Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[Danoz]

Can anyone tell me why we are trying to get Sydney to pay Whites salary? I'm not sure where the rumour has come from but several people seem to be saying it. Surely we have more cap room than Sydney so I can't see why we would be doing it. Could it be that we have another trade brewing that we need cap space for or is it simply that Trigg want's to look like he has got us a better deal.

Possibly, we're calling Sydney's bluff, that they can't afford Tippett, without getting rid of White.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...-a-two-year-deal/story-fnahrqwo-1226501502359

 

[Stiffy_18]

If that was true surely Sydney would just offload White to any club for a token 4th round draft pick just to free up the cap space.

Which club would want to have Jesse White @ $300K next season?

That is a lot of money for an average player!

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Can anyone tell me why we are trying to get Sydney to pay Whites salary? I'm not sure where the rumour has come from but several people seem to be saying it. Surely we have more cap room than Sydney so I can't see why we would be doing it. Could it be that we have another trade brewing that we need cap space for or is it simply that Trigg want's to look like he has got us a better deal.

Why would we take Sydney dredges and paid him as well?

If they want us to take him, they can pay his salary.

 

[Hodgy]

Is white really that bad? I must admit I have hardly paid any attention to him as an opposition player but he certainly has the physical attributes to make a good CHB. I assume that's what we are planning as we are apparently still interested even though we have Graham as a back up ruck.

 

[nightchook]

5AA interviewing Bluey McKenna... they asked him if Tippett was on the radar... without really saying anything I've never heard a bloke stutter more in answering a question...

 

[1990crow]

If we take White I'll be re-issuing those charges of list sabotage against Noble & Harper. Pick #23 alone is infinitely better than Pick #23 + White - and pick #23 alone is insulting -> off to the PSD for $kirt.

Having to have someone else on our list delisted to accomadate White would be very bad list management.

 

[Hodgy]

That doesn't make any sense. If we don't want him then simply don't take him, even if they are paying his wage it is list spot that we can't have a kid with. And don't we have to pay a certain percentage of our cap anyway?

 

[Rave Slave]

Yes. White really is that bad.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Is white really that bad? I must admit I have hardly paid any attention to him as an opposition player but he certainly has the physical attributes to make a good CHB. I assume that's what we are planning as we are apparently still interested even though we have Graham as a back up ruck.

For the price they want us to pay for him, yes.

For a pick in the 60's - no, he would be a OK play to fill out your depth

 

[iig_Swans]

I assume youre trolling but i'll bite, how is strengthening Sturt good for the SANFL?

Yep. ;-) After 550 pages of uninformed speculation, I'm getting a little bored.

But your question is a good one. I sincerely believe White would make an invaluable contribution towards bringing Sturt back to its 1989 to 1994 glory years. Ah, the good-ol'-days. :-D

...bring in fev if you want a draw card.

Now you're talking! Is he in the PSD?

 

[Vader]

Can anyone tell me why we are trying to get Sydney to pay Whites salary? I'm not sure where the rumour has come from but several people seem to be saying it. Surely we have more cap room than Sydney so I can't see why we would be doing it. Could it be that we have another trade brewing that we need cap space for or is it simply that Trigg want's to look like he has got us a better deal.

The main reason Sydney (allegedly) want to get rid of White, is because he's on a $300k contract for 2013. Getting rid of this contract would make paying Tippett's salary much, much easier for them. Conversely, forcing them to wear his salary (even if he's not on their list) makes it harder for them to afford Tippett.

It's not about our salary cap (we have plenty of space), it's about Sydney's.

Then again, it makes no sense at all for us to be paying a SANFL footaller $300k. If they're desperate for him to be playing in the SANFL, why should we be paying him more than minimum wages? Sydney can wear the rest of it.

 

[Vader]

If that was true surely Sydney would just offload White to any club for a token 4th round draft pick just to free up the cap space.

Sydney have 2 problems in offloading White:

• He's a complete spud and nobody's interested.
• He comes with a $300k contract for 2013.

Why would any club want to take over a $300k contract, for a player who will probably spend the entire year playing in the respective state league competition?

 

[OzSparrow]

Seriously, at the end of the day, wtf is mediation going to do?

AFC: Sydney are only offering us 23+White, we reckon that's BS, he's easily worth a pick in the top 10 plus a pick between 10 and 20.

AFL Mediator: Hmmm yes... Sydney, I really think you should be offering more.

SFC: Nah, get f'd, its 23+White or we just pick him up in the PSD.

Unless the mediators have the power to force Sydney to do anything, its just a massive waste of everyone's time, this isn't primary school, this is an elite sport, as long as its within the rules clubs can do whatever they like.

So...why why wouldn't we let him go in the PSD and pick him up at Pick 22 (before Sydney's pick)?

Then, put him on a minimum wage contract and let him play in the SANFL?

 

[Cap]

we can ask the question, that still doesn't hold us to taking him.

 

[Vader]

So...why why wouldn't we let him go in the PSD and pick him up at Pick 22 (before Sydney's pick)?

Then, put him on a minimum wage contract and let him play in the SANFL?

A) Because Tippett would almost certainly specify minimum contract conditions (salary & length) which would prevent us from doing this.
B) Because having a player on your list who REALLY doesn't want to be there is poisonous.

 

[Hodgy]

The main reason Sydney (allegedly) want to get rid of White, is because he's on a $300k contract for 2013. Getting rid of this contract would make paying Tippett's salary much, much easier for them. Conversely, forcing them to wear his salary (even if he's not on their list) makes it harder for them to afford Tippett.

It's not about our salary cap (we have plenty of space), it's about Sydney's.

Then again, it makes no sense at all for us to be paying a SANFL footaller $300k. If they're desperate for him to be playing in the SANFL, why should we be paying him more than minimum wages? Sydney can wear the rest of it.

Yeah but if we want to do the deal, and by all reports we were prepared to sign it last week then why insist on them paying his salary if it means the deal can't happen? You might as well just say no to the deal. Why is it in our interest to make it harder for them to afford Tippett?

BTW do clubs have information about how much cap room other clubs have? Like asking for a chip count of your opponant in poker.

 

[Vader]

I don't honestly think we were about to sign it last Friday. I think that's more Rucci rubbish, made up to fill column inches in the Ragvertiser. If he got that right, then it would have been the first thing he got right all trade period. It doesn't gel with anything we've read since then, particularly with the subsequent decision to trade for Graham.

I think clubs would have a general idea of how much room each of them have left under the cap, without going to the specifics of knowing the terms of individual player contracts.

 

[cmndstab]

Someone earlier in this thread posted that what most likely happened last Friday is that there was wind that the Crows were about to sign a deal, and the media put two and two together and figured it must be the Tippett deal. They then reported it was about to happen.

What was actually happening was that we were signing Angus Graham.

Then, when the Tippett deal didn't occur, rather than acknowledging their error, the media simply released a new report that the Crows had "mysteriously" taken the deal off the table.

Seems pretty plausible to me.

 

[db swannie]

what were our errors? taking tippett at his word that he hadnt made a decision and would revisit the contract at the end of the year?

Cant/wont you have a point but its semantics, its still not a strong option for you. if you dont want him enough to trade anything of value its irresponsible to make such a substatial offer to the player (if youre going to play him next year someones playing in the 2s btw)

You want him enough to pay him more than any other player on your list, but not enough to trade anything of ANY value makes a mockery of the system and if you want you can claim the club is trying to get the best deal, but you are a LONG way from being able to claim any moral high ground here

Errors is a harsh word, perhaps risks is a better way to look at it. The risk behind not accepting pick 8 last year from Brisbane was real, given your club knew Tippett was reluctant to sign on last time. Plus, waiting for him to come out of contract was always going to weaken your hand AND introduce the possibility of another club or clubs entering the fray, which is what has transpired.

No one is privy to exact details of Tippett's contract or agreements, so it's best to leave them aside. There's no moral high ground to be gained from this situation from either side IMO, and I certainly don't see any Swans supporters making that claim. Trade week can be an ugly place, as evidenced over these last 14 days or so, but it's a place where the weak and strong do battle. Sometimes your club is the strong, sometimes my club is the weak. Had Adelaide sought to trade Tippett last year, with a year still to run on his contract, then you would've been the strong.

 

[CrowGlen]

Yeah but if we want to do the deal, and by all reports we were prepared to sign it last week then why insist on them paying his salary if it means the deal can't happen? You might as well just say no to the deal. Why is it in our interest to make it harder for them to afford Tippett?

BTW do clubs have information about how much cap room other clubs have? Like asking for a chip count of your opponant in poker.

It would make sense if Sydney have said they will up their offer of a 2nd Round pick to a 1st round pick for KT, provided we take Jessie White off their books. Blucher could have had them believing that all KT would cost them is their 2nd round pick - hence NSW suddenly becoming home.

 

[Crow-eater]

~sigh~
Maximum 3 days until I can change back my avatar to Talia's inhumanely perfect face.

I thank whatever deities out there that the trade period didn't fall in Uni SWOT Vac because I would fail my exams if it did.

 

[Bob Neil]

Jesus 5AA get some dickheads calling in.

Mustn't speak about Noble that way

 

[catman 71]

~sigh~
Maximum 3 days until I can change back my avatar to Talia's inhumanely perfect face.

I thank whatever deities out there that the trade period didn't fall in Uni SWOT Vac because I would fail my exams if it did.

As opposed to your current avatar of that girl's inhumanely perfect body?

 

[amer]

It's pretty clear that no one really knows what's going on.

What we've got is an array of people with fake sources spreading shit back and forth, in the media and on forums, then when a deal is finally done the stories are moulded to fit. Waste of time. Go get some sun kids. Some great restaurants in Adelaide too, what a place.

 

[Moonwatcher]

~sigh~
Maximum 3 days until I can change back my avatar to Talia's inhumanely perfect face.

I thank whatever deities out there that the trade period didn't fall in Uni SWOT Vac because I would fail my exams if it did.

Who is your avatar and why?