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.
cmndstab said:
Just woke up in a cold sweat.... fast forward 20 years and we could be in the position to take Kurt Tippett Jr via the F/S rule, and once again have to deal with a Tippett father.
Click to expand...
There's a joke I want to make here but I'm sure it would cross a line for some people.

Probably best if I just go to bed, I don't want to disappoint my biggest fan! :p
 
Malifice said:
Anyone want to take a bet that the AFL will set things up so Tippett winds up at GWS next year for nothing via the PSD?

This would suit the AFL agenda perfectly.
Click to expand...
Would suit me fine to be honest. Let the w***er rot over in 'Sydney', his home. Just want the campaigner out of the club ASAP.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Malifice said:
It was unders. And I have no love for Adelaide at the trade table after the Jacobs deal left a sour taste in my mouth.

Its concievable that Sydney thought pick 23 = a Brisbane/ Suns second rounder in value and was thus fair considering the 'arrangement'. The back up negotiating position would have been 'take it or he can go for a second rounder to the Suns/ Lions thanks to your little under the table arrangement that you dont want the AFL to know about'

In a sense, the Swans were being 'fair' by offering unders.

Its not beyond the realms of possibility.
Click to expand...

It was unders, but he's out of contract. In terms of the arrangement, it's overs.
 
Malifice said:
Im Neutral in this mate, and pick 23 was unders.

But we can agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it was unders, but it wasn't in the world ending catastrophe category of unders. I would have thought as a Carlton fan you would have appreciated the "pick x is the equivalent of pick y in a normal year".
 
HARKER said:
The notion is just about right. Sort of almost expecting that to be the case.
Click to expand...

They have form. They smashed us at least partly to get us back in line, and left Melbourne alone re tanking to not create a Carlton basketcase Mk2.

Its a pretty good solution too. Adelaide get punished for the 'arangement' by losing him for nothing, Sydney get punished for being flogs and refusing to budge on pick 23 (by losing him and having him go to cross town rivals), and Tippett gets punished by having to wear Orange and play for GWS (but still gets the dollars and gets to Sydney).

The AFL wins by strengthening GWS and promoting a rivalry with Sydney (and GWS via the controversy). Players know that if they play hardball with demanding clubs of 'choice' the AFL will actually start enforcing the PSD.

Strap on a few fines, deregister the player manager and strip a draft pick or two for good measure.
 
Boundryump said:
This is the best thing that has happen just goes to show what sort of person/people the Tippett clan are! whatever the penalty it is better than having a leech in amongst the playing group.....gee I wonder what Sando is thinking right at the moment?
Sydney would have definetly known about the arrangement(Tippett would have told them about it back in August) and were basically black mailing the Crows to which the Crows responded by coming clean with this side agreement.
Click to expand...

You may be right, but since you are assuming, let's also assume then that the Swans would have expected this 'agreement' to have been part of the legitimate contract lodged with the AFL since we are one of the most professionally run clubs these days!
 
DeadlyAkkuret said:
A first round pick when the arrangement only required a 2nd rounder?
Click to expand...

This is what the AFL I guess will discover through their investigation.

Caro has said in the past on 5AA and footy classified when she discussed the deal that she wasnt sure whether the agreement specifically said a second round pick or whether it specified a pick in the 20s (which normally equates to a second round pick).

It will all come out in the wash, if the agreement specifies that the Crows have agreed to trade Tippett for a pick in the 20s it'll be hard to deny that Sydney weren't privy to the agreement prior to attempting to conduct a trade for Tippett.

In the end though Sydney haven't really done anything wrong and it would have been Blucher that would have advised Sydney as to how cheap he believed that they could get Tippett for. The only impact for Sydney will be potentially missing out on recruiting Tippett.
 
Malifice said:
Grab a tape of Carlton matches from 2002-06 and watch the results for yourself.
Click to expand...
I still think you tanked in the Kruezer Cup, in 2007. You were bad enough to finish bottom 2 that year, without the need for tanking - but you definitely tanked in that infamous game vs Richmond. Doing so meant you finished 2nd bottom and earned a PP - thus giving you picks #1 and #3. #1 turned into Kruezer, #3 was used in the Judd trade.

That said, I agree on the whole - your team really did stink from 02-07, without the need for taking (other than this one particular example).
 
.Shotties. said:
Yeah, it was unders, but it wasn't in the world ending catastrophe category of unders. I would have thought as a Carlton fan you would have appreciated the "pick x is the equivalent of pick y in a normal year".
Click to expand...

It pretty much was in that category, I'm afraid.

DeadlyAkkuret said:
It was unders, but he's out of contract. In terms of the arrangement, it's overs.
Click to expand...

This however is true. Not that it was particularly magnanimous of you. You were still trying to give up the bare minimum you could without getting caught.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Patrick Dangerfield, Ladies and gentlemen

patrick dangerfield ‏@dangerfield32
Airport food Isnt gr8. My Tippett to every1 is dont eat it. I am going to eat something when I get home...Lucky my flight isn't via Sydney.
 
cmndstab said:
It pretty much was in that category, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...
No, losing a better, contracted player with 0 history of injuries for pick 14 and junk is bad unders. Losing a player with problems with concussion, who is un-contracted and who has performed, being generous, well enough, for a pick 8 spots lower isn't catastrophic.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

This is becoming incredibly messy. I wonder if clubs will now be reluctant to trade for Tippett in the next day or so, because of this scandal. He may be going to the draft, because it will be very complicated to know how this investigation is going to impact on Tippett, given that he may be punished as a result of this investigation.
 
.Shotties. said:
No, losing a better, contracted player with 0 history of injuries for pick 14 and junk is bad unders. Losing a player with problems with concussion, who is un-contracted and who has performed, being generous, well enough, for a pick 8 spots lower isn't catastrophic.
Click to expand...

What an arbitrary example.

Look, the offer you guys made was so absurd (yes, even with White thrown in) that the AFL literally refused to sign off on it because they knew something dodgy must have occurred for us to even entertain the deal.

There's having rose-coloured (or blood-coloured?) glasses, and then there's being delusional. You guys were trying to pull a swift one on the back of our stupidity, plain and simple. The offer was unders at levels never before witnessed in the AFL.
 
Malifice said:
Im also intrested if Sydney knew about the arrangement and were using it their advantage. Judging by the offer they put forward and reluctance to budge, it seems at least a possibility.
Click to expand...
I think it's fairly safe to say that their entire approach to Tippett was founded on it. They offered him a whopping great contract and never looked offering anything more than chicken feed in return. It's fairly obvious that Blucher (in a clear and massive breach of confidence) told Ireland all about the contract. Note that Ireland is a former Velocity Sports employee himself. Ireland then decided to chase Tippett knowing that he could effectively have him for nothing in terms of trade commodities. Salary cap space was never going to be an issue with so many Swans only 1-2 years away from retirement.
 
Boundryump said:
Sydney would have definetly known about the arrangement(Tippett would have told them about it back in August) and were basically black mailing the Crows to which the Crows responded by coming clean with this side agreement.
Click to expand...

Underlining a word doesn't make the sentence anymore factual. Got a source though? Plus, apparently Tippett had no knowledge of the meeting in August. He wasn't told about the Swan's offer until after the prelim final. Blucher on the otherhand......Pedantic maybe but there have been too many rumours thrown around over the last two weeks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom