Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[Sanders]

I know this belongs in the triggs gone discussion, but why does chapman say that triggs job depends on the length of his ban. Surely triggs job should depend on whether he's found to have broken the afl rules or not.

Absolutely.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

OMG, what an article, at last we now know what is probably the truth.

Am I having a dream or was it just days ago that the Sunday Maill and 5AA sports show were saying it was all a storm in a teacup and just a misunderstanding of grey rules???

Just curious, why do you accept what The Age and EQ are telling you, whilst disregarding what The Sunday Mail and 5aa are telling you?

 

[Schulzycrow]

Sigh. Look at my Avatar that says it all.

 

[Sanders]

At my sons graduation and awards night actually.

All I can say is I'm stunned and shocked and hope like ******* hell EQ is a very ******* good fiction writer. How the **** is she getting all this information?

You don't make up that level of detail, its far too specific

 

[Elite Crow]

And yet Rucci is still employed. Journos are like psychics, they count on you remembering the hits and forgetting the misses.

Emma ain't no Rucci, and if you can't see that then you shouldn't pass judgement on the profession.

 

[headache1]

I can see now why Chapman has been so supportive of Trigg. He is rightfully fearful of his own job aswell. If everyone has the full support of everyone, nobody gets sacked.
Happy days!

I doubt Chapman is that concerned of losing his job as Chairman on the AFC. Compared to the other roles he's involved with, the AFL is small time.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Emma ain't no Rucci, and if you can't see that then you shouldn't pass judgement on the profession.

Based on your own subjective opinion. Thanks though

 

[SpeciousArgument]

I doubt Chapman is that concerned of losing his job as Chairman on the AFC. Compared to the other roles he's involved with, the AFL is small time.

If what EQ says is true, why would anyone want to be a director?

 

[Cleric]

Just curious, why do you accept what The Age and EQ are telling you, whilst disregarding what The Sunday Mail and 5aa are telling you?

You cannot put Cornes, Rowe, Wildy and Dilon in the same league as EQ and CW. We would never know what was going on at our club if it wasn't for Victorian media, as our AA boys don't want to upset the AFC cos they might not get invited to break bread with the big boys.

 

[cmndstab]

Can we please stop "calling out" fellow posters whenever a news article, or hell, even an AFL ruling indicates that their support was unfounded? It's childish and kind of pathetic, really. It's one thing to use the articles as evidence when you're having a debate, it's another thing again to simply post "HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM APPLES POSTER X". Cut it out, everyone.

As for Quayle's article, I thought it was easily the best written on the topic to date. Filled with facts, and the parts that are not confirmed yet are clearly indicated as such. If the accusations made in that article are accurate, then all three of Harper, Trigg and Reid will face penalties - Harper the most lenient of the three.

Chapman won't have any issues, nor should he. I still haven't seen any evidence that he was aware that this was going on, and it's not reasonable to expect him to have known. What is reasonable is for us to conduct a pretty rigorous search for replacements. Simply promoting from within isn't going to cut it this time.

I'm really hoping the proposed punishment of missing out on good picks in the next two drafts is journalistic license, it seems a mile too harsh. I guess we'll find out soon enough!

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

I doubt Chapman is that concerned of losing his job as Chairman on the AFC. Compared to the other roles he's involved with, the AFL is small time.

You only have one reputation, and it's easier to lose than make.

 

[Elite Crow]

Based on your own subjective opinion. Thanks though

Yep, it's just me who rates Emma and thinks Rucci is a dick. I bet before she broke this story you thought she was ok. Some of you are hanging her for spilling the beans on our cheating, stupidity and incompetence. Your mate woody questioned whether I was an adult, well I think it's you lot that need to grow up and stop living in a world where Santa still exists.

 

[cmndstab]

You don't make up that level of detail, its far too specific

I don't know about this. I could very easily come up with a fictional version of events that would read just as well, with every bit as much detail, and would paint Trigg and Harper in a positive light. It's not really that hard to do, particularly for someone who writes for a living.

The question to ask is, why would she do so? I don't believe she would write the article unless she was quite sure about the allegations she was making. There are various points in the article where she makes it clear that stories differ on certain points and that they are not yet confirmed, which is a credit to her

But let's not assume that detail and prudence make for a 100% factual article. It is still very possible that there are elements to that article that are false. Only elements, mind you - I would say it's pretty certain now that the majority of the article is close enough to correct.

 

[Sanders]

That sick nauseous feeling in the pitt of your tummy

 

[Jumbo]

Sigh. Look at my Avatar that says it all.

snap

 

[headache1]

You only have one reputation, and it's easier to lose than make.

Of course, but the only thing that has been reported about Chapman is that as soon as he found out about this deal, he forced Trigg to go to the AFL with it, and has decided not to sack him before the commission hearing. I'm not sure why this would reflect poorly on him in the business world.

 

[Sanders]

I don't know about this. I could very easily come up with a fictional version of events that would read just as well, with every bit as much detail, and would paint Trigg and Harper in a positive light. It's not really that hard to do, particularly for someone who writes for a living.

The question to ask is, why would she do so? I don't believe she would write the article unless she was quite sure about the allegations she was making. There are various points in the article where she makes it clear that stories differ on certain points and that they are not yet confirmed, which is a credit to her

But let's not assume that detail and prudence make for a 100% factual article. It is still very possible that there are elements to that article that are false. Only elements, mind you - I would say it's pretty certain now that the majority of the article is close enough to correct.

You could make up a narrative saying the opposite, but you couldn't make up months of corroborating events and previously acknowledged facts that you have unearthed/had leaked to you

You couldn't explain away the Chairman's grovelling mea culpa and the pleading guilty to all 9 charges.

And even then, you might not be at all confident that the commission will support you on Friday

 

[juzzo]

Just curious, why do you accept what The Age and EQ are telling you, whilst disregarding what The Sunday Mail and 5aa are telling you?

1 Reputation
2 Detail
3 She's not the only one

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Yep, it's just me who rates Emma and thinks Rucci is a dick. I bet before she broke this story you thought she was ok. Some of you are hanging her for spilling the beans on our cheating, stupidity and incompetence. Your mate woody questioned whether I was an adult, well I think it's you lot that need to grow up and stop living in a world where Santa still exists.

In the last 50 pages in this thread she has been compared to Rucci by multiple posters, but that still misses my point.

As hard as you try, name calling doesnt strengthen yours.

If one of us was to be accused of making things up it would have to be you, as ive reserved judgement without knowing facts while youve claimed to know the truth based on a bunch of assumptions. fantasy land is your domain my friend.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

Of course, but the only thing that has been reported about Chapman is that as soon as he found out about this deal, he forced Trigg to go to the AFL with it, and has decided not to sack him before the commission hearing. I'm not sure why this would reflect poorly on him in the business world.

You are correct. Except chapman saying that he would keep trigg on if the ban is 4 or 5 months. How many other ceo's would have the chairmanship backing if such a ban was imposed?

 

[Donkey Magoo]

My brain is hurting, the EQ article makes me sad.

 

[A FEW GOOD MEN]

You are correct. Except chapman saying that he would keep trigg on if the ban is 4 or 5 months.

Finally Triggy get's to have a nice long holiday in the south of France

 

[footy_noob]

Sigh. Look at my Avatar that says it all.

lol, this is the second time (that i've noticed anyway) that you have referred to your avatar as how you feel. random...

 

[whatboutbob]

Does Chapman supposedly hearing about the Tippett exit clause in the board meeting make him culpable?

Or do y'all think he shouldn't be expected to know if that sort of thing is/isn't legit?

 

[Hendersloane]

You are correct. Except chapman saying that he would keep trigg on if the ban is 4 or 5 months. How many other ceo's would have the chairmanship backing if such a ban was imposed?

Maybe they have some sort of written agreement

Also I don't get all the hate being directed toward EQ. Reid and co. got us into this mess- she's just reporting on it. I wouldn't call her a "muck raking journalist" either