I hope your right Jumbo but as Carmo has said, the draft penalties being bandied around in the media appear to be more servere thanks those handed out to Carlton. Surely this years draft and losing Tippett for nothing is sufficient.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING
- Thread starter doodle48
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Status
Burgoyne got to where he wanted for two first round picks when he was uncontracted and nominated only hawthorn. Surely you can see that the deal is what lowered his value not him being uncontracted. Pick 17 went for wellingham. The Geelong compo pick went for caddy. We lost Tippett for nothing we didn't gains reputation has hard nosed negotiators we got a reputation as cheats instead. We lost value in tippet. Even if we accept the bare minnimum would have been the compo pick if he went to GC originally. Yes we gained 3 years service but we still lost him for zero without the deal he may still have signed on with us. But either way we would have got something for him.
Exactly right DJ. If our penalty is anywhere close to Carltons we should take them to court. Given our history we will cop the reaming with a thankyou. If we get anymore than a fine from here the penalty is way over the top.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
I am still undecided about giving up the draft picks. I feel all that media pressure, Carlton management crying, Kennett screaming for major penalties Barlett saying the same. All of this noise will be placing a large amount of pressure on the AFL to hit us.
Yet in realitý, like Blighty says its just a blip. After reading all the posts and newpapers etc it strikes me that our only guilt is in not making our deal public. I understand how the AFL would view this and for that alone we should be penalised. But to be excluded from the draft for 2 more years is bullshit. If this happens it will only be to appease the Victorian media and to a lesser extent the Vic clubs. After all, all the clubs have some skeletons in the cupboard that they dont wont to be found out about.
IF we do get an absurd penalty then I want the club to stand up and take the AFL to court. If they dont then all the bravardo shown by holding firm during the trade period and giving up our two picks will all be for nothing.
I think taking on the AFL is certainly possible. You don't take on a posse of QCs with the aim of simply rolling over. (We are good at doing that all by ourselves already
). I suspect if it hasn't been done already, a deal will be done to protect the AFL and yet be seen to smack the AFC - hard. The way to do this is to load the financial penalty (we can afford it) and take the rest as 'time served' - draft picks x 2 and loss of Tippett for nothing - maybe some picks next year as well. The AFL will be wanting to avoid a costly, public court case at all costs - there are bigger losses with sponsors, media etc to consider if there's a long drawn out court battle which would take the AFL a long time to recover from. And they dont want a detailed examination of their third party deals . And you betcha that will happen if this goes to court. And we all know the AFL will protect its commercial interests first and foremost.
So I guess a deal will get done behind the scenes. On Friday the AFL will announce 'significant' penalties, AFC will contritely accept said 'significant' penalties and we'll all move on. If not, I'd be surprised if this doesn't wind up in court. Edwardson et al will expect to earn their money. And all their strategy advice since their engagement IMO suggests they will head to court if the penalty is unfair.
Good post Carmo. The clubs comments on this whole saga baffle me. We seem to change tack from subservient bitches to hard nuts seemingly every second day. Its infuriating.
If we get anything more than a fine from here we should take it further.
If we get anything more than a fine from here we should take it further.
I think taking on the AFL is certainly possible. You don't take on a posse of QCs with the aim of simply rolling over. (We are good at doing that all by ourselves already
The AFL will be wanting to avoid a costly, public court case at all costs - there are bigger losses with sponsors, media etc to consider if there's a long drawn out court battle which would take the AFL a long time to recover from. And they dont want a detailed examination of their third party deals . And you betcha that will happen if this goes to court. And we all know the AFL will protect its commercial interests first and foremost.
So I guess a deal will get done behind the scenes. On Friday the AFL will announce 'significant' penalties, AFC will contritely accept said 'significant' penalties and we'll all move on. If not, I'd be surprised if this doesn't wind up in court. Edwardson et al will expect to earn their money. And all their strategy advice since their engagement IMO suggests they will head to court if the penalty is unfair.
I will be bitterly disappointed if we gp to the trouble of instructing the best defence counsel going around, then muzzle him and meekly cop an unreasonable wack.
As I've said previously its about negotiating now, but we must be prepared to allow counsel to bare teeth and show we are prepared to take this further if the AFL think we are here to be made an example of.
Imo this latest round of media leaks has a feel of expectation management. We have been steadfast in giving nothing to the media on this, yet suddenly we are leaking. If we are expecting the worst anything less will be seen as a good result.
The AFL could ban us from playing next year, make us give Dangerfield, Walker, Sloane, Crouch, Vince, Talia to GWS for nothing, fine us 2 million dollars, ban us from the draft for 10 years and our club would accept. That's just how bitches roll.
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Moderator
- May 24, 2006
- 86,093
- 179,687
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
- Moderator
- #23,435
Yep I think that's right. The whole AFC 'stance' changed the moment the Edwardson appointment was announced. They moved onto the front foot. And that appointment in itself was a clear signal we mean business. Chapmans public comments are being strategically directed from behind the scenes ( Edwardson ) - the rest is Victorian hot air and noise. The scene is being set for two possible scenarios - a negotiated outcome that our counsel believes is acceptable and less than publicly discussed/expected - or a court battle. My money is still on a negotiated settlement and a 'play act' on Friday.
Other clubs 3rd party deals aren't relevant to our penalty. The afl aren't required to investigate/audit them all. They wouldn't have looked at a single one of ours if we hadn't admitted to a potential breach and then asked them to investigate all of our contracts and 3rd party deals.
If the AFC are seeking to 'manage expectations' with catastrophic predictions that they don't really believe in, then quite frankly that just pisses me off more than the fact they have got themselves in this situation in the first place. Playing stupid media games isn't going to manipulate me into thinking 'oh gee, we only lost two picks in the 2013 draft - lucky us!'
If there is anything more to come than a fine, then all the media funny buggers in the world will not stop me wanting to see some accountability from the club internally.
If there is anything more to come than a fine, then all the media funny buggers in the world will not stop me wanting to see some accountability from the club internally.
- Oct 10, 2012
- 1,210
- 598
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Knights & Jets
If Tippett should get a year, what should the AFC get?
Siggins
I see where youre coming from, and i agree that this side arrangement probably lowered what we were going to get for him. I just think what we could have gotten for him was a lot lower than what a lot of people have claimed. I dont think sydneys valuation (while insulting) was too far off. i dont take issue with saying weve lost 'something' its just when i see people claim that weve lost a compo pick, pick 8, 12, 23 and bock that i think its a bit OTT.
He didnt want to stay and worked against our interests in getting a fair trade so putting a precise figure to what that cost us in terms of lost trade value is fuzzy IMO.
Couldn't agree more
That's a grossly unfair post.
Crowbots are dead
Premiership Player
- Oct 11, 2012
- 3,516
- 4,708
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Whether Trigg should stay or go should be directly correlated to the penalties. In my view any further losses of draft picks (other than the ones we gave up) and a substantial fine makes keeping the CEO a ridiculous notion. Reading the aerticle this morning it implied that we want to keep Trigg NO MATTER WHAT.
What if we get a $800,000 fine and a further 3 years of draft penalties! How can he possibly stay?? We need to know the penalties first and then Triggs position will be quite clear.
What if we get a $800,000 fine and a further 3 years of draft penalties! How can he possibly stay?? We need to know the penalties first and then Triggs position will be quite clear.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
I think you have misinterpreted my post. I'm quite pleased by the Siggins selection and he looks very promising. My dig was intending for our Sydney brothers who intended on picking Siggins but we cut their lunch.
What the! Name one poster who has claimed we've lost all of that. They are all isolated losses, ie last year we could have had pick 8 or 12 and end of rd 1 compo pick. The only thing that is fuzzy is your interpretation of events.
swanfan
Norm Smith Medallist
WaynesWorld19
Post-Human
And you know i think that message has certainly got thru ......particularly as we made it knowing the repercussions of fessing up
I reckon they had no choice but to fess up. The AFL were sus
- Status