Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[Mego Red]

1) We tried to get Tippett to sign at the end of 2009 by agreeing to an easy exit at the end of 2012. This will be seen as draft tampering and will attract a substantial punishment.

Did we? The existence of "trade you for only a second round pick" need to be verified. If we only stated thge FLOOR of what we'd accept, that's not tampering. Every player has to agree to the team he is traded to. Offering Tippett that option is meaningless.

2) We tried to sweeten the deal by agreeing to "underwrite" Kurt's third party deal. This is also a major problem and will attract additional punishment. Even if we never paid a cent over Kurt's agreed contract and never breached the salary cap we will still be hit hard for this.

This depends on the language. We'll get some punishment, but frankly two picks is already vast overs for this.

The other problem is the evidence that we tried to cover up some of our sins. It hardly supports the common view of Jenny and the Space Travellers that we have always been whiter than white and we were just naive to cave in to the pressure from the Tippett clan.

Evidence?

So far, all I've heard is Reid sent a second letter that eliminated the irrelevant offer to trade him to somewhere he agrees to at the end of his deal. That's not covering up sins, it's offering a correction. Why wouldn't you make sure that all futrure correspondence only included accurate info?

The DATE of this letter is mildly relevant.

The real problem is what "may" have occurred in the past. What if there is a smoking gun regarding third player agreements dating back to the early days of Triggy's tenure as CEO? If we are hit over the head with a brick on Friday and we lose our CEO then it is fair to assume that the AFL know the full story.

That's a bit of a redundency. There may be things we don't know about that are worse? He could have killed jack Ruby too, and if that comes up on Friday I hope they throw the book at him.

 

[Squida25]

Cmon guys, only 48 pages to go.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Cmon guys, only 48 pages to go.

we'll get that many on friday alone

 

[bjn1960]

Cmon guys, only 48 pages to go.

Say something controversial Squida! That will mean there will be only 47 pages to go.

 

[MarkP]

Mate, you may think it's untrue but I can assure you, Sydney needed us to take White in the deal. We would have just taken 23 but Sydney insisted on White and that's why we find ourselves where we are.

Nope.

Untrue again.

You can have your opinions but the facts are not yours to make up.

White requested a trade pre all this Tippett affair. He was being shoehorned into the Tippet deal. Sydney would have liked to have had his salary off the books, or part thereof, but it was not because we couldn't afford the salary under the cap as you clearly stated. You are lying. You don't know that and it does not accord with any known fact.

As to the rest of your post if that is the way you wish to spin it, fine, whatever makes you feel better. I would say your clubs actions years ago is why your club is in the situation you are in. Sydney is in no real worse or better situation than before the draft/trade period.We have our full complement of players intact and have drafted the available talent as the recruiters saw fit whilst shedding other players along the way as need and requests arose. Normal period in other words.

We still might get Tippett which would be fine as he is a quality player and fills a particular spot in out list. If we don't that means GWS gets him which means in a year or so when their younger brigade start to look for payment increases as they come off contract they will have salary cap pressures and we won't. You can do the math on that - as I am sure Sos is doing now. Sheeds can bluster all he wants, personally I find it awesome and enjoyable, but facts remain just those.

 

[baldandbroke]

so who paid for the Carey debacle?

He brought more than his on-field ... his influence on players around him as a teacher must have had some impact.

I liked being able to see the stuff he did off the ball, he was a master at falling on defenders awkwardly - and making space for others.

If even a bit of that smart footy rubbed off on our guys it would be a good thing.

We look about 1-layer deep in most things, I know there is more at play than we usually understand.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Did we? The existence of "trade you for only a second round pick" need to be verified. If we only stated thge FLOOR of what we'd accept, that's not tampering. Every player has to agree to the team he is traded to. Offering Tippett that option is meaningless.

[quote="A FEW GOOD MEN]
2) We tried to sweeten the deal by agreeing to "underwrite" Kurt's third party deal. This is also a major problem and will attract additional punishment. Even if we never paid a cent over Kurt's agreed contract and never breached the salary cap we will still be hit hard for this.

This depends on the language. We'll get some punishment, but frankly two picks is already vast overs for this.

[quote="A FEW GOOD MEN]
The other problem is the evidence that we tried to cover up some of our sins. It hardly supports the common view of Jenny and the Space Travellers that we have always been whiter than white and we were just naive to cave in to the pressure from the Tippett clan.[/quote]

Evidence?

So far, all I've heard is Reid sent a second letter that eliminated the irrelevant offer to trade him to somewhere he agrees to at the end of his deal. That's not covering up sins, it's offering a correction. Why wouldn't you make sure that all futrure correspondence only included accurate info?

The DATE of this letter is mildly relevant.

[quote="A FEW GOOD MEN]The real problem is what "may" have occurred in the past. What if there is a smoking gun regarding third player agreements dating back to the early days of Triggy's tenure as CEO? If we are hit over the head with a brick on Friday and we lose our CEO then it is fair to assume that the AFL know the full story.[/quote]

That's a bit of a redundency. There may be things we don't know about that are worse? He could have killed jack Ruby too, and if that comes up on Friday I hope they throw the book at him.[/quote]
I reckon you are under-stating what AFC have done, as in your own words, why would we have offered up "vast overs" for punishment if we didn't think there was much to it... That in itself would then be incompetent!

 

[Mego Red]

Given the large number of key position players of high draft standing on the GWS books and the fact only a few days ago they made a press statement about asking players to accept salaries below market value in the future to "keep the group together" and the fact the only talk of Tippett seems to be from Sheedy the talking megaphone, I don't really think they are looking at drafting Tippett. Far too many risks and places the future stability of their hugely impressive list in jeopardy.

Wow.

Hit google, man. Especially before you write something on the internet.

Silvagni has said a LOT about Tippett - plus actually read the article you're referring to would be smart, as it's much gentler than " we won't be able to afford all these players so they'll have to all take pay cuts". It was talking about Geelong's team-first focus.

"Silvagni said the club had enough ruckmen not to have to recruit a young tall in case Tippett falls through its fingers.

"With the ruckmen situation, we have got Jonathan Giles, Andrew Phillips, Tom Downie, and Setanta (O'hAilpin) who can play that position so we feel as though we have enough ruckmen on our list,'' Silvagni said.

"The situation with Tippett is we have got an interest in him. We have to wait now and sit back and see what the outcome is in terms of the AFL Commission.''

 

[jenny61_99]

Nope.

Untrue again.

You can have your opinions but the facts are not yours to make up.

White requested a trade pre all this Tippett affair. He was being shoehorned into the Tippet deal. Sydney would have liked to have had his salary off the books, or part thereof, but it was not because we couldn't afford the salary under the cap as you clearly stated. You are lying. You don't know that and it does not accord with any known fact.

As to the rest of your post if that is the way you wish to spin it, fine, whatever makes you feel better. I would say your clubs actions years ago is why your club is in the situation you are in. Sydney is in no real worse or better situation than before the draft/trade period.We have our full complement of players intact and have drafted the available talent as the recruiters saw fit whilst shedding other players along the way as need and requests arose. Normal period in other words.

We still might get Tippett which would be fine as he is a quality player and fills a particular spot in out list. If we don't that means GWS gets him which means in a year or so when their younger brigade start to look for payment increases as they come off contract they will have salary cap pressures and we won't. You can do the math on that - as I am sure Sos is doing now. Sheeds can bluster all he wants, personally I find it awesome and enjoyable, but facts remain just those.

I hope you do get Tippett.

 

[Vader]

Best option now, as I see it is as follows:

1. Tippett nominates salary as per his offer from Sydney.
2. AFL Commission bans him from playing for Sydney for 2-3 years (as per the Chalmers precedent)
3. All other clubs baulk at the price on his head and he goes through the PSD undrafted.
4. Tippett spends 2013 playing in a state league, either in NSW or QLD.

 

[Vigawla]

Patrick Keane ‏@AFL_PKeane
Kurt Tippett has nominated as an uncontracted listed player for the '12 NAB AFL Pre-Season Draft Dec 11, by submitting AFL Forms 40 and 11
.
Patrick Keane ‏@AFL_PKeane
As player Tippett removed himself from the Adelaide Crows’ list, he does not qualify as a free agent, and is part of the Draft player pool.


Patrick Keane ‏@AFL_PKeane
Tippett has AFL permission to lodge set financial terms for his pay on Dec 3, after the result of Friday’s AFL Commission hearing is known

Progress!

 

[boffo]

Sydney is in no real worse or better situation than before the draft/trade period.

Wrong. You have already started to sell your soul. It'll only get worse from here if you get him. The greed, the deception of club and team-mates, playing just for the money.

You can have him.

 

[boffo]

He brought more than his on-field ... his influence on players around him as a teacher must have had some impact.

I liked being able to see the stuff he did off the ball, he was a master at falling on defenders awkwardly

That's gold OoTC. He was a master of falling over. LOL.

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

Caros version was Sanderson went to Chapman regarding the White trade. Chapman called Trigg in Singapoore. Trigg upon his return came clean and Chapman made Trigg go to the AFL. But of course Caro isn't friends with Trigg so she could be wrong.

On this matter Caro is pretty close to the mark

Jenny's version of events is the "back peddling" version that the club is trying to Spin in a PR attempt to save Trigg

 

[MarkP]

Wrong. You have already started to sell your soul. It'll only get worse from here if you get him. The greed, the deception of club and team-mates, playing just for the money.

You can have him.

Sold our soul?

How?

We bid for a player that was on the market. Hyperbole much?

 

[MarkP]

I hope you do get Tippett.

How magnanimous of you.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Sold our soul?

How?

We bid for a player that was on the market. Hyperbole much?

do you personally feel that he is worth 3.5mil over 4 years?

 

[boffo]

Sold our soul?

How?

We bid for a player that was on the market. Hyperbole much?

Nah, you're already in bed with the honourable Mr Blucher, conspiring to screw us over with the trade.

So lost your reputation as fair traders.

Plus drawn attention to the COL, so now that's being reviewed.

 

[Mego Red]

Nah, you're already in bed with the honourable Mr Blucher, conspiring to screw us over with the trade.

So lost your reputation as fair traders.

Plus drawn attention to the COL, so now that's being reviewed.

Plus telling your players who sacrificed for a flag that you'd rather overpay for a mercenary than reward their endeavors.

 

[.Shotties.]

Nah, you're already in bed with the honourable Mr Blucher, conspiring to screw us over with the trade.

So lost your reputation as fair traders.

Do you have the results of your straw poll at hand?

 

[MarkP]

Nah, you're already in bed with the honourable Mr Blucher, conspiring to screw us over with the trade.

So lost your reputation as fair traders.

So let me get this right. We are screwing you over because we knew about a secret deal (note that you only guess this however logical it may be, you don't know it) you made off the books in defiance of the trade rules? Sydney are mean and nasty because we are using the deal the AFC struck years ago in the way it was designed to be used?

Yah that makes sense.

And lost our reputation as fair traders. Gosh. That hurts. I guess next time Adelaide wants to deal with us they won't regardless of whether it is in their interest to do so or not. That's logical right?

 

[BUTTON 92]

No. Plenty of room in the cap. We were paying Bradshaw last year for example although he had retired injured.

Do you work with the Swans finances do you? How could you possibly know that?

 

[Crow-eater]

I always hated Bulbasaur

 

[boffo]

Do you have the results of your straw poll at hand?

Yep, 17-0

 

[zetz]

Nah, you're already in bed with the honourable Mr Blucher, conspiring to screw us over with the trade.

So lost your reputation as fair traders.

Plus drawn attention to the COL, so now that's being reviewed.

Screw you over? Do you guys take any responsibility for your own actions?

Lost our reputation? Says who, in any case, let's re-visit after next year's trading period.

Actually agree with the reviewing to the COL and agree that it is currently very flawed.

And for the record, I personally do not want Tippett at the Swans, if his asking price of $3.5mil over 4 years is to be believed, I do believe that is massive overs for him - but I would back my club's decision in any case.