Remove this Banner Ad

Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

  • Thread starter Thread starter doodle48
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

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.
Carl Spackler said:
How old do you think Hickey is?

Trading a first round pick who may or may not end up a decent player for a young ruckman you've seen enough of to form an opinion is smart IMO.
Click to expand...

The Hickey move is a good one IMO. The Lee one... yeah, guess we'll have to wait and see.
 
ltdamn said:
I don't know what's real anymore

Inception-production-still-13.jpg
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHA!
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Nesqua said:
Yes but if Krud called in the lawyers it may just come back to bite him on the arse, should have gone home to Qld instead of being a money grubbing prostitute!
Click to expand...
I'm guessing Kurt's decision to involve lawyers was the final straw; from there the club had no choice but to inform the AFL.

That will cost us dearly allowing negotiations to go on for two weeks in full knowledge that our agreement breached every relevant AFL rule. We tried to run the gauntlet by getting a decent trade out of Sydney while keeping the agreement secret, but Tippett obviously wanted to call us out on it.
 
dayton said:
Yeah that doesn't make sense. What idiot would a) make this kind of agreement and b) say a second round pick would be fine!

How the hell were they going to justify that to their members? Tippett's going to the GC and in return we are taking pick #37. Excuse me?
Click to expand...
We didn't think he'd leave.

Reid was leaving and all he wanted was Kurt's signature. It was his last gift to the club, the icing on the cake of his career in football administration.

Our club didn't really think much of it. Neil was leading us to glory in 2010 and there is no way that anyone would ever want to leave after that. Who cares about some stupid clause? We'll sort it out later.

We've got form in this area - not thinking things through. We had all our oldies play on in 2010 but they had to agree that they would play SANFL if their form warranted it. "Yeah, yeah.... sure thing," said Tyson Edwards as he inked his one-year deal, thinking "that will never happen in a million years." Fast forward 6 months... form average... SANFL for Tyson... club implodes... factions... player revolt... retirements... farewell games... wounds that will never heal.

It sounded so simple back when Tyson was signing his contract, just like the Tippett clause was just something that we'd have three years to sort out back in 2009.
 
So the question is then, how does this effect negotiations tomorrow?

Do we end up better off for this in the short term? Can we now complete the Tippett trade without the burden of the agreement putting us in a better position?

Sure we might be screwed in the future, but now is the time to trade Tippett for the best player we can.

Trading for picks would be too risky as they may get taken.

Will another club even want Tippett now knowing he may not be available to play?

At least we have some actual news now i guess.
 
magtrev said:
Soooooooooo.

Last years pick 8 looking good right about now.
Click to expand...

Surely we were aware of this situation last year. How could we possibly have turned down pick 8, knowing that this was a major possibility to blow up in our faces next year?

We surely would have expected he was going to Gold Coast, in which case the offer from them, a second round pick, would have been even worse than the 23 + White offer we've all cried foul at this year. Not trading him last year, particularly when it looked like we were a while off challenging for a premiership, is absurdly bad risk/benefit analysis.

It's so absurd that it makes me wonder if the "second round pick" thing is bullshit - but clearly there was something there, otherwise it wasn't draft tampering at all. There's nothing wrong with promising to get him to a club of his choice, that happens all the time. It's agreeing to do it for a prearranged value that is the problem.
 
Thommo51 said:
I'm guessing Kurt's decision to involve lawyers was the final straw; from there the club had no choice but to inform the AFL.

That will cost us dearly allowing negotiations to go on for two weeks in full knowledge that our agreement breached every relevant AFL rule. We tried to run the gauntlet by getting a decent trade out of Sydney while keeping the agreement secret, but Tippett obviously wanted to call us out on it.
Click to expand...
Yep.

We're absolutely screwed. Illegal deal, kept it hidden, tried to sneak it through without anyone noticing. Guilty as charged.
 
Crows can not afford to send him to the Swans now for pick 23 alone. That will be draft tampering as Kurt has nominated them as the club of his choice publicly. If Crows go ahead with that deal they may face some serious penalties, as would Tippet and his management. Now if we were to trade him to GWS or Brisbane for example, we would not be following the 'agreement' and therefore might avoid the whole 'draft tampering' scenario. Maybe now we have the upper hand in the negotiation as his club of choice is no longer an option for either party (both would suffer penalties).

In some crazy way we may end up better because of this. Trade him to a different club for a higher selection. Bringing this to the AFLs attention may actually be a stroke of genius....
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Thommo51 said:
I'm guessing Kurt's decision to involve lawyers was the final straw; from there the club had no choice but to inform the AFL.

That will cost us dearly allowing negotiations to go on for two weeks in full knowledge that our agreement breached every relevant AFL rule. We tried to run the gauntlet by getting a decent trade out of Sydney while keeping the agreement secret, but Tippett obviously wanted to call us out on it.
Click to expand...

I might have read the articles wrong, but it sounded to me like we informed the AFL before Tippett's party did. In fact, all the article seems to imply is that Tippett's party has a copy of the documents as well, not that they've even spoken to the AFL.
 
headache1 said:
Yeah, as I said in an earlier post, knowing what's at stake, he and his manager are ******* morons for drawing attention to this agreement.
Click to expand...

Sorry missed it, trying to keep up.

Manager struck me as a freaking moron 2 1/2 weeks ago, now confirmed. Even if he doesn't lose his license, will struggle to sign up players given how really he has screwed Krud over....karma gotta love it!!
 
How many players knew?

How did that effect their efforts in 2010/2011?

Who else was involved? (craigy??)

I'm sorry if that offends people but we put in a ****ing disgraceful effort in 2010 (and backed it up in 2011). many of us said things STUNK at the club at that time.

Well guess ****ing what - they did. What a disgrace.

No way they should have bent over like that for him to stay. No way they should have kept all the oldies on in late 2009 and no ****ing way they should have flogged most of the squad to death on the track.

Shit maybe we were OVERLY aggressive in seeking that 2010 flag.... I'm just at a lost for words and blurting atm... mod face back on.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

cmndstab said:
Surely we were aware of this situation last year. How could we possibly have turned down pick 8, knowing that this was a major possibility to blow up in our faces next year?

We surely would have expected he was going to Gold Coast, in which case the offer from them, a second round pick, would have been even worse than the 23 + White offer we've all cried foul at this year. Not trading him last year, particularly when it looked like we were a while off challenging for a premiership, is absurdly bad risk/benefit analysis.

It's so absurd that it makes me wonder if the "second round pick" thing is bullshit - but clearly there was something there, otherwise it wasn't draft tampering at all. There's nothing wrong with promising to get him to a club of his choice, that happens all the time. It's agreeing to do it for a prearranged value that is the problem.
Click to expand...
Maybe Sando wasnt aware of it and thought what the ****, you are not doing that trade.

The issue is Stabby is having an agreement on the side and trying to cheat the system. Its not draft tampering because it should be trade tampering. Agreeing to help a player get to the club of his choice shouldnt be a crime, but hiding the agreement is. But what an absolute prick Tippett and his manager are that they would have demanded it in writing in the first place.

Thank **** weve got **** all picks this year. And hopefully, it stops Kurt getting to Sydney.
 
cmndstab said:
Surely we were aware of this situation last year. How could we possibly have turned down pick 8, knowing that this was a major possibility to blow up in our faces next year?
Click to expand...

Maybe because by doing so his contract would be transferred to the Lions, clause and all, therefore exposing the side deal?
 
Can someone explain this to me - has the "tampering" part already occurred? That is, did getting him to sign in 2009 under the pretext of a deal that goes against AFL regulation qualify as tampering? Or is it only the deal in 2012 that counts as tampering, that is, trading him for well under his value because of the agreement?

I'm sure we'll be in trouble for trying to do the dirty and getting caught, but there's a big deal between that (especially given we came clean) and actually doing the dirty and then getting caught. Which side of the ledger are we on here?
 
Elite Crow said:
Just a thought, could we have gone to the AFL knowing we were getting screwed in the trade and by bringing the clause out in the open the AFL would disallow it and force an equitable trade? Or is that wishful thinking?

If the AFL have known about this for a week, surely theyve had time to come up with a punishment?

And Julia Gillard needs to come out and declare today a public holiday, because no one is going to be doing any work!
Click to expand...
Nope, we're in damage control.

At least we know why the club has been so pissweak when dealing with the AFL and rolling over on every issue possible.

We needed a BIG favour from them down the track. Hopefully all that butt-kissing will come in handy here and they'll go easy on us.

Just veto the Graham trade and we'll call it square.
 
Nesqua said:
Sorry missed it, trying to keep up.

Manager struck me as a freaking moron 2 1/2 weeks ago, now confirmed. Even if he doesn't lose his license, will struggle to sign up players given how really he has screwed Krud over....karma gotta love it!!
Click to expand...

There were rumours on the Brisbane board at the beginning of this whole saga that Velocity Sports were less than impressed with how he'd handled this situation. Would be very surprised if they continue to employ him after these new revelations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

1970crow
    • Like
    • Haha
Have West Coast gone past us?
2 3
Replies
59
Views
1K
Mr_Moogle
Mr_Moogle
baldandbroke
    • Like
    • 100%
    • Haha
  • Poll Poll
Opinion Non-Crows AFL 14: Brad Scott gone
264 265 266 267 268
Replies
7K
Views
152K
TubbsFarquhar
TubbsFarquhar
Milo Cyrus
Opinion Fix the Rules and get rid of the whistle!
Replies
16
Views
357
Brasher
Brasher

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom