Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[whitey_1975]

I hear you macca but we are not in a court, the Commissioners are not judges, the rules may not stand up to intense scrutiny, and I'm not sure what our appeal rights are.

Which is why if things dont go the right way in our lawyers mind (ie correct proceedure) then it will give the crows a basis of appeal where it will be heard in a REAL court setting with real world rules not the afls make it up as you go policy.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I hear you macca but we are not in a court, the Commissioners are not judges, the rules may not stand up to intense scrutiny, and I'm not sure what our appeal rights are.

Sure, but there is proper legal representation & if either AFC or the Tippett camp think they are not getting a reasonable hearing, they can go to court & I'm sure their legal council would recommend if there is an Kangaroo court situation.

 

[whitey_1975]

And I can assure you our lawyers will be rightly putting the afl on trial not the crows

 

[Tex200]

Peter, for those of us who have no idea on legal matters can you give us some idea how this would proceed.

Do the commissioners ask questions? Are witnesses cross examined ? Do the commission have to be unanimous on the question of guilt? How do they present the information gained from the investigation?

Is it anything like what we watch on tv

Mate to be honest I'm not sure they will set it up. However i do know that any proceeding which purports to run by a body outside of the court system is effectively an administrative tribunal and must conduct any hearing that has adverse implications in a manner reflective of the judicial system.

I'm going take a wild stab at our argument or part of it. These proceedings are criminal in nature and effect. A fine is a criminal sanction. I would therefore expect that the AFL will be asked to accept the burden of proof and that the standard be beyond reasonable doubt. If that framework could be established we just need to throw some small doubt on our actions.

The AFL happily fine clubs silly and its never challenged. A power to fine is a power to punish and that power is usually only granted by legislation eg. Councils, ATO etc are all authorised by statute to fine. AFL has no such power.

These are the kinds of issues brawler like Eddo will be looking at I woukd think.

 

[PykeDream]

so Nick Joyce loses his contract if we can't participate in this year's draft?

Well we still pay him out if we don't draft re-draft him, and pay the difference if another clubs takes him before we do.

 

[SydCrow]

Mate to be honest I'm not sure they will set it up. However i do know that any proceeding which purports to run by a body outside of the court system is effectively an administrative tribunal and must conduct any hearing that has adverse implications in a manner reflective of the judicial system.

I'm going take a wild stab at our argument or part of it. These proceedings are criminal in nature and effect. A fine is a criminal sanction. I would therefore expect that the AFL will be asked to accept the burden of proof and that the standard be beyond reasonable doubt. If that framework could be established we just need to throw some small doubt on our actions.

The AFL happily fine clubs silly and its never challenged. A power to fine is a power to punish and that power is usually only granted by legislation eg. Councils, ATO etc are all authorised by statute to fine. AFL has no such power.

These are the kinds of issues brawler like Eddo will be looking at I woukd think.

an earlier post from Malifice (sp) stated (with some authority) that there is a presumption of guilt and it is up to the AFC to establish that there has not been a breach.

 

[Dr B]

Mate to be honest I'm not sure they will set it up. However i do know that any proceeding which purports to run by a body outside of the court system is effectively an administrative tribunal and must conduct any hearing that has adverse implications in a manner reflective of the judicial system.

I'm going take a wild stab at our argument or part of it. These proceedings are criminal in nature and effect. A fine is a criminal sanction. I would therefore expect that the AFL will be asked to accept the burden of proof and that the standard be beyond reasonable doubt. If that framework could be established we just need to throw some small doubt on our actions.

The AFL happily fine clubs silly and its never challenged. A power to fine is a power to punish and that power is usually only granted by legislation eg. Councils, ATO etc are all authorised by statute to fine. AFL has no such power.

These are the kinds of issues brawler like Eddo will be looking at I woukd think.

Do you know if the commission would need to be unanimous on guilt

 

[jt_mcleod]

look at everyone jumping on the roller coaster demanding the crows get the book thrown at them, i will laugh in there face if we get a slap on the wrist and a fine

 

[Tex200]

an earlier post from Malifice (sp) stated (with some authority) that there is a presumption of guilt and it is up to the AFC to establish that there has not been a breach.

Dont disagree. Just saying it could well be a point of argument

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

I love VB's Manger Colin Young response on afl.com.au

A furious Young said

"if your going to make a comment like that, then back it up with facts"

"he (Van Berlo) is a credible human being"

"if there is anything wrong I'll jump on my own sword, because the manager needs to take responsibility"

Does start to raise serious credibility issues with Caro & co

 

[Tex200]

Do you know if the commission would need to be unanimous on guilt

No idea. I do know whatever their procedures are, they will come under scrutiny

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

look at everyone jumping on the roller coaster demanding the crows get the book thrown at them, i will laugh in there face if we get a slap on the wrist and a fine

I think there will be a lot of happy Crows fans if we only get a fine and no loss of draft picks out of this. Unfortunately ( ) I'd be very surprised if that was the outcome though. I think we're going to lose draft picks for 2012 at least.

 

[jenny61_99]

I love VB's Manger Colin Young response on afl.com.au

A furious Young said

"if your going to make a comment like that, then back it up with facts"

"he (Van Berlo) is a credible human being"

"if there is anything wrong I'll jump on my own sword, because the manager needs to take responsibility"

Does start to raise serious credibility issues with Caro & co

A little snide side dig at Tippett?

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

A little snide side dig at Tippett?

Read the line below that. That is a pretty massive dig at the Butcher!

 

[johnnypanther]

No one involved in this has a job next year, or every Adelaide member should not renew. This club deserves no money, no backing, no support. Corruption. At the moment it is not a club.

That is a pretty negative attitude - if supporters of all clubs applied that logic then every club in the AFL would have no supporters.

Anyway, i'm taking the complete opposite stance - unless the AFL commission next week comes out with some major revelations, then IMO this is a mountain out of a molehill exercise.
Our transgressions are at the lower end of the scale. The AFL and particularly Vlad/Anderson are a complete joke. As for the media whores (no pun intended)...... i guess they're doing what they are paid for
Now we have Joyce, Van Berlo and Visyboard/Judd added into the whole farce.

I'm putting up the barricades and backing the AFC to the hilt in the interests of fair play. All i've seen is trial by media, leaks (not necessarily factual) and basically a kangaroo court prosecution type argument played out with no defence yet heard (nor to be heard until Monday) - other than Van Berlo's manager who came out fighting and calling it absolute rubbish....

I know we 're going to get punished , but i'm backing Triggy on this and i even have to support Cornesy' stance on the whole matter.

This whole episode shows what a real joke the AFL is.

 

[CrowGlen]

A little snide side dig at Tippett?

...and Blucher.

 

[The_Answer3]

lol at the AFL quote :we don't comment on ongoing investigations"

"we just feed the age info"

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

No surprise that "the Age" have not published VB's Manger comments

 

[scottwade]

an earlier post from Malifice (sp) stated (with some authority) that there is a presumption of guilt and it is up to the AFC to establish that there has not been a breach.

The grounds for the laying of the charge shall constitute sufficient
reasons for the Commission to declare the charge sustained, unless
the person or Club charged discharges the burden of proof referred
to in Rule 17.15.

17.15 Onus of Proof
A person charged by the Investigator shall bear the onus of establishing on
the balance of probabilities that the alleged conduct was not engaged in.

http://www.aflpa.com.au/images/uploads/AFL_Player_Rules_-_March_2011.pdf

 

[WaynesWorld19]

The AFL have a problem here though, Syd.

Normally it's just Anderson and Dimwit who are making the decisions and inventing the rules as they go along.

This time the room will be bristling with QC's who will ensure that there is no kangaroo court and that they will have to prove that their is actually an offence, not the other way around.

Again, because of the high profile of this matter, I believe that any benefit of doubt must be granted to us and Tippett, not the AFL, or they will risk legal challenges by either party.

Surely this will put pressure on the Commissioners to give a fair penalty that fits the crimes, not just some savage penalty to be used as an example for the future.

IF the 3rd party deals that we entered into in 2009 are similar to Judd's then IMO the commission can't find us guilty unless their prepared to charge Carlton !

IF the AFL have said to Carlton "we've allowed this up to now BUT no longer" ......then again same line has to follow with Adelaide

I can bet you we're not alone in the way 3rd party deals are done

Re tampering with draft .....unfortunately guilty and fine only

 

[WaynesWorld19]

I hear you macca but we are not in a court, the Commissioners are not judges, the rules may not stand up to intense scrutiny, and I'm not sure what our appeal rights are.

As Tippetts camp ....the courts

and the AFL doesn't want that

also the AFL is mindful of other club deals that will have to be scrutinized after this is all over

 

[Tex200]

http://www.aflpa.com.au/images/uploads/AFL_Player_Rules_-_March_2011.pdf

Thanks for posting that...quite interesting. I'd be tempted to really lash out and wager..hmmmmm...ok say $5 on that rule being the subect of some debate on Monday.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

I love VB's Manger Colin Young response on afl.com.au

A furious Young said

"if your going to make a comment like that, then back it up with facts"

"he (Van Berlo) is a credible human being"

"if there is anything wrong I'll jump on my own sword, because the manager needs to take responsibility"

Does start to raise serious credibility issues with Caro & co

Yes as i have said .....and unfortunately EQ's image has been damaged as she is taught/mentored by caro .....who i must admit have loved her articles in the past .....but in the last 12 months just has been wrong far too often

So EQ reports:
1. $200k in contract "underwritten
Revised to
2 $300K in contract "underwritten
Revised to
3. $30K in contract "not underwritten
Revised to
4. $40K in contract "not underwritten"

So assuming their sources are accurate .....what is it guys ????????

Really don't think they have any real idea .......the AFL said investigation is over and charges laid ......now Caro says Van Berlo is being investigated

Is the investigation over or not !!!!!!!

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Well we still pay him out if we don't draft re-draft him, and pay the difference if another clubs takes him before we do.

Joyce WILL BE redrafted!

Clubs still have some gentlemans understanding ......and I am 100% of the opinion all AFL clubs will see the injustice of Adelaide being forced to delist a player due to Tippett .....and they'll leave Joyce alone to be redrafted

never been surer

 

[Malibu#27]

I think - based on a couple lines on Triple M 10 mins ago that Dangerfield may be being investigated as well. They said it was one of the stars of the Crows.

While Tippetts deal seems to be 'shaky' (why say not to tell AFL), I wonder if the rest are a result of the club and AFL having different understandings of the rules rather than deliberate breaches.