refrain from doing so on here).

You cant distinguish between critiques of performance and personal attacks?

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Would anyone tell Triggy to his face he should be sacked?

If we receive a harsh penalty and he survives, I have every intention to ask him how he can justify his position as CEO at this years AGM.