Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[Wright Away]

I'd happily call Kurt Tippett a dickhead right to his face, and a coward. Good luck to him with whatever he chose to do after that. Provocation is not a defence.

 

[Wood_Duck]

There's a fair bit of rumour mongering and shoddy reporting going on out there. From memory you have legitimate contacts at the club. Seeing as you posted the above, I'm wondering whether you could elaborate as to by what means did kurt manage to hold the club to ransom. And when you say "all this time", what period would you be referring to.

Why don't you just do your own research?

 

[1970crow]

Why don't you just do your own research?

Quite obviously, I'd rather the apologists make a stand. Jenny wrote about kurt holding the club to ransom. I've heard a fair bit of baseless innuendo, but I'd like to know why Jenny thinks that is the case. I think fairfooty, Peter??, and maybe you can help me understand. This isn't the deflection I hope.

 

[Sanders]

4) Don't you get the fact, you're are representing the club as supporters? I guess you don't care about that image.

Seems a pretty big stretch

 

[Realslimshady2]

Provocation is not a defence.

Well actually it is, sorry to nit pick.

 

[jenny61_99]

Can I just say that I don't expect a response from Jenny. Or, for that matter Peter j or fairfooty. Responding to that question opens up the reality that kurt was able to hold the club to ransom because he had a side deal that was agreed upon by the CEO. This is a position that they protect. I don't know why, but they do.

If I am incorrect, I look forward to a direct response from any of those 3. My expectation is that if they respond, it won't be to refute anything I've said, but rather to deflect the argument in another direction.

Jenny, fairfooty and the other guy, I look forward to tour response.

You don't expect a response, but you look forward to it?

I am of course going on the knowledge of "facts" as they have been reported by the various journo's. I, like everyone else in here, have made assumptions based on those facts and some small tidbits that I have gleaned from my inside sources that I am not at liberty to share in here. Assumptions that may yet be proved incorrect, and should that be the case, I will retract said assumptions. I think though, that those assumptions are fairly logical given what we 'know'. By holding the club to ransom - I mean in terms of him insisting on this get out clause to sign his last contract. Also that he insisted that if the third party deals that he had did not equal a certain amount of $$$ each year, that the Club would guarantee those payments. Also in the fact that he had - up until his concussions - told both the Club and his teammates that he would be staying on. Some of these same teammates took a drop in pay so that could happen.

The definition of "hold to ransom" is this: to attempt to force (a person or persons) to comply with one's demands. I think that is a very apt description of what Tippett has done to the Club.

 

[Sanders]

And to follow from this, might need vader again, but what's the process for his re-entry after the ban (12 mths?). Is he back in the national draft. If that's the case, it would be a pretty hollow threat.

Pretty sure GWS would retain his rights for 2 years?

 

[bjn1960]

Crow -"I'd rather the apologist make a stand".

Why?

 

[1970crow]

You don't expect a response, but you look forward to it?

I am of course going on the knowledge of "facts" as they have been reported by the various journo's. I, like everyone else in here, have made assumptions based on those facts and some small tidbits that I have gleaned from my inside sources that I am not at liberty to share in here. Assumptions that may yet be proved incorrect, and should that be the case, I will retract said assumptions. I think though, that those assumptions are fairly logical given what we 'know'. By holding the club to ransom - I mean in terms of him insisting on this get out clause to sign his last contract. Also that he insisted that if the third party deals that he had did not equal a certain amount of $$$ each year, that the Club would guarantee those payments. Also in the fact that he had - up until his concussions - told both the Club and his teammates that he would be staying on. Some of these same teammates took a drop in pay so that could happen.

The definition of "hold to ransom" is this: to attempt to force (a person or persons) to comply with one's demands. I think that is a very apt description of what Tippett has done to the Club.

There we go my friends. A lawyers response. Congratulations Jen. Fairfooty and the are guy are next.

Let's hope its a bit cheaper this time.

 

[Tex200]

Can I just say that I don't expect a response from Jenny. Or, for that matter Peter j or fairfooty. Responding to that question opens up the reality that kurt was able to hold the club to ransom because he had a side deal that was agreed upon by the CEO. This is a position that they protect. I don't know why, but they do.

If I am incorrect, I look forward to a direct response from any of those 3. My expectation is that if they respond, it won't be to refute anything I've said, but rather to deflect the argument in another direction.
Jenny, fairfooty and the other guy, I look forward to tour response.

@ Specious Argument......sorry in advance....can't let this go.

Let's be very clear I'm not an apologist for tippett, trigg, or any other AFC employee.

I've long been on record of being critical of the SANFL boys club, the lack of accountability, the jobs for the boys (and their sons) , the poor performance of Triggy in being absent during trade week etc etc. I would like nothing more than for this mess to see a clean out at our club and, heaven forbid, maybe even advertise for positions without the first, final and only criteria bring that you were once in the sanfl or related to someone who is.

I am however a firm believer in natural justice and procedural fairness which must be applied to ever individual. These are the pillars of administrative law. I will always be an apologist for this.

Don't confuse the 2

 

[jenny61_99]

There we go my friends. A lawyers response. Congratulations Jen. Fairfooty and the are guy are next.

Let's hope its a bit cheaper this time.

How the **** is that a lawyers response?

 

[juzzo]

Well that was pathetic. Baiting someone for a response, they give you an honest answer despite your attitude and you pre-meditate a negative reply.

 

[Wood_Duck]

How the **** is that a lawyers response?

That's why I can't believe you bothered. If he/she couldn't understand your position by reading the previous 15000 posts, you should have known nothing you say now will makes any sense to him/her.

Didn't deserve your time.

 

[1970crow]

How the **** is that a lawyers response?

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Hey Alex, we disagreed on knights. But I'm with you on this. The reality is that, as supporters, we should be much more angry with our management than we are kurt. Having said that, I'd like to think that the people using childish names (which I have), understand that kurt is just another footballer that has played for our club. If our senior management hadn't put such a ridiculous deal in place (in writing), we would have gotten a fair trade for him. But, ce la vie.

Knights is gone and yes, from now on - what will be will be. Good luck to him.

 

[1970crow]

Seriously though, it's a good question. I suspect that Jen knows the answer to that . Can you let the rest of us know Jen.

 

[1970crow]

Knights is gone and yes, from now on - what will be will be. Good luck to him.

Hope he gets a full pre-season and shows how good he can be. Reality is that he was never going to part of our club in 2013.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

There we go my friends. A lawyers response. Congratulations Jen. Fairfooty and the are guy are next.

Let's hope its a bit cheaper this time.

Exchange the word 'lawyer' for 'adulator' and you are close to the mark.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Hope he gets a full pre-season and shows how good he can be. Reality is that he was never going to part of our club in 2013.

Possible but I know for a fact, he was happy to stay but needed a change.

Had the Richmond deal never occurred, he was happy to fight for his place at the Crows.

 

[fairfooty]

@ Specious Argument......sorry in advance....can't let this go.

Let's be very clear I'm not an apologist for tippett, trigg, or any other AFC employee.

I've long been on record of being critical of the SANFL boys club, the lack of accountability, the jobs for the boys (and their sons) , the poor performance of Triggy in being absent during trade week etc etc. I would like nothing more than for this mess to see a clean out at our club and, heaven forbid, maybe even advertise for positions without the first, final and only criteria bring that you were once in the sanfl or related to someone who is.

I am however a firm believer in natural justice and procedural fairness which must be applied to ever individual. These are the pillars of administrative law. I will always be an apologist for this.

Don't confuse the 2

This


Thanks PeterJ. I too have previously stated on multiple occasions that this is an issue of substantive and procedural fairness. I am not going to explain it all yet again. If people don't understand these employment law foundations then I respectfully suggest they do their own research so they do understand. As if they were in Triggs position, given the tenuous evidence at best that we know about, they too would want fair and just process to apply to them. So it should apply to Stephen Trigg as well.

 

[Sanders]

I don't understand the procedural fairness argument around Trigg hasnt the misleading the board issue been settled? is there something else or are you guys saying that its not a big deal?

 

[rayven]

I'm now struggling to comprehend this.

Did we really think he'd walk if we objected to this clause into the deal. Did he really think that we'd agree to it.

I don't think anyone did, not for one minute.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

I'm now struggling to comprehend this.

Did we really think he'd walk if we objected to this clause into the deal. Did he really think that we'd agree to it.

I don't think anyone did, not for one minute.

Clearly the club did - or why didn't they call his bluff?

 

[xchadders]

Kurt Tippett reminds me of Nicholas Hunter Gill.

 

[Tex200]

Really all I'm saying is wait until completion of the Afl investigation before anyone does anything. That's all.