Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[jenny61_99]

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

I particularly liked Chapman's statement that Trigg was not responsible for the "Ivory Tower" - I'm assuming he is referring to the Westpac Centre (aka The White Elephant). Some in here were adamant that the Westpac Centre is another example of the things he's done wrong as CEO. We now know it was the Boards decision, made at a time before the global financial crisis and before the Adelaide Oval decision by the AFL.

 

[ManInTheArena]

I particularly liked Chapman's statement that Trigg was not responsible for the "Ivory Tower" - I'm assuming he is referring to the Westpac Centre (aka The White Elephant). Some in here were adamant that the Westpac Centre is another example of the things he's done wrong as CEO. We now know it was the Boards decision, made at a time before the global financial crisis and before the Adelaide Oval decision by the AFL.

Most 'strategic' decisions are board decisions. It's Trigg's job to put wheels on them. There is no way he would have, or could have decided to build the Westpac Centre.

 

[fairfooty]

Indeed. Hopefully concepts such as.due process are finally sinking in. Some posters in particular have great trouble grasping it.

Yep a few slow learners on this board. Good to see a few finally getting it

 

[Godallblighty]

Well done Jenny you never doubted for one min.

That sometimes gets me in trouble (see Neil Craig threads ). And while this isn't all over yet, I'm still sure it will not be the horrendous picture some have been painting.
Oh, and I wasn't the only one.

Whoa...jumping the gun much? You might be confident but it's way too early for valedictory speeches. This could still end ugly.

 

[Stripple]

That we handled what the wrong way?

I'm still of the view Rendell was shot too soon. A suspension and coucelling should have been the way to go. And even if the AFL forced us then we were weak to now down. Just my opinion.

 

[headache1]

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.

You don't need to be Nostradamus to foresee that signing an agreement to trade your most highly paid player for a 2nd round pick is going to end badly. Anybody who bows to the pressure of a players ****wit dad, and risks the clubs reputation in the process, should not be running the joint. This is not to make me feel better, it's an appropriate response to a CEO who loses one of the most valuable assets the company they are running possesses for nothing, due to mismanagement.

The PSD threat was a trade off, as it was us making a stand and not accepting an absolutely shit offer for a player who was worth at least one very early 1st round pick. Instead, we lost him for nothing and became embroiled in a salary cap and draft tampering scandal. Fantastic message sent by the club right there.

Do I even need to mention that he apparently sat idly by, and didn't notify our recruting department of this secret agreement during our last trade period, when we could have actually got something of value for Kurt?

He ****ed up, and he ****ed up big. This is a professional organisation, and people in charge should be held accountable for their actions.

 

[Schulzycrow]

Awesome, 2 more weeks of this thread to go!

It will never be over! Never I tell you...mehehehehehhahahahaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

 

[Realslimshady2]

Whilst i agree with your description of Tips, i do think that the AFL itself is to blame for the farce that has happened and the whole thing is descending into the ridiculous.

Of course but it was Tip$ who rocked the boat.

 

[sworc36]

Spot on Fab. If our infringements are minor we should be going after draft pick compensation plus costs. Could we go after some of the media outlets for defamation as well? Id like to see the club make a stand with this, assuming it turns out to have been massively overblown, just to send a message that we wont be anybodys bitch. It seems like weve been an easy target in the past 12 months and i'd like the club to change that perception.

Something I cannot understand, how come the media have basically a "get out of jail free card" when it comes to writing anything they want about anyone. You dont see many defamation cases against them. How many peoples lives have they affected by lies and innuendo. Very, very frustrating and their usually the first people to threaten legal action if anyone dares say anything bad about them. Would love to see us challenge Caro Wilson/The Age for what has been written about us these past few weeks.

 

[BundyJack]

Came across this:

This is GOLD

 

[PyroCrow]

Where the hell does that come from? Brilliant. LMAO

The Mad Aussie. I think that he posts on here under a similar name.

 

[Wood_Duck]

Whoa...jumping the gun much? You might be confident but it's way too early for valedictory speeches. This could still end ugly.

True, may be getting a little carried away.

 

[Sanders]

I doubt it's Josh Jenkins that spoke to the papers about not liking Tippett. He probably wouldn't even have asked for anonymity! Hell, he'd probably just write the article himself.

The article speaks like someone who has a longer history with the AFC than JJ

 

[sworc36]

You don't need to be Nostradamus to foresee that signing an agreement to trade your most highly paid player for a 2nd round pick is going to end badly. Anybody who bows to the pressure of a players silly person dad, and risks the clubs reputation in the process, should not be running the joint. This is not to make me feel better, it's an appropriate response to a CEO who loses one of the most valuable assets the company they are running possesses for nothing, due to mismanagement.

The PSD threat was a trade off, as it was us making a stand and not accepting an absolutely shit offer for a player who was worth at least one very early 1st round pick. Instead, we lost him for nothing and became embroiled in a salary cap and draft tampering scandal. Fantastic message sent by the club right there.

Do I even need to mention that he apparently sat idly by, and didn't notify our recruting department of this secret agreement during our last trade period, when we could have actually got something of value for Kurt?

He screwed up, and he screwed up big. This is a professional organisation, and people in charge should be held accountable for their actions.

Dont agree. Yes he made a mistake but we were looking at losing him for nothing back in 2009. If you remember back then he was on fire and looking like being the forward we longed for for so long. I know I (and am guessing thousands of other supporters) wanted him badly to stay. Sure it was a risk, and if it paid off, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now. But we have always played safe, let players go home when they wanted, just about packed their bags and given them extra cash for the trip home but with Tippett we had a seriously dangerous forward who was hopefully going to be a part of our next premership.
As for the Rendell decision, I would have loved Rendell to have stayed but the pressure from Demetriou and the media was Enormous. I have also heard from another person connected to the club that there was absolutely noway that Rendell could have stayed at the club. They didn't expand on anything but they were definite about him going. Anyway thats just my opinion, and Im probably going to get shot down for having it but I think he should stay.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

You don't need to be Nostradamus to foresee that signing an agreement to trade your most highly paid player for a 2nd round pick is going to end badly. Anybody who bows to the pressure of a players silly person dad, and risks the clubs reputation in the process, should not be running the joint. This is not to make me feel better, it's an appropriate response to a CEO who loses one of the most valuable assets the company they are running possesses for nothing, due to mismanagement.

The PSD threat was a trade off, as it was us making a stand and not accepting an absolutely shit offer for a player who was worth at least one very early 1st round pick. Instead, we lost him for nothing and became embroiled in a salary cap and draft tampering scandal. Fantastic message sent by the club right there.

Do I even need to mention that he apparently sat idly by, and didn't notify our recruting department of this secret agreement during our last trade period, when we could have actually got something of value for Kurt?

He screwed up, and he screwed up big. This is a professional organisation, and people in charge should be held accountable for their actions.

The wording of the agreement isnt clear, is it 'for a second round pick' or 'for a reasonable trade no worse than a second round pick' - There is a big difference and the answer isnt known publicly.

We were already afraid of losing him for nothing, remember Gold Coast and their 'uncontracted player' rule? it appears we got him to stay based on this side arrangement and were looking very promising for 2010 (how wrong we were) and an extra two years for your best player and agreeing to trade him later with the opportunity to get him to stay longer (albeit outside the rules) isnt actually that unreasonable.

At the time that deal was made Trigg et al weren't under pressure from Tippetts dad, they were under pressure from every employee, member, supporter and stakeholder of the club.

Your argument is based on a lot of assumptions so i dont see how you can add all those up and come to a definite conclusion.

 

[jenny61_99]

You don't need to be Nostradamus to foresee that signing an agreement to trade your most highly paid player for a 2nd round pick is going to end badly. Anybody who bows to the pressure of a players silly person dad, and risks the clubs reputation in the process, should not be running the joint. This is not to make me feel better, it's an appropriate response to a CEO who loses one of the most valuable assets the company they are running possesses for nothing, due to mismanagement.

The PSD threat was a trade off, as it was us making a stand and not accepting an absolutely shit offer for a player who was worth at least one very early 1st round pick. Instead, we lost him for nothing and became embroiled in a salary cap and draft tampering scandal. Fantastic message sent by the club right there.

Do I even need to mention that he apparently sat idly by, and didn't notify our recruting department of this secret agreement during our last trade period, when we could have actually got something of value for Kurt?

He screwed up, and he screwed up big. This is a professional organisation, and people in charge should be held accountable for their actions.

Here's a thought for you. What if Trigg believed the original draft deal was not in play after discussion with Blucher? What if he thought he would be able to trade Kurt to his preferred club for a fair return? And what if it became obvious during trade period that Sydney knew about the original deal?

 

[baldandbroke]

You don't need to be Nostradamus to foresee that signing an agreement to trade your most highly paid player for a 2nd round pick is going to end badly ...

If this was supposed to be confidential - as many have said before - it becomes less foreseeable than you imply above.

Think of it as a reserve price in an auction. Sure if you know it - you can get a great deal ... but if you don't and you really want the item, you pay what its worth.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Indeed. Hopefully concepts such as.due process are finally sinking in. Some posters in particular have great trouble grasping it.

Nothing has changed right now in terms of 'due process', I guess its time to chastise the celebrating posters for not waiting on the verdict.

 

[baldandbroke]

Are my eyes deceiving me ... or am I now seeing into the future at this article from the 20th of November?

Tippett legal demand to be set free

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/tippett-legal-demand-to-be-set-free-20121119-29m9g.html

Includes such beauties as:

The Adelaide hearing was rescheduled after Trigg and his football lieutenant Phil Harper engaged independent legal representation on Friday when it became apparent the Crows board could not fully support either man

.

 

[jenny61_99]

Nothing has changed right now in terms of 'due process', I guess its time to chastise the celebrating posters for not waiting on the verdict.

Who's celebrating? I am thrilled that some of this is being cleared up, absolutely. We still have this one hurdle to get over, and I'm guessing it's going to come down to a he said, he said situation. The bottom line will probably be - who's version you are prepared to give the greatest weight to. Now some - those that are convinced Trigg is incapable of carrying out his duties as CEO - will immediately believe the words of the opponent, no matter who that is, or what they say - simply because they refuse to believe that Steven could possibly do the right thing.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Who's celebrating? I am thrilled that some of this is being cleared up, absolutely. We still have this one hurdle to get over, and I'm guessing it's going to come down to a he said, he said situation. The bottom line will probably be - who's version you are prepared to give the greatest weight to. Now some - those that are convinced Trigg is incapable of carrying out his duties as CEO - will immediately believe the words of the opponent, no matter who that is, or what they say - simply because they refuse to believe that Steven could possibly do the right thing.

You're accepting a whole lot before the fact right now. Its exactly the same behaviour that you're critical of. If we're going to trumpet respect for due process then we should refrain from commenting until the whole thing plays out.

Of course we're not going to do that though, we're an internet forum. It'd be a boring place if we didnt post every thought that comes into our mind.

And im suprised that you really want to play the bias card.

 

[jenny61_99]

You're accepting a whole lot before the fact right now. Its exactly the same behaviour that you're critical of. If we're going to trumpet respect for due process then we should refrain from commenting until the whole thing plays out.

Of course we're not going to do that though, we're an internet forum. It'd be a boring place if we didnt post every thought that comes into our mind.

And you have a hell of a nerve levelling charges of bias against anyone all things considered.

All things considered?

I won't refrain from commentating on good news. Just as those refused to refrain from perpetuating negative crap after each new newspaper report came out. There IS good news, and cause for others perhaps to stop and think that their view of all of this and particularly of Steven Trigg who has been appallingly treated in here during this whole thing, has perhaps been misguided.

 

[headache1]

Dont agree. Yes he made a mistake but we were looking at losing him for nothing back in 2009.

No we weren't. We would have received compensation for his loss (and kept Nathan Bock in the process). With Kurts age, the season he'd just had, and his prospective contract offer from GC, I'd have been very surprised if we received anything less than Band 2 compensation (another pick immediately after our 1st rounder) for his loss.

At the time that deal was made Trigg et al weren't under pressure from Tippetts dad, they were under pressure from every employee, member, supporter and stakeholder of the club.

Your argument is based on a lot of assumptions so i dont see how you can add all those up and come to a definite conclusion.

Such are the pressures that come with the responsibilites of being the CEO of a professional organisation. It doesn't mean you need to bow to those pressures.

Everybodys argument on this matter is based on assumptions, but answer me this. Did the AFL block us from trading Tippett for any form of deal that would have adhered to our agreement with Tippett? This would suggest there was an artificially low value attached to this agreement, would it not? Furthermore, did we, or did we not lose Kurt Tippett for nothing as a result of the Trigg approved agreement?

Here's a thought for you. What if Trigg believed the original draft deal was not in play after discussion with Blucher? What if he thought he would be able to trade Kurt to his preferred club for a fair return? And what if it became obvious during trade period that Sydney knew about the original deal?

I can play this game too. What if he'd never approved the agreement to begin with?

I get that he's your friend, and you want to defend him, but it certainly makes your opinion on the matter somewhat biased. Up until the Rendell situation, I never had any real problem with him as CEO. I may have thought that he'd been a bit soft at times, but in general, did a good job. However, I believe what he's done here is a sackable offence. He is responsible for us losing one of our most valuable assets for nothing. This is a fact.

 

[Southerntakeover]

All things considered?

I won't refrain from commentating on good news. Just as those refused to refrain from perpetuating negative crap after each new newspaper report came out. There IS good news, and cause for others perhaps to stop and think that perhaps their view of all of this and particularly of Steven Trigg who has been appallingly treated in here during this whole thing, has perhaps been misguided.[/quote]

They're being criticized for reacting to reports without respect for 'due process'. Doing the same leaves you open to the criticism that you're endorsing.

 

[headache1]

If this was supposed to be confidential - as many have said before - it becomes less foreseeable than you imply above.

Think of it as a reserve price in an auction. Sure if you know it - you can get a great deal ... but if you don't and you really want the item, you pay what its worth.

I understand that it was supposed to remain confidential, I am one of the many who have said that before. However, it doesn't take a genius to work out that it's going to be used against you if you don't comply with whatever the agreement holder asks of you. To think that it wouldn't be is completely naive.