Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[Vigawla]

While I am loving the fact that our club - for possible the first time in history - has come out swinging when things are unfair at AFL House, this comment really, really disappoints me.

Obviously there were other forces at work with Rendell - and they wanted him gone.

I think it was the 'racism' factor. My opinion was that the AFC didn't want anything 'racist' in the same sentence as the AFC. Boom, seeya Rendell.

Racism is taboo in the AFL house. In comparison, this situation seems tame to me.

 

[Macjoe]

... I also don't begrudge the club for making the gentleman's agreement, 2 years ago I would of been pretty sad if we lost Tipps ...

The only thing I disagree with, or should I possibly disagree with, is the bolded bit. ...

A view many supporters have expressed in the last month. I'm not having a shot at fabs33 or the many who also find it hard to forgive the AFC, Trigg or Reid for what happened in 2009 but it is worth remembering what was going on then.

Right now, we can't help but see October 2009 through the disasters that followed, the 2010 season and the 2011 season. Excessive injuries, game plans seen through, loss of faith in coaching staff and the misery of too many lost games and too many blow-outs.

Then, things were different:

In September 2009 the Adelaide Crows lost a close Semi Final to the 'Pies by 5 points to finish their season. Goodwin and Vince were outstanding, and Tippett kicked 4. The previous week, in a 96pt smashing of the Bombers, McLeod had been BOG.

Once the pain of losing that Semi (the 'Right in front of me!" one) subsided, the Crows looked to the future. And the future looked rosy. While the veteran stars were veterans, they were also stars. Backing them up were a strong list of emerging and established players, including their second leading goal-kicker and equal 4th in the Crow's B&F: Kurt Tippett.

AFL staff writer Ben Collins wrote at the end of his assessment of Adelaide in the AFL Record Season Guide 2010 just before the 2010 season started:

" Few would be shocked if the Crows won their third flag this season. Their premiership window is wide open".

So when the Crows were assessing their season in that short window of time between the 12th September Semi Final loss and their B & F Presentation on the 2nd October 2009, three things were clear.

First, they expected to make the finals and challenge for the flag in 2010, 2011.

Second, it was known that the new Gold Coast team, entering the competition in 2011, would have capacity to sign up players uncontracted at the end of 2010.

Third, it was known that Crows forward (and Gold Coast boy) Kurt Tippett would be out of contract at the end of 2010. The supporters, with that premiership window wide open, were clamouring for KT to be signed up right away on a contract extension through 2010 to 2012 or 2013.

In that context Donkey Magoo is right, what the Crows people did then is understandable. Not completely right, but understandable, and to some extent forgiveable.

 

[headache1]

I think the Tippetts, the butcher and Sydney had something to do with that as well

We agreed to a deal which severely limited his value, and in the end, caused us to lose him for nothing. Something tells me that had we not had such an agreement in place, Sydney wouldn't have even bothered with Tippett. Somebody from the AFC needs to be accountable for that, and seeing as Trigg is supposedly the only person left at the club who had involvement, that somebody is him.

 

[fabs33]

Macjoe, I understand what the circumstances were back then, but had the club made public the difficulties we were or had in getting him to sign I wouldn't have held it against them. Also, regardless of the circumstances, I don't think agreeing to accept unders in a future trade for such a valuable player is ever a wise decision, which is why I'm still undecided on the matter, as it will depend on the wording of the agreement.

 

[fabs33]

We agreed to a deal which severely limited his value, and in the end, caused us to lose him for nothing. Something tells me that had we not had such an agreement in place, Sydney wouldn't have even bothered with Tippett. Somebody from the AFC needs to be accountable for that, and seeing as Trigg is supposedly the only person left at the club who had involvement, that somebody is him.

We should probably lay some blame on who told Sydney that the agreement even existed.

 

[CrowGlen]

AFL to pay costs? Pity its not a court i suspect they would be after judgement.

Chapman said in the interview that the Club were covering the costs for four lawyers, and that the club was going through their insurance cover to see if the costs would be covered by their insurers.

 

[headache1]

We should probably lay some blame on who told Sydney that the agreement even existed.

Sure, we can blame everybody else that we like. It does not change that WE agreed to the deal in the first place.

 

[Stripple]

Indeed. And that in itself is truly sad. Prepared to believe everything they read and never once giving the benefit of the doubt.

Think he wa referring to some of our more negative posters who joined right when this whole saga started.

 

[jenny61_99]

Think he wa referring to some of our more negative posters who joined right when this whole saga started.

I wasn't.

 

[Elite Crow]

Sure, we can blame everybody else that we like. It does not change that WE agreed to the deal in the first place.

Yep we agreed to a deal that agreed to weaken the club when he left and we didn't trade him when we were in a position of strength.

 

[fabs33]

Sure, we can blame everybody else that we like. It does not change that WE agreed to the deal in the first place.

I'm not trying to absolve the club of it's mistakes, merely pointing out that this whole mess isn't all their doing.

 

[jenny61_99]

I'm not trying to absolve the club of it's mistakes, merely pointing out that this whole mess isn't all their doing.

And, that they did what they thought they needed to do at the time..

 

[Stripple]

Given that Rendell was probably treated harshly, treating Trigg harshly doesnt make what happened to Rendell right it just means 2 wrong decisions.

But doesn't that give trigg two mistakes?

I do agree that trigg shouldn't be treated the same as Rendell was but an admittance that we handled it the wrong way would be nice. The mud sticks and all.

 

[Mighty Chinook]

Speakers on laptop just died, can someone please summarize the chapman interview?

 

[jenny61_99]

Speakers on laptop just died, can someone please summarize the chapman interview?

Two pages back.

 

[PyroCrow]

Came across this:

 

[Stripple]

I wasn't.

I think it's only fair to point out that you are currently calling it early based on new reports. The positive news isn't confirmed yet either, the negative nellies may still be right. Think it's ok either way as long as your willing to admit your wrong(not specifically you but everyone).

 

[jenny61_99]

I think it's only fair to point out that you are currently calling it early based on new reports. The positive news isn't confirmed yet either, the negative nellies may still be right. Think it's ok either way as long as your willing to admit your wrong(not specifically you but everyone).

Absolutely. I'm just thrilled though, that this isn't doomsday, nor is it the end of success for our club - as some have claimed. We still have something to answer for, of that I am well aware.

 

[jenny61_99]

But doesn't that give trigg two mistakes?

I do agree that trigg shouldn't be treated the same as Rendell was but an admittance that we handled it the wrong way would be nice. The mud sticks and all.

That we handled what the wrong way?

 

[xchadders]

Indeed! My turn now, sorry xchadders

<20k -magtrev
20-21k -fabs33
21-22k -xchadders
22-23k - Juzzo
23-24k -MickyCrow
24-25k -alex_is_on_fire
25-26k -realslimshady2
26-27k -n4sir
27-28k -Stripple
28-29k -SpeciousArgument
>30k -bjn1960
never -JP Sauce

maybe i should change my name to ex-xchadders.

it comforts me a little that you're gonna get done too.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

We agreed to a deal which severely limited his value, and in the end, caused us to lose him for nothing. Something tells me that had we not had such an agreement in place, Sydney wouldn't have even bothered with Tippett. Somebody from the AFC needs to be accountable for that, and seeing as Trigg is supposedly the only person left at the club who had involvement, that somebody is him.

We also really wanted Tippett. I dont think anyone really could have foreseen the way this has all blown up. I dont get why someone HAS TO GET SACKED so you feel better about things. What if Trigg had left the club 2 years ago? Who would have to get sacked then?

Back when we believed there was no agreement and it was white+23 or the PSD most of this board wanted PSD and it was accepted that Tippett nominating Sydney (while a kurt of a thing to do) really didnt leave us with any other option. To say that Trigg was the reason we lost Tippett for a goose egg is ignoring a lot of other facters.

 

[Macjoe]

Came across this:{funny video revoicing KT}

Where the hell does that come from? Brilliant. LMAO

 

[SpeciousArgument]

But doesn't that give trigg two mistakes?

I do agree that trigg shouldn't be treated the same as Rendell was but an admittance that we handled it the wrong way would be nice. The mud sticks and all.

The Rendell thing was ugly, i think we all believe that, but we dont know Triggs actual level of responsibility for that either.

 

[JP Sauce]

Narcotic or narcoleptic?

Slippery Pete is a drug to many of us.

I know that I can't give him up.

Not that I'd ever want to.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Where the hell does that come from? Brilliant. LMAO

That sounds a lot like the 'crow crap podcast' guys