Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[WheresGroomgone]

No there's a difference. My info isn't rumour or innuendo. And how am I adding fuel? All Ive said is that John Reid was pushed, and that it wasn't related to this - and I think Wood Duck confirmed that it was common knowledge that he'd been asked to retire a year earlier than planned.

If John Reid told you this then I apologise, however, if you have heard it or have been told it by someone else then spreading stuff that may not be correct is exactly what you are doing.

 

[Wood_Duck]

No there's a difference. My info isn't rumour or innuendo. And how am I adding fuel? All Ive said is that John Reid was pushed, and that it wasn't related to this - and I think Wood Duck confirmed that it was common knowledge that he'd been asked to retire a year earlier than planned.

Certainly the story I got. Not sure it was a year early, but to be honest I didn't take that much notice because I didn't realise it was a secret.

 

[juzzo]

I see a bit of early Sly Stallone in him.

 

[Vader]

How bad is Jesse White, don't think I've ever seen him play. Who is he comparable with in terms of skill? Nick Gill?

Think of a poor man's Brad Moran.

 

[Vader]

Quick question, can crows use any picks to upgrade their rookies? Ie pick 150 for example?

Yes. Player upgrades are done using your last selections in the draft, after you've expired all of your "live" selections. It doesn't matter how late in the draft they are.

 

[Geoffa32]

I see a bit of early Sly Stallone in him.

Quick edit that before he reads it............

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

I see a bit of early Sly Stallone in him.

I see Harry Potter

 

[fairfooty]

Yep.....but there is also the future to consider.

Understand that skoob, but your position when it comes to employment is wrong. You cannot sack someone for what they might or might not do in the future. That's intrinsically unfair. The decision to terminate or not lies in past/ current circumstances including mitigation. Nothing else. The AFC Board who employs Trigg will do its own investigation, await the outcome of the AFL investigation, seek legal advice and then decide on their employees future. As it should be.

 

[Glenno23]

Next person to bump/quote the Rucci photo gets a card!

He's hideous!

 

[Vader]

That's what I said this afternoon, if we're found not guilty of anything, but they have disallowed any trade, they need to compensate with a very high draft pick to make up for it

If, if, if.. Given what Trigg has already admitted to there is no way on earth that we're going to be found not guilty. The only question regarding our draft tampering is just how big a stick the AFL decide to whack us with. We might get away with the salary cap breach, if Tippett's external sponsorships totalled more than $200k every year and no actual payments were made by the AFC.

 

[arsene wenger1]

Dennis commetti another one of the flogs praying for this to be the demise of the club

 

[WaynesWorld19]

If, if, if.. Given what Trigg has already admitted to there is no way on earth that we're going to be found not guilty. The only question regarding our draft tampering is just how big a stick the AFL decide to whack us with. We might get away with the salary cap breach, if Tippett's external sponsorships totalled more than $200k every year and no actual payments were made by the AFC.

I agree but it's a hypocritical argument

We state in writing that we only deal with club of players choice .........player verbalizes they will only accept a trade to club A when seeking a trade

can someone show me the irony in that

The former gets fined and draft choices removed .,......the latter absolutely nothing
I am sure that argument could be legally fought

The question more important is "did we break AFL rules" .....the answer is obviously yes and a big stick will be waved

Will it be draft picks .....you know i'd be absolutely amazed if it's more than a fine and the loss of Tippetts trade picks

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Dennis commetti another one of the flogs praying for this to be the demise of the club

Love people who have no idea having an opinion ....which is no different to any poster on this board ....just a factless opinion

 

[boffo]

As much as i would like that to be on the ball i just feel that story is a "feel good" piece put up by Graham for our benefit.

I agree with him, this is not a hanging offence for the AFC. Whether it's a hanging offence for Triggy will probably depend on deception of the board and whether the Board have lost confidence in him. (If he had told the Board, or some of them about the 'agreement' then they are in the same boat with him and they will all look after each other.)

 

[Vader]

I know its been said already but what happens if it's found we've done nothing wrong, now we have lost tippet for 0 and the chance to do any trades these last few days?

Not going to happen, given that Trigg has already admitted to draft tampering..

 

[WaynesWorld19]

SPOT THE MISTAKES

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...lose-draft-picks/story-fnca0u4y-1226504226518

Crows to be fined and lose draft picks

• by: GREG DENHAM
• From: The Australian
• October 27, 2012 12:00AM

As the Kurt Tippett investigation intensifies, The Weekend Australian understands that the Crows have hidden from the AFL at least $300,000 in payments to him over the past three years.

The league has already discovered guaranteed payments of $100,000 a season over the length of Tippett's three-year contract from 2009 that were outside the club's salary cap.


But it would not have mattered anyway, as the Crows were told by the AFL not to go ahead with any player exchange involving Tippett as it considered an undisclosed email deal between Adelaide and Tippett's management to be in breach of trade rules.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...lose-draft-picks/story-fnca0u4y-1226504226518


I have lost all respect for journalism in this country ..........it's made up, sensationalised, and for the elderly downright frightening.

It's the clever use of words to convey a different meaning to dramatise .....and mislead

1. AFC confessed
2. AD confronted by Chapman/Trigg
3. Illegal 3rd party arrangement
4. Sydney withdrew interest in Tippett

FFS what do you believe these days ......certainly NOTHING in the media

 

[Vader]

1. Let's assume that a email does exist stating that Adelaide will draft Kurt to the club of his choice for a 2nd round pick, does this constitute draft tampering even though Adelaide have shown clear intent to trade for market value compensation?

Yes, it does constitute draft tampering. The AFL Player Rules document is very clear about what constitutes "conduct prejudicial to the draft" and Adelaide's agreement to trade him for a 2nd round pick meets that definition.

2. Let's assume that Kurt received 3rd Party payments of $100k per year, my understanding is that 3rd party payments are outside of the cap and would not constitute a cap breach?

No breach, provided that all of these payments were duly reported by KT, as per rule 10.4.1 in the Player Rules document.

3. Let's consider that the AFC did pay Kurt the additional $100k per year, the initial email provides a commitment to do so however at this stage has there been any evidence to suggest that if these payments did go ahead that they were kept of the books?

The issue is not the commitment, it's the AFC's failure to disclose/report the commitment when lodging their TPP papers.

 

[Vader]

At that point of time he had only played 43 game

And was just coming off a 50+ goal season.. and was being offered the highest salary of any player on Adelaide's list. Anything less than band 2 would have been ridiculous. Band 1 would have depended upon what salary that GC offered him.

 

[A FEW GOOD MEN]

If, if, if.. Given what Trigg has already admitted to there is no way on earth that we're going to be found not guilty. The only question regarding our draft tampering is just how big a stick the AFL decide to whack us with. We might get away with the salary cap breach, if Tippett's external sponsorships totalled more than $200k every year and no actual payments were made by the AFC.

Some people are presuming that the AFL was not informed of Kurt's third party arrangements. I don't believe that to be the case (Did the AFL think his Balfours ads were a charity event?). There is also a cap for third party arrangements for clubs but it is very unlikely that we breached this cap.

The most likely scenario is that we guaranteed to top up his income if he didn't achieve the required $100,000 p.a. for the last 2 years of his contract extension. He received the $200K from sponsors and we duly sent this information to the AFL hence believing that all was sweet.

The bigger issue, which hasn't come out yet, is the nature of the no disadvantage clause in the "agreement". Kurt was on the final year of his contract in 2010 and could then move to the Gold Coast at the end of 2010 to become one of their marquis players. Gold Coast were approaching their targets at the end of 2009 (e.g. Ablett) and were using the "loophole" in the rules to sign players to contracts for 2011 and beyond. Tippett didn't want to sign with the Crows for longer than 3 years but he also liked the idea of locking in the big bucks for the next 6 years. Not being a greedy type of lad he wanted the certainty of being able to "go home" at the end of 2012 if he so desired but also wanted to lock in an income of $4+million over the next 6 years. I wonder how he could achieve that?

 

[Vader]

The AFL hadn't actually outlined what the compensation was to be that early in the picture, we had no idea what we were going to get which why everyone was shitting their pants and there was such pressure on the AFC to sign him. No one trusted the AFL. Hell the AFL were still changing their mind regarding compo about a month before it was all announced. You are right that Geelong lobbied the AFL, but that was after the bands were released much later in the picture, with band 1 initially being simply a first round draft pick. Geelong believed that there should be a higher band for if they were to lose Ablett, as clearly the initial compo wasn't adequate.

Not entirely true. The bands were released months before the KT contract negotiations began. What we didn't know was what weightings the AFL would have used for the criteria, thus determining which players were in which band.

That said the following factors were all in our favour:

• Tippett's age
• Contract offer from Adelaide (making him our highest paid player)
• Coming off a 50+ goal season
• 6th placed finish in Adelaide's Club Champion award

All of this indicates that we would have been expecting at least band 2, possibly band 1, compensation for him.

 

[Dr B]

No breach, provided that all of these payments were duly reported by KT, as per rule 10.4.1 in the Player Rules document.

I disagree with you on this one.

What I think people are missing here is once we agreed to "guarantee the payment" it no longer becomes a third party agreement. A third party agreement is an agreement that KT and his manager organized themselves at arms length from the club without any involvement or guarantees from the club.

The moment the club "guarantees" something then it becomes part of his contract which the CLUB must declare. The only difference between this and his normal payments is the source of the money.

This is done by the afl to stop under the table payments.

We can not wait to see how much he gets paid and the include the difference we must include the whole amount guaranteed to him in the TPP that we report. In this case it would appear that we have failed to do this.

I am concerned that we could be liable to have to include all of the payments he received here because we declared nothing. And this could be any amount

 

[Vader]

Agree

Thank Christ we got Crouch last year

If true can we still go into the PSD, or are we likely to fill final spots with Rookie upgrades?

I sincerely doubt that we'll be banned from the draft entirely. Most likely we will be banned from the first one or two rounds.

If we were to be banned entirely, then we wouldn't be able to upgrade any of our players (Crouch, Callinan) and we would be forced to go into 2013 with just 36 players on our senior list - which is in itself a breach of the AFL rules.

Assuming we're banned from the first two rounds, I think it's likely that we'll upgrade Laird as well as Crouch & Callinan. We'll probably use that one last "live" selection, in R3 or whatever it is. That's my guess anyway.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Yes, it does constitute draft tampering. The AFL Player Rules document is very clear about what constitutes "conduct prejudicial to the draft" and Adelaide's agreement to trade him for a 2nd round pick meets that definition.

In principle maybe ....but so then is Tippett only saying he'll deal with Sydney .....Ball refusing to have a medical with clubs other than Collingwood

There's an inequality in the statement ......fact is clubs verbalise those agreements .....but it appears that if either club or player puts it in writing it then, and only then becomes a breach

No breach, provided that all of these payments were duly reported by KT, as per rule 10.4.1 in the Player Rules document.

Correct ....that's what i have said all along

The issue is not the commitment, it's the AFC's failure to disclose/report the commitment when lodging their TPP papers.

Agreed ...and that's what we'll get done for

 

[Vader]

All this bagging of Trigg. Was this Reid's deal?

Both were involved.

 

[Vader]

But if we don't have any slots in the draft, can we upgrade rookies? I thought you had to use your draft picks to do that?

Bingo!