Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[Deaneus!]

We didn't get "punished" by not being able to trade Tippett. That was a mess of our own making.

Really? Nick Joyce disagrees. So do I.

The whole thing is a mess of our own making. We had an asset with a finite shelf life that the AFL rendered worthless by not allowing us to trade it = we lost more than just 20 & 54.

 

[Draft Bored]

"It is believed the punishment will be a fine of about $500,000 and restricted access to the next two or three national drafts. It could be as bad as four years of restrictions, but the Crows are pushing to have their limitations on draft access reduced to two years."

4 national drafts... a penalty worse then what Carlton got?

Sensationalist much?

 

[Sanders]

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

Do they do the draft over again?

If that were a possibility, presume we don't try to mitigate our penalty?

 

[The Big Sauce]

"It is believed the punishment will be a fine of about $500,000 and restricted access to the next two or three national drafts. It could be as bad as four years of restrictions, but the Crows are pushing to have their limitations on draft access reduced to two years."

4 national drafts... a penalty worse then what Carlton got?

Sensationalist much?

That's seriously ****ing ******ed if that's the case.

I'm expecting a decade ban for Melbourne if that's the case.

 

[BACCS]

I've lost interest and don't really care to be honest. Whatever happens, happens. We can win a flag in 2013/14.

Same here mate. Having the cricket on in Adelaide has been awesome as I haven't had to bother reading all this shit anymore. I'll obviously take a slight interest to our punishments next Friday, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it. The next Test starts on Friday anyway, yeww!

 

[BACCS]

"It is believed the punishment will be a fine of about $500,000 and restricted access to the next two or three national drafts. It could be as bad as four years of restrictions, but the Crows are pushing to have their limitations on draft access reduced to two years."

4 national drafts... a penalty worse then what Carlton got?

Sensationalist much?

I've learned throughout this whole saga to ignore what the media sensationalize, they have as much clue as us.

 

[The Big Sauce]

So where does this thread rank all time in the Bigfooty ranks (total posts that is?)

 

[BrissyCrow]

We might as well ask them to reimburse us for the internet costs incurred when we sent the email detailing the illegal clause. You don't go in waving around shit as though it's gold if you want to be taken seriously.

Our punishment so far has been the loss of picks 20 and 54 - or realistically, the effective trading of pick 20 for 62, and 54 for 81. That's it. We didn't get "punished" by not being able to trade Tippett. That was a mess of our own making. If we go to the AFL trying to score points with that it will make us look like fools, and discredit the legitimate punishment we've actually incurred so far.

I agree that so far we have lost two picks..20 and 54. Pick 62 and 81 were ours as well we didnt trade down from 20 & 54. However the loss of Tippett for no return is very real. Yes it might have been of our own doing because we stuffed up but the AFL also stopped us from trading Tippett. If I take your "That was a mess of our own doing" seriously then it would also be fair to say that the loss of pick 20 and 54 was also of our own doing and we should expect tha AFL to take that into consideration.

So I cant agree that the loss of Tippett should be ignored.

 

[cmndstab]

They're different, though. We can't claim we have been punished by not being allowed to trade a commodity we obtained illegally. Or, to be precise, retained the services of illegally. It's ridiculous to argue that we've been punished by losing the ability to trade something we shouldn't have had on our books in 2012 to begin with.

The counterargument to that is, well, we could have traded him three years ago, and yes, you're right. But we didn't. Instead, we signed an illegal deal. That's not an AFL punishment, that's us trying to maximise our return, illegally, and having it exposed. You don't get to count it as your punishment, any more than a thief gets to request his punishment be reduced by the amount he would have been able to sell his stolen products for.

Losing picks 20 and 54, on the other hand (you're right, it's not a trade of picks since we already had the others), is a punishment. Those picks had nothing to do with Tippett, they just happened to be our top two picks when the shit hit the fan.

 

[Sanders]

They're different, though. We can't claim we have been punished by not being allowed to trade a commodity we obtained illegally. Or, to be precise, retained the services of illegally. It's ridiculous to argue that we've been punished by losing the ability to trade something we shouldn't have had on our books in 2012 to begin with.

The counterargument to that is, well, we could have traded him three years ago, and yes, you're right. But we didn't. Instead, we signed an illegal deal. That's not an AFL punishment, that's us trying to maximise our return, illegally, and having it exposed. You don't get to count it as your punishment, any more than a thief gets to request his punishment be reduced by the amount he would have been able to sell his stolen products for.

Losing picks 20 and 54, on the other hand (you're right, it's not a trade of picks since we already had the others), is a punishment. Those picks had nothing to do with Tippett, they just happened to be our top two picks when the shit hit the fan.

It only came out as illegal because we didn't trade him earlier

Its not right to pretend we didn't lose opportunity cost of trade to brisbane

 

[Godallblighty]

1, Agreeing to trade Tippett for a particular value in the future: never implemented, but we should not have made this secret side-deal outside the AFL official contract. Penalty: loss of Tippett and 2013 draft picks (already done).

You could be right Carl, we just don't know what prompted us to give up the 2013 picks but it's a reasonable guess our lawyers did some sort of deal with the AFL.

Don't you mean 2012 picks?

 

[Crow_Magnon]

"It is believed the punishment will be a fine of about $500,000 and restricted access to the next two or three national drafts. It could be as bad as four years of restrictions, but the Crows are pushing to have their limitations on draft access reduced to two years."

4 national drafts... a penalty worse then what Carlton got?

Sensationalist much?

Exactly....it's not as if there have been systematic breaches like Carlton over a sustained period. I'd hope we don't even get hammered further as per the highlighted comment above. Surely a fine would suffice from this point.

 

[Centrered]

Stephen Silvagni says his club will follow Geelong in urging players to play for less in order to keep the Giants' list together

This rules out Tippett for GWS

 

[Elite Crow]

Stephen Silvagni says his club will follow Geelong in urging players to play for less in order to keep the Giants' list together

This rules out Tippett for GWS

Source?

 

[Tex200]

Stephen Silvagni says his club will follow Geelong in urging players to play for less in order to keep the Giants' list together

This rules out Tippett for GWS

You've taken him out of context, and eve if you hadnt that's a long bow to draw.

 

[xamol]

This thread.....its still going


Get this shit over with. I'm over it.

 

[rayven]

What would of happenned had we gone to the AFL 3 years ago and said that we're being asked to add dodgy clauses in the new contract? Do the AFL have a procudure to deal with a club contacting them like that? Is there a chance we could of lost Tippet for nothing or very little , if we had, hypothetically?

 

[Powerade 08]

"It is believed the punishment will be a fine of about $500,000 and restricted access to the next two or three national drafts. It could be as bad as four years of restrictions, but the Crows are pushing to have their limitations on draft access reduced to two years."

4 national drafts... a penalty worse then what Carlton got?

Sensationalist much?

I read that article too. I don't think Jesper Ftsasjhdfqawsaassafjh was trying to be sensationalist he is just a bad writer.

What I think he is trying to say is that taking 4 years of draft picks is the max penalty the AFL can dish out to clubs. (I read that somewhere, cant remember where)

Realistically you would say Adelaide are looking at draft penalties for 1 or 2 years on top of the picks they gave up in this draft. 1 year should do it. Melbourne should be hit harder but you get the feeling that will be swept under the carpet because thats how the AFL works.

 

[Crow-eater]

How many more twists will this saga take before Friday? I'm betting another one or two.

 

[Hank93]

I read that article too. I don't think Jesper Ftsasjhdfqawsaassafjh was trying to be sensationalist he is just a bad writer.

What I think he is trying to say is that taking 4 years of draft picks is the max penalty the AFL can dish out to clubs. (I read that somewhere, cant remember where)

Realistically you would say Adelaide are looking at draft penalties for 1 or 2 years on top of the picks they gave up in this draft. 1 year should do it. Melbourne should be hit harder but you get the feeling that will be swept under the carpet because thats how the AFL works.

Yeah that was in Patrick Keane's tweet.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

This thread.....its still going


Get this shit over with. I'm over it.

some of us have a vested interest in keeping it alive...for at least 5000 more posts

 

[brazilblue]

Agree this is exactly the problem, and why I am hopeful the breaches will be judged to be on the lower end of the scale.

1, Agreeing to trade Tippett for a particular value in the future: never implemented, but we should not have made this secret side-deal outside the AFL official contract. Penalty: loss of Tippett and 2013 draft picks (already done).

2, Agreeing to underwrite Tippett's future commercial earnings if below a certain value. Never implemented, and we will argue that if we did have to implement this we would have declared the payments to the AFL and included them in the TPP for the season in which the payment was made. Penalty: fine (for not notifying the AFL of this underwriting.)

I could be a stupid optimist, but there are plenty of neutral posters over on the AFL Board who also don't think we have done anything seriously wrong. Of course there are lots of numptys who want to cripple us for years too!

I agree with this as well.

Problem for you guys is whether the AFL wants to make an example of you or not.

That is what they did with Carlton with the thinking that no one would be stupid enough to attempt anything like it again.

Your transgression was no where in the same league (obviously) and to be honest I am in the boat that you have already been punished enough probably more than necessary given the facts we know BUT the problem for you is whether the AFL says its about time to remind the clubs what crossing them means.

I have a sneaking suspicion that this may be what their agenda is.

I just want to also say that a lot of Victorians are on AFC's side .... yes its not right but true. Also we all think Tiprat is just the lowest form of life ... total Merc.

I for one will be very interested to see how the AFL handles this .... in my opinion they have a shoddy record in the past ... to be honest I am just glad its not my club ... again. It was just too friggen painful.

From me, though it means F all .... good luck.

 

[JP Sauce]

some of us have a vested interest in keeping it alive...for ever!

Indeed.

 

[jenny61_99]

What would of happenned had we gone to the AFL 3 years ago and said that we're being asked to add dodgy clauses in the new contract? Do the AFL have a procudure to deal with a club contacting them like that? Is there a chance we could of lost Tippet for nothing or very little , if we had, hypothetically?

I think hypotheticals just do your head in at this stage of the game. It's like the 20/20 vision we gain in hindsight. Sometimes decisions are made that, while they seem correct calls at the time, or perhaps you saw no other way, in hindsight you look at the decision and go "what the hell was I thinking?". Lots of people being absolute oracles now, AFTER the fact.

 

[juzzo]

Indeed.

If the crows can stall until december 22nd your prediction might yet come true.