Remove this Banner Ad

Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

Which AFC deserter were/are you most salty towards?

  • Total voters
    33
  • Poll closed .

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
OutofTownCrow said:
Big call, and writing "This is a fact" doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...

The AFL blocked us from trading Tippett, due to us being under investigation for an agreement that was tantamount to draft tampering. As a result, we lost Tippett for nothing. I'd say calling it a fact, is a pretty reasonable call to make.
 
Southerntakeover said:
You're accepting a whole lot before the fact right now. Its exactly the same behaviour that you're critical of. If we're going to trumpet respect for due process then we should refrain from commenting until the whole thing plays out.

Of course we're not going to do that though, we're an internet forum. It'd be a boring place if we didnt post every thought that comes into our mind.

And im suprised that you really want to play the bias card.
Click to expand...
No, what is actually happening as it is becoming a little more balanced now that the witch hunting media has slowed down, those false accusations of players and third party deals have been proven wrong and that our club has come out and said they will fight for justice. We have only heard one side of the story and it is now becoming more obvious that all that has been written/said is not true. Just because not everyone is as pesimistic as you doesn't mean we are celebrating a win. I think a lot of us on here have had a lot more faith in our club administrators than others.
 
headache1 said:
I can play this game too. What if he'd never approved the agreement to begin with?

I get that he's your friend, and you want to defend him, but it certainly makes your opinion on the matter somewhat biased. Up until the Rendell situation, I never had any real problem with him as CEO. I may have thought that he'd been a bit soft at times, but in general, did a good job. However, I believe what he's done here is a sackable offence. He is responsible for us losing one of our most valuable assets for nothing. This is a fact.
Click to expand...

What makes you think he approved it in the first place? And have you even taken into consideration the previous posts by others in here setting the scene in 2009? No. You refuse to even entertain the thought that this deal was as a direct result of the time where he was absolutely a required player, and a greedy father/manager/player full knowing that he was a required player. I bet you would have been the first calling for triggys head if we failed to keep Tippett in 2009. And don't tell me you would have believed him if he said Tippett wanted us to break the rules. You haven't believed a thing he's said so far, why would that have been different?
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

headache1 said:
The AFL blocked us from trading Tippett, due to us being under investigation for an agreement that was tantamount to draft tampering. As a result, we lost Tippett for nothing. I'd say calling it a fact, is a pretty reasonable call to make.
Click to expand...
So if we didn't do this so called "deal" to keep him in Adelaide we probably would have lost him for nothing anyway...It was a risk and in the end it didn't pay off...in hindsight it was the wrong thing to do....in the moment it could have been a mastermind decision if we had won a premership this year...
 
headache1 said:
I understand that it was supposed to remain confidential, I am one of the many who have said that before. However, it doesn't take a genius to work out that it's going to be used against you if you don't comply with whatever the agreement holder asks of you. To think that it wouldn't be is completely naive.
Click to expand...

What the ???

So if you don't comply with the confidential agreement - it can be used against you.

But the agreement holder won't know that you haven't complied until after the fact - by which time it cannot be used against you in negotiations - as they have passed.

I see why your handle is "headache" :)
 
headache1 said:
I understand that it was supposed to remain confidential, I am one of the many who have said that before. However, it doesn't take a genius to work out that it's going to be used against you if you don't comply with whatever the agreement holder asks of you. To think that it wouldn't be is completely naive.
Click to expand...

But if Trigg had had the discussion with blucher saying this was no longer an option and blucher agreed, why would he have even had to worry about it? You all criticize him for going overseas for his 50th birthday when "he knew this was going to go down" when he actually didn't even think it was in play.
 
headache1 said:
Such are the pressures that come with the responsibilites of being the CEO of a professional organisation. It doesn't mean you need to bow to those pressures.

Everybodys argument on this matter is based on assumptions, but answer me this. Did the AFL block us from trading Tippett for any form of deal that would have adhered to our agreement with Tippett? This would suggest there was an artificially low value attached to this agreement, would it not? Furthermore, did we, or did we not lose Kurt Tippett for nothing as a result of the Trigg approved agreement?
Click to expand...
I bet you would have been in the 'Tippett went to GC lets sack Trigg' camp back in 2010.

Youre assuming that Trigg approved and signed off on this side deal which from what ive read it looks like he didnt.

Claiming that everyone else is making assumptions too doesnt make your argument valid if its still based on assumptions. And youre actually incorrect, there are a lot of people like me that understand that we dont know enough about the situation to make a judgement (funny meme avatars aside) and arent calling for someone to lose their job over something that they dont know enough about.

if you argument was 'I believe that Trigg should be sacked if it is proved that he knowingly attempted to circumvent the rules and conspired to keep the rule breaches secret from the AFL' I wouldnt have a problem with that, but youre declaring that he should be sacked based on your assumptions of what has transpired and that is in no way reasonable grounds to end someones career.

The fact that there are people on here that have never met Trigg (myself for one) that dont believe he should be sentenced before he's been tried should be evidence enough that Jenny's position is a reasonable one to hold whether she knows the man or not. I for one am getting tired of 'i know he's your friend but...' arguments
 
jenny61_99 said:
What makes you think he approved it in the first place? And have you even taken into consideration the previous posts by others in here setting the scene in 2009? No. You refuse to even entertain the thought that this deal was as a direct result of the time where he was absolutely a required player, and a greedy father/manager/player full knowing that he was a required player. I bet you would have been the first calling for triggys head if we failed to keep Tippett in 2009. And don't tell me you would have believed him if he said Tippett wanted us to break the rules. You haven't believed a thing he's said so far, why would that have been different?
Click to expand...

I don't refuse to entertain that thought at all. In fact, I'm quite sure it was a direct result of Tippett being a required player. I also refuse to entertain the thought that this is an acceptable excuse for brokering such an agreement. Either Trigg approved this agreement, or he had NFI of what the staff below him were doing. So what is it? Is he guilty of approving an agreement which has ****ed our club over, or is he a grossly negligent CEO?

I don't know, perhaps because up until that point, he'd never been charged by the AFL for cheating the draft and the salary cap? As the great man once said, "the mud sticks".

sworc36 said:
So if we didn't do this so called "deal" to keep him in Adelaide we probably would have lost him for nothing anyway...It was a risk and in the end it didn't pay off...in hindsight it was the wrong thing to do....in the moment it could have been a mastermind decision if we had won a premership this year...
Click to expand...

Huh? This doesn't even make sense.
 
headache1 said:
No we weren't. We would have received compensation for his loss (and kept Nathan Bock in the process). With Kurts age, the season he'd just had, and his prospective contract offer from GC, I'd have been very surprised if we received anything less than Band 2 compensation (another pick immediately after our 1st rounder) for his loss.



Such are the pressures that come with the responsibilites of being the CEO of a professional organisation. It doesn't mean you need to bow to those pressures.

Everybodys argument on this matter is based on assumptions, but answer me this. Did the AFL block us from trading Tippett for any form of deal that would have adhered to our agreement with Tippett? This would suggest there was an artificially low value attached to this agreement, would it not? Furthermore, did we, or did we not lose Kurt Tippett for nothing as a result of the Trigg approved agreement?



I can play this game too. What if he'd never approved the agreement to begin with?


So going back to 2009, who would you have rather kept, Tippett or Bock? Dont get me wrong I love Bocky but he was what 27??? and Tippett an up and coming superstar...not a hard choice I wouldn't think.

I get that he's your friend, and you want to defend him, but it certainly makes your opinion on the matter somewhat biased. Up until the Rendell situation, I never had any real problem with him as CEO. I may have thought that he'd been a bit soft at times, but in general, did a good job. However, I believe what he's done here is a sackable offence. He is responsible for us losing one of our most valuable assets for nothing. This is a fact.
Click to expand...
 
headache1 said:
No we weren't. We would have received compensation for his loss (and kept Nathan Bock in the process). With Kurts age, the season he'd just had, and his prospective contract offer from GC, I'd have been very surprised if we received anything less than Band 2 compensation (another pick immediately after our 1st rounder) for his loss.
Click to expand...
Kind of sounds like pick 23 doesnt it?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

OutofTownCrow said:
Wouldnt that be the AFL's doing though? Not Triggs?
Click to expand...

Why were we under investigation in the first place... think about it.

OutofTownCrow said:
What the ???

So if you don't comply with the confidential agreement - it can be used against you.

But the agreement holder won't know that you haven't complied until after the fact - by which time it cannot be used against you in negotiations - as they have passed.

I see why your handle is "headache" :)
Click to expand...

The agreement was kept quiet because it subverted the AFL's rules. However, why would we have gone to the AFL with it if it was not being held over our head as leverage by the Tippet camp to accomplish what they wanted?
 
SpeciousArgument said: ↑
The Rendell thing was ugly, i think we all believe that, but we dont know Triggs actual level of responsibility for that either.

jenny61_99 said:
I particularly liked Chapman's statement that Trigg was not responsible for the "Ivory Tower" - I'm assuming he is referring to the Westpac Centre (aka The White Elephant). Some in here were adamant that the Westpac Centre is another example of the things he's done wrong as CEO. We now know it was the Boards decision, made at a time before the global financial crisis and before the Adelaide Oval decision by the AFL.
Click to expand...

But you know that a lot of people on here expected him to have psychic powers and be able to see into the future.....
 
sworc36 said:
So going back to 2009, who would you have rather kept, Tippett or Bock? Dont get me wrong I love Bocky but he was what 27??? and Tippett an up and coming superstar...not a hard choice I wouldn't think.
Click to expand...

Of course I would have rathered we kept Tippett, but we were never in danger of losing him for absolutely nothing.
 
headache1 said:
I don't refuse to entertain that thought at all. In fact, I'm quite sure it was a direct result of Tippett being a required player. I also refuse to entertain the thought that this is an acceptable excuse for brokering such an agreement. Either Trigg approved this agreement, or he had NFI of what the staff below him were doing. So what is it? Is he guilty of approving an agreement which has screwed our club over, or is he a grossly negligent CEO?

I don't know, perhaps because up until that point, he'd never been charged by the AFL for cheating the draft and the salary cap? As the great man once said, "the mud sticks".



Huh? This doesn't even make sense.
Click to expand...
I thought it made perfect sense. short version, if we had won a premership this year by keeping Tippett and he went to GC without any issue it would have been a masterstroke. It didn't work out that way but it was obviously a risk worth taking at the time.
 
headache1 said:
No, it kind of sounds like a valuable compensation pick that could be traded for something of use, or put in the bank to use at a later date.
Click to expand...
So kind of like the pick we almost got for him. I get that you feel like you cant back down but disagreeing on obvious things like this doesnt help you.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Seriously Jenny isn't the only one defending Trigg, and by doing so doesn't mean that she has to have a bias in her opinion. People should be held to account if they muck up, sure, but the are a whole lot of Crows supporters who are prepared to Lynch our own from a trial by media.
If the clause did read for a "minimum" second round pick, I don't think that's selling us down the river either.
 
CrowGlen said:
Chapman said in the interview that the Club were covering the costs for four lawyers, and that the club was going through their insurance cover to see if the costs would be covered by their insurers.
Click to expand...

A very good source told me we have gone for the very best and the cost is near $20k per day - and that they are working every angle

Going to be very expensive if we lose, added to a big fine
 
sworc36 said:
I thought it made perfect sense. short version, if we had won a premership this year by keeping Tippett and he went to GC without any issue it would have been a masterstroke. It didn't work out that way but it was obviously a risk worth taking at the time.
Click to expand...

That part did make perfect sense. It was the bit where you said we probably would have lost him for nothing anyway.

SpeciousArgument said:
So kind of like the pick we almost got for him. I get that you feel like you cant back down but disagreeing on obvious things like this doesnt help you.
Click to expand...

So you're suggesting that pick 23 in this years draft, would have held the same currency as a Band 2 compensation pick issued in 2010, which could be traded or used up until 2015. You do realise we used one of these picks as part of the deal to land Brad Crouch don't you?
 
Sanders said:
A very good source told me we have gone for the very best and the cost is near $20k per day - and that they are working every angle

Going to be very expensive if we lose, added to a big fine
Click to expand...

Going to be money well spent if we don't lose draft picks, keep our reputation in tact and stay competitive for the next five years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top