Remove this Banner Ad

Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

Which AFC deserter were/are you most salty towards?

  • Total voters
    33
  • Poll closed .

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
jenny61_99 said:
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.
Click to expand...

we were desperate to keep Knights at the end of 2009 too
 
Sanders said:
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
Click to expand...

Yes, but if we had succeeded in trading him to Brisbane, it would simply have been "getting away with" trading in our illegally-obtained commodity. It wasn't our right to secure a trade for him because we obtained his services illegally to begin with.

Of course we lost that opportunity to trade for him, but it's not a punishment. It's simply a failure to obtain an unfair, illegal advantage.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

cmndstab said:
Yes, but if we had succeeded in trading him to Brisbane, it would simply have been "getting away with" trading in our illegally-obtained commodity. It wasn't our right to secure a trade for him because we obtained his services illegally to begin with.

Of course we lost that opportunity to trade for him, but it's not a punishment. It's simply a failure to obtain an unfair, illegal advantage.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure illegally obtained commodity is the right word for it.
 
Cap said:
perhaps.

but even then, we don't actually know if he would have stayed regardless of the illegal part
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter, though. We did obtain his 2009-2012 contract illegally. It doesn't matter whether he would have stayed otherwise.

We obtained his (renewed) contract illegally. We can't then claim to have the right to trade it away for a profit.
 
brazilblue said:
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.

.
Click to expand...
The problem with all this is ....if they belt us, it leaves Melbourne about to be sent to liquidation ...they can't survive

The Adelaide penalty will in many ways define Melbournes future

Can't tell me our issues are worse than Melbourne tanking
 
Peter J said:
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.
Click to expand...

I really have an issue with people who fail to see the difference in the 2 scenario's. Of course it matters how it happened!

Most people weren't suggesting pick 23 wasn't worth anything - only that it was worth forgoing that pick as a down payment on future credibility at the trading table, when other players / clubs might attempt to stare us down with an unrealistic draft pick. In short, we would have lost pick 23 but benefitted (at least potentially) in future drafts, on the basis that it demomnstrates a deliberate and considered willingness on our part to go down that track.

Forgoing pick 23 against our will as a byproduct of an AFL investigation into the club for a raft of breaches does nothing for us. We lost the pick, and lose (rather than gain) credibility in the process.

Surely you can see the difference in context of those 2 scenario's. Assuming you can, what's the "issue"?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Wayne's-World said:
The problem with all this is ....if they belt us, it leaves Melbourne about to be sent to liquidation ...they can't survive

The Adelaide penalty will in many ways define Melbournes future

Can't tell me our issues are worse than Melbourne tanking
Click to expand...

I disagree WW. The VFL are so inconsistent with everything they oversee... umpiring, the F/S rule, the fixture, the match review panel, finals ticket pricing etc etc.
I can absolutely see a scenario where we get reamed and Melbourne get a lesser penalty with the VFL saying it was within the rules at the time so there's nothing they can do about it, but they promise to introduce a tanking penalty.
 
Wayne's-World said:
The problem with all this is ....if they belt us, it leaves Melbourne about to be sent to liquidation ...they can't survive

The Adelaide penalty will in many ways define Melbournes future

Can't tell me our issues are worse than Melbourne tanking
Click to expand...

Agree with this. By any standard, Melbourne's transgressions are much graver than ours and their sanctions must necessarily be more severe. But the AFL can't let that happen so I suspect our penalty won't be much more severe than what we've already sustained. I suspect the self imposed draft forfeit was in collusion with the AFL, providing them with a premise for clemency.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

In regards to the Melbourne tanking I think the AFL will try and penalise the people involved as much as possible rather than the club. If found guilty the club will take a hit, but I'd guess not as badly as we will. I don't agree with it at all, but when does penalties the AFL hand out ever needed to make sense?
 
fairfooty said:
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.
Click to expand...

How much does public sentiment mean to the AFL? For weeks we have copped a caning from the media which has painted a picture of AFC transgressions and postulated the penalty maximums. How much are the AFL swayed by the media fed expectations of the 'great unwashed' for the cringing AFC to be belted? Does Vlad feel the need to satisfy the colloseum hordes with a grand 'thumbs down'? I hope our legal approach is decisively influential because we certainly have received little 'help' from our local SA written media. This is going to be a slow week!
 
crowman_23 said:
In regards to the Melbourne tanking I think the AFL will try and penalise the people involved as much as possible rather than the club. If found guilty the club will take a hit, but I'd guess not as badly as we will. I don't agree with it at all, but when does penalties the AFL hand out ever needed to make sense?
Click to expand...

If the above is true, probably at the very top of Vlad's hit list will be Dean Bailey...

Oh wait, he just happens to be at the Crows now and we indirectly cop another whack, fancy that. :rolleyes:
 
n4sir said:
If the above is true, probably at the very top of Vlad's hit list will be Dean Bailey...

Oh wait, he just happens to be at the Crows now and we indirectly cop another whack, fancy that. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That would be one of the fears. By the sounds of things though Connolly and Schwab would be in the most strife. Having said that it's hard enough to predict what will happen to us let alone to the Dee's. I wouldn't be surprised if they 'fail to prove' Melbourne actually deliberately lost... again, even though blind Freddy could tell they did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

baldandbroke
Opinion 2025 rule interpretations watch
2 3
Replies
60
Views
2K
Crowked
Crowked
NTRabbit
  • Poll
List Mgmt. 2025 List Management Resource Compilation Thread with Key Post-Season Dates
Replies
5
Views
961
NTRabbit
NTRabbit
NTRabbit
  • Poll
List Mgmt. 2024 List Management Resource Compilation Thread with Key Post-Season Dates
Replies
13
Views
2K
NTRabbit
NTRabbit

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top