Remove this Banner Ad

Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

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.
]
Wood_Duck said:
They were very confident he was staying. They actually thought he was ready to sign just before finals this year. Up until then every indication was that he would sign a long term contract.

Naive??? Dunno
Click to expand...
Yep, who could forget the famous "I'm a beach boy at heart and plan to go back to the Gold Coast one day" reassuring video

Plus there is the issue that we were talking to Brisbane about a trade
 
Elite Crow said:
Its not hindsight, it was stupidity. They were deluding themselves if they thought he would stay. They knew about the explosiveness of the clause. I can not believe they took such a big gamble with the clubs future and reputation.
Click to expand...
Ok - so if we send KT on his way in 2011 - as you say was so obvious to anyone who wasnt "stupid" ... then where would we have finished in 2011 on the ladder? Would Tex have been able to develop as he has? Would we have made the finals at all - would we have given our young group experience and belief from a great PF against a really hardened good team?

You seem to be looking at one side of the coin.

If KT left in 2011 - a whole heap of other things might have changed for the worse - it was a gamble to keep him, it would have also been a gamble (bigger imo) to let him go.
 
Bit hard to crucify them when a bloke has clearly been lying to them. Until now they really had no reason to doubt him. When I say they thought they were close to him signing, I mean, 'they thought they were really really close to signing him'. Pretty sure the announcement had been scheduled.
 
Elite Crow said:
Its not hindsight, it was stupidity. They were deluding themselves if they thought he would stay. They knew about the explosiveness of the clause. I can not believe they took such a big gamble with the clubs future and reputation.
Click to expand...

Exactly, as soon as he signed/agreed to that clause everyone should have known he was leaving.

I can not believe the arrogance shown by the club not to trade him and suggest he would stay. No one had that agreement in place and still stays.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Wood_Duck said:
They were very confident he was staying. They actually thought he was ready to sign just before finals this year. Up until then every indication was that he would sign a long term contract.

Naive??? Dunno
Click to expand...
There was clearly some sort of disconnect along the way. If we've said to him in 2009 "Look, we want you to stay on a bit longer, we're prepared to make it worth your while, and if you want to leave after the next contract and go home we wont stand in your way", that seems like a pretty reasonable arrangement for both parties. Given the manner of Kurt's ultimate departure, it's logical to assume that somewhere along the line, Kurt got the shits on.

Given what I know to be true regarding the status of the situation mid year, I'd suggest everything changed once he started copping whacks in the head. Change of heart? Father influence? Im not quite sure, but it's difficult to see how we could have treated the prick any better than we did during his time here and particularly during his concussions.
 
Southerntakeover said:
Without wanting to question your mail, that really doesnt make much sense. The only way the move makes sense is if the parties are being seperately represented.

Its not really like we needed more lawyers. We'd have a firm of solicitors working with the QC.
Click to expand...
I have to admit, I jumped to the same conclusion, and I think its a very reasonable assumption. It was put to me over the weekend by someone who should know, that its not the case.

The scenario I was given over the weekend is that due to the volume of evidence and the time frame available different areas of evidence are being handled by the separate solicitors. I make no guarantees, but I guess it sounds plausible.
 
OutofTownCrow said:
Ok - so if we send KT on his way in 2011 - as you say was so obvious to anyone who wasnt "stupid" ... then where would we have finished in 2011 on the ladder? Would Tex have been able to develop as he has? Would we have made the finals at all - would we have given our young group experience and belief from a great PF against a really hardened good team?

You seem to be looking at one side of the coin.

If KT left in 2011 - a whole heap of other things might have changed for the worse - it was a gamble to keep him, it would have also been a gamble (bigger imo) to let him go.
Click to expand...
You mean 2012? Given Kurts output once the concussions took hold I doubt where we finished on the ladder would have been any different. Who knows we may have played a forward against Sydney who actually added something.

Besides no one was banking on us making a premilinary final this year and that would have included the club. So effectively they gambled on a ok to good season versus a dodgy trade when he left and all the scrutiny that would bring to the club plus effectively weakening our club relative to the compensation we would have received in 2011.
 
Wood_Duck said:
They were very confident he was staying. They actually thought he was ready to sign just before finals this year. Up until then every indication was that he would sign a long term contract.

Naive??? Dunno
Click to expand...
I wouldn't put it past Kurt sending 'signals' that he was keen on staying just to make himself feel better. I know it's just about the lowest it gets but I really wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.
 
Wood_Duck said:
Bit hard to crucify them when a bloke has clearly been lying to them. Until now they really had no reason to doubt him. When I say they thought they were close to him signing, I mean, 'they thought they were really really close to signing him'. Pretty sure the announcement had been scheduled.
Click to expand...
A player that makes you agree to a deal that when he leaves he weakens your club gives you a pretty clear indication of the type of bloke you are dealing with.
 
Wood_Duck said:
They were very confident he was staying. They actually thought he was ready to sign just before finals this year. Up until then every indication was that he would sign a long term contract.

Naive??? Dunno
Click to expand...

I wonder how many of these indications came from the tippett camp as it seems gold coast believed he had actually committed to them, and they were negotiating with sydney since august

Maybe we are not good at reading signs? We read the gunston tea leaves very badly too. All of which is fine unless you are betting big on the outcome
 
Elite Crow said:
You mean 2012?
Click to expand...
No - you replied to this:

SydCrow said: ↑
the biggest was not trading him in 2011 but hindsight is a wonderful thing​

with this:
Its not hindsight, it was stupidity.
Click to expand...

So lets say 2011.

Elite Crow said:
Given Kurts output once the concussions took hold I doubt where we finished on the ladder would have been any different. Who knows we may have played a forward against Sydney who actually added something.
Click to expand...
Of course it would have been different. Brisbane might have knocked us out of the 8 for all we know with the new power forward they got in the trade period.

What I am saying is that you seem very sure on what should have happened - with very little knowledge of what the decision actually was - or what it was based on.

Elite Crow said:
Besides no one was banking on us making a premilinary final this year and that would have included the club. So effectively they gambled on a ok to good season versus a dodgy trade when he left and all the scrutiny that would bring to the club plus effectively weakening our club relative to the compensation we would have received in 2011.
Click to expand...

Again - guesses. Not saying they are any better or worse than other guesses at this stage - but you seem to be soooo sure of yours.

Weakening our club? What if we got a Laurence Angwin with the picks we received for Tippett in 2011 trade?

People always know what the gamble should have been after the fact. It's a gamble to do nothing, a gamble to do something - the only time you know the result is when its all over.
 
SydCrow said:
the biggest was not trading him in 2011 but hindsight is a wonderful thing
Click to expand...


They shouldve done it then agreed.
However, wouldnt Brisbane have needed to take over this "dodgy" contract that he was on. So this whole deal wouldve just come to a head 12 months earlier?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Scott Van Persett said:
My wife said this morning that she had heard that Kurt was sussing out University courses in Sydney in June.

Does anyone else know about this or has heard this?
Click to expand...

Going for his Bachelor's Degree in Sociology, i bet.

I'm sure he'll do great in the subject SOCI001 - How To Make And Keep Friends
 
Scott Van Persett said:
My wife said this morning that she had heard that Kurt was sussing out University courses in Sydney in June.

Does anyone else know about this or has heard this?
Click to expand...
Tippscab was probably only over there to scab bottles and cans from the bins.
 
It's good to see we are standing up for ourselves as a club, but let's not go crazy. The fact that we are putting together a body of evidence is not really surprising, since we're going to the commission. The fact is we've still admitted to some guilt, and at this point we're only trying to minimise the damage done.

Still a long way to go before this is over, unfortunately :(
 
Elite Crow said:
Its not hindsight, it was stupidity. They were deluding themselves if they thought he would stay. They knew about the explosiveness of the clause. I can not believe they took such a big gamble with the clubs future and reputation.
Click to expand...

That would be true IF the clause - and it wasn't a clause, it was an agreement - was in play. But as far as we were concerned it wasnt. Tippett had also given strong indication that he was staying. So were we to look into our crystal ball to see into the future? We actually had recruited in the off chance he would want to go home, so we had at least put steps in place should that eventuate. No explosiveness was anticipated given we didn't believe the agreement was in play.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Elite Crow said:
Its not hindsight, it was stupidity. They were deluding themselves if they thought he would stay. They knew about the explosiveness of the clause. I can not believe they took such a big gamble with the clubs future and reputation.
Click to expand...

Just like Boak and Cloke were no chance to stay at their clubs either. Maybe we should have traded Danger this year as well as there is obviously no chance that he will sign again next time. Just love you guys who can play a situation perfectly a year after it has happened.

I bet you would be great at telling us who will be good in last years draft as well.
 
Fine, with a Caution/Suspended sentence, saying that we sailed too close to the wind.

29,335
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top