Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[Elite Crow]

The problem most have (or at least I) with your argument specious is that you are dismissing ourself imposed draft sanctions and the loss of Tippett as a small loss. Like others have said it is the biggest loss a club has faced since Carlton were done.

Carlton lost 3 first rounders, 2 second rounders, a third, and exclusion from the PSD.

We have lost the equivalent of three first rounders and a third.

It's not that different.

And we are not guilty yet

 

[Tex200]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...y-afl-commission/story-e6freck3-1226523103907



Seriously...'a bit of misinterpretation of the rules'? And we're still expecting to get 'belted' on top of losing Tippett for nothing and our 'gesture of goodwill'?

Makes no sense.

Does if your paying thousands for a PR firm to manage expectations.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

The problem most have (or at least I) with your argument specious is that you are dismissing ourself imposed draft sanctions and the loss of Tippett as a small loss. Like others have said it is the biggest loss a club has faced since Carlton were done.

Carlton lost 3 first rounders, 2 second rounders, a third, and exclusion from the PSD.

We have lost the equivalent of three first rounders and a third.

It's not that different.

There are several ways we could have lost Tippett for nothing, or at least well below his value. do you really think that were it not for this bit of side dealing we would have gotten fair and acceptable compensation for Tippett? Did we get fair and acceptable compensation for Gunstone?

at the risk of sounding like a lot of sydney posters, hes worth in a trade what another club is willing to trade for him, and he wasnt doing anything to help us get fair value, why would that be different otherwise. This wasnt a highest paid assett that ever wanted to do the right thing IMO.

For that reason i dont think its fair to claim tippett as worth 2 first rounders.

All first rounders are not created equal either, as ive said i dont think we would have done the same if we had GWS' picks.

 

[Wood_Duck]

There are several ways we could have lost Tippett for nothing, or at least well below his value. do you really think that were it not for this bit of side dealing we would have gotten fair and acceptable compensation for Tippett? Did we get fair and acceptable compensation for Gunstone?

at the risk of sounding like a lot of sydney posters, hes worth in a trade what another club is willing to trade for him, and he wasnt doing anything to help us get fair value, why would that be different otherwise. This wasnt a highest paid assett that ever wanted to do the right thing IMO.

For that reason i dont think its fair to claim tippett as worth 2 first rounders.

All first rounders are not created equal either, as ive said i dont think we would have done the same if we had GWS' picks.

I pretty much agree with this.

I reckon the minute Tippett nominated Sydney we were screwed, much like when Gunston nominated Hawthorn. You really have zero leverage once an out of contract player nominates a single club. The threat of the PSD really doesn't seem to be a deterrent these days. Pretty sure there is an understanding between clubs to let players get to their nominated club in the PSD.

and yes, I have a headache.

 

[JP Sauce]

I pretty much agree with this.

I reckon the minute Tippett nominated Sydney we were screwed, much like when Gunston nominated Hawthorn. You really have zero leverage once an out of contract player nominates a single club. The threat of the PSD really doesn't seem to be a deterrent these days. Pretty sure there is an understanding between clubs to let players get to their nominated club in the PSD.

and yes, I have a headache.

We didn't get nothing for Gunston though, we got pick 24. Sure people were annoyed that we didn't get more but we still got something.

We're getting nothing for Tippett and we lost our first round pick. Even if we only got pick 22 from Sydney, having picks 20 and 22 is much better than not having any.

 

[Elite Crow]

There are several ways we could have lost Tippett for nothing, or at least well below his value. do you really think that were it not for this bit of side dealing we would have gotten fair and acceptable compensation for Tippett? Did we get fair and acceptable compensation for Gunstone?

at the risk of sounding like a lot of sydney posters, hes worth in a trade what another club is willing to trade for him, and he wasnt doing anything to help us get fair value, why would that be different otherwise. This wasnt a highest paid assett that ever wanted to do the right thing IMO.

For that reason i dont think its fair to claim tippett as worth 2 first rounders.

All first rounders are not created equal either, as ive said i dont think we would have done the same if we had GWS' picks.

There are two floors in your argument, firstly the AFL deemed a first round pick and White as insufficient. Secondly other clubs were prepared to give us more but because of he dodgy deal we did Kurt, his manager thought he would get to Sydney for unders an hence they offered less. So we set Kurts value below what his worth was

 

[SpeciousArgument]

There are two floors in your argument, firstly the AFL deemed a first round pick and White as insufficient. Secondly other clubs were prepared to give us more but because of he dodgy deal we did Kurt, his manager thought he would get to Sydney for unders an hence they offered less. So we set Kurts value below what his worth was

there are probably more than 2 but here it is anyway

We dont know that the AFL would have rejected it, its been alleged that they were going to investigate and so we came forward. i was strongly in the better offer or PSD camp so im glad the deal didnt go through. He was out of contract and had nominated a club. I dont think players should be able to nominate like that, but once he did we werent getting fair compensation. Look at Gunstone. A contracted Tippett probably would have netted us 2 first rounders, but he wasnt contracted and wasnt doing the right thing. I dont see how his conduct to date gives any indication that if this email didnt exist he would have done anything other than whats best for kurt, and if that means screwing the AFC then so be it.

 

[Flynn White]

If you're sick of the following things, click Like

Sydney's "Bloods" culture
The Tippett family
Emma Quayle
Caro
Rucci
The Age
Peter Blucher
Sydney forum members trolling the Adelaide forum
Jessie White
Tippett's Tips Balfours Commercials

 

[noddy]

We didn't get nothing for Gunston though, we got pick 24. Sure people were annoyed that we didn't get more but we still got something.

We're getting nothing for Tippett and we lost our first round pick. Even if we only got pick 22 from Sydney, having picks 20 and 22 is much better than not having any.

Hindsight is such a wonderful thing & unfortunately we will have to deal with what we have got or will get, i admit i was one of those that preached "keep Tippett no matter what" three years ago but no way did i mean to the level that we did end up with.

Still can't get over the fact of our incredible stupidity & amateurism.

 

[Wood_Duck]

We didn't get nothing for Gunston though, we got pick 24. Sure people were annoyed that we didn't get more but we still got something.

We're getting nothing for Tippett and we lost our first round pick. Even if we only got pick 22 from Sydney, having picks 20 and 22 is much better than not having any.

Pick 22 is not 2 first round picks, which we would claim is his value.

 

[JP Sauce]

Pick 22 is not 2 first round picks, which we would claim is his value.

No, it's not. But it's not nothing either.

 

[whatboutbob]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...y-afl-commission/story-e6freck3-1226523103907



Seriously...'a bit of misinterpretation of the rules'? And we're still expecting to get 'belted' on top of losing Tippett for nothing and our 'gesture of goodwill'?

Makes no sense.

It is logical that the Crows will attempt to downplay the intent of their actions. It sounds like they are claiming 'innocent misinterpetation', while the AFL will certainly explore the possibility that their motivations were somewhere further up the intent scale, closer to the 'deliberate rorting' end.

But reading between the lines, regardless of their initial intent, what I suspect the Crows will get 'belted' for, is then conspiring to cover up the initial 'misinterpration(s)' for years, until such point as it became apparent that they were going to surface regardless. I'm guessing that's the step that the 'source' has conveniently left out and what will likely damn Trigg, Reid, Harper and anyone else involved.

I reckon if they had gone to the AFL immediately after coming to the 'realisation' of their error(s), supposedly mere weeks after the contract was signed, then they would have walked away with a slap on the wrist.

Instead they tried to cover it up, and in doing so profited from it, until it all fell in a heap at the end of Tippett's contract.

That's how I can get the pieces to all fit together anyway. I guess we will all find out more next Friday.

 

[Elite Crow]

there are probably more than 2 but here it is anyway

We dont know that the AFL would have rejected it, its been alleged that they were going to investigate and so we came forward. i was strongly in the better offer or PSD camp so im glad the deal didnt go through. He was out of contract and had nominated a club. I dont think players should be able to nominate like that, but once he did we werent getting fair compensation. Look at Gunstone. A contracted Tippett probably would have netted us 2 first rounders, but he wasnt contracted and wasnt doing the right thing. I dont see how his conduct to date gives any indication that if this email didnt exist he would have done anything other than whats best for kurt, and if that means screwing the AFC then so be it.

C'mon, seriously? And what did we come forward for if we werent guilty?

As for hindsight, were you in the corner with us that wanted to trade Tippett last year when he was contracted and Brisbane had offered pick 8 or 12 and end of first rd compo? Remember, Trigg knew there was an agreement that had the potential to explode when he came out of contract.

 

[xchadders]

why?

why?
If you can answer either of those questions without us having contravened any rules then I won't post until Nov 30.

the afl made a rule.
and we gave them up.

WINNER!!
just kidding dude. i know we're shagged.

 

[xchadders]

sooooo.... who needs port adelaide when we all hate each other?

 

[Wood_Duck]

As for hindsight, were you in the corner with us that wanted to trade Tippett last year when he was contracted and Brisbane had offered pick 8 or 12 and end of first rd compo? Remember, Trigg knew there was an agreement that had the potential to explode when he came out of contract.

I have to believe that it wasn't that simple, because if that's all there was to it, its probably the part I find most unforgivable.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

C'mon, seriously? And what did we come forward for if we werent guilty?

As for hindsight, were you in the corner with us that wanted to trade Tippett last year when he was contracted and Brisbane had offered pick 8 or 12 and end of first rd compo? Remember, Trigg knew there was an agreement that had the potential to explode when he came out of contract.

Didnt say that we came forward for the fun of it. say we pretend there wasnt a deal like a lot of us believed prior to trade week. The AFL investigates, finds theres no deal. what do they do then? force Sydney to trade for 2 early first round picks to give us? all we know based on the EQ article is that the AFL were going to investigate if the crows wanted to accept sydneys first round + White. we dont (and cant) know what the AFL would have done if they found there was no wrongdoing. For that reason i think its unreasonable to claim that this deal alone is the reason we didnt get 2 first round picks for KT, once his contract expired i dont think we were ever going to get his contracted trade value, and i think KT's conduct has a lot to do with that. If he said 'here is the money i want and im happy to go to a NSW or QL club' things turn out very differently.

 

[Tex200]

C'mon, seriously? And what did we come forward for if we werent guilty?

As for hindsight, were you in the corner with us that wanted to trade Tippett last year when he was contracted and Brisbane had offered pick 8 or 12 and end of first rd compo? Remember, Trigg knew there was an agreement that had the potential to explode when he came out of contract.

I don't think anyone would disagree this was monumental stupidity. It was also stupidity for Trigg to be overseas when this trade was happening. No arguments.

This kind of stuff automatically warrants a 12 month formal warning imo.

As for actual rule breaches....if he has knowingly and systematically cheated the rules then he must go. We will know that after next week.

 

[Stripple]

There are several ways we could have lost Tippett for nothing, or at least well below his value. do you really think that were it not for this bit of side dealing we would have gotten fair and acceptable compensation for Tippett? Did we get fair and acceptable compensation for Gunstone?

at the risk of sounding like a lot of sydney posters, hes worth in a trade what another club is willing to trade for him, and he wasnt doing anything to help us get fair value, why would that be different otherwise. This wasnt a highest paid assett that ever wanted to do the right thing IMO.

For that reason i dont think its fair to claim tippett as worth 2 first rounders.

All first rounders are not created equal either, as ive said i dont think we would have done the same if we had GWS' picks.

We would have got something for him. Collingwood got 17 for wellingham when only nominated one club. If we didnt have this deal he wouldn't have went to Sydney for one(well less likely) and we could of had a bidding war between the QLD clubs. If we had lost him in 2009 we would have got at least a end of first round selection more likely a after first round selection (similar to phil) and we would have kept Bock. You are correct in that not all first rounders are created equal but the afl can only remove rounds of picks not specific picks. Either way we lost a commodity for zero return. We then also gave up a commodity for zero return.

We are not a charity.

 

[Stripple]

Pick 22 is not 2 first round picks, which we would claim is his value.

The thing is on an open market where the deal did not exist we could have got 2 first rounders. even if it was 21 and 22. That is still a massive loss.

 

[Donkey Magoo]

Having read the same back n forth over and over, I don't follow what it is you are arguing?

you seem to be suggesting there is little known about the situation, which flies in the face of the competing narrative about the leaks

I think there is already sufficient information to expect some heads to roll, what we don't know is how many others

little being know, and a high frequency of leaks are not contradictory arguments.
If we are taking the forfeiture of picks as an admission of guilt, which we should, that's fine but it doesn't mean we agree with other parts of the allegations.
We haven't confirmed a lot of what has been reported, and we have flat out denied a lot more.

 

[Stripple]

Didnt say that we came forward for the fun of it. say we pretend there wasnt a deal like a lot of us believed prior to trade week. The AFL investigates, finds theres no deal. what do they do then? force Sydney to trade for 2 early first round picks to give us? all we know based on the EQ article is that the AFL were going to investigate if the crows wanted to accept sydneys first round + White. we dont (and cant) know what the AFL would have done if they found there was no wrongdoing. For that reason i think its unreasonable to claim that this deal alone is the reason we didnt get 2 first round picks for KT, once his contract expired i dont think we were ever going to get his contracted trade value, and i think KT's conduct has a lot to do with that. If he said 'here is the money i want and im happy to go to a NSW or QL club' things turn out very differently.

What about pick 12 and pick 23 which is what we could have got for him last year. Right there we have lost that value. And pick 20 and pick 54.

At what point do you think we will have lost a lot of value?

We should be top 4 in the next two years so if we lose picks in the next two years its not a big deal because they are only picks in the late teens?

 

[bjn1960]

I hope Sheedy picks this greedy ba$**** in the PSD. Also hope he gets 12 round suspension, greedy pr1ck he is.

I think you may have a spelling error in your post.

Months isn't spelt r...o...u...n...d

 

[Donkey Magoo]

C'mon, seriously? And what did we come forward for if we werent guilty?

As for hindsight, were you in the corner with us that wanted to trade Tippett last year when he was contracted and Brisbane had offered pick 8 or 12 and end of first rd compo? Remember, Trigg knew there was an agreement that had the potential to explode when he came out of contract.

I wanted to trade him last year. I remember reading Roo's article on it and think yep that makes sense.

 

[Woodie99]

There are two floors in your argument, firstly the AFL deemed a first round pick and White as insufficient. Secondly other clubs were prepared to give us more but because of he dodgy deal we did Kurt, his manager thought he would get to Sydney for unders an hence they offered less. So we set Kurts value below what his worth was

Is that fact, I thought the AFL blocked any trade while they were investigating.