Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[Niximus]

Why cant we have that now?

Well you can, I just predict that you'll also have it then.

 

[cm_perfect]

The post that will be the first to reveal the actual outcome of the commission:

25,073 - Nick85
26,942 - OutofTownCrow
28,333 - Malem
29,335 - DonkeyMagoo

25,898 for me...

 

[Mego Red]

Just like Boak and Cloke were no chance to stay at their clubs either.

Boak was paid close to double what any other club was offering him.

If we offered Tippett $1.5m a year, I'm sure he would have stayed.

 

[Mego Red]

Ahh the old "I did say it last year but I just can't find it" line.

I'm sure we can search for the thread I started last year about trading Tippett, even before the agreement came out. There was only maybe half a dozen people that agreed with me, but I` wasn't a stranger.

Pure idiocy to know there was an agreement out there as well as videos talking about his intention to go home - and to then gamble that you can turn him around.

Should lose their job for this alone, this level of gamble. Don't roll the dice if you can't risk the downside.

 

[jt_mcleod]

Well certainly not when you make double posts!

sorry big footy was lagging

 

[Cap]

Please defer these to post 1 million+
Geeez, i wouldnt even wish any of them on Tippo

sadly, Bush would be more intelligent than Tippet....so would the man boobs

 

[juzzo]

The post that will be the first to reveal the actual outcome of the commission:

25,073 - Nick85 (boobs)
26,942 - OutofTownCrow
27,916 - Vigawla
28,333 - Malem
29,335 - DonkeyMagoo

A third party competition!? I hope it's been approved

 

[Elite Crow]

Ahh the old "I did say it last year but I just can't find it" line.

Threads closed so cant quote it, but here is what I wrote:

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/tippetts-gone-read-rules-before-posting.975955/page-891
If Kurt has that clause in that contract, the club would be derelict in their duties if they didnt investigate all options.

If Kurt does have that clause, then you cover your arse and act now before you are burnt.
Elite Crow, Sep 6, 2011DeleteReport
#484
That last line is pretty telling dont you think?

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Boak was paid close to double what any other club was offering him.

If we offered Tippett $1.5m a year, I'm sure he would have stayed.

He also didn't have an agreement in place to send him to the club of his choice.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

My post will be a duck with boobs.

Wayne Carey and Kelly Stevens child? if they had one.

 

[SydCrow]

Worthy of a holiday, where are the mods.

I thought that was a Vader selfie

 

[Wood_Duck]

Threads closed so cant quote it, but here is what I wrote:

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/tippetts-gone-read-rules-before-posting.975955/page-891
If Kurt has that clause in that contract, the club would be derelict in their duties if they didnt investigate all options.

If Kurt does have that clause, then you cover your arse and act now before you are burnt.
Elite Crow, Sep 6, 2011DeleteReport
#484
That last line is pretty telling dont you think?

All well and good but the clause did not exist. For all intents and purposes Trigg rescinded the email in question within weeks and would likely have assumed it was no longer in play.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

All well and good but the clause did not exist. For all intents and purposes Trigg rescinded the email in question within weeks and would likely have assumed it was no longer in play.

But someone (more than one party) did assume it still existed and that's why a deal never went ahead.

If the Tippett camp or even Swans didn't think it was able to be activated, I'm sure they would have offered more than White and pick 20. Lets be real.

 

[Wood_Duck]

But someone (more than one party) did assume it still existed and that's why a deal never went ahead.

If the Tippett camp or even Swans didn't think it was able to be activated, I'm sure they would have offered more than White and pick 20. Lets be real.

Spot on. The original document seemed to resurface only when the trade between Sydney and Adelaide became difficult. From reading Mark Robinsons article this morning I get the feeling that it wasn't Blucher that brought it back to life. It would seem that Trigg and Blucher had agreement back in 2009 that it was invalid. I am quite convinced that the Swans and another party were trying to use it to their advantage both during and prior to trade week.

 

[johnnypanther]

Typical in that Mark Robinson in today's Herald Sun writes "Errors, but Blucher no cheat" .... "he wants everyone to know ... he's an ignoramus. But he's not a cheating ignoramus".... yet on the other hand ...."salary cap cheating at Adelaide"

Visy also have 16 Carlton players under employment agreements.
I'm not saying that it is wrong, but isnt Pratt or Pratt jnr associated with Carlton.
I suppose they are being paid the going market rate for whatever they do..... but Judd just does the same thing a million times better hence he gets paid soooo much more for the same "work".

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Spot on. The original document seemed to resurface only when the trade between Sydney and Adelaide became difficult. From reading Mark Robinsons article this morning I get the feeling that it wasn't Blucher that brought it back to life. It would seem that Trigg and Blucher had agreement back in 2009 that it was invalid. I am quite convinced that the Swans and another party were trying to use it to their advantage both during and prior to trade week.

Of course they were.

I don't know if the Tippett camp or Blucher agreed to terminate any agreement 3 years ago or not. That information as far as I'm aware hasn't surfaced but even if they did, I suspect they were trying to use that agreement as a form of blackmail against the Crows to get the deal done. They knew if this deal was to surface, the Crows (and possibly Tippett) would be in some trouble.

I don't think they counted on Trigg and Co calling their bluff and going to the AFL as they did.

Saying that, with Kurt Tippett "I'm a gold coast boy at heart" video and this agreement, I would have still traded him last year to Brisbane and said so.

 

[Elite Crow]

All well and good but the clause did not exist. For all intents and purposes Trigg rescinded the email in question within weeks and would likely have assumed it was no longer in play.

Clause didn't exist but an agreement which blew up in our face which stopped us from trading him. And the point of quoting myself is to show that I'm not talking after the fact and that I had the same opinion a year ago.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Typical in that Mark Robinson in today's Herald Sun writes "Errors, but Blucher no cheat" .... "he wants everyone to know ... he's an ignoramus. But he's not a cheating ignoramus".... yet on the other hand ...."salary cap cheating at Adelaide"

I've been home sick yesterday and today and was able to catch up on some shows I like to watch. One of those shows is the 30 for 30 ESPN sports documentaries.

Anyone with Foxtel or ESPN, try and catch the 30 for 30 special documentary called "The Dotted Line" about NFL, NBA and ML baseball player agents. One section goes into how Josh Luchs would do whatever it took to sign a player and how he had to cheat the system to make this work. Either AFL players are 30 years behind their American counterparts or he is a bold faced liar if he wants to insinuate he is simply ignorant.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Do those ****ing morons down the road at Alberton have selective memories or what?

Have they forgotten they did the same thing in 1996 by paying a few SANFL player extra money to stand out of the draft so they would be eligible for the first AFL squad?

Yes we cheated and yes we have been caught but can those mo fo STFU as if they are all innocent in this.

Idiots.

 

[Wood_Duck]

Do those ******* morons down the road at Alberton have selective memories or what?

Have they forgotten they did the same thing in 1996 by paying a few SANFL player extra money to stand out of the draft so they would be eligible for the first AFL squad?

Yes we cheated and yes we have been caught but can those mo fo STFU as if they are all innocent in this.

Idiots.

Save yourself the angst mate. Just stay away from them. Most of them are the greatest argument against the theory of creation that a scientist could wish for.

 

[jenny61_99]

Typical in that Mark Robinson in today's Herald Sun writes "Errors, but Blucher no cheat" .... "he wants everyone to know ... he's an ignoramus. But he's not a cheating ignoramus".... yet on the other hand ...."salary cap cheating at Adelaide"

Visy also have 16 Carlton players under employment agreements.
I'm not saying that it is wrong, but isnt Pratt or Pratt jnr associated with Carlton.
I suppose they are being paid the going market rate for whatever they do..... but Judd just does the same thing a million times better hence he gets paid soooo much more for the same "work".

just adding to this, this is what was said on Blucher:

Blucher has worn hit after hit and in recent weeks and those close to him have been concerned for his health. Poor baby. I'm sure Tippett, Trigg, Harper and the AFC aren't feeling all that hot either.

Blucher's player -- Tippett -- has been charged with draft tampering and signing agreements separate to the the total player payments. In other words, knowing the money was being paid outside the cap. Money wasn't paid outside the cap!

Blucher will argue he was not aware that he could agree to Adelaide's offer to trade Tippett to the club of his choice and for a set trade. This makes NO sense what so ever. WTF?

Tippett was charged because he signed the contract. That his Manager and Father arranged.

Blucher will also argue that every third-party agreement made with Tippett -- believed to be four -- was ticked off by the AFL. This is correct.

He will have trouble, however, explaining other aspects of what the AFL has uncovered. Such as?

He knows he has made errors and will be disciplined by the AFL Players' Association.

But he wants everyone to know he did not knowingly cheat the cap. He's an ignoramus. But he's not a cheating ignoramus. Does blackmailing come under cheating?

 

[Schulzycrow]

Has Tony Tippett slipped Robbo some money?

 

[baldandbroke]

Do those ******* morons down the road at Alberton have selective memories or what?

Have they forgotten they did the same thing in 1996 by paying a few SANFL player extra money to stand out of the draft so they would be eligible for the first AFL squad?

Yes we cheated and yes we have been caught but can those mo fo STFU as if they are all innocent in this.

Idiots.

All supporters have short (and selective memories)

The most grief I have copped over here in Vic is from the Carlton supporters. They just reckon if we don't get done it will show that the AFL has it in for them (they don't want to talk about the facts or why).

Funny how Geelong fans now have some understanding of the rubbish that is going on with Selwood - they seem to be less aggressive.

When you talk to other clubs supporters that have been charged with draft tampering or salary cap breaches in the past - actually charged - they have no empathy. They just remember it being "unfair and untrue" but still getting done - so we should cop the same treatment.

 

[Mego Red]

Blucher's player -- Tippett -- has been charged with draft tampering and signing agreements separate to the the total player payments. In other words, knowing the money was being paid outside the cap. Money wasn't paid outside the cap!

Ummm - yeah, it was. The fact that we could include it under our cap doesn't change the fact that we didn't - if indeed the charges aren't disproven.

(double negative, I know - but it seems in the AFL charges need to be disproven, not proven)

 

[jenny61_99]

Ummm - yeah, it was. The fact that we could include it under our cap doesn't change the fact that we didn't - if indeed the charges aren't disproven.

(double negative, I know - but it seems in the AFL charges need to be disproven, not proven)

We didn't pay him any money. His third party agreements did. Didn't we just underwrite the shortfall if there was any - which there wasn't?