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.
Stripple said:
What about pick 12 and pick 23 which is what we could have got for him last year. Right there we have lost that value. And pick 20 and pick 54.

At what point do you think we will have lost a lot of value?

We should be top 4 in the next two years so if we lose picks in the next two years its not a big deal because they are only picks in the late teens?
Click to expand...
You're saying that having Tippett in the goal square had no value then. As far as i can tell the club thought he was worth having around and believed he could be convinced to stay. The club seems to have valued his potential contributions and believed that combined with an opportunity to retain his services was worth passing up pick 12 and 23 for. They got that wrong in hindsight but i dont think you can sack a ceo for it. If you sack a ceo every time a player isnt retained or doesnt live up to expectations you wouldnt have any ceos left.

Again i dont think 'losing tippett for nothing' should be taken into consideration because it seems to me that the club felt they would be able to retain tippett and we did have his services up until the end of the prelim against the hawks.

I agree that we lost pick 20 and 54 over this, and MAY lose more, but when there was every possibility of losing Tippett for nothing or very little whether this deal existed or not i dont think its fair to add what he was 'worth' to the list of things we've lost because of this deal
 
I really have an issue with the board seemingly bemoaning the loss of 23. Nobody wanted 23, apparently it was a nothing pick anyway. And don't try the ..well that was different line....its not different at all. This board, actually it seemed like the whole bloody state wanted 23 handed back and tippett in the draft. Well that's exactly what happened, regardless of how it happened.
 
Click Like if you love...

JJ's media attacks on Tippett
Tex Walker's holiday Tweets
Patty D's terrible grammar on Twitter
The fact that Jessie White isn't playing for us next season
The fact that Sydney "Bloods" are paying Jessie White's salary next season
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Flynn White said:
Click Like if you love...

JJ's media attacks on Tippett
Tex Walker's holiday Tweets
Patty D's terrible grammar on Twitter
The fact that Jessie White isn't playing for us next season
The fact that Sydney "Bloods" are paying Jessie White's salary next season
Click to expand...
Trophy whore. :p
 
SpeciousArgument said:
didnt find one? so are you going to apologise?

Please explain to me how the club choosing to sit out of 2 picks leads directly to Trigg having committed a sackable offence without using assumptions or media reports.

Again, where did i claim guilt or innocence, as far as im aware there are 5 parties with charges to answer. please explain to me without using assumptions or media reports how sitting out of 2 draft picks proves the guilt of any other party specifically.
Click to expand...

This is ****ing bizarre.

Of course paying what amounts to an expiation penalty is an admission of guilt. The only way you could sustain the argument that we're innocent at this point is by claiming that we gave up our picks for no reason whatsoever. If that were the case it would be misconduct in itself and the people involved should be sacked.

SpeciousArgument said:
You seem to have trouble with the difference between asserting innocence and a lack of facts proving guilt.
Click to expand...

You seem to struggle with producing anything another than the lowest quality obscurantism I've encounted for a hell of a long time. If you're not capable of deducing on the evidence infront of you thats fine. To suggest a reasonable person would struggle is ridiculous.
 
Southerntakeover said:
This is ******* bizarre.

Of course paying what amounts to an expiation penalty is an admission of guilt. The only way you could sustain the argument that we're innocent at this point is by claiming that we gave up our picks for no reason whatsoever. If that were the case it would be misconduct in itself and the people involved should be sacked.



You seem to struggle with producing anything another than the lowest quality obscurantism I've encounted for a hell of a long time. If you're not capable of deducing on the evidence infront of you thats fine. To suggest a reasonable person would struggle is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
you still havent pointed out where i claimed we are innocent.

And please tell me which of the 5 parties is guilty of what breach and how you feel they should be punished. What if it was all and only Trigg? what if it was all and only JR? What if Trigg was acting under instructions from the board? what if he was acting against instructions from the board?

The fact that you cant tell the difference between innocence and a lack of evidence proving guilt of specific breaches by specific individuals and their respective levels of culpability is your problem not mine.
 
SpeciousArgument said:
You're saying that having Tippett in the goal square had no value then. As far as i can tell the club thought he was worth having around and believed he could be convinced to stay. The club seems to have valued his potential contributions and believed that combined with an opportunity to retain his services was worth passing up pick 12 and 23 for. They got that wrong in hindsight but i dont think you can sack a ceo for it. If you sack a ceo every time a player isnt retained or doesnt live up to expectations you wouldnt have any ceos left.

Again i dont think 'losing tippett for nothing' should be taken into consideration because it seems to me that the club felt they would be able to retain tippett and we did have his services up until the end of the prelim against the hawks.

I agree that we lost pick 20 and 54 over this, and MAY lose more, but when there was every possibility of losing Tippett for nothing or very little whether this deal existed or not i dont think its fair to add what he was 'worth' to the list of things we've lost because of this deal
Click to expand...
Look I take your point but at the bare minimum if we got rid of him in 2009 we would have got an end of 1st rounder. If the deal didn't exsist this is the minnimum we would have received.
 
Peter J said:
I really have an issue with the board seemingly bemoaning the loss of 23. Nobody wanted 23, apparently it was a nothing pick anyway. And don't try the ..well that was different line....its not different at all. This board, actually it seemed like the whole bloody state wanted 23 handed back and tippett in the draft. Well that's exactly what happened, regardless of how it happened.
Click to expand...
I care we lost him for zero and gained nothing but controversy as opposed to making a statement about our trading future.
I care more about losing pick 20 and 54.
 
Stripple said:
I care we lost him for zero and gained nothing but controversy as opposed to making a statement about our trading future.
I care more about losing pick 20 and 54.
Click to expand...
Yep, theres a huge difference. Staggered people cant see that. If we all knew that taking pick 22 and White would save us losing pick 20 and possible future penalties, most of us would have jumped at it. The club denied the existance of such a deal, it was a "gentlemans agreement" not a ****ing written agreement. We also were not aware of third party deals.
 
Stripple said:
Look I take your point but at the bare minimum if we got rid of him in 2009 we would have got an end of 1st rounder. If the deal didn't exsist this is the minnimum we would have received.
Click to expand...
And we wouldnt have had his services for 2010/11/12 which lessens the impact of not having that pick IMO.

Dont get me wrong, i think losing Tippett for 0 sucks, but i think that is mainly a seperate issue to what we lost/lose directly from this deal.

We also lost the 60 games we would have gotten into his replacement and a bunch of other things, all in all im pissed off about how everything went down, i just want to wait for the commission hearing and penalty before counting what its actually cost us.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

SpeciousArgument said:
you still havent pointed out where i claimed we are innocent.

And please tell me which of the 5 parties is guilty of what breach and how you feel they should be punished. What if it was all and only Trigg? what if it was all and only JR? What if Trigg was acting under instructions from the board? what if he was acting against instructions from the board?
Click to expand...

Its a nullity. None of those circumstances change what the outcome should be in terms of Trigg's role at the club. Read up on the concept of accountability. The higher the role, the higher the duty. The outcome is enough to establish the breach given that we voluntarily suffered it.

SpeciousArgument said:
The fact that you cant tell the difference between innocence and a lack of evidence proving guilt of specific breaches by specific individuals and their respective levels of culpability is your problem not mine.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. Noone's responding to your increasing claims to be shown the evidence because its a ridiculous tactic. Of course noone will provide you with the documents, video tape of negotiations and an opportunity to cross examine. The point is its increasibly irrelevant in terms of the ability to make an assessment. Once we essentially paid an expiation penalty the implications for those at the top became clear.
 
Southerntakeover said:
Its a nullity. None of those circumstances change what the outcome should be in terms of Trigg's role at the club. Read up on the concept of accountability. The higher the role, the higher the duty. The outcome is enough to establish the breach given that we voluntarily suffered it.



Rubbish. Noone's responding to your increasing claims to be shown the evidence because its a ridiculous tactic. Of course noone will provide you with the documents, video tape of negotiations and an opportunity to cross examine. The point is its increasibly irrelevant in terms of the ability to make an assessment. Once we essentially paid an expiation penalty the implications for those at the top became clear.
Click to expand...
So i assume you're in favour of replacing the board? Given that their role is higher than Triggs they have more duty right?

Or is it just that you dont like Trigg? and if Trigg was acting under the boards instruction how is that not different to if JR acted alone and Trigg attempted to resolve the situation after he found out about it?

Or is it just that you dont like Trigg?
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Elite Crow said:
Yep, theres a huge difference. Staggered people cant see that. If we all knew that taking pick 22 and White would save us losing pick 20 and possible future penalties, most of us would have jumped at it. The club denied the existance of such a deal, it was a "gentlemans agreement" not a ******* written agreement. We also were not aware of third party deals.
Click to expand...

That's irrelevant EC. The AFL had said they were not going to allow that trade to go through because there was no commercial benefit to BOTH clubs. When Sydney refused, time and time again, to improve their offer the AFL started sniffing around sensing something smells.
 
Big Gazoongas said:
... The AFL had said they were not going to allow that trade to go through because there was no commercial benefit to BOTH clubs. ...
Click to expand...
manuel-que.jpg
 
Peter J said:
I really have an issue with the board seemingly bemoaning the loss of 23. Nobody wanted 23, apparently it was a nothing pick anyway. And don't try the ..well that was different line....its not different at all. This board, actually it seemed like the whole bloody state wanted 23 handed back and tippett in the draft. Well that's exactly what happened, regardless of how it happened.
Click to expand...

I think the issue is that if we weren't so stupid we wouldn't have been offered such a shit deal (pick 23). The bemoaning I have seen is that if we didn't do a dumb deal we should have received a low first round pick or two good picks for Tippett, and now we've lost them. The 'send him to the PSD' movement was because no one realised how stupid we had been behind closed doors until the very end, and after trade week.
 
ClayMonk said:
I think the issue is that if we weren't so stupid we wouldn't have been offered such a shit deal (pick 23). The bemoaning I have seen is that if we didn't do a dumb deal we should have received a low first round pick or two good picks for Tippett, and now we've lost them. The 'send him to the PSD' movement was because no one realised how stupid we had been behind closed doors until the very end, and after trade week.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
I'm confused by the Tippett saga. Not because it's Tippett but confused how the AFL could leave a hole in the free agency rules.
Looks to me like a club could pick up any star they like when they're out of contract... NO MATTER HOW MANY YEARS THEY'VE PLAYED.

A scenario
Let's say I'm Paddy Smith and the highest paid player at a club.
I've been at the club for 4 years. Won the Brownlow, won the club's B& F.
My contract comes up for renewal.
I inform the club I want to play for Geelong. (as an example)
Geelong offers me $2mill / year.
Geelong won't offer any trade during the trade period.
I don't nominate for the NAB AFL draft and just hang on until the club de-lists me.
In the last free agency period I walk to Geelong for nothing.

This is what Tippett is proposing and if players can do this it will be the end of the AFL (as Neil Craig warned us)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top