Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[alex_is_on_fire]

Rookie list him on $50k for 1 year and we then have 12 months to negotiate a trade..

ha ha maybe - but I see a Carlos Tevez kiss and making up occurring.

If he is deregistered and forced out of the 2 drafts I feel he will stay on the primary list and get a contract worth $150,000 and then told to piss off.

 

[MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl]

God this is a nightmare. I thought this would all be over by now. How wrong am I!!

 

[SpeciousArgument]

God this is a nightmare. I thought this would all be over by now. How wrong am I!!

youre not alone, rewind a week and i was wishing the week would end so i could find out if it was White +23 or PSD

 

[Schulzycrow]

God this is a nightmare. I thought this would all be over by now. How wrong am I!!

Plenty of juice left in this orange.
It's never going to be over....neeeevvvveeeeerrrrrr!

 

[Shamus75]

how do you know this? the fixture doesn't come out till wednesday..

Herald Sun this morning - "The Blues are expected to be given a fixture on Wednesday in which they play just one finals side twice. That side is Collingwood, with the blockbuster status of the rivalry and revenue generated over-riding the issue of a double-up against a top-four side."

Hawthorn are the big losers apparently - "The defeated grand finalist is expected to be slapped with a draw featuring as many as seven 2012 finalists in the early rounds."

 

[cmndstab]

Herald Sun this morning - "The Blues are expected to be given a fixture on Wednesday in which they play just one finals side twice. That side is Collingwood, with the blockbuster status of the rivalry and revenue generated over-riding the issue of a double-up against a top-four side."

Hawthorn are the big losers apparently - "The defeated grand finalist is expected to be slapped with a draw featuring as many as seven 2012 finalists in the early rounds."

I like "as many as 7".

There are only 7 possible finalists they could play and "as many as" is not exactly specific. Technically every club in the comp could play "as many as seven 2012 finalists", haha.

 

[Nesqua]

Herald Sun this morning - "The Blues are expected to be given a fixture on Wednesday in which they play just one finals side twice. That side is Collingwood, with the blockbuster status of the rivalry and revenue generated over-riding the issue of a double-up against a top-four side."

Hawthorn are the big losers apparently - "The defeated grand finalist is expected to be slapped with a draw featuring as many as seven 2012 finalists in the early rounds."

Do you think Mick will come out towards the end of the season and say Carlton aren't good enough to be in the top 4.......

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Do you think Mick will come out towards the end of the season and say Carlton aren't good enough to be in the top 4.......

well played sir, well played

 

[SydCrow]

Herald Sun this morning - "The Blues are expected to be given a fixture on Wednesday in which they play just one finals side twice. That side is Collingwood, with the blockbuster status of the rivalry and revenue generated over-riding the issue of a double-up against a top-four side."

wonder if Mick will also complain about blockbuster fatigue?

 

[CROUCH #2]

the only news im keen and hoping for is,
GWS select tippo, tippo shattered

 

[TheMelbourneCrow]

I don't get this....

3 weeks after the agreement was put in place, Trigg said the club would no longer honour the deal. Fair enough - why do the deal inn the first place if 3 weeks latter if was off the table.

Then 24 months latter, I assume Stgeven Trigg tells the board of the deal or they somehow find find out about it and it then shifts to a 'gentleman agreement' as stated in the board meetings minutes.

Why would we need any gentleman agreement in place, if we were not going to honour any deal?

The time line of events doesn't add up and it sounds very fishy to me. Someone is trying to cover their arse.

I think there was remorse about the deal, so we pulled it or tried to pull it
I am guessing the board found out about it after Caro's article

It actually makes a heap of sense. People do stuff they regret all the time.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

I think there was remorse about the deal, so we pulled it or tried to pull it
I am guessing the board found out about it after Caro's article

It actually makes a heap of sense. People do stuff they regret all the time.

I understand regret.

However, did Trigg pull the deal and say to the Tippett camp the deal is off the table and then back down when latter challenged by Tippett. What I don't quite get is how it then came back to a gentleman agreement when the board found out about it?

Why would the board get the full story and the 3 year deal was in place for a second round but now it no longer exists as I removed it?

 

[Moonwatcher]

I can't believe the Crows would sign contracts then say they won't honour them just 3 weeks later. Quite odd.

 

[jenny61_99]

I don't get this....

3 weeks after the agreement was put in place, Trigg said the club would no longer honour the deal. Fair enough - why do the deal inn the first place if 3 weeks latter if was off the table.

Then 24 months latter, I assume Stgeven Trigg tells the board of the deal or they somehow find find out about it and it then shifts to a 'gentleman agreement' as stated in the board meetings minutes.

Why would we need any gentleman agreement in place, if we were not going to honour any deal?

The time line of events doesn't add up and it sounds very fishy to me. Someone is trying to cover their arse.

Im guessing the timing is due to Caroline Wilson writing a story about "the clause" last year. If Triggy thought and had advised Blucher the deal was not on 3 weeks later, he probably didn't think he needed to tell the board. Then when Wilson raises the issue, he had to go to the board? This is just a guess on my part. The gentlemans agreement was the send him home to QLD aspect of the deal which Trigg said was no longer valid because he had chosen Sydney.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Hooray, some good news

It means the penalties they are planning are positively dastardly.

 

[Moonwatcher]

Im guessing the timing is due to Caroline Wilson writing a story about "the clause" last year. If Triggy thought and had advised Blucher the deal was not on 3 weeks later, he probably didn't think he needed to tell the board. Then when Wilson raises the issue, he had to go to the board? This is just a guess on my part. The gentlemans agreement was the send him home to QLD aspect of the deal.

There is no such thing as the deal being "not on" unless Blucher and Tippett agreed to give up their contractual position. Unlikely I would have thought.

The Wilson article would have definately been the moment Trigg had to take it to the board, or more likely the board asking questions of him.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Im guessing the timing is due to Caroline Wilson writing a story about "the clause" last year. If Triggy thought and had advised Blucher the deal was not on 3 weeks later, he probably didn't think he needed to tell the board. Then when Wilson raises the issue, he had to go to the board? This is just a guess on my part. The gentlemans agreement was the send him home to QLD aspect of the deal.

I understand the timing of why he went to the board - that's simple as different board members would have read the Caroline Wilson article and it would have been discussed.

It's the contradiction I don't get . If the deal was removed from the table - wouldn't the expectation be, sign Tippett to an extension in the summer of 2012/13 or trade him for market value?

The gentleman agreement was part of the trade home for a 2nd round pick in the original agreement - if it was removed, there was no gentleman agreement and it would no longer exist.

 

[jenny61_99]

I understand the timing of why he went to the board - that's simple as different board members would have read the Caroline Wilson article and it would have been discussed.

It's the contradiction I don't get . If the deal was removed from the table - wouldn't the expectation be, sign Tippett to an extension in the summer of 2012/13 or trade him for market value?

The gentleman agreement was part of the trade home for a 2nd round pick in the original agreement - if it was removed, there was no gentleman agreement and it would no longer exist.

I agree it makes no sense - I was thinking out loud. You know something like Triggy says to them, "nope we aren't going to do that but we will help him get back home", and all saying, yep ok. But now it's 2012, Blucher decides to bring out the paper trail with John Reid to use against us.

 

[CrowGlen]

I can't believe the Crows would sign contracts then say they won't honour them just 3 weeks later. Quite odd.

Is it possible that it was agreed to verbally, but when the written confirmation was sent they saw it for what it was and retracted it, replacing it with nothing more than a verbal "gentleman's agreement" to assist KT to return to his home state. This would explain Sydney suddenly being home, and Triggy's statement way back at the start of trading about the "gentleman's agreement" not applying any more because KT didn't choose a QLD based club.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Is it possible that it was agreed to verbally, but when the written confirmation was sent they saw it for what it was and retracted it, replacing it with nothing more than a verbal "gentleman's agreement" to assist KT to return to his home state. This would explain Sydney suddenly being home, and Triggy's statement way back at the start of trading about the "gentleman's agreement" not applying any more because KT didn't choose a QLD based club.

Verbal contracts are still binding but - so it wouldn't change anything.

 

[Mattrox]

..... and we are back jumping at shadows again over a Rucci article.

 

[bjn1960]

Is it possible that it was agreed to verbally, but when the written confirmation was sent they saw it for what it was and retracted it, replacing it with nothing more than a verbal "gentleman's agreement" to assist KT to return to his home state. This would explain Sydney suddenly being home, and Triggy's statement way back at the start of trading about the "gentleman's agreement" not applying any more because KT didn't choose a QLD based club.

This and other comment is all very well, but, what about the allege statement - 'don't tell the AFL' or words and meaning to that affect. This seems to be the killer for me.

 

[Wood_Duck]

It means the penalties they are planning are positively dastardly.

Or they are softening their initial response?

 

[CrowGlen]

This and other comment is all very well, but, what about the allege statement - 'don't tell the AFL' or words and meaning to that affect. This seems to be the killer for me.

Yeah... it's trying to make sense of a non-sensical situation!
Maybe the email was sent from Blucher to Adelaide, was not accurate in it's representation of what the club "agreed" to, contained the words "don't tell the AFL", and was rejected.

 

[Realslimshady2]

ADELAIDE finally has had a victory in the Kurt Tippett saga.

The AFL is allowing the Crows to push teenage midfielder Brad Crouch on Adelaide's 2012 player list as a "traded player" rather than demand the club free up a draft pick for him.

The significance of this decision today is the Crows can avert - for now - needing to delist a contracted player on Wednesday to find the compulsory three draft picks Adelaide must have available at the AFL national draft on November 22.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...urt-tippett-saga/story-e6freck3-1226504878477

Phew!