Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[jenny61_99]

It doesn't matter if Trigg signed the clause himself. Fact is he either gave his blessing to an illegal clause or was woefully negligent in letting it go unnoticed on his watch. Both are sacking offences.

He has cost us 2-3 first round draft picks. We are not a ****ing charity ffs. Thats our future.

No club in their right mind would accept that level of gross incompetence. Cornes is just shamelessly trying to protect his mate. If we accept that level of performance from anyone at the club, let alone the CEO, then we deserve to be irrelevant

FACT IS you don't know the facts. Stop reporting your opinion as such. You are as bad as the reporters.

 

[jenny61_99]

You don't just get to say you had your fingers crossed 3 weeks after the deal was done. its binding when you agree and thats it

Trigg shouldn't go for the deal itself but for spending much of the last 18 months lying about its (non) existence

Is it lying if you honestly believe the deal had been quashed and only in the last month find out about the existence of an email?

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

But it's just fans who are grumpy that he's leaving who are now saying that he is average..

Never mind how many were asking the question over 2010/2011 as to why Walker was being dropped when Tippett was playing like shit and contributing less.. Which was met with "oh but Tippett tries more and harder than Walker"

Feel free to go back and read my post, from day 1 I was happy for Kurt to stay but not for the money that had been reported

IMO we have dodged a bullet

 

[Stripple]

The contract isnt what the AFL have issue with, at least as far as has been reported, its the fact that in a deal undisclosed to the AFL we agreed to influence a future draft and trading period which is in itself a big no no, and also that we guaranteed tippett would get TPP in the order of $200k. Trigg may have been aware that this was talked about behind closed doors but it is entirely plausible that he had no knowledge of reid confirming it via email and IMO his 3 week later renegging on the deal supports that I dont get approval from my boss every time i reply to an email. given the stakes reid probably should have but its entirely possible that he was on his laptop at home after a couple of wines and replied to blucher 'yeah thats what was discussed' or something to that effect
1. Because Trigg and afc werent renegging on Tippett having access to third party deals, just that they wouldnt make up the shortfall. again, the issue isnt Tippett getting third party deals, it was the AFC gauranteeing he would and not disclosing it as consideration in his contract.
2. He was contracted, and he got his tpp, so the only issue was what happened when he left the club.

Sorry to be a little cynical but the whole three weeks reneging thing came out about a week and a half after this whole thing began and if I'm not mistaken prior to this being the "story" I though chapman had come out and said the board weren't aware of it till trade week. To me it seems this isthe story the club is spinning to help keep trigg in a job. It just doesn't jive with how we handled the situation up until now. If at the end if the investigation there is evidence of trigg doing the right thing ill eat my words but this just reeks of double standards (Rendell shoot first ask questions later).

 

[magtrev]

FACT IS you don't know the facts. Stop reporting your opinion as such. You are as bad as the reporters.

No, that is a fact. There is no third option.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

I think Cornes has the penalty about right. There will definitely be a large fine in the range of $200,000 -$500,000 - my guess is $400,000, some of which may or may not be suspended.

One thing that I can't agree with Cornes is that we could possibly be banned from the draft altogether, as if that were the case we would be playing 2 players short. We have to have 2 picks somewhere in the draft to have a full squad.

The worse that could be given to us this year with only 2 picks to be made is that we could be made to have the last 2 picks in the draft. That is unlikely IMO, and my guess is that we will be precluded from the first 3 rounds and have our picks in the 4th and 5th rounds.

Tippett to be suspended for 6 to 12 weeks and his Manager de-registered for 12 months.

Trigg to keep his job.

Finally, I don't think our crimes justify any loss of picks in next years draft, and that the matter will be all washed up this year - hopefully.

The only comment i'll make is that the punishment will be a benchmark against Melbourne's punishment

Go hard on Melbourne .....whose crime is far worse than Adelaide's ...and it could spell the winding up of Melbourne

IF ...we get say $400K fine and preclusion from this draft as well as loss of Tippetts trade picks ......what the hell will Melbourne HAVE TO RECEIVE? ........ go too tough on Crows and leaves AFL in quandry about how to SAVE Melbourne

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Is it lying if you honestly believe the deal had been quashed and only in the last month find out about the existence of an email?

It is lying.

The club is clearly lying.

Even if Trigg "quashed" the deal three weeks after Reid sent the email (how convenient for Trigg ) then how did it take three years for the Board to find out about it?

Remember, Chapman only found out about the email three hours before we alerted the AFL to our indiscretion. Supposedly.

So the 18 months of media speculation about the soul-selling deal we had signed and Tippett leaving for a second round pick... never in that time did Trigg think to mention to the Board about the illegal deal he quashed and neither did the Board think to ask him about what the media was speculating on.

Supposedly.

Liars.

And as for the "quashed" part - clearly the Blucher/Tippett camp didn't feel that the deal was void.

Then we have whistle-blower Rendell explaining that we have been planning for Tippett to leave for two years, hence trading in Jenkins. Everyone knew about the deal.

 

[DJ75]

The only comment i'll make is that the punishment will be a benchmark against Melbourne's punishment

Go hard on Melbourne .....whose crime is far worse than Adelaide's ...and it could spell the winding up of Melbourne

IF ...we get say $400K fine and preclusion from this draft as well as loss of Tippetts trade picks ......what the hell will Melbourne HAVE TO RECEIVE? ........ go too tough on Crows and leaves AFL in quandry about how to SAVE Melbourne

I entirely agree with what you are saying, except that it assumes people like Demtriou and the AFL actually give a crap about being fair - which they don't.
They could easily smash us, give Melbourne a little tickle and defend the shit out of their position. They couldn't give a crap whether people thought it was fair or not.

 

[SydCrow]

Would Sando have wanted us to trade Tippett in 2011?

 

[jt_mcleod]

tomorrow could be the day ;D

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Would Sando have wanted us to trade Tippett in 2011?

No, and apparently the one pushing us hardest to re-sign him in 2009 was Craig. And they were both right - you'd be stupid to let him go. And even stupider for letting him go for nothing. Sort of player coaches dream about.

 

[Stripple]

Is it lying if you honestly believe the deal had been quashed and only in the last month find out about the existence of an email?

Why then didn't trigg go to te afl then and let them know we had an illegal deal but now reneged on it to clear it all up? Instead of lettin it all fester and not informing the afl till the middle of trade week? To me it seems like Trigg was trying to keep it on the DL as he knew it wasn't kosher.

So either Trigg when finding out
A) decided not to tell the AFL because he was hiding the deal
B) decided not to tell the AFL because he didn't think the deal was illegal/or not binding

In either case Trigg has either been party to the deceit or negligent.

 

[Elite Crow]

No, and apparently the one pushing us hardest to re-sign him in 2009 was Craig. And they were both right - you'd be stupid to let him go. And even stupider for letting him go for nothing. Sort of player coaches dream about.

True but what would have been Sandos reaction if he knew about the clause? Would he have backed himself into keeping him if he knew last time we had to agree to illegal terms to keep him? IMO he didn't know about as per his objection to trading in White and we have done the dirty on him by keeping him out of the loop. Another reason Trigg has to go.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

True but what would have been Sandos reaction if he knew about the clause? Would he have backed himself into keeping him if he knew last time we had to agree to illegal terms to keep him? IMO he didn't know about as per his objection to trading in White and we have done the dirty on him by keeping him out of the loop. Another reason Trigg has to go.

Absolutely. The 'deal' has completely compromised our club. Selling our soul indeed.

 

[noddy]

I will be very surprised if Trigg remains at the club if the findings of this inquiry come out like we are all expecting it to.

Not at all about selling our soul just a complete amateurish attempt at doing something stupid in trying to keep a player on our books.

 

[cmndstab]

I doubt Sanderson, or Craig, or any other coach in the league would want their club to sign a player to an illegal deal. Do what you need to do, yes, but keep it above board.

 

[SydCrow]

If we had won the flag this year with the Muppett kicking 5 in the Granny, the deal would have between a masterstroke. We sell our soul for a premiership.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Sorry to be a little cynical but the whole three weeks reneging thing came out about a week and a half after this whole thing began and if I'm not mistaken prior to this being the "story" I though chapman had come out and said the board weren't aware of it till trade week. To me it seems this isthe story the club is spinning to help keep trigg in a job. It just doesn't jive with how we handled the situation up until now. If at the end if the investigation there is evidence of trigg doing the right thing ill eat my words but this just reeks of double standards (Rendell shoot first ask questions later).

Entirely possible. Im not so naive as to believe everything reported is fact (a glance at a Rucci article makes that obvious) but its the best we have to go on for now. Caro and her sources have gone up in my estimation over this saga as she did have the mail on this a year ago. Emma Quayle also made some very confident and definite claims without all the weasel words someone like Rucci does.

And i agree about Rendell, although i think we were way out of line on that one, whereas we are being less so with Trigg (depending what turns out to be his actual level of involvement) but treating Trigg the way we treated Rendell just makes it two situations badly handled.

I think this is the sort of thing we'll learn the full details of in someones biography in 20 years.

 

[Elite Crow]

If we had won the flag this year with the Muppett kicking 5 in the Granny, the deal would have between a masterstroke. We sell our soul for a premiership.

Winning a flag with a key contribution from a player with an illegal contract, that would have been a very interesting outcome and a scary one.

 

[swanfan]

Would Sando have wanted us to trade Tippett in 2011?

I think its more a case of Sando wishing he was taller than 5 feet 9.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I doubt Sanderson, or Craig, or any other coach in the league would want their club to sign a player to an illegal deal. Do what you need to do, yes, but keep it above board.

No one is suggesting they were.

Just that they both really wanted Kurt to be signed up.

 

[rayven]

Winning a flag with a key contribution from a player with an illegal contract, that would have been a very interesting outcome and a scary one.

Could of been described by some as kharma after that speedy gonzalous inspired fight back against us in the 06 prelim.

 

[macca23]

I doubt Sanderson, or Craig, or any other coach in the league would want their club to sign a player to an illegal deal. Do what you need to do, yes, but keep it above board.

We are most likely the only novices that have actually put an illegal deal in print via emails, Stabby.

But it would be very naive to believe that none of the other 17 teams don't have a verbal out of contract agreement with a player that would match or exceed what Adelaide have done.

They're just not stupid enough to put it into print.

 

[mattymac]

FACT IS you don't know the facts. Stop reporting your opinion as such. You are as bad as the reporters.

Nah you're wrong. We know there was an illegal clause because we admitted to it. Given that fact there are only two possible outcomes. A) Trigg knew about the illegality and sanctioned it, or B) Trigg was grossly negligent in allowing the illegality to occur under his supervision. If you know of a third option other than culpability or negligence, then by all means, do tell.

 

[robboaustralia]

Kurts-Shank Redemption
A story about a banker (sorry w*****) forward who against all odds miraculously escapes from his AFC locker room at West Lakes in the city of Adelaide run by CEO Trigg. Kurt turns the tables on CEO Trigg's unlawful financial transactions and under the table deals. Kurt in his new found freedom finally learns how to kick straight years of kicking and shanking points from 20m out. Kurts-Shank Redemption a story that never ends and one you will never forget.