Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[Tex200]

So who else like me has drunk the AFC coolaide and doesn't think we will be pineappled

put your money where your mouths are ladies and germs

pineapples
or
coolaide

I'm slurping the coolaide

 

[jenny61_99]

That's gonna hurt!

 

[footy_noob]

So who else like me has drunk the AFC coolaide and doesn't think we will be pineappled

put your money where your mouths are ladies and germs

pineapples
or
coolaide

Keeping cool with some Adelaide Coolaide here!

 

[jenny61_99]

Keeping cool with some Adelaide Coolaide here!

I'm prayin for cool aide but preparing for pineapples.

 

[Donkey Magoo]

also drinking pineapple coolaide isn't an option

 

[AM]

Wow! Page 944. I don't think we made it to that number during the whole Ablett saga. And we have weeks to go before the season kicks off.

 

[BrissyCrow]

Thanks....I wanted to take something from this thread. But I feel kind of like the average looking girl in a beauty contest that gets the award for raising the most money....not the real winner, but an odd consolation prize.

Whilst you are young being the winner of the beauty contest is the most important thing. As you age and mature raising the most money (depending on how you raised it) is far more meaningful and noble.

 

[boffo]

Wow! Page 944. I don't think we made it to that number during the whole Ablett saga. And we have weeks to go before the season kicks off.

Hey AM, it's been quite a ride....we've gone through three phases in this roller-coaster mega-thread.

Phase 1: the first few thousand posts, the yellow period.

- we fess up​

- we'll take whatever punishment the AFL dishes out​

- 'tube of lube with every membership renewal' jokes​

​

​

Phase 2: posts 8,000 - 20,000 (approx), the red period

- we're fighting back with the world's best super lawyer(s)​

- the hearing is deferred and we keep this year's draft picks​

- we'll take it all the way to the courts if we have to​

​

Phase 3: posts 10,000 - now, the blue period

- we voluntarily give up our first two 2012 draft picks...​

- we must have done a bad bad thing​

- prepare for the pineapple​

 

[cmndstab]

Again I cant agree even though I understand where your coming from and I am also no legal expert. As I see it back in 2009 what we did was not illegal. We might have broken a rule because we didnt advise the AFL but Tippett was legally our property. Perhaps I splitting hairs between acting illegally and breaking a rule.

Tell me, what would happen if we decided to challenge the rule in a court. You can create all the rules that you want but it doesnt necessarily mean they are legal even if we have agreed to the rules. This is also why the AFL is concerned about getting into a situation where their rules are challenged by an individual under the "Restriction of Trade" process. Again perhaps I am splitting hairs but I can not agree that the lost of Tippett should not be considered by the AFL as part of our loss.

Certainly, if we took the AFL to court and it was deemed that the rule we failed to adhere to was unlawful, then yes, I would be appealing for compensation for the loss of the ability to trade Tippett.

As it stands, though, what we did was illegal. We obtained Tippett's renewed services by agreeing to a deal with clauses not submitted to the AFL. That's an illegal act.

From that point, we lose the right to expect any kind of trade for Tippett. You can't expect to trade what you don't legally own. Being prevented from doing so is not a punishment.

Yes, we could have traded him back in 2009, but we chose not to. We chose to roll the dice on an illegal option. We don't get to have our cake and eat it too by looking to retain him illegally, and expecting an 09 level of compensation when we get discovered.



Had the mooted Brisbane and Sydney trades actually occurred, it would have been us getting away with a fast one. We would have been receiving benefit for a contract we obtained by illegal means. That is not a right afforded to us, or anyone else. Having it denied is not a punishment. It is exactly what should have happened.

 

[cmndstab]

I don't know, there seems to be a massive case of shadenfruede going on here. It seems a lot of people couldn't give a shit about what we've actually done, they just want to see us punished because it would be so much "cooler" than us just getting a slap on the wrist. Hell, look at the fuss that surrounded VB's and Danger's 3rd party deals, all that was happening was they were being investigated. They were ALWAYS going to be investigated, that's what happens when you invite the AFL to audit your books. It all turned out to be a big hulloo about nothing, but the media were trying to make it sound like we were serial offenders.

Personally I don't think the media have any f'ing idea whats going on, or what we've really been charged for and they're purely speculating for effect and not necessarily accuracy. I do hope the AFL realises that by preventing us from trading Kurt and our relinquishing our first 2 picks is already a considerable punishment.

You're 100% correct. It's much more exciting to report that we could receive draft sanctions for years, and wallow through a decade of misery, than it is to report that we've likely received the lion's share of our punishment already and that fines are likely all that remains.

My guess is we will see the AFL say that we're guilty, and that we're being sentences to time currently served (loss of picks 20 and 52, plus loss of Tippett for nothing) plus some sizable fine, and that's it. Perhaps a suspended penalty pending any further misdemeanours being discovered. I'll be surprised if we lose even one more draft pick than we already have.

 

[BrissyCrow]

Certainly, if we took the AFL to court and it was deemed that the rule we failed to adhere to was unlawful, then yes, I would be appealing for compensation for the loss of the ability to trade Tippett.

As it stands, though, what we did was illegal. We obtained Tippett's renewed services by agreeing to a deal with clauses not submitted to the AFL. That's an illegal act.

From that point, we lose the right to expect any kind of trade for Tippett. You can't expect to trade what you don't legally own. Being prevented from doing so is not a punishment.

Yes, we could have traded him back in 2009, but we chose not to. We chose to roll the dice on an illegal option. We don't get to have our cake and eat it too by looking to retain him illegally, and expecting an 09 level of compensation when we get discovered.



Had the mooted Brisbane and Sydney trades actually occurred, it would have been us getting away with a fast one. We would have been receiving benefit for a contract we obtained by illegal means. That is not a right afforded to us, or anyone else. Having it denied is not a punishment. It is exactly what should have happened.

OK Rather than debate this lets see what the AFL has to say. If as part of their judgement they state that we have already incurred the loss of Tippett then you expect me to say I told you so. On the other hand if they make a statement similar to what you are saying then I will bow to your understanding.

 

[Vigawla]

I was once told a story about an old boss who worked where I do before I started who would put a pineapple on a persons desks when they made a mistake. He would then declare that if they made another mistake he would take that pineapple and shove it up their you know what. Guess he thought it was scary or something.

Love it.

 

[BACCS]

We have offered up the start of our penalty. If we lose too many future draft picks, we should appeal. I'm worried that this is going to be 1-way negotiation, bend over & take it style.

So you are implying Rob Chapman is a liar when he says he will fight any charge that the club and it's lawyers don't seem to think is fair?

 

[BrissyCrow]

You're 100% correct. It's much more exciting to report that we could receive draft sanctions for years, and wallow through a decade of misery, than it is to report that we've likely received the lion's share of our punishment already and that fines are likely all that remains.

My guess is we will see the AFL say that we're guilty, and that we're being sentences to time currently served (loss of picks 20 and 52, plus loss of Tippett for nothing) plus some sizable fine, and that's it. Perhaps a suspended penalty pending any further misdemeanours being discovered. I'll be surprised if we lose even one more draft pick than we already have.

Now this I agree with. I have been saying our biggest crime is non disclosure and whilst the AFL will deem that as doing something behind our crime is minimal. I think we will get a fine and thats it. At the very worst we may lose our first round pick next year.

 

[Vigawla]

Scandal will sell more papers, so it's natural they'd report it as something huge, even if it turns out to be minor. Controversy creates cash as they say.

And then there are those who as you say, just want to see the Crows get hammered for no other reason than they think it'll be funny.

SA publicity in Victoria is good publicity!

 

[BrissyCrow]

That's gonna hurt!

Depends on how big and arseh*le you are

 

[BACCS]

You're 100% correct. It's much more exciting to report that we could receive draft sanctions for years, and wallow through a decade of misery, than it is to report that we've likely received the lion's share of our punishment already and that fines are likely all that remains.

My guess is we will see the AFL say that we're guilty, and that we're being sentences to time currently served (loss of picks 20 and 52, plus loss of Tippett for nothing) plus some sizable fine, and that's it. Perhaps a suspended penalty pending any further misdemeanours being discovered. I'll be surprised if we lose even one more draft pick than we already have.

Basically all the media are constantly reporting is the worst case scenario, and I think it has been made pretty clear by Chapman more than once it isn't even in that hemisphere of severity. But hey, average joe doesn't know that and so the media will keep reporting crap until Friday.

 

[Sanders]

So you are implying Rob Chapman is a liar when he says he will fight any charge that the club and it's lawyers don't seem to think is fair?

Do you believe everything you're told?

What if Rob Chapman was a politician would that be different?

 

[Vivcrows22]

Shall be a sad day when this thread ends.

 

[bjn1960]

Shall be a sad day when this thread ends.

Only after 30k posts please lord.

 

[cmndstab]

OK Rather than debate this lets see what the AFL has to say. If as part of their judgement they state that we have already incurred the loss of Tippett then you expect me to say I told you so. On the other hand if they make a statement similar to what you are saying then I will bow to your understanding.

Sorry, can't agree to this mate I have no doubt the AFL will use it as a convenient excuse as to why we are not being punished as harshly as we might be. It will read well in the media.

 

[jenny61_99]

Depends on how big and arseh*le you are

 

[jenny61_99]

Do you believe everything you're told?

You certainly do!

 

[Godallblighty]

That's why the club is briefing the media on the terrible things coming?
So our not quite as bad pineappling looks a victory for our robust defence & expensive legal team
We're being setup imo

If this is the club's thinking, they're fooling themselves. To what end? Is it going to save someone's job? Spare them bad publicity? You wouldn't think so. If we do incur serious penalties over and above the 'gesture of goodwill' I'm sure the media and the supporters are going to want a pretty forensic explanation of what was done to merit them and calls for accountability will flow from there.

Also it worries me that the club is increasing expectations that the AFL should be giving us a whacking. If it is a political decision that's coming, the pressure is all one way.

And furthermore, even if the AFL won't consider the loss of Tippett/associated draft picks etc as part of our penalty, as a member I will certainly be counting that as a cost that the club needs to account for. Really, there are already too many entries in the debit column for club officials to proffer up 'the dog ate my homework'.

So you are implying Rob Chapman is a liar when he says he will fight any charge that the club and it's lawyers don't seem to think is fair?

'Fair' is a term open to interpretation.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Chapman's 0/2 on the truth stakes so far.

Said he and the Board were completely unaware of the Tippett deal until Black Friday, when Gold Coast blew the whistle.

Also said we would mount a vigorous defence just before foregoing our first two 2012 picks and admitting we did it.

Hopefully he's lying about Trigg too.