Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[WaynesWorld19]

EC

I agree Chapman mentioned that he, the players and sponsors wanted Trigggy to stay on however there was no mention of members or supporters, Im personally starting to sense that more people at the AFC knew about this side agreement

It was also interesting to read that the Sunday Mail believes that we will be cleared of any salary cap / 3rd payment breaches meaning our penalty will be contained to the send Tippett home Sid deal

With this in mind hopefully the penalty of a fine, loss of 2012 picks and the loss of opportunity to trade Tippett will fit the crime

Is that true SR? .....was there two articles in the Sunday Mail ....one saying 2-3 years of draft sanctions, and the other article saying the highlighted above

FFS .....we will not lose draft picks for 2-3 seasons for just pre-agreeing to a deal to trade Tippett?

What the F...k is going on with this country's media ......are they bonkers!!!!

As i said yesterday ...have no idea what to believe anymore, certainly can't believe anything in the media

 

[WaynesWorld19]

I reckon they had no choice but to fess up. The AFL were sus

Not sure .....why leave it to the day before the deadline to fes up

And spend 3 weeks on a deal the AFL were apparently always going to question .......if it wasn't so serious you'd have to laugh at the comedy capers of the AFC

 

[WaynesWorld19]

As long as Trigg is able to stay on as CEO.

That's the most important thing.

yeah ...because everyone wants him to stay

 

[1970crow]

Is that true SR? .....was there two articles in the Sunday Mail ....one saying 2-3 years of draft sanctions, and the other article saying the highlighted above
There's a fair bit of rumour mongering and shoddy reporting going on out there. From memory you have legitimate contacts at the club. Seeing as you posted the above, I'm wondering whether you could elaborate as to by what means did kurt manage to hold the club to ransom. And when you say "all this time", what period would you be referring to. for 2-3 seasons for just pre-agreeing to a deal to trade Tippett?

What the F...k is going on with this country's media ......are they bonkers!!!!

As i said yesterday ...have no idea what to believe anymore, certainly can't believe anything in the media

I think it's best to ignore the media regarding this case. I look at 2 facts only.
1. Before an investigation had even been ordered, the afl took pick 23 and Jessie white from us.
2. Taking into account fact 1., our senior management stripped us of 20 & 54 prior to the completion of the investigation.

This means, in my opinion, that the crime that we are guilty of will result in at least these penalties. I don't see how it speaks to what else is yet to come. So, all that we know is what the minimum penalty will be. We have no idea what the maximum could be.

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

Is that true SR? .....was there two articles in the Sunday Mail ....one saying 2-3 years of draft sanctions, and the other article saying the highlighted above

FFS .....we will not lose draft picks for 2-3 seasons for just pre-agreeing to a deal to trade Tippett?

What the F...k is going on with this country's media ......are they bonkers!!!!

As i said yesterday ...have no idea what to believe anymore, certainly can't believe anything in the media

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...rigg-to-keep-job/story-e6freck3-1226523425159

The Sunday Mail understands Tippett's various commercial arrangements were signed off by the AFL and did not break the salary cap

 

[whatboutbob]

EC
It was also interesting to read that the Sunday Mail believes that we will be cleared of any salary cap / 3rd payment breaches meaning our penalty will be contained to the send Tippett home Sid deal

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...rigg-to-keep-job/story-e6freck3-1226523425159

The Sunday Mail understands Tippett's various commercial arrangements were signed off by the AFL and did not break the salary cap

I think you're selectively interpreting that quote.

Consider this potential scenario:
The AFC presents third party payments to the AFL to sign off on. Given the information provided, the AFL's happy with them and thus signs off on them. These third party payments don't "break the salary cap".

However, as part of the investigation into Tippett's contract the AFL discovers that the Crows were involved in seeking and/or underwriting the third party agreements, thus violating the rules.

The SM quote is still accurate, yet the club is still in strife for the third party payments.

 

[Moonwatcher]

The SM quote is still accurate, yet the club is still in strife for the third party payments.

At least someone understands. The AFL have no problem with the parts of the deal that Adelaide presented. It's the parts not presented that are the problem.

 

[juzzo]

Nice to see some common sense amongst the delusion.

 

[boffo]

At least someone understands. The AFL have no problem with the parts of the deal that Adelaide presented. It's the parts not presented that are the problem.

Agree this is exactly the problem, and why I am hopeful the breaches will be judged to be on the lower end of the scale.

1, Agreeing to trade Tippett for a particular value in the future: never implemented, but we should not have made this secret side-deal outside the AFL official contract. Penalty: loss of Tippett and 2013 draft picks (already done).

2, Agreeing to underwrite Tippett's future commercial earnings if below a certain value. Never implemented, and we will argue that if we did have to implement this we would have declared the payments to the AFL and included them in the TPP for the season in which the payment was made. Penalty: fine (for not notifying the AFL of this underwriting.)

I could be a stupid optimist, but there are plenty of neutral posters over on the AFL Board who also don't think we have done anything seriously wrong. Of course there are lots of numptys who want to cripple us for years too!

 

[Deaneus!]

How can we lose something we never had?

We have lost 20 and 54. Along with the chance to get something for Tippett.

You're normally a better poster than that Lawrst.

So, should we go to the AFL and say,

(1) "Sure, you're going to give us a penalty, but we already gave up picks #20 & #54"

OR

(2) "Sure, you're going to give us a penalty, but we already gave up picks #20 & #54 plus you not letting us trade Tippett means we lost out on at least #23 & #80 equivalent"

I'd be going for the second, makes it look like we lost more.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Agree this is exactly the problem, and why I am hopeful the breaches will be judged to be on the lower end of the scale.

1, Agreeing to trade Tippett for a particular value in the future: never implemented, but we should not have made this secret side-deal outside the AFL official contract. Penalty: loss of Tippett and 2013 draft picks (already done).

2, Agreeing to underwrite Tippett's future commercial earnings if below a certain value. Never implemented, and we will argue that if we did have to implement this we would have declared the payments to the AFL and included them in the TPP for the season in which the payment was made. Penalty: fine (for not notifying the AFL of this underwriting.)

I could be a stupid optimist, but there are plenty of neutral posters over on the AFL Board who also don't think we have done anything seriously wrong. Of course there are lots of numptys who want to cripple us for years too!

Any neutral with a brain would be hoping we get minimal penalties.

What's the saying? There but for the grace of god walk I or something like that.

I reckon what will happen is that we'll be penalised. The AFL will then re-write (tighten and clarify) the rules on 3rd party payments. They will then call an amnesty with their new rules applying from now on. Every single club will come forward to the surprise of the AFL but no one else.

When this occurs the AFC will try to wriggle out of their penalties given that every club was cheating just the same.

We'll be successful and our decision to give up picks this year due to goodwill will look even stupider than it does now.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

There's a thread on this already

Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

 

[Elite Crow]

Any neutral with a brain would be hoping we get minimal penalties.

What's the saying? There but for the grace of god walk I or something like that.

I reckon what will happen is that we'll be penalised. The AFL will then re-write (tighten and clarify) the rules on 3rd party payments. They will then call an amnesty with their new rules applying from now on. Every single club will come forward to the surprise of the AFL but no one else.

When this occurs the AFC will try to wriggle out of their penalties given that every club was cheating just the same.

We'll be successful and our decision to give up picks this year due to goodwill will look even stupider than it does now.

Surely we can't have given up those picks without an amicable agreement on the penalties, we can't be that stupid and naive, can we

 

[boffo]

I reckon what will happen is that we'll be penalised. The AFL will then re-write (tighten and clarify) the rules on 3rd party payments. They will then call an amnesty with their new rules applying from now on. Every single club will come forward to the surprise of the AFL but no one else.

When this occurs the AFC will try to wriggle out of their penalties given that every club was cheating just the same.

We'll be successful and our decision to give up picks this year due to goodwill will look even stupider than it does now.

You could be right Carl, we just don't know what prompted us to give up the 2013 picks but it's a reasonable guess our lawyers did some sort of deal with the AFL. Remember, AA said it was not a complete admission of guilt.

I'm hoping the deal was:
- loss of Tippett for nothing and the 2013 draft picks for not revealing to the AFL we had agreed to trade Yippett at a certain future value. Fair cop. Get that charge off the table.

and

- guarantee from the AFL that if we are found guilty of any third party deals wrong-doing the penalty will be a fine only (and some penalties for individual officials maybe). This is such a messy grey area we probably couldn't do a deal on these charges and the Commission will have to decide guilt here.

Fingers crossed anyway.

 

[boffo]

Surely we can't have given up those picks without an amicable agreement on the penalties, we can't be that stupid and naive, can we

Exactly right EC, with our high-priced lawyers advising us and presumably negotiating with the AFL, there must have been a real advantage in doing that.

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

Exactly right EC, with our high-priced lawyers advising us and presumably negotiating with the AFL, there must have been a real advantage in doing that.

Yep it's called plea bargaining

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Surely we can't have given up those picks without an amicable agreement on the penalties, we can't be that stupid and naive, can we

Yes, but in my hypothetical the goal posts change after our penalties (minus what we already conceded) get handed down

 

[Schulzycrow]

Surely we can't have given up those picks without an amicable agreement on the penalties, we can't be that stupid and naive, can we

That's how we got into this whole shizenhousen storm in the first place. Forgotten when does a whacking come?

 

[Shuffler]

There's a thread on this already

Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

I was viewing this as the 'we are being f@&$ed over' thread and those thoughts get glossed over in the saga thread.

 

[Elite Crow]

I just can't wait until this week is over

 

[swanfan]

I just can't wait until this week is over

Me either. Oh you were talking about the AFC.

 

[pjcrows]

I just can't wait until this week is over

I've lost interest and don't really care to be honest. Whatever happens, happens. We can win a flag in 2013/14.

 

[cmndstab]

You're normally a better poster than that Lawrst.

So, should we go to the AFL and say,

(1) "Sure, you're going to give us a penalty, but we already gave up picks #20 & #54"

OR

(2) "Sure, you're going to give us a penalty, but we already gave up picks #20 & #54 plus you not letting us trade Tippett means we lost out on at least #23 & #80 equivalent"

I'd be going for the second, makes it look like we lost more.

We might as well ask them to reimburse us for the internet costs incurred when we sent the email detailing the illegal clause. You don't go in waving around shit as though it's gold if you want to be taken seriously.

Our punishment so far has been the loss of picks 20 and 54 - or realistically, the effective trading of pick 20 for 62, and 54 for 81. That's it. We didn't get "punished" by not being able to trade Tippett. That was a mess of our own making. If we go to the AFL trying to score points with that it will make us look like fools, and discredit the legitimate punishment we've actually incurred so far.

 

[headache1]

Well technically, Tippett was our assett. So if we felt that the Sydney offer was worth taking (which is hugely debatable), it should have been up to us as to whether or not we wanted to take it. Surely it would have to factor in to some degree.

 

[Emperoar]

I've lost interest and don't really care to be honest. Whatever happens, happens. We can win a flag in 2013/14.

This.