Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[Malifice]

I don't think the @ symbol means what you think it means.

Good spot. I use it for 'at or around' in my shorthand. I always assumed thats what it meant; apparently its just 'at'.

I have learnt something from the Tippett mega thread after all.

 

[Allefgib]

Players like Tippett are rare commodities. We knew it, so did he. You have to fight to keep commodities like that. What we did was no doubt stupid, but we clearly thought we had no choice. Hindsight tells us with clarity, that we did.

Well played Jen - 20k

 

[boffo]

My 'gut feeling' is the club will get stung for $300,000 for the breach of TPP plus a further 100 'penalty units' (currently $1000 each) for @ $400,000. Plus exclusion from @ 2-3 drafts and trade weeks. All officials involved will likely cop a similar fine and be barred from working in the AFL for a period of @ three years.

 

[BrissyCrow]

Players like Tippett are rare commodities. We knew it, so did he. You have to fight to keep commodities like that. What we did was no doubt stupid, but we clearly thought we had no choice. Hindsight tells us with clarity, that we did.

Jen you realise that you only got the big 20000 because I posted at 19979. If I hadn't done that you would have 19999.

 

[Malifice]

Won't be more than 2 drafts imo. In fact would probably only be one if their first pick didn't fall so late in the round.

For which offence?

There are two offences here that both draw draft sanctions.

One draft each would probably be about right.

They'll probably go easy in relation to draft sanctions; Adelaide have already lost Tippett for nothing (although they did also gain his services for a few years as a consequence of the breaches).

Probably end up the first two selections for 2012 and 2013, and fines of $400,000 ($300,000 for the TPP breach, and $100,000 for the draft tampering).

 

[whatboutbob]

Good spot. I use it for 'at or around' in my shorthand. I always assumed thats what it meant; apparently its just 'at'.

~

 

[Schulzycrow]

For which offence?

There are two offences here that both draw draft sanctions.

One draft each would probably be about right.

They'll probably go easy in relation to draft sanctions; Adelaide have already lost Tippett for nothing (although they did also gain his services for a few years as a consequence of the breaches).

Probably end up the first two selections for 2012 and 2013, and fines of $400,000 ($300,000 for the TPP breach, and $100,000 for the draft tampering).

Could live with that. I asked the question earlier, Free Agents and Rookies are still alright just the main draft?

 

[Malifice]

~

That means 'at or around'?

No wonder my colleagues cant understand my shorthand!

 

[SpeciousArgument]

That means 'at or around'?

No wonder my colleagues cant understand my shorthand!

more accurately i think it means approximately

 

[Malifice]

Could live with that. I asked the question earlier, Free Agents and Rookies are still alright just the main draft?

Technically its open to the AFL to ban a club from the entire Draft and Trade period (including Rookie draft, PSD and Trade period - including free agents). In addition to our ND sanctions, they banned us from the entire 2003 PSD (but allowed us to to trade what picks we had in the ND, and let us keep our 2003 Priority pick).

They havent gone to that extreme yet however (likely due to the possible restraint of trade issues that may arise) and its unlikely they'll do it on this occasion.

 

[Malifice]

more accurately i think it means approximately

Which is how I used to use '@'.

Untill the Tippett mega thread taught me the error of my ways.

 

[scottwade]

My 'gut feeling' is the club will get stung for $300,000 for the breach of TPP plus a further 100 'penalty units' (currently $1000 each) for @ $400,000. Plus exclusion from @ 2-3 drafts and trade weeks. Tippett will be sitting out the game for 12 months (just prior to the nomination period next year) and cop a fine of @ $50,000. All officials involved will likely cop a similar fine and be barred from working in the AFL for a period of @ three years.

So in effect what you are saying is that the AFL is going to attempt to deprive Tippett of his livelihood (and the accompanying salary of say $800k) for a period of 12 months and slug him with a fine of $50k.
Nice little earner for David Galbally QC then should that eventuate.

 

[Allefgib]

I struggle to envisage the AFL allowing the bulk of the punishment to be borne by individuals while allowing the club to walk away relatively free. That would only encourage future shenanigans.

Will be interesting to see. Not sure its all out in the open yet. If only Triggy/Reid were involved - I reckon you'd be better off targetting the individuals.

Who will stick their own ball on the line in the future if the book is really thrown at the individuals? Smashing the club will just cause another hassle for the AFL to deal with going forward.

 

[Sanders]

.

Your points 1 and 2 above are salient and IMO will assist us in avoiding loss of draft picks in next years draft.

Might just be me but I don't see very much relevant or persuasive in either.

The intent was there to conceal, and having buyers remorse is little mitigation given we did not come clean then or at any of the many other opportunities that came our way before the very last

I think it comes down to one thing: what message the league wants to send?

nothing else will enter it imo.

 

[Malifice]

So in effect what you are saying is that the AFL is going to attempt to deprive Tippett of his livelihood (and the accompanying salary of say $800k) for a period of 12 months and slug him with a fine of $50k.

The penalty for 'conduct prejudicial to the Draft' (should a player be found guilty) are pretty clear:

The following sanctions shall apply in every case where a charge of conduct prejudicial to the Draft is sustained, subject to the discretion of the Commission provided for in Rule 16.1.

17.19.2 Player
Where a charge is sustained against a Player, the sanction shall be:-

(a) a sanction of up to 50 Units... and
(c) exclusion from any right to participate in the Draft for a period of twelve months from the date such charge is sustained.

Note the above denial of a right to participate in the Draft is for a fixed period of 12 months from the date of sustainment of the charge (and is in addition to a fine of 'up to' $50,000).

The Commissioner may exersise his discretion (provided at rule 16.1) if he so desires to ameliorate this penalty somewhat:

16.1 Commission May Grant Relief

(a) ...if the Commission is satisfied that any Club or person who is in breach of or has failed to comply with these Rules ought fairly and reasonably to be excused from liability hereunder, it may relieve that person either wholly or partly from that liability on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit.

Nice little earner for David Galbally QC then should that eventuate.

Tippett would have a stronger legal argument in taking his player Agent to Court for breach of Agency/ Fiduciary IMO (although his Agent probably wont have the money of the AFL - both a good thing (bigger chance of success) and a bad thing (no money to recover if he wins). He cant exactly complain too loudly about that loss of earnings from 2013 either; any damages incurred for his lost 12 months would be offset by the extra cash he has earnt as a result of the secret deal.

 

[boffo]

I respect Caroline Wilson but she has written:

'Trigg could be removed from his AFL club role and fined, while Reid, who no longer works in football full-time, faces a heavy fine.'​

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/adelaide-tippett-to-face-music-20121112-2986r.html#ixzz2C1RXjDBr


This surely cannot be correct, what power does the AFL have to fine someone outside the game?

JR should just tell them to get f....d!

 

[Sanders]

I am more afraid the league will rule we must keep Trigg as our CEO

 

[scottwade]

Tippett would have a stronger legal argument in taking his player Agent to Court for breach of Agency/ Fiduciary IMO (although his Agent probably wont have the money of the AFL - both a good thing (bigger chance of success) and a bad thing (no money to recover if he wins). He cant exactly complain too loudly about that loss of earnings from 2013 either; any damages incurred for his lost 12 months would be offset by the extra cash he has earnt as a result of the secret deal.

Tippett has lodged a legal claim against Adelaide for inducing him to enter into an unlawful agreement with the club – an agreement struck in a bid to prevent the then 22-year-old from committing to Gold Coast. That claim remains on hold until next week's hearings have been completed.

​

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/adelaide-tippett-to-face-music-20121112-2986r.html#ixzz2C1RgUKV4​

Also what "extra cash" did Tippett earn as a result of "the secret deal"?

He was legally contracted (as per the document lodged with the AFL) for a certain sum (say ($700k pa).
There are then allegations of an underwriting agreement and the trade 'understanding'.
He has earned no monies from the latter and the former only came into force if he reportedly failed to earn $100k pa from external parties.
If Adelaide did not have to provide monies under that guarantee then again no additional monies (other than what he actually legitimately earned from third parties) was payable.

 

[Malifice]

This surely cannot be correct, what power does the AFL have to fine someone outside the game?

I would assume as a condition of employment, the AFL requires its employees to sign a contract agreeing to abide by the Player rules during such a period of employment.

Without getting into the murky grounds of the enforceability of such rules (and contractural 'penalty clauses' generally) of course.

 

[Malifice]

Also what "extra cash" did Tippett earn as a result of "the secret deal"?

$200k worth of valuable consideration.

He anecdotally has recieved this money from outside sources during the duration of the contract, and thus this term was never triggered during the term of the contact (although this has yet to be confirmed); but that doesnt mean that the term itself wasnt relied upon as consideration to enter the contract in the first place.

This being the case; what damages has he suffered that he can blame on the AFC in any proceedings against them in relation to this $200,000?

Before you answer the above, remember - his potential loss of earnings (i.e. possible 12 month deregistration next year) flows from the 'draft tampering' charge (not the $200,000 in extra payments/ breach of TPP charge) to which he appears (again anecdotally) to have been the one that made the offer to the AFC.

A bit rich for him to sue the AFC for inducement to enter a contract, when it looks like it was his idea to place the extra term ('trade me to a club of choice for a 2nd round pick') into the contract in the first place!

He may very well be better off suing his Player Agent (who presumably vetoed/ negotiated for the extra dodgy 'trade tamper' term) for professional negligence (assuming his Agent failed to provide both full disclosure of the risks of the 'term' and also failed to obtain informed consent from his principle before signing off on it on behalf of his principle).

 

[headache1]

He should take legal action against his dad for being a ****wit.

In all seriousness, it's great to see he has learned a lesson, and is accepting responsibiliy for the role he has played in this saga.

 

[JP Sauce]

I found a spam advertising post from a while back. If mods removed it you could still get it

Careful, if the mods start deleting spam/pointless posts then we'll go back to about page 20.

 

[magtrev]

magtrev goneski. fabs33 up next

<20k -magtrev
20-21k -fabs33
21-22k -exchadders
22-23k - Juzzo
23-24k -MickyCrow
24-25k -alex_is_on_fire
25-26k -realslimshady2
26-27k -n4sir
27-28k -Stripple
28-29k -SpeciousArgument
>30k -bjn1960
never -JP Sauce

Should've been locked when the charges were announced. I was robbed. Right in front of me.

 

[JP Sauce]

It will NEVER die!

 

[jenny61_99]

Also what "extra cash" did Tippett earn as a result of "the secret deal"?

He was legally contracted (as per the document lodged with the AFL) for a certain sum (say ($700k pa).
There are then allegations of an underwriting agreement and the trade 'understanding'.
He has earned no monies from the latter and the former only came into force if he reportedly failed to earn $100k pa from external parties.
If Adelaide did not have to provide monies under that guarantee then again no additional monies (other than what he actually legitimately earned from third parties) was payable.

Lmao at Tippett lodging a claim that we made him do it!