Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[1970crow]

is this what demetriou will be using on adelaide?

Let's hope it's the taped part that gets inserted first.

 

[juzzo]

I'm confused by the Tippett saga. Not because it's Tippett but confused how the AFL could leave a hole in the free agency rules.
Looks to me like a club could pick up any star they like when they're out of contract... NO MATTER HOW MANY YEARS THEY'VE PLAYED.

A scenario
Let's say I'm Paddy Smith and the highest paid player at a club.
I've been at the club for 4 years. Won the Brownlow, won the club's B& F.
My contract comes up for renewal.
I inform the club I want to play for Geelong. (as an example)
Geelong offers me $2mill / year.
Geelong won't offer any trade during the trade period.
I don't nominate for the NAB AFL draft and just hang on until the club de-lists me.
In the last free agency period I walk to Geelong for nothing.

This is what Tippett is proposing and if players can do this it will be the end of the AFL (as Neil Craig warned us)

Well firstly I can't find info anywhere on when the final de-listed free agency period ends but it if it ends before another list lodgement date, you could simply delist him during that window. Otherwise I don't think the club has any obligation to de-list him if they want to block him from becoming a free agent. Surely a player out of contract that hasn't been de-listed or nominated for the draft gets auto-delisted at the final list lodgement date? Or maybe he stays on the list taking up a spot even without a contract like Fevola and Krakouer in recent times.

 

[boffo]

The AFL had said they were not going to allow that trade to go through

BG, I can't remember reading this.

Isn't it equally plausible:

- Sando put a stop to the deal because we didn't need Jessie White
- Tipppetts threatened to take us to court for not doing the deal with Sydney
- at that point we realised the gig was up and rather than getting screwed by the Tippetts and Sydney we fessed up to the AFL that there was a secret deal (which we thought we had rescinded)?

 

[Sanders]

I really have an issue with the board seemingly bemoaning the loss of 23. Nobody wanted 23, apparently it was a nothing pick anyway. And don't try the ..well that was different line....its not different at all. This board, actually it seemed like the whole bloody state wanted 23 handed back and tippett in the draft. Well that's exactly what happened, regardless of how it happened.

Of course its different

 

[Sanders]

And we wouldnt have had his services for 2010/11/12 which lessens the impact of not having that pick IMO.
.

Given the value for money he delivered, having him those 3 years was a bad thing

He was a failure over that period not an asset

 

[Elite Crow]

That's irrelevant EC. The AFL had said they were not going to allow that trade to go through because there was no commercial benefit to BOTH clubs. When Sydney refused, time and time again, to improve their offer the AFL started sniffing around sensing something smells.

I'm aware of that, my post was in response to a posters stating we were prepared to lose 22 so we shouldn't complain now that we have.

 

[1970crow]

You're saying that having Tippett in the goal square had no value then. As far as i can tell the club thought he was worth having around and believed he could be convinced to stay. The club seems to have valued his potential contributions and believed that combined with an opportunity to retain his services was worth passing up pick 12 and 23 for. They got that wrong in hindsight but i dont think you can sack a ceo for it. If you sack a ceo every time a player isnt retained or doesnt live up to expectations you wouldnt have any ceos left.

Again i dont think 'losing tippett for nothing' should be taken into consideration because it seems to me that the club felt they would be able to retain tippett and we did have his services up until the end of the prelim against the hawks.

I agree that we lost pick 20 and 54 over this, and MAY lose more, but when there was every possibility of losing Tippett for nothing or very little whether this deal existed or not i dont think its fair to add what he was 'worth' to the list of things we've lost because of this deal

Can you list the CEOs that have ended up having side deals come to light following the players departure. I can't think of any others of the top of my head, sibid suggest that analogy is a little irrelevant.

 

[juzzo]

BG, I can't remember reading this.

Isn't it equally plausible:

- Sando put a stop to the deal because we didn't need Jessie White
- Tipppetts threatened to take us to court for not doing the deal with Sydney
- at that point we realised the gig was up and rather than getting screwed by the Tippetts and Sydney we fessed up to the AFL that there was a secret deal (which we thought we had rescinded)?

EQ did report it early on. I know you guys don't trust her but I think it's pretty obvious her source is inside AFL house. My version of events:

• AFL gets wind of Adelaide about to accept the White + 23 deal and gets suspicious. (Why else would White be given a medical?)
• Trigg returns from holidays.
• Knowing the deal would look suspicious and fearful of the agreement being exposed upon investigation by the AFL, Trigg calls Noble to stop the deal just as he is about to hand in the paper-work.
• AFL gets even more suspicious and Trigg & co. decide to confess to the agreement to mitigate damage.
• Sh!t hits the fan.

Also I think Tippett's legal threats are more centred around "inducing" him into signing the agreement which eventually caused the trade to be blocked, rather than not accepting the trade itself.

 

[boffo]

EQ did report it early on. I know you guys don't trust her but I think it's pretty obvious her source is inside AFL house. My version of events:

• AFL gets wind of Adelaide about to accept the White + 23 deal and gets suspicious. (Why else would White be given a medical?)
• Trigg returns from holidays.
• Knowing the deal would look suspicious and fearful of the agreement being exposed upon investigation by the AFL, Trigg calls Noble to stop the deal just as he is about to hand in the paper-work.
• AFL gets even more suspicious and Trigg & co. decide to confess to the agreement to mitigate damage.
• Sh!t hits the fan.

Also I think Tippett's legal threats are more centred around "inducing" him into signing the agreement which eventually caused the trade to be blocked, rather than not accepting the trade itself.

Thanks Juzzo, didn't see the EQ report. Is it possible she was speculating though.

Just a couple of comments on your version.

1. #23 + White was not totally unreasonable as it was the highest pick Sydney had to offer. If they had a higher pick and refused to trade it the AFL's suspicions would have been reasonable.

2. If we truly believed the secret side deal had been rescinded we could have argued to the AFL we are accepting this deal because we believe it is the best we can get out of Sydney. It doesn't make sense to confess to the AFL at this point, guaranteeing big trouble for us.

 

[juzzo]

Thanks Juzzo, didn't see the EQ report. Is it possible she was speculating though.

Just a couple of comments on your version.

1. #23 + White was not totally unreasonable as it was the highest pick Sydney had to offer. If they had a higher pick and refused to trade it the AFL's suspicions would have been reasonable.

2. If we truly believed the secret side deal had been rescinded we could have argued to the AFL we are accepting this deal because we believe it is the best we can get out of Sydney. It doesn't make sense to confess to the AFL at this point, guaranteeing big trouble for us.

Well I think the expectation was they give up a player of some value. I remember Terry Wallace saying if they refuse to trade a premiership player he couldn't see how the deal could get done.

I do agree it was a brave move to confess, I'm not convinced the AFL would've discovered it. I don't however see how the deal could be rescinded unless Tippett agreed to it. Given they had a written copy and it was signed off on I don't understand how they could believe it was void.

 

[Elite Crow]

EQ did report it early on. I know you guys don't trust her but I think it's pretty obvious her source is inside AFL house. My version of events:

• AFL gets wind of Adelaide about to accept the White + 23 deal and gets suspicious. (Why else would White be given a medical?)
• Trigg returns from holidays.
• Knowing the deal would look suspicious and fearful of the agreement being exposed upon investigation by the AFL, Trigg calls Noble to stop the deal just as he is about to hand in the paper-work.
• AFL gets even more suspicious and Trigg & co. decide to confess to the agreement to mitigate damage.
• Sh!t hits the fan.

Also I think Tippett's legal threats are more centred around "inducing" him into signing the agreement which eventually caused the trade to be blocked, rather than not accepting the trade itself.

I'm pretty sure I read Sando went to Chapman when he was being forced to take White. Chapman rang Trigg whilst he was returning via Singapoore asking for a meeting on his return. Trigg came clean and Chapman forced him to go to the AFL.

Having said that the AFL were already sus. It doesn't help when you've got Balmey and the Essendon CEO laughing about the trade on SEN and Wallace stating we were getting screwed.

 

[Donkey Magoo]

Thanks Juzzo, didn't see the EQ report. Is it possible she was speculating though.

Just a couple of comments on your version.

1. #23 + White was not totally unreasonable as it was the highest pick Sydney had to offer. If they had a higher pick and refused to trade it the AFL's suspicions would have been reasonable.

2. If we truly believed the secret side deal had been rescinded we could have argued to the AFL we are accepting this deal because we believe it is the best we can get out of Sydney. It doesn't make sense to confess to the AFL at this point, guaranteeing big trouble for us.

To speculate on our forfeiting of our draft pics, and our overall guilt on certain issues. I believe that our biggest crime will be, the gaurentee of the 3rd party payments. Even though we didn't spent a red cent, and even though we didn't exceed our cap, this gaurentee is what will has stuck.
I don't think the return home clause fiasco will stick, I do believe that it's a bit more grey and if we are found not to be in the wrong for that we should still be entitled to compensation for him.

 

[juzzo]

I'm pretty sure I read Sando went to Chapman when he was being forced to take White. Chapman rang Trigg whilst he was returning via Singapoore asking for a meeting on his return. Trigg came clean and Chapman forced him to go to the AFL.

Having said that the AFL were already sus. It doesn't help when you've got Balmey and the Essendon CEO laughing about the trade on SEN and Wallace stating we were getting screwed.

That version makes sense also. Although do you not think Sando would have the power to over-rule the list managers himself if he was that adamant? Will be very interesting to find out exactly what happened, if we ever do.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Given the value for money he delivered, having him those 3 years was a bad thing

He was a failure over that period not an asset

i agree, but we didnt know that when the deal was made, he was the hottest forward prospect we'd had since modra.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Can you list the CEOs that have ended up having side deals come to light following the players departure. I can't think of any others of the top of my head, sibid suggest that analogy is a little irrelevant.

but that assumes we would have recieved good compensation for Tippett had the side deal never existed and as ive pointed out i dont think that can reasonably be assumed.

 

[Schulzycrow]

Really think the AFL will have to close the "Tippett Loophole" or other players will start to use it. Waiting until you are a restricted free agent or a free agent will become a joke.

 

[Sanders]

http://m.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-...y-afl-commission/story-e6frf9jf-1226523103907

But a Crows source said the club was still bracing itself for the worst.

"It doesn't look good," the source said. "There's been a lot of dialogue between the two parties and all indications are that we're still going to get belted.

interesting...

 

[Elite Crow]

but that assumes we would have recieved good compensation for Tippett had the side deal never existed and as ive pointed out i dont think that can reasonably be assumed.

If there wasn't a side deal and we had to take the Sydney deal or risk losing him to the PSD we would have received 23 and kept 20.

 

[Elite Crow]

i agree, but we didnt know that when the deal was made, he was the hottest forward prospect we'd had since modra.

We knew 2 years in that he wasn't performing to his potential or contract and we had an option to minimize our risk and actually gain decent compensation. But we ****ed it up.

 

[headache1]

but that assumes we would have recieved good compensation for Tippett had the side deal never existed and as ive pointed out i dont think that can reasonably be assumed.

And why is that? Typically when high value players are traded, it's for quite a good return, even if that return is not of equal worth to the player that is lost.

Either way, it's pretty safe to assume that we would have kept the draft picks that had nothing to do with Tippett had the side deal never existed.

 

[Sanders]

We knew 2 years in that he wasn't performing to his potential or contract and we had an option to minimize our risk and actually gain decent compensation. But we screwed it up.

That's the hardest thing to understand or forgive.

tippett wanted to go to brisbane, they wanted him, the only people who didn't want him was our (no) brains trust

So far that's cost us:
2011 pick 12, 23
2012 pick 20, 54
$$$$ in legal fees
$$$$$ in likely fines

Plus who knows how many other draft penalties

 

[Cap]

i agree, but we didnt know that when the deal was made, he was the hottest forward prospect we'd had since modra.

Isn't it funny, because at the time Tippet was getting his contract, Walker was just a raw kid kicking goals for the legs.

If only we knew what we had back then. (with Walker)

 

[Tex200]

That's the hardest thing to understand or forgive.

tippett wanted to go to brisbane, they wanted him, the only people who didn't want him was our (no) brains trust

So far that's cost us:
2011 pick 12, 23
2012 pick 20, 54
$$$$ in legal fees
$$$$$ in likely fines

Plus who knows how many other draft penalties

I really do agree with this, its the thing that burns with me more than anything else. He didn't want to be with us after 09. He didn't want to be with us in 2012. How on earth did we rationalise that we could talk him around to stay for 2013.

There would have been predictable hue and cry about 12 and 20 odd not being enough but they could have spun that as him not wanting to be here.

I know rendell wanted him traded....i wonder who else did.

But your right Sanders and @ EC ......a shocker

 

[Sanders]

Isn't it funny, because at the time Tippet was getting his contract, Walker was just a raw kid kicking goals for the legs.

If only we knew what we had back then. (with Walker)

But we did, back then Walker was the hottest thing going around.

Had massive hype

 

[Cap]

But we did, back then Walker was the hottest thing going around.

Had massive hype

with a few bigfooty and norwood fans

not much else.