Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[Wood_Duck]

I so want to participate here, but I'm 3 long necks in.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

You've worked hard your whole life, started out as a postie and now have 5 newsagencies worth 5 million. You come home early one day and your wifes screwing the pool boy, She says get over it or I leave you and take half plus lawyer costs.

I'm many things but I'm not an idiot.

What do you do?

I get a prenuptial agreement

say you put up with it ,but the pool boy has a girlfriend, she finds out and stabs him, is it your fault?

I'm struggling to make a connection between this and the Crows Vs Kurt Tippett. So I think I'm going to leave it.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

I so want to participate here, but I'm 3 long necks in.

if anything id say that gives you an advantage

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

So you agree there are more than 1 use for a plea bargain, we're getting somewhere.

Don't be so condescending.

So if Tippett wasnt induced into entering into the contract against his will, why is he not partly responsible for it?

and the wife best friend analogy...

Youre absolutely right, the AFC shouldnt have agreed to this deal. But neither should have Tippett. you cant seperate the two. if they jointly entered into an agreement in contravention of the rules and neither party was coerced they are jointly responsible.

Yes you can. Post Hoc, Ergo Propert Hoc. After this, therefore because of this. One does not equal the other.

If the Crows say no, Tippett walks away to Gold Coast or a trade, therefore he doesn't need to agree to anything.

Since he did, he will get his just desserts and pay the price.

 

[Crow-eater]

Patrick Keane ‏@AFL_PKeane
A directions hearing was held today to determine the process at next week's AFL Commission meeting, attended by legal reps for all parties.

The hearing determined the materials req'd from each party to enable a fair hearing, and procedural applications from the legal teams.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Don't be so condescending.

Yes you can. Post Hoc, Ergo Propert Hoc. After this, therefore because of this. One does not equal the other.

If the Crows say no, Tippett walks away to Gold Coast or a trade, therefore he doesn't need to agree to anything.

Since he did, he will get his just desserts and pay the price.

Condescending? remember calling me obstinate and obtuse?

I've heard of post hoc, ergo propter hoc... but im not sure how its relevant... im not claiming that one came before and/or caused the other.

are you saying that if 2 parties enter into an agreement willingly that is against the rules that both are bound by only one is responsible?

answer the question rather than trying to dodge it. Whos responsible your wife or you best friend?

 

[bjn1960]

Patrick Keane ‏@AFL_PKeane
A directions hearing was held today to determine the process at next week's AFL Commission meeting, attended by legal reps for all parties.

The hearing determined the materials req'd from each party to enable a fair hearing, and procedural applications from the legal teams.

and ?

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

are you saying that if 2 parties enter into an agreement willingly that is against the rules that both are bound by only one is responsible?

The only relevant part to this is; the Crows shouldn't have. They shouldn't have entered into any agreement, therefore removing any need for a joint agreement with Tippett.

answer the question rather than trying to dodge it. Whos responsible your wife or you best friend?

Only when it become a relevant part of the discussion.

 

[Crow-eater]

and ?

Hahaha, that's it. No more tweets.

 

[bjn1960]

Condescending? remember calling me obstinate and obtuse?

I've heard of post hoc, ergo propter hoc... but im not sure how its relevant... im not claiming that one came before and/or caused the other.

are you saying that if 2 parties enter into an agreement willingly that is against the rules that both are bound by only one is responsible?

answer the question rather than trying to dodge it. Whos responsible your wife or you best friend?

the pool boy.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

The only relevant part to this is; the Crows shouldn't have. They shouldn't have entered into any agreement, therefore removing any need for a joint agreement with Tippett.

Only when it become a relevant part of the discussion.

So is your position that both parties are responsible but we should only be concerned with the AFC's role in this and not Tippetts?

Its relevant because its a scenario where both parties have the opportunity to say no but neither did. if you dont think it will weaken your position why wouldnt you answer it?

 

[macca23]

I so want to participate here, but I'm 3 long necks in.

You're in front already then WD!!

I'd stay out of it and have a 4th long neck!!

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

So is your position that both parties are responsible but we should only be concerned with the AFC's role in this and not Tippetts?

Yes because I only support the Adelaide Crows and have long forgotten about Kurt Tippett.

Its relevant because its a scenario where both parties have the opportunity to say no but neither did. if you dont think it will weaken your position why wouldnt you answer it?

But why should the player even worry about saying no? That should not be his problem.

It's not like he has any responsibly towards front office matters or the day to day running of the club?

The club have the responsibly to make sure the rules are followed. Not the player.

 

[MRB37]

Patrick Keane ‏@AFL_PKeane
A directions hearing was held today to determine the process at next week's AFL Commission meeting, attended by legal reps for all parties.

The hearing determined the materials req'd from each party to enable a fair hearing, and procedural applications from the legal teams.

That's the kind of stuff I just nod my head along with and act like I know what it means. Mhhmm....Mhmmm...Yes...Oh, ok.

 

[Wood_Duck]

You're in front already then WD!!

I'd stay out of it and have a 4th long neck!!

4 now.

 

[Schulzycrow]

Just hopped on the bandwagon and became a member for the first time in my life. I've got a feeling about 2013.

Will be booing every single Sydney possession if Kurt ends up there.

Booing any possession anywhere.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Yes because I only support the Adelaide Crows and have long forgotten about Kurt Tippett.

But why should the player even worry about saying no? That should not be his problem.

It's not like he has any responsibly towards front office matters or the day to day running of the club?

The club have the responsibly to make sure the rules are followed. Not the player.

While i find that to be a fairly simplistic position to take thats perfectly reasonable. Not caring whether Tippett is guilty is very different to claiming that the AFC are guilty and Tippett is innocent.

As to why would Tippett bother saying no... not sure if serious... perhaps because it appears by signing a false stat dec and agreeing to terms in contravention of the AFL rules he could miss out on his desired trade destination and face deregistration or suspension... not to mention how many third party sponsors do you think will be interested now?

And I think you'll find that AFL players are responsible for arrangements that they enter into in contravention of the rules.

 

[Hank93]

Josh Jenkins can't wait to make the number 4 a popular number again!

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Josh Jenkins can't wait to make the number 4 a popular number again!

View attachment 7481

Did we have no player play games wearing number 4 prior to 2000? or do you have to play over 100 games to get your name on the locker?

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

While i find that to be a fairly simplistic position to take thats perfectly reasonable. Not caring whether Tippett is guilty is very different to claiming that the AFC are guilty and Tippett is innocent.

I never said he was innocent. I said he's done nothing wrong. Major difference.

He is guilty and he will pay the price (not getting to the Swans will be one part)

As to why would Tippett bother saying no... not sure if serious... perhaps because it appears by signing a false stat dec and agreeing to terms in contravention of the AFL rules he could miss out on his desired trade destination and face deregistration or suspension... not to mention how many third party sponsors do you think will be interested now?

And I think you'll find that AFL players are responsible for arrangements that they enter into in contravention of the rules.

But you (not sure if it's by accident, deliberate you just don't want to to be seen to be giving in) are missing my point about if the Crows say no - nothing afterwards happens. No arragement, no deal, no false state dec and no nothing. He signs with the Gold Coast in 2009.

 

[juzzo]

Oh dear, amid the excitement of the draft I almost forgot about this thread. Or maybe I couldn't resign myself to cross my name out.
MickyCrow is next.
<20k -magtrev
20-21k -fabs33
21-22k -xchadders
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

 

[Sunshine Saint]

Interesting that Kurt Tippett has chosen David Galbally, as his legal representative, at next Fridays AFL Commission hearing.

The Galbally's have a long and distinguished record of representing Melbourne crime and underworld figures. Seems the logical choice for Tippett doesn't it?

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Did we have no player play games wearing number 4 prior to 2000? or do you have to play over 100 games to get your name on the locker?

Didn't Sean Tasker & Lance picioane wear number 4?

That would be why.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

I never said he was innocent. I said he's done nothing wrong. Major difference.

He is guilty and he will pay the price (not getting to the Swans will be one part)

But you (not sure if it's by accident, deliberate you just don't want to to be seen to be giving in) are missing my point about if the Crows say no - nothing afterwards happens. No arragement, no deal, no false state dec and no nothing. He signs with the Gold Coast in 2009.

How can you claim someone is guilty but has done nothing wrong?

Remember post hoc, ergo propter hoc? youre claiming that even though KT broke rules and is guilty, that only happened because the crows said yes. where does individual responsibility come into this? if we extend your line of reasoning were innocent because if KT's grandparents never met then he woulndt have existed and therefore we wouldnt have had the opportunity to agree to his demands.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

How can you claim someone is guilty but has done nothing wrong?

I feel he has done nothing wrong, the AFL on the other hand don't...

Remember post hoc, ergo propter hoc? youre claiming that even though KT broke rules and is guilty, that only happened because the crows said yes. where does individual responsibility come into this? if we extend your line of reasoning were innocent because if KT's grandparents never met then he woulndt have existed and therefore we wouldnt have had the opportunity to agree to his demands.

I've explained this many times therefore I give up. Throw the book at him.