Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[Stripple]

what the **** does that have to do with you?

Big deal - he texted it it. How does that change anything. He's made a decision to leave, move on.

Was anyone pissed a maric for leaving? No. Wonder why that is? No one is too pissed about knights either. Just maybe we have formed an opinion based on what we perceive to be KTs actions in how he has made the desicon.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Yeah and if that's true, the only people who have a right to hold a grudge is the players he's played with as he's let them down. As a supporter of the club, I'll say thanks for the memories big fella and enjoy your time at the Swans. What right do I have to say - you must play with us forever, he never asked to be drafted by the club and he chose to spend 5 or 6 years at the club.

He can play where ever he likes.

the only people who have a right to hold a grudge against him is anyone who wants to hold a grudge against him. if someone was rude to my sister i dont say 'well you can be angry at him but he didnt hurt me directly and therefore i have no right to bear any ill feeling'

he actually cant play wherever he likes, unless he gets there using approved draft or trading methods, in case you havent noticed he isnt a UFA. you are free to say thanks for the memories, although i personally wont be because the most recent memories of tippett have been shit.

As a financial and emotional supporter of the club i have every right to be angry at a player who took my money and then tried to circumvent the rules to get more money from someone else while giving us very little compensation for both his salary and the resources that were spent developing him.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Was anyone pissed a maric for leaving? No. Wonder why that is? No one is too pissed about knights either. Just maybe we have formed an opinion based on what we perceive to be KTs actions in how he has made the desicon.

Because he wasn't bloody playing and didn't influence us winning and losing.

Look at the crap Tex Walker was receiving on this board when it looked highly likely he was going to GWS. For no reason, yet he was a dog.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Because he wasn't bloody playing and didn't influence us winning and losing.

Look at the crap Tex Walker was receiving on this board when it looked highly likely he was going to GWS. For no reason, yet he was a dog.

was there any indication maric reached an agreement with richmond in august?

EDIT: and at that time Walker wasnt playing great either, certainly nothing like his 2012 form, so it isnt a matter of how well they are or arent playing.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

the only people who have a right to hold a grudge against him is anyone who wants to hold a grudge against him. if someone was rude to my sister i dont say 'well you can be angry at him but he didnt hurt me directly and therefore i have no right to bear any ill feeling'

Are you kidding?

he actually cant play wherever he likes, unless he gets there using approved draft or trading methods, in case you havent noticed he isnt a UFA. you are free to say thanks for the memories, although i personally wont be because the most recent memories of tippett have been shit.

He should be able to, it's a human right we hold. Clubs don't own the players.

And yet, we don't have 18,000 post about James Craig getting delisted. I wonder why? Not very good, oh I know - he's not going to be playing for Sydney.

As a financial and emotional supporter of the club i have every right to be angry at a player who took my money and then tried to circumvent the rules to get more money from someone else while giving us very little compensation for both his salary and the resources that were spent developing him.

I bet you were very happy to resign him?

if not, why are we having this conversation?

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

was there any indication maric reached an agreement with richmond in august?

Relevancy?

He was leaving or he wasn't. Don't see how that's an issue.

And, you don't know if he didn't as Sanderson tried to keep him and Richmond have a history of attracting the interest of SA based player in early August.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Are you kidding?

dont know what it is you dont get

He should be able to, it's a human right we hold. Clubs don't own the players.

thats your personal view, he is employed in an industry with more than average regulations and significantly better than average compensation. its his CHOICE to play in that league, with those rules. if you dont like the rules write to the afl

And yet, we don't have 18,000 post about James Craig getting delisted. I wonder why? Not very good, oh I know - he's not going to be playing for Sydney.

you said it yourself. delisted. not 'reportedly agreed to terms with another club in august despite claiming to have not made up his mind and preventing the club from recieving adequate compensation for his trade'

I bet you were very happy to resign him?

not with hindsight, at the time i was because i believed in good faith that a deal had been reached within the rules of the league.

if not, why are we having this conversation?

because you are very aggressively making flawed arguments.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Relevancy?

He was leaving or he wasn't. Don't see how that's an issue.

And, you don't know if he didn't as Sanderson tried to keep him and Richmond have a history of attracting the interest of SA based player in early August.

you dont see how a player agreeing to terms with one club in the home and away season is different to a player announcing at the end of the season he would like to be traded to one of 10 teams?

youre either a moron or very obtuse.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

dont know what it is you dont get

The fact you're making a comparison between someone slagging off your sister and Kurt Tippett who you wouldn't even know.

thats your personal view, he is employed in an industry with more than average regulations and significantly better than average compensation. its his CHOICE to play in that league, with those rules. if you dont like the rules write to the afl

Still doesn't change the facts - clubs don't own the player and he never asked to be drafted by Adelaide

you said it yourself. delisted. not 'reportedly agreed to terms with another club in august despite claiming to have not made up his mind and preventing the club from recieving adequate compensation for his trade'

Nothing to do with getting delisted, it has everything to do with his worth, value and demand

not with hindsight, at the time i was because i believed in good faith that a deal had been reached within the rules of the league.
because you are very aggressively making flawed arguments.

Yeah, it must be a flawed argument because I'm happy to allow AFL players to have a civil right, the same as every other employee in this country.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

you dont see how a player agreeing to terms with one club in the home and away season is different to a player announcing at the end of the season he would like to be traded to one of 10 teams?

Who was this player?

It wasn't Maric whop asked to be traded to Richmond as we lost out on that deal.

youre either a moron or very obtuse.

Whatever champ. Eat fly and drink vinegar for all I care.

 

[catman 71]

I think that the Crows made a classic mistake by believing Kurt Tippett when he said that he refuses to play for any other club than Sydney.

Adelaide should have negotiated, and done the deal with whichever club gave the best deal.

I have no problems with a player nominating a club. The club then negotiates with that club, and if there is a suitable deal, then it gets done. The player goes where he wants, the club who gets him gets their player, and the club he leaves gets adequate compensation. Everyone's happy.

But when a player says that they won't play for any other club but their nominated club, then I think "Tough!".

What would Tippett do, if you traded him to GC, for example? As long as the deal was above board, the AFL will approve it. Tippett either plays for GC (in this example), or step out of the AFL. Most players won't do that, and will just be professional and play for whoever gets them. If Tippett wanted surety about where he was playing, he should have stayed a Crow.

Also, with the clause in 2009. I feel that, if you need to negotiate a deal with a player, to keep him, and then say that they can move him on in three years, then I would have got rid of him in 2009. Either you want to play for the club, or you don't. If Tippett needs an escape clause to stay, then I think he was never really committed to staying anyway. A player who loved the club, or even cared about the club, wouldn't need a clause like that to stay IMO.

 

[CrowEater888]

Yeah, it must be a flawed argument because I'm happy to allow AFL players to have a civil right, the same as every other employee in this country.

Employers are supposed to show a duty of care to employees, but employees are also expected to show a duty of care to employers.

Are you trying to convince us that Tippett and Blucher showed due duty of care to the AFC?

 

[hugecannon]

I think that the Crows made a classic mistake by believing Kurt Tippett when he said that he refuses to play for any other club than Sydney.

Adelaide should have negotiated, and done the deal with whichever club gave the best deal.

I have no problems with a player nominating a club. The club then negotiates with that club, and if there is a suitable deal, then it gets done. The player goes where he wants, the club who gets him gets their player, and the club he leaves gets adequate compensation. Everyone's happy.

But when a player says that they won't play for any other club but their nominated club, then I think "Tough!".

What would Tippett do, if you traded him to GC, for example? As long as the deal was above board, the AFL will approve it. Tippett either plays for GC (in this example), or step out of the AFL. Most players won't do that, and will just be professional and play for whoever gets them. If Tippett wanted surety about where he was playing, he should have stayed a Crow.

Also, with the clause in 2009. I feel that, if you need to negotiate a deal with a player, to keep him, and then say that they can move him on in three years, then I would have got rid of him in 2009. Either you want to play for the club, or you don't. If Tippett needs an escape clause to stay, then I think he was never really committed to staying anyway. A player who loved the club, or even cared about the club, wouldn't need a clause like that to stay IMO.

Tippett has to agree to the trade before it can go ahead. He was apparently asked to consider GWS and said no chance.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

The fact you're making a comparison between someone slagging off your sister and Kurt Tippett who you wouldn't even know.

here we go again. where do you draw the line. what if it wasnt my sister, it was my cousin. what if it was my cousins friend, what if it was the girl that worked at my local supermarket, what if it was her friend. when does it become so remote that in your opinion it should no longer affect me?

Still doesn't change the facts - clubs don't own the player and he never asked to be drafted by Adelaide

the facts which you rely on or ignore to suit your argument? those facts? your are technically correct, a football club does not 'own' a player, i dont know if chattel slavery has ever been legal in australia but it certainly isnt now. That fact does not change the fact that tippett chose to enter an industry which has strict rules and regulations for participation and provides higher than average remuneration. he had access to contracts, rules and regulations before he chose to become an AFL player.

Nothing to do with getting delisted, it has everything to do with his worth, value and demand

how silly of me, i forgot that you know every persons thoughts and motivations to such an extent you can make grand generalising statements about the motivations of hundreds or even thousands of people.

Yeah, it must be a flawed argument because I'm happy to allow AFL players to have a civil right, the same as every other employee in this country.

#strawman

either you cant stay on point or you dont want to.

#obtusemoron

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Employers are supposed to show a duty of care to employees, but employees are also expected to show a duty of care to employers.

No I'm not. It doesn't say anywhere that I'm supposed to show any emotional (because that's what we're talking about) duty of care to my workmates and employer.

As a human being, it would be in my best interest to do as as it allows for a socially stable work environment and a happy work environment but if I wanted to, I can act like a campaigner if I wanted to.

I'd more than likely get fired but my termination wouldn't be for being a campaigner or a shit bloke. They would use some performance based review but I'm not under any obligation to offer any emotional duty of care.

Are you trying to convince us that Tippett and Blucher showed due duty of care to the AFC?

So a group fo young men are pissed off that he texted them he was leaving?

No different to getting fired via SMS or resigning via E mail.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

No I'm not. It doesn't say anywhere that I'm supposed to show any emotional (because that's what we're talking about) duty of care to my workmates and employer.

As a human being, it would be in my best interest to do as as it allows for a socially stable work environment and a happy work environment but if I wanted to, I can act like a silly if I wanted to.

I'd more than likely get fired but my termination wouldn't be for being a silly or a shit bloke. They would use some performance based review but I'm not under any obligation to offer any emotional duty of care.



So a group fo young men are pissed off that he texted them he was leaving?

No different to getting fired via SMS or resigning via E mail.

now youre just making shit up. this stopped being about reasoning through an agrument and started being about you winning by whatever means a long time ago

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

here we go again. where do you draw the line. what if it wasnt my sister, it was my cousin. what if it was my cousins friend, what if it was the girl that worked at my local supermarket, what if it was her friend. when does it become so remote that in your opinion it should no longer affect me?

What if it was a complete stranger?

Then you have have a point.

You are making a comparison between someone you have a pre existing relationship with, with someone you personally don't know

#obtusemoron

Yes. See above for exhibit A

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

now youre just making shit up. this stopped being about reasoning through an agrument and started being about you winning by whatever means a long time ago

So, what I said was wrong then?

Obtuse? exhibit B

 

[jenny61_99]

No tantrum, just frustrated at the stupidity some people apply at losing a player. Heaven forbid someone have a choice.

People are less concerned about losing Tippett and more concerned about HOW and why he went. If you can't see that, then there's no hope for you. Everyone almost to a tee is saying if he was homesick sobeit. In fact, weren't people pleased with his prelim efforts knowing that it was likely his last game for us? I think comments at the time were akin to "at least he is leaving on a high". If he'd gone to Gold Coast like everyone expected, because he was (apparently) clearly homesick, then it would have been sadly accepted and there would be none of the vitriol pointed in his direction that you see now. But that is not what happened. In doing what he has done, he has virtually spat in the club's face, his (Friends for Life, Luv Kurt) team mates faces and by association, Adelaide supporters faces. To top it off, we now find out he's held the Club to ransom all this time. It turns out, this bloke we all felt admiration for - concern even, when he was going through the concussion issues - is nothing but a shit greedy bloke, only interested in himself. He (and his scum bag manager) has brought all this on himself.

I can see why people are sore at losing him - but the most angst by far, is not because he's going, it's because of the destruction he's left behind.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

People are less concerned about losing Tippett and more concerned about HOW and why he went. If you can't see that, then there's no hope for you. Everyone almost to a tee is saying if he was homesick sobeit. In fact, weren't people pleased with his prelim efforts knowing that it was likely his last game for us? I think comments at the time were akin to "at least he is leaving on a high". If he'd gone to Gold Coast like everyone expected, because he was (apparently) clearly homesick, then it would have been sadly accepted and there would be none of the vitriol pointed in his direction that you see now. But that is not what happened. In doing what he has done, he has virtually spat in the club's face, his (Friends for Life, Luv Kurt) team mates faces and by association, Adelaide supporters faces. To top it off, we now find out he's held the Club to ransom all this time. It turns out, this bloke we all felt admiration for - concern even, when he was going through the concussion issues - is nothing but a shit greedy bloke, only interested in himself. He (and his scum bag manager) has brought all this on himself.

I can see why people are sore at losing him - but the most angst by far, is not because he's going, it's because of the destruction he's left behind.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

So, what I said was wrong then?

Obtuse? exhibit B

had you read any of my or other peoples responses it would have been clear to you how and why you are wrong, youve had ample opportunity to pull your head in but it is evident from your posts that it has no affect on you and you will change your position whenever it suits. when i first started responding to you it was people disliking tippett without knowing him that was your issue, now youre championing and lecturing on civil rights.

 

[jenny61_99]

Alex, using a giant size bullshit image isn't helping your cause.

 

[CrowEater888]

So, what I said was wrong then?

Obtuse? exhibit B

You said 'emotional' duty of care. I never did. I have no idea what that even is.

FWIW:
http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch16s02s02.php

'The employee must exercise reasonable care and skill in the performance of the work; in other words, the employee has the duty to be efficient and to avoid negligence in doing the work.
The employee must do the job honestly and faithfully'.

So, I ask again, are you trying to convince us all that Tippett and Blucher did not breach their duty of care to the AFC?

 

[SpeciousArgument]

<unnecessarily large image>

 

[Stripple]

Because he wasn't bloody playing and didn't influence us winning and losing.

Look at the crap Tex Walker was receiving on this board when it looked highly likely he was going to GWS. For no reason, yet he was a dog.

Thought this would be the reply. How about stenglein or Johnson. There is a good way to leave a club and a bad way. Tippett has clearly done things the wrong way or he would be at Sydney. As for how the players feel have you seen some of the stuff going on twitter? Or how about some of the less than glowing interview the guys did after his desicion?