Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[Flynn White]

Christ, that's bad news if true. That means Tippett will get at least 10 rounds.

 

[Emperoar]

Please will you two get a room

A bit late but which one brings the wife?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

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.

Pick 23 for Tippett
Nothing for Tippett but he goes into the draft.

Keep in mind that neither of these are good options. No one got what they wanted. Posters may have preferred one over the other, but both are dreadful results for the club and those responsible need to be held to account.

 

[1970crow]

The other side of the accept nothing stance was to send a message to the other clubs that we won't be rogered at the trade table. We would rather get nothing and have the player sit through the uncertainty of the either draft. The benefit of this stance was not expected to be realised this year. In the end we effectively collapsed and got nothing as well. The 2 scenarios are different even if the result looks the same on the surface.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

I was just reading the thread about Wayne Carey and how the North Melbourne fans viewed his time at the club on the main page and this led me to a question regarding the future of the club, especially if Steven Trigg remains in his role as CEO. Has the club actually learnt anything from this dilemma or will we see a player have control of our clubs future because the administration is way to soft to stand up to them?

The Wayne Carey / Kurt Tippett sage isn't the same, the concepts are different but the context of the player controlling the future of a clubs direction has similar links to them.

My line of thinking behind this Kurt Tippett saga is very similar to that off North Melbourne and Wayne Carey where the club gave him so much freedom to do and act as he liked. In the end, he basically felt invincible as if he could do what ever he liked and would always get away with it. No one ever said no to him and this led to his very negative team behaviours and social incompetence. If North Melbourne had more control of how their player acted, his own behaviour may not have ever got so out of control and he could have finished his wonderful career at that club. Now, bring this back to Kurt Tippett, if the club simply said NO and demonstrated to him and future players that the individualize is never bigger than the club by deigning him that 3rd party deal and any dealings to get him to the club of his choice - would not have the club in this predicament.

I hope that the club doesn't feel as if this was a good idea gone bad because we have been caught. I hope they feel this is a bad idea because it put a player in a position that makes them bigger than the club itself.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Don't forget print media, broadcast media, ex players, pundits, critics of the scholarship scheme, basically the entire afl universe. Didn't cornes or mcdermott say he was as good as kernaghan at the same age?

Not sure your memory is quite right

Spot on

In fact there was only one person who didn't see that Walker was a gun. Unfortunately he was calling the shots.

 

[Roo Lives Again]

Can't agree with this WD. Quality AFL players nominate a single club and get traded for fair/reasonable compensation every year. Mitch Clarke, Shaun Burgoyne, Judd etc. Jesus, Collingwood received more for both Wellingham and Dawes than Sydney had on the table for Tippett. Even Gunston who you've attempted to use as an example netted us pick 24 plus upgrades on 2 later picks. Yes we probably all wanted a first rounder in the 12-20 range, but what we ended up with is way closer to the mark than what Sydney offered for Tippett. Clubs are generally keen to work an equitable deal for players they want to trade in, because they know the roles might be reversed next time.

Which begs the question why a club with a reputation as being very fair and reasonable traders, in Sydney, suddenly became a bunch of total hard-arses on this deal. Now either they were privy to the "agreement" and were attempting to use it as leverage. Or they're just hopelessly ill equipped to effect a trade of this magnitude, and should stick to the chump change dealings for other clubs' detritus, to which they're accustomed.

Excellent post....and it's pretty bloody obvious to everyone but swans supporters (no surprises there) that they knew all about the clause...but Vlad would never sanction his million dollar a year slush fund babies

 

[Elite Crow]

Spot on

In fact there was only one person who didn't see that Walker was a gun. Unfortunately he was calling the shots.

2, Birdmanptr

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Don't forget print media, broadcast media, ex players, pundits, critics of the scholarship scheme, basically the entire afl universe. Didn't cornes or mcdermott say he was as good as kernaghan at the same age?

Not sure your memory is quite right

You are correct in saying Chris McDermott did but Graham Cornes didn't.

I'm quite sure the conversation was between McDermott, Wildy and Harry Kernahan on summer on 5AA back in 2010. IIRC

 

[Carmo]

Which begs the question why a club with a reputation as being very fair and reasonable traders, in Sydney, suddenly became a bunch of total hard-arses on this deal. Now either they were privy to the "agreement" and were attempting to use it as leverage. Or they're just hopelessly ill equipped to effect a trade of this magnitude, and should stick to the chump change dealings for other clubs' detritus, to which they're accustomed.

I think Sydney's list management dept were willing to play ball and give a fair trade.

Problem was this:

List management: We dont have any of the players Adelaide would want in a trade really so we'll trade for a pick.

Sydney senior Admin: Yer ok but you cant trade anyone from the premiership team, nor any of our young guns or father sons.

The admin felt the need to do this for political reasons, its not a good look with the fans to lose a premiership player, its not a good look to trade a father son, what signal does that send. They should have been willing to trade a young good player but i think the only one who wasnt a premiership player was Gary Rohan who was injured.


List management: Scratches head, well then all we can do is our earliest pick and a fringe player.


Edit: ie the "agreement" never came into it

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

2, Birdmanptr

My bad. Come to think of it there were a few

3. Vader

 

[Roo Lives Again]

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.

well all the melbourne media and indeed the advertiser are saying we're going to get royally screwed. Carlton chairman says we're in for a 'decade of pain'....I know sensationalism sells papers but quite frankly I'm starting to shit myself. I can't see that we've ****ed up anywhere near as badly as they say but then again it is Vlad we're talking about

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

My bad. Come to think of it there were a few

There was more than a few. Go back and read a few threads after the round 3 clash with Hawthorn and see who was more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, keep him in the side and allow him to iron out his weaknesses. Let me just say, not many were.

People were very quick to jump off the potential bandwagon and bagg the guy out.

 

[Roo Lives Again]

I've actually changed my mind on us giving back draft picks....I know think it was a 'masterstroke' as some are saying....think about it.....by giving up those picks we're making it difficult for the AFL not to lessen the penalty on us. If they don't take the giving back of draft picks into account and go over the top with the penalty then we can compare it to Carlton's penalty and take them to court all the while threatening to blow the whole thing open by subpoenaing all the clubs third party deals and making the AFL look like fools....we've essentially penalised ourselves on our terms....

 

[Elite Crow]

My bad. Come to think of it there were a few

3. Vader

Yeh, I was tempted, I thought I'd leave that one for you

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

If we get found not guilty, what happens to the picks we gave up?

Do they do the draft over again?

 

[Roo Lives Again]

Christ, that's bad news if true. That means Tippett will get at least 10 rounds.

Tippett will get paid the same regardless...ten rounds of surfing on the weekends isn't what I'd call a penalty....a year out of the game is more like it but the AFL will be too scared to do something like that cuz they know moo head will immediately take them to court..

 

[swanfan]

I've actually changed my mind on us giving back draft picks....I know think it was a 'masterstroke' as some are saying....think about it.....by giving up those picks we're making it difficult for the AFL not to lessen the penalty on us. If they don't take the giving back of draft picks into account and go over the top with the penalty then we can compare it to Carlton's penalty and take them to court all the while threatening to blow the whole thing open by subpoenaing all the clubs third party deals and making the AFL look like fools....we've essentially penalised ourselves on our terms....

Sorry, if I found this amusing..

 

[Roo Lives Again]

EC

I agree Chapman mentioned that he, the players and sponsors wanted Trigggy to stay on however there was no mention of members or supporters, Im personally starting to sense that more people at the AFC knew about this side agreement

It was also interesting to read that the Sunday Mail believes that we will be cleared of any salary cap / 3rd payment breaches meaning our penalty will be contained to the send Tippett home Sid deal

With this in mind hopefully the penalty of a fine, loss of 2012 picks and the loss of opportunity to trade Tippett will fit the crime

I know I'm biased but I reckon that's already more than enough of a penalty....

 

[Carmo]

Isnt the appropriate penalty for us to lose tippet for nothing and a fine?? See logic below.


So Carlton did dodgys and rigged the draft system to gain an unfair advantage out of it. Important point: They did gain an advantage out of it.

The AFL couldnt penalise the players as they were innocent parties (well lets assume anyway)

So the penalty the AFL hands out is - You've been unfairly benefitted by the draft, so to compensate we will unfairly penalise you by the draft - we're going to take picks away.

That's all fair and sensible to me.

Now consider the AFC case. What we appear to have done was organise an agreement with sweeteners in it that were outside of the rules one way or another. Essentially meaning we kept a player that it is moderately probable we would have lost if we didnt have those sweeteners.

So then logically shouldnt we just lose that player for nothing to balance it out, I mean its a pretty clear cut case.

There's only one player involved.

Its pretty clear what would have happened ie him going to another club, so the advantage we gained is clear.


Shouldnt that be it for the draft penalities, shouldnt the rest just be monetary fines or other non playing penalties?

Dock the pay of the admin staff responsible or something creative like that to create a future incentive for those that have stuffed up and those that could stuff up not to do it again.

Why do we have to lose other draft picks??

Imagine it was melb, port, wb that had done this and were about to get the penalities that's been mooted for us. On the one hand you need to penalise, on the other hand you dont want a club being a basket case for ten years as it wrecks the competition. Are we just getting the draft penalties because we can "tolerate" (i use that word very loosely) them?


I can accept the loss of this years draft picks and tippett.

Any more than that is massively more than what precedent has set.

If Carlton did today what they did ten years ago, then going by the penalties being laid out for us, they'd lose their first and second round draft picks for 5 or 6 drafts in a row! At the rate the penalties appear to be escalating god help the next team that does a draft stuff up!

 

[Schulzycrow]

If we get found not guilty, what happens to the picks we gave up?

Do they do the draft over again?

Do you really think that will be the case Carl??

 

[swanfan]

A girl can dream..

 

[spenze]

We haven't been penalised draft picks, we penalised ourselves. As much as the media are having a field day with this, I think we will find any penalty from here on in will be minimised to make sure Trigg still has a job because at the end of the day, that is the most important thing

 

[DJ75]

I've actually changed my mind on us giving back draft picks....I know think it was a 'masterstroke' as some are saying....think about it.....by giving up those picks we're making it difficult for the AFL not to lessen the penalty on us. If they don't take the giving back of draft picks into account and go over the top with the penalty then we can compare it to Carlton's penalty and take them to court all the while threatening to blow the whole thing open by subpoenaing all the clubs third party deals and making the AFL look like fools....we've essentially penalised ourselves on our terms....

I like your thinking and the way it could go.
BUT, I very much doubt we have the balls to do that. We will give up those two picks, cop a smashing that seems to ignore the 'goodwill' and then accept the decision as good sports and move on.
It's what we do. No way we blow it all up and take the AFL on. Just no way.

 

[DJ75]

If we get found not guilty, what happens to the picks we gave up?

Do they do the draft over again?

Not guilty? There is ZERO chance of that happening. In AFL house we have already been found guilty. No doubt about it.
We can say what we want, but all we are doing right now is trying to lessen the impact.
It's not going well though.