Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[Schulzycrow]

Man you could write this stuff if you were tripped out after all of this BS we get to go in this draft and now all the other clubs are being looked at??? Hmmmm Adrian Ander-I -aint-got-a-clue-dason is once again showing he can stuff up just about whatever he puts his hand to. AFL need to get their own house in order.

Amnesty for all clubs to come out and have their third party deals looked at then set new rules and start 2013 with them. Just can't see how they can flog the crows now with all these other deals coming to light.

 

[Mike Smyth]

This saga is just unbelieavable now. More twists than an episode of the walking dead. Amazingly, it's actually starting to look like we are being victimised.

 

[Sanders]

Its hard to see what the issue is?

If the AFL thinks they are dodgy - why did they approve them?
And if they're not, what's the problem

unless there is new evidence suggesting they're not 3rd party I don't follow.

 

[fabs33]

JOEL Selwood has become the subject of AFL scrutiny, with one of the Geelong captain's third-party agreements the subject of debate between the league's investigations manager Ken Wood and Selwood's management.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/query-over-selwood-deal-20121116-29hpt.html#ixzz2CNFpE9Ma

The Dominoes, they be falling

Looks like Pandora's box is well and truly open.

 

[Paladin]

Its hard to see what the issue is?

If the AFL thinks they are dodgy - why did they approve them?
And if they're not, what's the problem

unless there is new evidence suggesting they're not 3rd party I don't follow.

Its all about the degree of involvement the club has with the deal. The club is not meant to be setting these deals up. The Tippett/balfours deal was registered with the AFL. They are alleging we set it up. It seems we have done nothing differently to any other club with regards to third party deals and TPP.

Complete witch-hunt becuase the AFL cant get its regulations straight.

 

[Mike Smyth]

Its hard to see what the issue is?

If the AFL thinks they are dodgy - why did they approve them?
And if they're not, what's the problem

unless there is new evidence suggesting they're not 3rd party I don't follow.

They're hardly going to investigate them if they think they are legit. Possibly the deal the AFL signed off on was different to the actual deal. IMO given the Judd and Selwood deals the AFL can't possibly sanction us without going through the entire league (including their GC and GWS love children) and completing a thorough audit.

The salary cap fiasco and tanking issues are problems of the AFL's creation. They really are a bunch of incompetent administrators. You can see now why they covet Trigg. He would be their rising star.

 

[fairfooty]

Its hard to see what the issue is?

If the AFL thinks they are dodgy - why did they approve them?
And if they're not, what's the problem

unless there is new evidence suggesting they're not 3rd party I don't follow.

Clearly, if true the AFL is concerned about previous inconsistent decision-making on 3rd party deals affecting the Crows case.

Its time for you to depart. This is yet another post of yours on behalf of other clubs and against us. You are behaving like a supporter of another club This is a Crows thread. Time for you to go.

 

[Donkey Magoo]

JOEL Selwood has become the subject of AFL scrutiny, with one of the Geelong captain's third-party agreements the subject of debate between the league's investigations manager Ken Wood and Selwood's management.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/query-over-selwood-deal-20121116-29hpt.html#ixzz2CNFpE9Ma

The Dominoes, they be falling

the more this happens the better!

 

[Wood_Duck]

The notion that clubs are not involved in 3rd party deals is absurd. AFL are morons if they ever thought otherwise.

 

[BigLefty]

I think he's only just been briefed and would be surprised if he identified this from the outset and therefore sought more time to for everyone to tool up.

Very sharp operator and will have ensured he is clear to play a key role.

this is what i was thinking. if he's as good as his reputation, the dudes probably pretty busy.
so to take this on on such short notice is pretty unreasonable.

 

[jenny61_99]

So who was it admired Geelong FC for their honest and professional management? this witch hunt of AFC is going to open the biggest can of worms... AFL will have no choice than to actually establish rules that aren't wishy washy and open to selective interpretation and application.

 

[ManInTheArena]

Dozens of pages too! Was kept in the basketball forum.

 

[Mike Smyth]

the more this happens the better!

yep. I hope no one leaks the Westhoff/Winfield Reds deal - woops.

 

[fairfooty]

Its possible/likely as Edwardson did his first briefing, he recommended separate counsel for all parties. So that's what has happened. Straight forward and nothing unusual here. Edwardson to represent the club would be my guess? Plenty of good operators around... so will be interesting to see who else bobs up.

 

[juzzo]

I think a lot of you are forgetting that regardless of the financial 3rd party deal which may or may not be similar to clubs across the league, the agreement to send Tippett where he wanted is still a serious breach.

 

[OrdinaryJoel]

Bad luck brah...

 

[jenny61_99]

I think a lot of you are forgetting that regardless of the financial 3rd party deal which may or may not be similar to clubs across the league, the agreement to send Tippett where he wanted is still a serious breach.

It's a breach certainly, but the third party situation was being billed as the main focus. Now it seems the AFL are the ones under the gun concerning these deals and the AFLs own brand of incompetence in relation to the random and somewhat haphazard approach to their policing.

 

[bjn1960]

I think a lot of you are forgetting that regardless of the financial 3rd party deal which may or may not be similar to clubs across the league, the agreement to send Tippett where he wanted is still a serious breach.

juzzo, don't spoil the euphoria!

 

[Paladin]

I think a lot of you are forgetting that regardless of the financial 3rd party deal which may or may not be similar to clubs across the league, the agreement to send Tippett where he wanted is still a serious breach.

Rubbish he is our player and we can trade him as we see fit. As long as the trade is commercial nothing the afl can do. The mistake was obviously putting it in writing but these deals would be widespread. Very minor compared to a tpp breach.

 

[fairfooty]

I think a lot of you are forgetting that regardless of the financial 3rd party deal which may or may not be similar to clubs across the league, the agreement to send Tippett where he wanted is still a serious breach.

Take your point but I don't think anyone is under-estimating the seriousness of the charges.

Its simply that it would appear the 3rd party charges may be difficult to get to stick if the AFL/AFC rightly question some other 3rd party deals from other clubs - particularly if they are of a similar nature. And as Jenny says, if other deals are questioned, its further demonstration of the lack of clarity around the 3rd party rules.

An amnesty for clubs to get in line with new rules is looking quite possible to me and gives the AFL a semi-graceful way out of the mess.

 

[Mike Smyth]

I think a lot of you are forgetting that regardless of the financial 3rd party deal which may or may not be similar to clubs across the league, the agreement to send Tippett where he wanted is still a serious breach.

If we are looking at precedents, what was your punishment for the Buckley/Brisbane breach. We will have the same thanks.

 

[spenze]

Oh look it's the AFL at the feet of David Edwardson

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

I think a lot of you are forgetting that regardless of the financial 3rd party deal which may or may not be similar to clubs across the league, the agreement to send Tippett where he wanted is still a serious breach.

Firstly the agreement wasn't to send Tippett to where ever he wanted, the alleged agreement was to trade him back to a Qld based club

Secondly, it was the Crows that were seeking a market value trade whilst the Swans and Tippett camp were seeking a below market trade to the club of Kurt's choice

Finally except for the crows being stupid to put this in writing how is this different than a player nominating a club and only requesting to be traded to that club, the "what's" the same it's only the "how" that is different

 

[fairfooty]

Oh look it's the AFL at the feet of David Edwardson

Gem!! ROFL!! Post of the night!! (Great looking dog BTW!)

 

[Tex200]

Its possible/likely as Edwardson did his first briefing, he recommended separate counsel for all parties. So that's what has happened. Straight forward and nothing unusual here. Edwardson to represent the club would be my guess? Plenty of good operators around... so will be interesting to see who else bobs up.

Bang on the money as usual.

My guess is that he would have spoken to club first ie Chapman and then decided course of action. Agree he is likely to remain AFC counsel