http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/crows-braced-for-worst-over-tippett-20121023-283gv.html
QuoteTHE AFL has two great pillars of equality. One is the salary cap, the other is the draft system.
Get caught chipping away at either and you could be in big trouble.
Adelaide has persistently denied there was a clause in Kurt Tippett's last contract, signed at the end of 2009 when Gold Coast was hovering, to trade him cheaply to the club of his choice when the deal expired.
Advertisement
That much seems true. But it is for coming to such an understanding outside of the 24-year-old's official paperwork that has landed the club in much, much hotter water.
It is to Adelaide's credit that it went to the AFL late last week with written confirmation that it had promised to get Tippett to where he wanted to go if it was unable to convince him to stay in Adelaide beyond 2012.
The Tippett camp has a copy of that note, too. While no club was stipulated, the Crows had believed that if the Queenslander went anywhere, he would go to one of his home clubs. He chose Sydney instead.
This is different to, say, Koby Stevens nominating the Western Bulldogs as his club of choice after leaving West Coast. Those clubs must now work a fair deal. Tippett's price was apparently decided, agreed upon and - most tellingly - not disclosed to the AFL, three years ago.
The Crows knew that trading their star forward for Sydney's second-round pick would never have been approved by the AFL, where watchdog Ken Wood must sign off on each trade deal. Eyebrows around the league were raised even at speculation last week that the club was considering swapping Tippett for the premier's first-round pick, No. 23, and fringe forward Jesse White.
But as both Melbourne in 1999 and Carlton in 2002 found out, after fessing up to salary-cap breaches, coming clean might earn you a softer penalty but you won't be completely spared.
The Blues, serial offenders, were almost destroyed by the punishment handed to them: stripped of picks one and two (Brendon Goddard and Daniel Wells) in the 2002 draft, they were also disqualified from the 2003 pre-season draft, the first two rounds of the 2003 national draft and fined a total of $930,000. It took them years to recover.
The Adelaide/Tippett situation is, clearly, different to that faced by those clubs. But the AFL won't like that it came to a secret agreement, independent to Tippett's official contract. The league won't like that the Crows have effectively thumbed their nose at the AFL's rules.
There are potential ramifications for Tippett, too, whose role in this deal will now become heavily scrutinised. At worst, he could be deregistered if he is found to have subverted the rules. At best, his path to Sydney might just have become a whole lot tougher.
More crucially, the league will now be asking many more questions of Adelaide. What else, if anything, had it agreed to do for Tippett, to get him to re-sign three years ago? What has or had it agreed to do for other players? Losing Tippett could be the least of its problems.
Thoughts?
Just read this! No idea how this will play out - has anything like this been done before?
wow that's interesting will be very funny if he gets deregistered maybe the Crows are so annoyed with him they are willing to get him in trouble even if it means they do also
I don't see where the issue lies, it's not in the contract lodged with the afl and the crows hardly stand to benefit from it. what's the difference between taking a round 2 pick and getting tippet to his club of choice which all traded players ask a preference or let him walk for nothing.
in a way they were bribing him to stay a bit longer by giving him the choice of clubs and an easier trade deal
I noted a comment on the Age article: "Give the Crows / Swans and Tippett a penalty almost as severe as the penalty that the Magpies and Tarrant got when Tarrant entered the draft and stated publicly that if any team other than Collingwood picked him he would retire immediately."
If the club and player get penalised what a terrible result and an even sorrier saga this will become.
What no they weren't. They offered more money and said look mate if you wanna leave go for it but if you stay take this cash and if you still wanna go next time we ll help you out. A bribe is handing money under the table.
Quote from: Antsey on October 24, 2012, 09:12:51 AM
I noted a comment on the Age article: "Give the Crows / Swans and Tippett a penalty almost as severe as the penalty that the Magpies and Tarrant got when Tarrant entered the draft and stated publicly that if any team other than Collingwood picked him he would retire immediately."
If the club and player get penalised what a terrible result and an even sorrier saga this will become.
Why should the crows be penalised?
wow just heard this on the radio this morning, this could be huge
Quote from: Chopps on October 24, 2012, 09:16:18 AM
Quote from: Antsey on October 24, 2012, 09:12:51 AM
I noted a comment on the Age article: "Give the Crows / Swans and Tippett a penalty almost as severe as the penalty that the Magpies and Tarrant got when Tarrant entered the draft and stated publicly that if any team other than Collingwood picked him he would retire immediately."
If the club and player get penalised what a terrible result and an even sorrier saga this will become.
Why should the crows be penalised?
Messing with the workings of the draft I guess? At least they didn't go through with actually agreeing to a second round pick based on the agreement and sought clarification with the AFL
Someone was bored after two and a half weeks of trading so they decidedto stir the pot by writing this story? And everyone always believes what the media have to say ::)
My understanding is that all agreements regarding players must be lodged with the AFL/AFLPA (ie Judd's Visy deal etc). This hasnt been lodged with the AFL previously so therefore they are in breach of the rules.
This was a big thing that the AFLPA brought in (when Demetriou was in charge of the AFLPA) so you would think that the Crows are going to be punished for this.
This could blow up several different ways.
Tippett may not be able to play footy next year but still be on the books of the Crows, which would cause salary cap issues at the Crows or the Swans may have to pay for him.
Crows could lose picks...as well
Clubs in principle generally do best for the player and club regardless how would that change if it was written in a contract or not. This is how I understand this "gentlemen agreement" is. Having said that if it wasn't there the crows wouldn't just let him walk to the draft if they could get something even a 2nd rounder
Valkorum please enlighten me as I don't think I get it.
Quote from: Chopps on October 24, 2012, 03:24:46 PM
Valkorum please enlighten me as I don't think I get it.
This agreement is considered a "side arrangement" as it is seperate to the playing contract. It's the same in principle to any other side arrangement (Judd's Visy contract is a side arrangement) and must be lodged with the AFL/AFLPA for sign off.
This deal (trade for 2nd round pick to club of choice) obviously hasnt been lodged with the AFL/AFLPA. IMO this is now considered a breach of rules and needs to be addressed as such. It could be considered draft tampering.
Welcome to Tippett gate. Interestingly enough Andrew Ireland (CEO of the Swans) has just gone on holidays and isnt avaliable to talk.
The Crows rejected the Lions pick 8 last year for Tippett, and now the Swans are offering 23.
Swans are at no liability to this at all btw seeing as they aren't being investigated.
Adelaide are the ones who could lose out big here if they did breach the rules
Not sure if they could penalise picks this year.
We've already traded one away for Graham late last week. Trigg went to the AFL late last week... hmmmm
OR maybe they could take pick 40 away and we give back Graham and pick 50 ;)
Whatever happens, the AFL will need to make a call fast or reserve any decision making that clear it can't affect this year or it will wreck any deals we're involved in.
Ok sorry I should have worded my question better also I m not all that familiar with judds visy contract
I understand the rule clearer thanks but why is this a problem? It's not like it benefits the crows and out of principle would of tried to make his move smooth regardless
Is this more its a breach and that's that? Regardless of impact?
Sorry all for my lack of understanding
Quote from: Chopps on October 24, 2012, 04:32:45 PM
Ok sorry I should have worded my question better also I m not all that familiar with judds visy contract
I understand the rule clearer thanks but why is this a problem? It's not like it benefits the crows and out of principle would of tried to make his move smooth regardless
Is this more its a breach and that's that? Regardless of impact?
Sorry all for my lack of understanding
The fact that it could (probably is) unfairly benefiting one club makes it an automatic draft breach seeing as they didn't confer with the AFL, hence the term "Gentlemens agreement"
AFL seems to be highly influenced by the media on this Tippett saga.
First Jeff kennett complains about Sydney's salary cap and now this
Quote from: Chopps on October 24, 2012, 04:32:45 PM
Ok sorry I should have worded my question better also I m not all that familiar with judds visy contract
I understand the rule clearer thanks but why is this a problem? It's not like it benefits the crows and out of principle would of tried to make his move smooth regardless
Is this more its a breach and that's that? Regardless of impact?
Sorry all for my lack of understanding
Yes and no - yes its a breach but the impact is draft tampering. They have agreed (in principle) to a market price for a player 3 years (contract in 2009) before the market was available.
It's different than at trade time a player nominating another club - the deal to make the trade still needs to be agreed upon between both clubs. These are normally worked out as the club the player has nominated knows that want to come and play for them - so they do what they can to get the deal done.
The agreement made between the Crows and Tippett is that he can choose the club of his choice and Adelaide will get a round 2 pick. The big difference here is that the 2nd club hasn't been involved in this deal and may not want to part with its 2nd round pick. Hence, why it can be considered draft tampering.
It's one of those let's get it done now and deal with the consequences in 3 years (which seems so far away) moments.
Quote from: valkorum on October 24, 2012, 04:41:40 PM
Quote from: Chopps on October 24, 2012, 04:32:45 PM
Ok sorry I should have worded my question better also I m not all that familiar with judds visy contract
I understand the rule clearer thanks but why is this a problem? It's not like it benefits the crows and out of principle would of tried to make his move smooth regardless
Is this more its a breach and that's that? Regardless of impact?
Sorry all for my lack of understanding
Yes and no - yes its a breach but the impact is draft tampering. They have agreed (in principle) to a market price for a player 3 years (contract in 2009) before the market was available.
It's different than at trade time a player nominating another club - the deal to make the trade still needs to be agreed upon between both clubs. These are normally worked out as the club the player has nominated knows that want to come and play for them - so they do what they can to get the deal done.
The agreement made between the Crows and Tippett is that he can choose the club of his choice and Adelaide will get a round 2 pick. The big difference here is that the 2nd club hasn't been involved in this deal and may not want to part with its 2nd round pick. Hence, why it can be considered draft tampering.
Why are the Swasn offering a first round pick and a player then??
Nice tabs! 23 seems like second but it isn't!
SEN reporting that if the Crows are found guilty they will be fined $800k, Tippett will be deregistered and the Crows will lose their first round draft pick.
When this blows over, hopefully the person/people responsable for dobbing or reporting to the AFL get their sanction! Mountains out of mole hills
Quote from: tabs on October 24, 2012, 05:35:33 PM
Quote from: valkorum on October 24, 2012, 04:41:40 PM
Quote from: Chopps on October 24, 2012, 04:32:45 PM
Ok sorry I should have worded my question better also I m not all that familiar with judds visy contract
I understand the rule clearer thanks but why is this a problem? It's not like it benefits the crows and out of principle would of tried to make his move smooth regardless
Is this more its a breach and that's that? Regardless of impact?
Sorry all for my lack of understanding
Yes and no - yes its a breach but the impact is draft tampering. They have agreed (in principle) to a market price for a player 3 years (contract in 2009) before the market was available.
It's different than at trade time a player nominating another club - the deal to make the trade still needs to be agreed upon between both clubs. These are normally worked out as the club the player has nominated knows that want to come and play for them - so they do what they can to get the deal done.
The agreement made between the Crows and Tippett is that he can choose the club of his choice and Adelaide will get a round 2 pick. The big difference here is that the 2nd club hasn't been involved in this deal and may not want to part with its 2nd round pick. Hence, why it can be considered draft tampering.
Why are the Swasn offering a first round pick and a player then??
Not sure. Also, need to keep in mind that the Lions offered pick #8 last season for Tippett and it was turned down.
Quote from: tbagrocks on October 24, 2012, 05:57:47 PM
When this blows over, hopefully the person/people responsable for dobbing or reporting to the AFL get their sanction! Mountains out of mole hills
Crows went to the AFL themselves
Quote from: kilbluff1995 on October 24, 2012, 06:03:36 PM
Quote from: tbagrocks on October 24, 2012, 05:57:47 PM
When this blows over, hopefully the person/people responsable for dobbing or reporting to the AFL get their sanction! Mountains out of mole hills
Crows went to the AFL themselves
Seems like it was written in the paper before the AFL probed, somebody, some reporter has stirred the pot.
This is crazy!?
Quote from: tbagrocks on October 24, 2012, 06:11:20 PM
Quote from: kilbluff1995 on October 24, 2012, 06:03:36 PM
Quote from: tbagrocks on October 24, 2012, 05:57:47 PM
When this blows over, hopefully the person/people responsable for dobbing or reporting to the AFL get their sanction! Mountains out of mole hills
Crows went to the AFL themselves
Seems like it was written in the paper before the AFL probed, somebody, some reporter has stirred the pot.
The Crows apparently went to the AFL last Friday - the reporter (Emma Quayle from The Age) released the article today.
http://www.watoday.com.au/afl/afl-news/statements-from-adelaide-and-the-afl-20121024-285e9.html
QuoteAdelaide has released the following statement about the Kurt Tippett contract controversy:
"The Adelaide Football Club can confirm that it is currently subject to an AFL investigation. The process began when the Adelaide Football Club notified the AFL of its concern relating to the matter and submitted relevant information to the League. The Club welcomes the investigation and continues to assist the AFL with its enquiries. Until the matter has concluded, the Club will not be in a position to make any further comment.
Inb4 Adelaide suspended for the year from playing
Seriously though someone is in trouble
ok Valk i see how it breaches the rules and thanks for the clarification, not really seeing where the harm is. it doesnt effect sydney and tippet was leaving the crows regardless only way this now benefits the crows if tippet is deregistered he wont be an opposition player
Quote from: Jayman on October 24, 2012, 05:47:21 PM
SEN reporting that if the Crows are found guilty they will be fined $800k, Tippett will be deregistered and the Crows will lose their first round draft pick.
That would be pretty bad for footy if Tippett can't play next year. Hope it's not the case
Quote from: tbagrocks on October 24, 2012, 06:11:20 PM
Quote from: kilbluff1995 on October 24, 2012, 06:03:36 PM
Quote from: tbagrocks on October 24, 2012, 05:57:47 PM
When this blows over, hopefully the person/people responsable for dobbing or reporting to the AFL get their sanction! Mountains out of mole hills
Crows went to the AFL themselves
Seems like it was written in the paper before the AFL probed, somebody, some reporter has stirred the pot.
if it's true then good on them for stirring the pot
Quote from: Chopps on October 24, 2012, 06:18:35 PM
ok Valk i see how it breaches the rules and thanks for the clarification, not really seeing where the harm is. it doesnt effect sydney and tippet was leaving the crows regardless only way this now benefits the crows if tippet is deregistered he wont be an opposition player
I'm pretty sure the penalty still gets applied to Adelaide as well so it doesn't benefit them at all
Quote from: JROO8 on October 24, 2012, 06:20:24 PM
Quote from: Jayman on October 24, 2012, 05:47:21 PM
SEN reporting that if the Crows are found guilty they will be fined $800k, Tippett will be deregistered and the Crows will lose their first round draft pick.
That would be pretty bad for footy if Tippett can't play next year. Hope it's not the case
meh he deserves it
Quote from: JROO8 on October 24, 2012, 06:20:24 PM
Quote from: Jayman on October 24, 2012, 05:47:21 PM
SEN reporting that if the Crows are found guilty they will be fined $800k, Tippett will be deregistered and the Crows will lose their first round draft pick.
That would be pretty bad for footy if Tippett can't play next year. Hope it's not the case
I think it would be pretty good for footy - I have never rated Tippett (I rate NRoo better than Tippett and I dont rate NRoo). I couldnt believe the Neil Craig preferred to play Tippett over Tex
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on October 24, 2012, 06:21:31 PM
Quote from: Chopps on October 24, 2012, 06:18:35 PM
ok Valk i see how it breaches the rules and thanks for the clarification, not really seeing where the harm is. it doesnt effect sydney and tippet was leaving the crows regardless only way this now benefits the crows if tippet is deregistered he wont be an opposition player
I'm pretty sure the penalty still gets applied to Adelaide as well so it doesn't benefit them at all
no i realise that and that would be bad but how does this agreement effect the draft or anything for that matter.
no agreement = tippet to sydney
an agreement = tippet to sydney
the outcome wasnt going to change regardless
Quote from: valkorum on October 24, 2012, 06:23:09 PM
Quote from: JROO8 on October 24, 2012, 06:20:24 PM
Quote from: Jayman on October 24, 2012, 05:47:21 PM
SEN reporting that if the Crows are found guilty they will be fined $800k, Tippett will be deregistered and the Crows will lose their first round draft pick.
That would be pretty bad for footy if Tippett can't play next year. Hope it's not the case
I think it would be pretty good for footy - I have never rated Tippett (I rate NRoo better than Tippett and I dont rate NRoo). I couldnt believe the Neil Craig preferred to play Tippett over Tex
with you on the tex over tippet
Quote from: Jayman on October 24, 2012, 06:22:14 PM
Quote from: JROO8 on October 24, 2012, 06:20:24 PM
Quote from: Jayman on October 24, 2012, 05:47:21 PM
SEN reporting that if the Crows are found guilty they will be fined $800k, Tippett will be deregistered and the Crows will lose their first round draft pick.
That would be pretty bad for footy if Tippett can't play next year. Hope it's not the case
meh he deserves it
Adelaide won't get anything in return? Wouldn't you rather he plays for the Swans as at least you get a pick and Jesse White (lol)
Quote from: Chopps on October 24, 2012, 06:23:30 PM
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on October 24, 2012, 06:21:31 PM
Quote from: Chopps on October 24, 2012, 06:18:35 PM
ok Valk i see how it breaches the rules and thanks for the clarification, not really seeing where the harm is. it doesnt effect sydney and tippet was leaving the crows regardless only way this now benefits the crows if tippet is deregistered he wont be an opposition player
I'm pretty sure the penalty still gets applied to Adelaide as well so it doesn't benefit them at all
no i realise that and that would be bad but how does this agreement effect the draft or anything for that matter.
no agreement = tippet to sydney
an agreement = tippet to sydney
the outcome wasnt going to change regardless
Sorry you're right I misread your previous post
You never actually said the whole situation benefited them so you're right
Quote from: JROO8 on October 24, 2012, 06:24:23 PM
Quote from: Jayman on October 24, 2012, 06:22:14 PM
Quote from: JROO8 on October 24, 2012, 06:20:24 PM
Quote from: Jayman on October 24, 2012, 05:47:21 PM
SEN reporting that if the Crows are found guilty they will be fined $800k, Tippett will be deregistered and the Crows will lose their first round draft pick.
That would be pretty bad for footy if Tippett can't play next year. Hope it's not the case
meh he deserves it
Adelaide won't get anything in return? Wouldn't you rather he plays for the Swans as at least you get a pick and Jesse White (lol)
yep would be better then nothing just like if no trade was happening better to get something then let him slide to the draft
Quote from: valkorum on October 24, 2012, 06:13:48 PM
Quote from: tbagrocks on October 24, 2012, 06:11:20 PM
Quote from: kilbluff1995 on October 24, 2012, 06:03:36 PM
Quote from: tbagrocks on October 24, 2012, 05:57:47 PM
When this blows over, hopefully the person/people responsable for dobbing or reporting to the AFL get their sanction! Mountains out of mole hills
Crows went to the AFL themselves
Seems like it was written in the paper before the AFL probed, somebody, some reporter has stirred the pot.
The Crows apparently went to the AFL last Friday - the reporter (Emma Quayle from The Age) released the article today.
also hearing that Kurt's old man or manager may have started the saga
Quote from: tbagrocks on October 24, 2012, 05:57:47 PM
When this blows over, hopefully the person/people responsable for dobbing or reporting to the AFL get their sanction! Mountains out of mole hills
I kind of agree with this. Not the first part, but the second part.
the crows obviously werent going to take nothing for tippett or they would have straight swapped for 23 ages ago.
Quote from: valkorum on October 24, 2012, 06:02:09 PM
Quote from: tabs on October 24, 2012, 05:35:33 PM
Quote from: valkorum on October 24, 2012, 04:41:40 PM
Quote from: Chopps on October 24, 2012, 04:32:45 PM
Ok sorry I should have worded my question better also I m not all that familiar with judds visy contract
I understand the rule clearer thanks but why is this a problem? It's not like it benefits the crows and out of principle would of tried to make his move smooth regardless
Is this more its a breach and that's that? Regardless of impact?
Sorry all for my lack of understanding
Yes and no - yes its a breach but the impact is draft tampering. They have agreed (in principle) to a market price for a player 3 years (contract in 2009) before the market was available.
It's different than at trade time a player nominating another club - the deal to make the trade still needs to be agreed upon between both clubs. These are normally worked out as the club the player has nominated knows that want to come and play for them - so they do what they can to get the deal done.
The agreement made between the Crows and Tippett is that he can choose the club of his choice and Adelaide will get a round 2 pick. The big difference here is that the 2nd club hasn't been involved in this deal and may not want to part with its 2nd round pick. Hence, why it can be considered draft tampering.
Why are the Swasn offering a first round pick and a player then??
Not sure. Also, need to keep in mind that the Lions offered pick #8 last season for Tippett and it was turned down.
crows might have thought they could have kept him, or that the draft wasn't worth the trade etc. etc.
people (especially Cornes on 5AA radio ) are saying that the Crows aren't benifiting out of all this. Like their only getting pick 22 from the Swans. But the fact is they got Tippett for 3 years in 09 , because of this alledge note everyone signed, and now that , that period is over they say " but we arn't getting nothing " from the deal, so we did nothing wrong, the fact is by signing that "note", they got another 3 years out of tippett, which they might not have if things were done above board
Quote from: Dudge on October 24, 2012, 08:30:31 PM
people (especially Cornes on 5AA radio ) are saying that the Crows aren't benifiting out of all this. Like their only getting pick 22 from the Swans. But the fact is they got Tippett for 3 years in 09 , because of this alledge note everyone signed, and now that , that period is over they say " but we arn't getting nothing " from the deal, so we did nothing wrong, the fact is by signing that "note", they got another 3 years out of tippett, which they might not have if things were done above board
+1 Thats exactly it.
and pick 23 is the swans first round pick :P
Not sure how it's draft tampering, so an agrement was made which makes Tippett, although very, very, very well paid is stupid for agreeing to be traded for a second round pick in 2012.
Not sure why Adelaide is being accused, I still believe it's the media again and the AFL this time fell for it!
Hopefully the AFL take it seriously and give the punishment it deserves...
Because crows used that clause as a bargaining chip.
Quote from: tbagrocks on October 24, 2012, 08:43:20 PM
Not sure how it's draft tampering, so an agrement was made which makes Tippett, although very, very, very well paid is stupid for agreeing to be traded for a second round pick in 2012.
Not sure why Adelaide is being accused, I still believe it's the media again and the AFL this time fell for it!
If the agreement was made, Adelaide are in for a huge fine.
It's tampering and unfair to a range of clubs, or it would be if it went through. Adelaide are innocent atm, but that's until proven guilty.
And not only what i said previously, why did Trigg fess up only a week ago. because (, as he hoped and preyed Tippet went home),it would of been fine, but when he nominated Sydney, and they played hardball it started getting ugly. So my question is- if he HAD gone home, this would not be an issue would it?
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on October 24, 2012, 08:48:57 PM
Because crows used that clause as a bargaining chip.
...and didn't report it to the AFLPA, which is a breach of the rules. Which is on top of retaining Tippett etc. etc.
Adelaide definitely in the wrong here and should be punished accordingly.
Quote from: Dudge on October 24, 2012, 09:35:14 PM
And not only what i said previously, why did Trigg fess up only a week ago. because ( as he hoped and preyed Tippet went home),it would of been fine, it but when he nominated Sydney, and they played hardball it started getting ugly. So my question is- if he HAD gone home, this would not be an issue would it?
Correct, I don't believe it would have been an issue had he gone home. That's where I stop trying to work it out...Tippett for an extra 3 years is huge
Quote from: tabs on October 24, 2012, 07:22:25 PM
Quote from: valkorum on October 24, 2012, 06:13:48 PM
Quote from: tbagrocks on October 24, 2012, 06:11:20 PM
Quote from: kilbluff1995 on October 24, 2012, 06:03:36 PM
Quote from: tbagrocks on October 24, 2012, 05:57:47 PM
When this blows over, hopefully the person/people responsable for dobbing or reporting to the AFL get their sanction! Mountains out of mole hills
Crows went to the AFL themselves
Seems like it was written in the paper before the AFL probed, somebody, some reporter has stirred the pot.
The Crows apparently went to the AFL last Friday - the reporter (Emma Quayle from The Age) released the article today.
also hearing that Kurt's old man or manager may have started the saga
ok so this is why Kurt's old man pr manager was the one that started the saga because the Crows were making it as difficult as possible for Kurt to leave for Sydney
It's always sad to see a negative story come out of the AFL, especially since there are many positive ones, but Tippett has also put this upon himself by choosing not to go to Queensland for 2013 and beyond. Yes the crows have breached the rules here, but Tippett is the one who should be copping it, not the Adelaide Football Club. :)
SS
If Tippett was kept in Adelaide based on a "Gentlemans agreement" to trade him, that then is just silly and void, it cannot be done! How then is it tampering if it is not based on real and legal proceedings, it just means Kurt and his management are stupid that's all, if they accepted this agreement then yep, they're stupid, no crime can be committed because the action is void!
because the agreement was they would take an easy deal or one of lesser value to ensure Tippett got to a club of his choosing by the end of 2012 which is possibly tampering with picks they might or might not receive from the club they trade him to therefor tampering with the draft
We are obviously guilty there's no denying that. The side note exists it wasn't lodged with the AFL as part of the contract so we are guilty. I'm seeing a lot of over reaction from people though. Let the punishment fit the crime please, the Crows stood to gain nothing from it, if in that 3 years Tippett turned into an outright gun and then went home to Brisbane we would of had no choice but to except a second round draft pick as we agreed. I have no doubt that the clause or side note would of been wanted by Tippett also to ensure he got to where he wanted which we all felt was Brisbane or possibly GC. He was happy to stay at the time we didn't force him or bribe him that's a long bow to draw. By definition yes its Draft tampering but one of the mildest cases i believe to of existed. If more comes to light and its worse than what we know of now then punish us accordingly. If you ask me sides that deliberately perform poorly through out a season in order to finish bottom aka Melbourne the most recent are more guilty of draft tampering than the Crows. 500k-800k fine for this is just ridiculous as far as i'm concerned. How many sides over the years have blatantly tanked a season in order to get early draft picks concession picks. Gimme a break. Let the punishment fit the crime. Im dissapointed in the club and John Ried for even thinking of doing it let alone doing it in fact im pissed off and i'll express that view to them via a phone call or an email. Should not of happened.
Cant help but feel Tippett's or his old man had something to do with it ie a phone call to Trigg saying hey get this Sydney deal done or remember when you did this side note, well that may just come to light and Trigg has called his bluff and gone to the AFL 1st and fessed up. That also is a long bow to draw i know. Either way its not excuse for what we did and im not meaning it be just venting.
Yeah, Grazz I agree, this isnt exactly a serious problem in the scheme of things. Adelaide have done the wrong thing, pay a fine an move on.
Get Tippett to Sydney for 23 and White, if Sydney still have that on the table.
One extra concern from the AFL might be that this isnt the only 'note' at Adelaide and some of the others might be more in the crows favour?
I reckon the Crows should cop a fine - IF proven guilty - then have Tippett de-registered. That is what I would be happy with. To take away draft picks seems a bit too harsh, but then again I do not know the full circumstances of what has actually happened
Quote from: SydneyRox on October 24, 2012, 11:48:48 PM
Yeah, Grazz I agree, this isnt exactly a serious problem in the scheme of things. Adelaide have done the wrong thing, pay a fine an move on.
Get Tippett to Sydney for 23 and White, if Sydney still have that on the table.
One extra concern from the AFL might be that this isnt the only 'note' at Adelaide and some of the others might be more in the crows favour?
Yeh i'll be honest Syd thats my worry to that other players have had that clause added to their contracts at Adelaide. If that proves to be the case then maybe we should be afforded the maximum penalty. As a supporter its very dissapointing. 20 years of building a stand up reputation flushed down the toilet for this is about as dumb as it gets.
I'm leaning towards stripping them of pick 20 (their first round draft pick) but then allowing tippett to be traded for pick 23 + white etc. Basically like Tippett walking, but lose 3 spots in the draft, tippett get's to move and not be de-registered and crows don't have to pay a fine. If proven guilty of course.
I still think Tippett will be sent to the PSD... Sydney will definitely be having second thoughts on Tippett now
Not sure if the AFL have enough time to lodge a full investigation before the trade period shuts, so there may not be a trade at all... this is gonna get very interesting
Quote from: SydneyRox on October 24, 2012, 11:48:48 PM
Yeah, Grazz I agree, this isnt exactly a serious problem in the scheme of things. Adelaide have done the wrong thing, pay a fine an move on.
Get Tippett to Sydney for 23 and White, if Sydney still have that on the table.
One extra concern from the AFL might be that this isnt the only 'note' at Adelaide and some of the others might be more in the crows favour?
This is the main issue for the whole thing. AFL contracts have something in them which says something to the effect of 'there are no other payments/benefits/incentives for this player outside of this contract' and both parties would have signed it so you could argue it is also a case of fraud. The AFL demand they know every intricate detail of a player/club relationship and if they don't then they won't be happy about it.
Apparently the crows might have paid for Joel Tippett to move to Adelaide to help Kurt be at ease there... Think the crows are flowered big time...
Yea heard somewhere the crows werent happy tippet was leaving after bringing Joel to Adelaide.
what a cluster flower :o
And the saga continues (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/new-twist-in-tippett-probe-20121024-285vi.html)...
QuoteTHE AFL investigation into alleged draft tampering by Adelaide has been broadened to include accusations of salary cap cheating.
What a mess!
Picture Kurt Tippett playing in Adelaide next year or after that...... Will be a sell out fo sho
This is getting ugly :-\
Kurt Tippett is the most hated man in SA right now
Afl. Com has an article now about a probe to see if Adelaide paid for Joel to move which I guess would be a salary cap breach as money s going to a third party, think about things are gonna get ugly now.
Side note wtf Adelaide nice work flushing a decent reputation down the drain,
How many times has this been asked, & denied that there Was an agreement in place? Been asked for ages so sorry, think that really AFC are in the deep end.
Trigg denied it for ages & recently in the local paper also.
Quote from: roo boys! on October 25, 2012, 08:32:27 AM
This is getting ugly :-\
doesn't look good for either party :-\
from Rucci:
QuoteTrigg's decision to hand the document to the AFL on Friday appears to have been triggered, in part, by rival AFL club Gold Coast becoming aware of Tippett's letter of arrangement with the Crows and seeking AFL scrutiny of the 2009 document.
Source:
http://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/afl/adelaide-crows-in-draft-tamper-claim/story-e6frg213-1226502090401
I think adelaide came clean just to flower tippett.
What are Adelaide thinking? Honestly, why wouldn't they have just done the deal with Sydney that was offered to them from the start, knowing that they didn't want anything to get ugly and make their "under the table" deals made public.
Now they have kicked up a sh*t storm that is likely to leave them with a massive fine, draft picks taken away and a bad reputation.
Tippet may not play for a year but he will be back playing the following year and Adelaide will get nothing for him. They are too stubborn for their own good in this situation. Cant wrap my head around it.
On a bright note, Tippet will be cheap as chips for SC/DT in 2014 :D
Im glad the AFL are going to go through everything at Adelaide. We the supporters deserve the whole story and even more important the truth. getting more dissapointed by the minute. :(
Quote from: quinny88 on October 25, 2012, 01:20:10 PM
What are Adelaide thinking? Honestly, why wouldn't they have just done the deal with Sydney that was offered to them from the start, knowing that they didn't want anything to get ugly and make their "under the table" deals made public.
Now they have kicked up a sh*t storm that is likely to leave them with a massive fine, draft picks taken away and a bad reputation.
Tippet may not play for a year but he will be back playing the following year and Adelaide will get nothing for him. They are too stubborn for their own good in this situation. Cant wrap my head around it.
I think gold coast found them out so that's why adelaide came clean, because it would look better coming from them.
But I agree, their stubbornness is getting them absolutely nowhere. As you said, Tippett might not play for a year, but Adelaide will probably have financial trouble for years.
Why is this all surprising I thought both these things were already suspected.
Quote from: Chopps on October 25, 2012, 01:58:02 PM
Why is this all surprising I thought both these things were already suspected.
From what ive been reading of late regarding the whole saga it has been doing the rumour mills in Adelaide for awhile.
TBH i havent heard jack about it, which is strange as i have a couple of contacts that hear alot of stuff outa the AFC yet i knew nothing, where the hell have i been lol. :o
Well grazz I m not sure there had been speculation about a clause for ages would of thought the afl would of followed this rumor up. Also if we did pay for Joel to move why? I am sure Kurt had enough cash to move his brother......Very silly move by the crows if true.
We will be labeled cheats which is harsh considering none of this benefitted the crows yes we kept tippet but in 09 where was he going that was gonna offer him that money, the clause doesn't benefit the crows nor does moving Joel if Kurt wanted out he new where the door was he wasn't forced to do this.
I am not backing the crows actions as its a clear breach of the rules regardless and the blame lies with the crows.
At the end of this we haven't gained an unfair advantage but rules are rules.
I m a loyal supporter through thick and thin and we ll bounce back. People and clubs make mistakes this was just a biggy.
i'm not quite seeing how people don't see that AFC got a benefit from the 'gentleman's agreement or thinking that they've done nothing wrong. ???
if it is proven as written, it would seem to be a pretty clear case of 'under the table dealing' in that the deal was not transparent to the AFL, other clubs and the footy world in general which then has implications for the draft and salary cap - the draft and salary cap are supposed to be the mechanisms in place to keep the AFL landscape relatively fair and equitable (as close to a level playing field as we can muster), so that every club is theoretically able to rebuild and retool to have a chance at the premiership in cycles - so if AFC and Tippett have 'tampered' with the transparency of either of these two mechanisms, surely penalties are going to be involved??
J959 I didn't say we didn't break the rules I did say we should cop the penalty (may not be in this thread)
How has these deals benefited the crows? We kept tippet yes but I d suggest we were going to for that period anyway. We would of traded tippet undervalue,if he was so homesick that money didn't matter gr would of moved to the lions or swans in 09.
Quote from: Chopps on October 25, 2012, 05:24:11 PM
J959 I didn't say we didn't break the rules I did say we should cop the penalty (may not be in this thread)
How has these deals benefited the crows? We kept tippet yes but I d suggest we were going to for that period anyway. We would of traded tippet undervalue,if he was so homesick that money didn't matter gr would of moved to the lions or swans in 09.
well the most obvious benefit for the crows is the fact that tippett may have left in '09 if those extra incentives weren't there...? ???
firstly you did break the rules, as toga says, if it wasnt for the side agreement, tippett could have left the crows.
I really dont think it's a huge deal though- 2010 you finished 11, 2011 14th, this year 3rd, not that tippett contributed to that.
had you won a premiership though... shower would have hit the fan.
I think Chopps makes a good point, in 09 where would Tippett of gone and got the money the Crows were paying him. Not an excuse just an explanation.
then why did they need to add on the extra clause?
it isnt about the money....
Quote from: Ziplock on October 25, 2012, 07:34:03 PM
then why did they need to add on the extra clause?
it isnt about the money....
I would imagine to ensure Tippett that should he want to leave at the end that they (Crows) wouldnt put any obstacles in the way of him getting to where he wanted to go presumeably Brisbane or GC, i dont know why else it would be there unless it was asked for by the player/manager.
Edit: why do you think they added it zip ?
Quote from: Grazz on October 25, 2012, 07:01:11 PM
I think Chopps makes a good point, in 09 where would Tippett of gone and got the money the Crows were paying him. Not an excuse just an explanation.
hey Grazz and Chopps, i'm not trying to be argumentative but I just thought the issue was fairly apparent is all ...
Quote from: Chopps on October 24, 2012, 09:16:18 AM
Why should the crows be penalised?
because they've done an underhand deal with Tippett in 2009 ... from Jayman's original quote from the story he posted an extract of ... "Adelaide has persistently denied there was a clause in Kurt Tippett's last contract, signed at the end of 2009 when Gold Coast was hovering, to trade him cheaply to the club of his choice when the deal expired."
Quote from: Chopps on October 24, 2012, 04:32:45 PM
Ok sorry I should have worded my question better also I m not all that familiar with judds visy contract
I understand the rule clearer thanks but why is this a problem? It's not like it benefits the crows and out of principle would of tried to make his move smooth regardless
Is this more its a breach and that's that? Regardless of impact?
Sorry all for my lack of understanding
Quote from: Chopps on October 24, 2012, 06:18:35 PM
ok Valk i see how it breaches the rules and thanks for the clarification, not really seeing where the harm is. it doesnt effect sydney and tippet was leaving the crows regardless only way this now benefits the crows if tippet is deregistered he wont be an opposition player
the harm is that the integrity of the salary cap and draft are potentially seriously undermined by this 'side agreement' that no-one formally knew about apart from Adelaide, Tippett and it seems, Tippett's management!! :o
Quote from: Chopps on October 24, 2012, 06:23:30 PM
no i realise that and that would be bad but how does this agreement effect the draft or anything for that matter.
no agreement = tippet to sydney
an agreement = tippet to sydney
the outcome wasnt going to change regardless
but in agreeing to allow Tippett to go cheaply at the end of the 3yr contract in 2012, undermines the 'fair value' of the upcoming draft and also dealings in 2009 perhaps as maybe Tippett accepted an offer he wouldn't ordinarily have taken if he didn't have the 'escape' clause at the end of the 3yrs contract?? (also salary cap implications possible as well no??)
this is probably why it looked like Adelaide was getting the 'pineapple thrust' (or bohica as i used to know it ;)) when there was talk of them accepting pick 23 and Jesse White from Sydney because there was no acknowledgment of the 'gentleman's agreement??
i am just speculating but i did think the benefit/harm/undermining of the draft & salary cap issues were fairly clear?
again, i'm not trying to take the p*ss or intending to be argumentative, I just couldn't see where you were coming from when you said:
* you couldn't see why the crows should be penalised
* not really seeing where the harm is
* that the behaviour was bad but how did this agreement affect the draft or anything for that matter
Quote from: Grazz on October 25, 2012, 07:39:42 PM
Quote from: Ziplock on October 25, 2012, 07:34:03 PM
then why did they need to add on the extra clause?
it isnt about the money....
I would imagine to ensure Tippett that should he want to leave at the end that they (Crows) wouldnt put any obstacles in the way of him getting to where he wanted to go presumeably Brisbane or GC, i dont know why else it would be there unless it was asked for by the player/manager.
Edit: why do you think they added it zip ?
otherwise Tippett would not sign it
Why we did not accept Pick 8 last year from Brisbane I do not know...
Quote from: Tominator on October 25, 2012, 08:34:51 PM
Quote from: Grazz on October 25, 2012, 07:39:42 PM
Quote from: Ziplock on October 25, 2012, 07:34:03 PM
then why did they need to add on the extra clause?
it isnt about the money....
I would imagine to ensure Tippett that should he want to leave at the end that they (Crows) wouldnt put any obstacles in the way of him getting to where he wanted to go presumeably Brisbane or GC, i dont know why else it would be there unless it was asked for by the player/manager.
Edit: why do you think they added it zip ?
otherwise Tippett would not sign it
Why we did not accept Pick 8 last year from Brisbane I do not know...
exactly.
he wouldn't sign it.
so it was breaking the rules.
Quote from: Ziplock on October 25, 2012, 08:52:10 PM
Quote from: Tominator on October 25, 2012, 08:34:51 PM
Quote from: Grazz on October 25, 2012, 07:39:42 PM
Quote from: Ziplock on October 25, 2012, 07:34:03 PM
then why did they need to add on the extra clause?
it isnt about the money....
I would imagine to ensure Tippett that should he want to leave at the end that they (Crows) wouldnt put any obstacles in the way of him getting to where he wanted to go presumeably Brisbane or GC, i dont know why else it would be there unless it was asked for by the player/manager.
Edit: why do you think they added it zip ?
otherwise Tippett would not sign it
Why we did not accept Pick 8 last year from Brisbane I do not know...
exactly.
he wouldn't sign it.
so it was breaking the rules.
well he is definitely at fault as well if that is the case... he pretty much forced the Crows into doing something illegal - even though he may not have known it was illegal - so he could be de-registered and his manager's licence revoked
he didnt force the crows to do anything. The club is in a far better position to ascertain the legality of the contract, and to me a clause like that sounds like something a club would put forward in a last ditch effort to hold onto a player, not something a player would necessarily put forward as insurance.
Alot of what im saying is being misunderstood i think, so i'll just put it all here now
1)Are we guilty of draft tampering. Yes we are
2) Some people are saying what did the Crows get out of it really. A second round draft pick doesnt seem like alot but thats not the point we manipulated the draft in 2009 that could of stopped Brisbane from having Kurt. Not only that by saying that we would only ask for a second round pick means for example say Brisbane gets kurt for a second round pick leaving them all their first
round picks to then go on and aquire other good players that another club may now miss out on because Bribane are in a better position to deal for them Thats draft tampering. All that aside we still got Kurt for another 3 years Draft tampering.
I will say here though that i feel the clause would of been asked for by Kurt/manager but even thats irrelevant we still put it there so we could keep him, would he of gone for a 100k less to someone else maybe, maybe not, the facts are we put a clause in an unseen contract to ensure he stayed when we should not of done and just excepted the cards however they fell.
3) Are we in breach of the salary cap concerning Joel Tippett: This is a bit up in the air still but if we payed any money be it for tickets a removalist to get his stuff here whatever then yes we are guilty of breaching the salary cap.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Today i emailed the club and had a rant at them to basically telling them how Bloody idiotic we are for doing this no matter how they sugar coat it , you can all say we went to the AFL 1st but i believe we went to the AFL 1st because we knew we were going to be caught so you tried to save our backside by getting in 1st, well that doesnt wash with me or many others for that matter. Trigg and anyone else that was involved in this deal should be terminated if not now as soon as the AFL find us guilty which they will because we are you know it i know it. Thanks very much for subjecting your supporters to the the crap were going to cop over this for the next few months possibly years that was very decent of you. I ranted a bit more but not worth printing here.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I hope this clarifies my stance on what has gone on and explains exactly how i feel. My concern now is what else is there that hasnt come to light, Carolyn Wilson seems to think there is more to come other media scribes believe there is more to come this has me very concerned. Do we deserve whatever we get , you bet we bloody do.
I say flower Sydney the cows. They can flower off with there bullshower and give what Tippett is worth.
Quote from: whatlez on October 25, 2012, 09:58:45 PM
I say flower Sydney the cows. They can flower off with there bullshower and give what Tippett is worth.
Wait until you win a Premiership Whatlez :P
Sydney have been in the bargaining seat the whole time. They knew it right from when Tippett picked to come here.
It's simple strategy. Pick 23 can still net you a decent player like Fyfe or Johnson so its not that much of a bad deal.
What's Tippett (the traitor) worth? A 200cm 25yr FF/Ruck from a basketball background (is still learning footy) with a 50 goal season to his belt, basically he is Gold!
Quote from: tbagrocks on October 25, 2012, 10:11:52 PM
What's Tippett (the traitor) worth? A 200cm 25yr FF/Ruck with a 50 goal season to his belt, basically he is Gold!
When the club has no option but to trade him, I think you'll find his Gold is scratched away to bare copper.
your value diminishes substantially when you're out of contract.
fact is, if the afl finds out adelaide had a side deal with tippett as suspected, then the real cows are adelaide for not honouring their agreement and screwing over their player.
Quote from: Ziplock on October 25, 2012, 10:17:53 PM
your value diminishes substantially when you're out of contract.
fact is, if the afl finds out adelaide had a side deal with tippett as suspected, then the real cows are adelaide for not honouring their agreement and screwing over their player.
I know our opinions differ a lot and I respect your views are your views but I completely disagree with that...
Crows have not screwed over Tippett anywhere near as much as he has screwed over them
If we are guilty we deserve to be fined, sanctioned, whatever, but Tippett is no saint here
if they had a contract with him stipulating he would be traded for a second round pick to the club of his choice
then a) they've screwed him over by giving him the side contract to sign- as grazz said, it's the clubs responsibility to protect its players, not visa versa.
b) they've screwed him over by reneging on the signed contact.
it doesn't matter how you look at it, they've screwed him.
you know why they told the afl? because tippetts lawyers were pressuring them to honour their contractual agreement, so they decided that rather than do that, they would just flower him over and get him deregistered.
Quote from: Ziplock on October 25, 2012, 10:17:53 PM
your value diminishes substantially when you're out of contract.
fact is, if the afl finds out adelaide had a side deal with tippett as suspected, then the real cows are adelaide for not honouring their agreement and screwing over their player.
As ive said zip everyone was operating under the illusion that he would want to go home, he has never mentioned any other club just i want to go home im homesick, this is what we all were hearing time after time. By flipping to Sydney i guess the Crows thought oh well deal off now. In hind sight they should of just done the deal with Sydney and moved on but that wouldnt of stopped Wood's from asking some questions of us as to why we are off loading Kurt so cheaply to Sydney and maybe still investigated us anyway. Me im glad it all came out, instead of going on thinking my club was a stand up club i now know the truth and id rather have the truth every time regardless of how bad it is. I think they screwed each other over.
Don't be silly Zip it was the Tippett camp that wanted the deal, Adelaide agreed, watch and listen as I am proved right!
well, we won't know until we find out the contract details are we?
we'll see tbag- eitherway both parties are in the wrong. It doesn't seem like a deal a player makes, that's all.
Your right, but I still believe, right or wrong, that it was a seperate egreement to the contract, and Tippett is stupid for his agreement to it, about the second round pick for his future
That is not what bothers me! Ask Joel Tippett what he made from West Adelaide to play! And the White Goodman didn't even play the GF after kurt walked out sighting injery!
Quote from: Ziplock on October 25, 2012, 10:43:49 PM
well, we won't know until we find out the contract details are we?
This is true, we should all probably except we are only making assumptions about the details of who did what, how when and why.
Hopefully the AFL will make it all plain to see exactly what was writen and exactly what was done by who and when and why. Then we can all get stuck in and have our say with the benefit of all the facts.
History tells us The AFL sink the b00ts in these scenario's...
The issue soon will be:
What idiot team will take Tippett.
The Pies and every other team would love Tippett whatlez, a bit of a silly comment that one.
It does seem like Adelaide and Tippett deliberately cheated (and I'm sorry, that's what it is). I've never had great tolerance for this, so think the penalties should be harsh.
I'd suspend Tippett for 6 matches + $10,000 fine. Would fine Adelaide $200,000 (the amount they were going to play) and there first draft pick forfeit.
Zip I am in no way saying the blame lays with tippet but he is represented by an agent they know full well the rules and they know / knew this was cheating. Tippet should go after them all the same.
I see four entities at fault here with differing amounts of fault.
Afl - this rumor has been around for ages of the clause why are they looking into it only now it's their duty to protect the competition. They should of seeked clarification from the involved parties once it surfaced (what else has Adrian Anderson got to do apart from tinker with rules)
Tippet - could of gone about leaving the club a different way also held to his end of the deal if that was truly about returning to qld.
Without the deal if he had changed his mind big deal 3 years is ages. I however don't place any blame of this squarely on tippet I don't see how it's his fault. He is the catalyst for this issue arising that's all.
Velocity sports. They know the rules of the game otherwise how do they negotiate contracts they should of advised Kurt not to sign or accept anything outside of his contract
Finally the crows, I am speechless of the stupidity of the people in charge. If we are guilty throw the book at them.
I am following in grazz's footsteps and making sure they are aware of the disgust of another supporter.
Anyone at the club involved needs to be sacked and fined along with the club. It's a shame for the playing list they don't deserve this but the public won't be happy once the time has been served for the crime. Will be hard to hold our heads up as supporters and back this great club unless they do everything right here forward if so I don't give a toss what anyone else says about the club
Ossie I d say in addition to your suggestion we also lose tippet for nothing.
Along with velocity sports being fined
Quote from: Chopps on October 26, 2012, 07:30:22 AM
Ossie I d say in addition to your suggestion we also lose tippet for nothing.
Along with velocity sports being fined
Sounds fair, though the Sydney Swans might feel a bit ripped off though.
They can still get him or take our first two draft picks and let us trade him although I d imagine his currency is out the Window right now
would have to be stupid to get him now don't know what the AFL will do with him if he is found guilty of anything
Not sure if I said this already - maybe it was a other thread - but what would happen in this scenario?
Kurt Tippett traded to Sydney for White and Pick 23
What would happen if Tippett's AFL licence gets revoked? Would that mean Sydney have given up White and Pick 23 for nothing or would the trade be reversed?
Quote from: kilbluff1995 on October 26, 2012, 09:20:44 AM
would have to be stupid to get him now don't know what the AFL will do with him if he is found guilty of anything
I don't understand why they would be stupid to get him. Tippett in 2009 was only 21-22 and made a stupid mistake, I'm sure he'd learn from it. He didn't get violent, drunk, wasn't racist or sexist, wasn't on drugs, or chicken wing tackle anybody like many people on current AFL lists who are superstars.
Any team would love Tippett.
@Tominator, yes it would.
your missing my point they might get him and he might get suspended for half a season or something like that my comment was not about him but the punishment he may get
Quote from: kilbluff1995 on October 26, 2012, 09:27:02 AM
your missing my point they might get him and he might get suspended for half a season or something like that my comment was not about him but the punishment he may get
I sincerely doubt Tippett would be deregistered and that any suspension won't be huge. You select players like Tippett for the long haul and for finals, Sydney won't have much trouble winning without him at the start of the year, and the Suns/Giants/Lions are looking long term anyway.
Tippett is so overrated anyway, when he is kicking for goal i am surprised when it goes thru the middle :P
@Ossman, surely they r gonna hit them harder than that?
Quote from: ossie85 on October 26, 2012, 09:24:47 AM
Quote from: kilbluff1995 on October 26, 2012, 09:20:44 AM
would have to be stupid to get him now don't know what the AFL will do with him if he is found guilty of anything
I don't understand why they would be stupid to get him. Tippett in 2009 was only 21-22 and made a stupid mistake, I'm sure he'd learn from it. He didn't get violent, drunk, wasn't racist or sexist, wasn't on drugs, or chicken wing tackle anybody like many people on current AFL lists who are superstars.
Any team would love Tippett.
@Tominator, yes it would.
sorry, which were you referring to? Does the trade get reversed or Sydney get burned?
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/the-afl-is-investigating-computer-and-bank-records-at-west-lakes/story-e6frf9jf-1226503709872
BANG!!!
'The deal stated that the Crows would trade Tippett to the club of his choice for a second-round pick at the end of his playing contract, an arrangement that might constitute draft tampering.
The deal also reportedly guaranteed Tippett $200,000 outside the playing contract lodged by Adelaide with the AFL, to be paid to him by third-party companies or the Crows.'
Worst think is they did this for Kurt Tippett :o The guy most of us wanted to trade in 2009, 2010, and 2011, we never really wanted him, we had tex the whole time and McKernen will be at least as good as Kurt. WFT was wrong with the Adelaide guys? :o
AFL announced that Tippett cannot be traded
any deal involving Tippett is now officially off. Crows now cannot trade Tippett while investigations are ongoing
Quote from: tbagrocks on October 26, 2012, 12:32:18 PM
Worst think is they did this for Kurt Tippett :o The guy most of us wanted to trade in 2009, 2010, and 2011, we never really wanted him, we had tex the whole time and McKernen will be at least as good as Kurt. WFT was wrong with the Adelaide guys? :o
bullshower you didn't want him haha, tex would've been shower without tippett as he would've found developing hard getting the best defender every week
also, mckernen is not as good as tippett lol
you guys got 180k from winning nab, so that'd logically be a minimum fine :P
No one is allowed to bring up the name Kurt Tippett for the rest of the day :o
Well year.
Quote from: Toga on October 26, 2012, 01:28:37 PM
Quote from: tbagrocks on October 26, 2012, 12:32:18 PM
Worst think is they did this for Kurt Tippett :o The guy most of us wanted to trade in 2009, 2010, and 2011, we never really wanted him, we had tex the whole time and McKernen will be at least as good as Kurt. WFT was wrong with the Adelaide guys? :o
bullshower you didn't want him haha, tex would've been shower without tippett as he would've found developing hard getting the best defender every week
also, mckernen is not as good as tippett lol
McKernen is like 20 so of course he is no Tippett yet, one day he will be
Yeah mate most Crows supporters wanted those trades for Tippett to go through, especially seeing that we knew he would go this year anyway! And Taylor played better without Tippett his whole career
^^ you said his name >:(
Quote from: whatlez on October 26, 2012, 01:59:09 PM
^^ you said his name >:(
Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett
Quote from: valkorum on October 26, 2012, 02:00:49 PM
Quote from: whatlez on October 26, 2012, 01:59:09 PM
^^ you said his name >:(
Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett, Tippett
Valdemort, Valdemort, Valdemort,,,Tippett, Tippett, Tippett >:(
Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice
Quote from: valkorum on October 26, 2012, 03:19:59 PM
Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice
Haha just seen the show Beetlejuice today at Universal Studios in Orlando!!!!!!!!
What an unmitigated flower up. So disappointed with the Crows executive.
And just keeps getting worse. (http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n624/Grazz64/firecracker.gif)
Hate to add salt to open wounds but:
Quote"That a club would seek to secure a player’s services for an extra three years by agreeing to trade at the end of the contract, and for that to not occur, is completely unsatisfactory.
"We are also mindful that this outcome has not only impacted on Kurt, but also another player [Jesse White] who is an innocent third party unfairly caught up in these circumstances."
Source:
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/150362/default.aspx
Crows are going down for this... Kinda wish we got White and Pick 23 now
so the issue here is that there was an extra bit on a contract signed that was not shown to the afl, that stipulated the trade firstly, and secondly around an extra 200k a year?
does the player actually have any responsibility to present the contract to the afl? or is that completely the clubs prerogative? I don't know, and imo it's 50/50 as to whether the club would have to do it, or whether the club and the player would have to, but if it's solely the clubs responsibility, tippett could be entirely innocent of this situation, and thought that the entire contract was signed off by the afl.
it'd explain why the tippett camp has been pushing for the honouring of the agreement so hard, while the adelaide camp denied its existance for so long...
is that's true (and it mightn't be, does anyone know any more info on how this works?), then adelaide have well and truly flowered their own player.
I would say there would be as much responsibility on the player, manager as is on the club to do what is right but the penalty would be heavily weighted towards the club as its the club the presents the contract to the AFL. There is a clause in all AFL contracts that asks is there anything outside of this contract being of further inducement/payment or otherwise that is not listed in this contract that you are aware of. The player, manager and the club all have to sign this aswell. might not be worded exactly as i wrote it but you get the gist.
I'd like to add to all this, a different slant. Lord forbid, how do we really know the Crows are the only club that has alledgely done this., we realistcally don't to be honest. I believe most clubs would have something going on, whether thats a free drinks pass at their local or anything really. But the unfortunate thing is the Crows may have got caught!. I would also like to say, that this current saga i feel, will be firmly dealt with by the AFL. As some of you know my allegiance is not with the Crows, so if they have done whats being said they've done, then they have to cop a reasonable penalty. but i wont say their the only club with " secret " deals, maybe the silliest (paper trail )
This annoys me to Dudge as I feel breaches are rort through the AFL and some dick has dobbed in Adelaide.
Quote from: tbagrocks on October 26, 2012, 11:00:37 PM
This annoys me to Dudge as I feel breaches are rort through the AFL and some dick has dobbed in Adelaide.
It does'nt really annoy me tbags,as i don't follow the crows. All i'm saying is, we all sometimes wonder how certain teams can afford all their stars, or how can such-a-such team pay players X Y Z all this money. Just saying : :-\
Quote from: Dudge on October 26, 2012, 10:53:44 PM
I'd like to add to all this, a different slant. Lord forbid, how do we really know the Crows are the only club that has alledgely done this., we realistcally don't to be honest. I believe most clubs would have something going on, whether thats a free drinks pass at their local or anything really. But the unfortunate thing is the Crows may have got caught!. I would also like to say, that this current saga i feel, will be firmly dealt with by the AFL. As some of you know my allegiance is not with the Crows, so if they have done whats being said they've done, then they have to cop a reasonable penalty. but i wont say their the only club with " secret " deals, maybe the silliest (paper trail )
I dont doubt there is a few others if not more stretching the boundaries of the rules if not breaking them. Clubs are under intense pressure to deliver results be it for supporters, sponsors etc and some will sucumb to the dark side. Majority of supporters regardless of what team you pick would want their club to be doing everything on the up and up and they would be as gutted as Crows supporters are when they get caught. All the same there are no excuses for doing it but i appreciate the sentiment in what you wrote.
As a Crows supporter I shake my head in disappointment at the club. But I have no sympathy for them with watever punishment gets handed down to them. That's what u get for paying that spud Tippett more money then he was worth in the first place, and how disappointed would Mark Ricciuto be?? He told the Crows the should of drafted him 3 years ago when he first wanted to go back to Queensland as he could see this showerfight would happen. Well I hope u learn ur lesson Adelaide!
And to think we knocked back pick 8 last year for him. And now look at us!! Bout to be broke and lose Tippett and probably draft picks for nothing! This is starting to make the fact we made a prelim pretty insignificant!
Quote from: Grazz on October 26, 2012, 11:41:43 PM
Quote from: Dudge on October 26, 2012, 10:53:44 PM
I'd like to add to all this, a different slant. Lord forbid, how do we really know the Crows are the only club that has alledgely done this., we realistcally don't to be honest. I believe most clubs would have something going on, whether thats a free drinks pass at their local or anything really. But the unfortunate thing is the Crows may have got caught!. I would also like to say, that this current saga i feel, will be firmly dealt with by the AFL. As some of you know my allegiance is not with the Crows, so if they have done whats being said they've done, then they have to cop a reasonable penalty. but i wont say their the only club with " secret " deals, maybe the silliest (paper trail )
I dont doubt there is a few others if not more stretching the boundaries of the rules if not breaking them. Clubs are under intense pressure to deliver results be it for supporters, sponsors etc and some will sucumb to the dark side. Majority of supporters regardless of what team you pick would want their club to be doing everything on the up and up and they would be as gutted as Crows supporters are when they get caught. All the same there are no excuses for doing it but i appreciate the sentiment in what you wrote.
U know me Grazz, i'd never make an excuse for the crows (this actually makes us from the dark side, season look, or for a better word,feel better than it did a week ago lol ) just think there could be others. whether their on the crows scale of possible wrongdoings i don't know
Quote from: Hagebear on October 26, 2012, 11:55:46 PM
And to think we knocked back pick 8 last year for him. And now look at us!! Bout to be broke and lose Tippett and probably draft picks for nothing! This is starting to make the fact we made a prelim pretty insignificant!
Agreed its certainly ruined the year we had. If i sit and think of what weve done compared to the year we had the later just disappears Puff gone. Never thought id ever be happy we didnt win the flag, how crazy is that.
Taylor Walker, Paddy Dangerman, Rory Sloane, Thommo, Truck, Talia, Sauce, Matty Wright, Petrenko, McKernen, Vince, Douchy, VB, Reilly, Stiffy, Mitch Grigg, Luke Brown, Kerridge, Rory Laird, Lynchy, the Magerey medalist couldn't get a game
Someone was jealous of the Adelaide talant and judging by this line up, we'll be fine!
Been reading this from afar & not looking good for you guys. As stated previous posts maybe if you had traded him earlier or previous years this ( may have ) been swept under the carpet.
Quote from: Dudge on October 27, 2012, 12:03:34 AM
Quote from: Grazz on October 26, 2012, 11:41:43 PM
Quote from: Dudge on October 26, 2012, 10:53:44 PM
I'd like to add to all this, a different slant. Lord forbid, how do we really know the Crows are the only club that has alledgely done this., we realistcally don't to be honest. I believe most clubs would have something going on, whether thats a free drinks pass at their local or anything really. But the unfortunate thing is the Crows may have got caught!. I would also like to say, that this current saga i feel, will be firmly dealt with by the AFL. As some of you know my allegiance is not with the Crows, so if they have done whats being said they've done, then they have to cop a reasonable penalty. but i wont say their the only club with " secret " deals, maybe the silliest (paper trail )
I dont doubt there is a few others if not more stretching the boundaries of the rules if not breaking them. Clubs are under intense pressure to deliver results be it for supporters, sponsors etc and some will sucumb to the dark side. Majority of supporters regardless of what team you pick would want their club to be doing everything on the up and up and they would be as gutted as Crows supporters are when they get caught. All the same there are no excuses for doing it but i appreciate the sentiment in what you wrote.
U know me Grazz, i'd never make an excuse for the crows (this actually makes us from the dark side, season look, or for a better word,feel better than it did a week ago lol ) just think there could be others. whether their on the crows scale of possible wrongdoings i don't know
Oh dont worry i understand completely you never meant it as an excuse it was just an observation of the whole comp mate, i get that. Your to clever to suggest you can defend the indefensible or you were a week ago the last time we had a beer. Really dont want to come and have anymore for awhile because im bound to get my ears chewed off and i just bought new sunglasses.
Quote from: naste on October 27, 2012, 12:12:28 AM
Been reading this from afar & not looking good for you guys. As stated previous posts maybe if you had traded him earlier or previous years this ( may have ) been swept under the carpet.
Well if you play with fire your going to get burnt mate, serves us right. Hope the holiday is going well.
Reminds you of Judd & Diesel @ Carltank & that left a sour taste to them.
I still cannot fathom why we did not accept Pick 8 for him last year.....
Quote from: Tominator on October 27, 2012, 08:42:13 AM
I still cannot fathom why we did not accept Pick 8 for him last year.....
Well, a big chance you wouldn't have finished top 4 without him this year and maybe they wanted to convince him to stay
Quote from: tbagrocks on October 27, 2012, 12:12:21 AM
Taylor Walker, Paddy Dangerman, Rory Sloane, Thommo, Truck, Talia, Sauce, Matty Wright, Petrenko, McKernen, Vince, Douchy, VB, Reilly, Stiffy, Mitch Grigg, Luke Brown, Kerridge, Rory Laird, Lynchy, the Magerey medalist couldn't get a game
Someone was jealous of the Adelaide talant and judging by this line up, we'll be fine!
Quote from: tbagrocks on October 26, 2012, 11:00:37 PM
This annoys me to Dudge as I feel breaches are rort through the AFL and some dick has dobbed in Adelaide.
Sorry tbag can I just say stop suggesting that someone has unfairly dobbed adelaide in, by all reports they did it of their own accord to try and save face.
i know you crows boys will be disappointed with the situation but just be gracious and cop it like Grazz, Hagebear and Tom are doing.
adelaide apparently got told by tippetts lawyers that if they didn't honour their contractual agreement, they were going to take the case to court.
which is actually fair enough.
so adelaide came clean instead.
which, in the end, just demonstrates that they're not willing to follow their agreements, or take care of their players.
and they wonder why tippett didnt want to stay there...
Thats not true zip, the deal was going to be done a week ago friday untill Noble got a phone call saying we cant do anything as Trigg is going to the AFL to ask for clarification on the legalities of Tippets contract then after that phone call the whole thing blew up. The deal was going to be done.
...
last time I checked, trigg was part of adelaide mate.
so, in the end it still comes down to adelaide screwing him over?
Tippett's the White Goodman that needed a clause to "go home" he's a sook and a baby and for some wierd reason Adelaide agreed to his terms, it's all Tippett and his dad, Adelaide are the victims Tippett is also as he was only 22 so the blame rests with Mr Tippett and the manager
Quote from: tbagrocks on October 27, 2012, 01:39:41 PM
Tippett's the White Goodman that needed a clause to "go home" he's a sook and a baby and for some wierd reason Adelaide agreed to his terms, it's all Tippett and his dad, Adelaide are the victims Tippett is also as he was only 22 so the blame rests with Mr Tippett and the manager
no.
adelaide has caused the problem here, all the other supporters on FF have admitted it, take a leaf out of their books tbag.
Tippett wanted to go home. Adelaide wanted to keep him, so they agreed/suggested a clause making it easy for him to go home at the end of the contract. This should not have happened, Adelaide should have let him go three years ago.
Adelaide are not the victims, they are directly involved and might even be instigators, we'll see.
Quote from: tbagrocks on October 27, 2012, 01:39:41 PM
Tippett's the White Goodman that needed a clause to "go home" he's a sook and a baby and for some wierd reason Adelaide agreed to his terms, it's all Tippett and his dad, Adelaide are the victims Tippett is also as he was only 22 so the blame rests with Mr Tippett and the manager
tbag, I'm going to say this officially
stfu, you're the most one eyes supporter on this forum, and I'm sure I'm not the only one it's really pissing off.
firstly- we have no idea who instigated this clause for tippett to go to 'the club of his choice', it could have been the tippett party for a way out, or it could have been adelaide as an incentive to stay- I'm still leaning towards adelaide- if tippett had initiated it, then logically adelaide would have traded him last year for pick 8.
secondly, eitherway, at a best case scenario, the fault is split 50/50 between the parties- you guys are being investigated for a salary cap breach... that's not tippetts fault, that's adelaide flowering up.
and it still doesn't change the crows reneging on a legal contract.
You guys don't live in Adelaide with our talk back radio and media here, so I think I know a little more about what's going on than you,
Adelaide are in trouble yeah I get it, stupid for two things, keeping Tippett and what ever breaches they have done
But still it was the Tippett party that wanted to go and they wanted the clause so get sturred
Quote from: tbagrocks on October 27, 2012, 02:00:38 PM
You guys don't live in Adelaide with our talk back radio and media here, so I think I know a little more about what's going on than you,
Adelaide are in trouble yeah I get it, stupid for two things, keeping Tippett and what ever breaches they have done
But still it was the Tippett party that wanted to go and they wanted the clause so get sturred
actually bro i do live in adelaide, i have to put up with our shower media on a daily flowering basis and wouldn't believe a word that they say, so I believe I know just as much about this shower is you - problem is, none of us know for sure until the AFL releases its findings.
Yes, you have the right to be annoyed at tippett for flowering you guys around a bit, but please for the love of god stop trying to say someone dobbed you in, and that its all tippett's fault.
adelaide went to the AFL to save face because they knew they were going to be in shower, no one dobbed you in. and even if they did, they would have every right to.
yes, tippett played a part in this whole fiasco, but adelaide are just as much to blame if not more for becoming involved in the situation.
no mate, we don't live in adelaide, so we don't get fed all the biased bs that you guys do.
nothing is known until the afl reports it- and atm, all the afl has reported is that they suspect tippett was getting 200k outside of the cap, and that there was a contractual agreement to trade him for a second round pick.
eitherway though, it'd not good for adelaide- even if the deal was put forward by the tippett party, all that does is make you guys morons for not trading him last year for pick 8.
For instance, biased bs coming out of adelaide- Giles is coming to adelaide.
you guys didn't need another tall, or another R/F, it was always a stupid rumour, and giants were never going to let go of giles, and giles was unlikely to walk out on the only club who was willing to give him a chance. Yet this rumour started in adelaide because to adelaide and its media, SA clubs are the centre of the football world and everything revolves around you guys. Honestly, if Giles had left, it would have been to somewhere like collingwood, geelong, hawthorn, who could all do with a relatively young and talented ruckman, who has the ability to go forward and is a ridiculously good shot from outside 50.
I'll agree Adelaide are morons for not trading him, also for the deal they did, I'm not saying Adelaide didn't flower up
No idea where the Giles thing came from but it was silly, side note, his dad works with my dad as Ministers on the York peninsula,
Adelaide got a back up Ruck anyway maybe someone knew they wanted a ruckman? But he was never going to come and play second fiddle after the year he had
i don't beleive most of the media anyway they all S**K Balls but i do trust 5AA, Rowey is usually on the money
Am I genuinely the only person who uses afl.com for news?
All you need for AFL is there. Every single other site is basically just an opinion blog.
It's actually kind of funny because Sydney media doesn't seem to care about Tippett being the instigator and neither does Melbourne.
Tippett couldn't do anything illegal without Adelaide saying yes.
And he's a kid (represented by a salesman and his dad) dealing with "professionals" at Adelaide who should never ever agree to anything that even had a faint sniff of the murky - even on the slim chance it all washes out ok it's still at a bare minimum stuffed up our trade campaign:
In order of blame it should go:
The Adelaide Board
The Chief Executive
The people at Adelaide advising the above
Tippets agent
Tippets dad
Kurt himself
Quote from: Toga on October 27, 2012, 02:04:36 PM
Quote from: tbagrocks on October 27, 2012, 02:00:38 PM
You guys don't live in Adelaide with our talk back radio and media here, so I think I know a little more about what's going on than you,
Adelaide are in trouble yeah I get it, stupid for two things, keeping Tippett and what ever breaches they have done
But still it was the Tippett party that wanted to go and they wanted the clause so get sturred
actually bro i do live in adelaide, i have to put up with our shower media on a daily flowering basis and wouldn't believe a word that they say, so I believe I know just as much about this shower is you - problem is, none of us know for sure until the AFL releases its findings.
Yes, you have the right to be annoyed at tippett for flowering you guys around a bit, but please for the love of god stop trying to say someone dobbed you in, and that its all tippett's fault.
adelaide went to the AFL to save face because they knew they were going to be in shower, no one dobbed you in. and even if they did, they would have every right to.
yes, tippett played a part in this whole fiasco, but adelaide are just as much to blame if not more for becoming involved in the situation.
+1 to all of this
Quote from: Ziplock on October 27, 2012, 01:17:58 PM
...
last time I checked, trigg was part of adelaide mate.
so, in the end it still comes down to adelaide screwing him over?
Your missing the point zip. The deal was going to be signed off a week ago Friday. Then Trigg fessed up to the contract
so automatically any deal had to be stopped so consultation over the legalities of what the club had done.
They didnt do it to screw over Tippett as you suggest but to avoid the AFL recinding any deal done which would of affected White, Sydney and Tippett adversely. I cant make it any plainer.
Edit:The potential trade involving Tippett for pick No.23 and White was ready to happen last Friday before it was halted.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/150362/default.aspx
Wether we were dobbed in or not means jack to me. But some media sources are suggesting GC got hold of a copy of the contract and showed it to some media people. How much truth is in that who knows but as i said i dont really care, if our club didnt go down this path thered be nothing to dob us in for and we'd stiil be enjoying the successful year.
are the Crows now officially out of the draft or not?
Quote from: Tominator on October 27, 2012, 05:48:19 PM
are the Crows now officially out of the draft or not?
Yet to be determined Tom but i would expect we would have no further involvement in any remaining drafts for 2012.
Im only guessing as to how the AFL will react.
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on October 27, 2012, 02:48:27 PM
Am I genuinely the only person who uses afl.com for news?
All you need for AFL is there. Every single other site is basically just an opinion blog.
It's actually kind of funny because Sydney media doesn't seem to care about Tippett being the instigator and neither does Melbourne.
Tippett couldn't do anything illegal without Adelaide saying yes.
I only use afl.com.au for the same reasons you listed. :) It is alwyas correct.
So I assume that the AFL are going to be looking at every club as Adelaide cannot be the only team breaking rules, alot like Lance Armstrong! otherwise it's just a which hunt!
How is it a witch (not which) hunt when we told them what was going on? It's not like they singled us out for no reason! ::)
Quote from: tbagrocks on October 27, 2012, 06:17:45 PM
So I assume that the AFL are going to be looking at every club as Adelaide cannot be the only team breaking rules, alot like Lance Armstrong! otherwise it's just a which hunt!
you do realise the AFL employs people in order to keep track of salary cap breaches?
Quote from: tbagrocks on October 27, 2012, 06:17:45 PM
So I assume that the AFL are going to be looking at every club as Adelaide cannot be the only team breaking rules, alot like Lance Armstrong! otherwise it's just a which hunt!
so, when carlton broke the salary cap, were other clubs doing it too?
this is a really, really specific side arrangement and deal. I'm sure the afl will look into other clubs, but I doubt they'll find anything.
it's not a witch hunt if you tell the AFL that you did it...
Grazz- I'm really struggling to see the difference here. The contract was signed 3 years ago- the crows wouldn't have done that with the intention of then telling the AFL about the side contract/side agreement/ money on top of the salary cap. So,the deal was ready to be done, and then your chief executive decides to 'come clean' after 3 years.... it's bizarre...
Even still I doubt Adelaide are the only club with sins to confess! I just cannot believe Adelaide will be screwed because of this White Goodman nobody in Adelaide really wanted to keep!
You can't relate AFL to cycling at all in this instance.
The whole of cycling is corrupt with drugs. No comparison
Quote from: tbagrocks on October 27, 2012, 06:38:14 PM
Even still I doubt Adelaide are the only club with sins to confess! I just cannot believe Adelaide will be screwed because of this White Goodman nobody in Adelaide really wanted to keep!
Every Crows supporter wanted Tippett to stay.... Only when HE didn't want to stay did Crows supporters suddenly think he was worthless.
Quote from: tbagrocks on October 27, 2012, 06:38:14 PM
Even still I doubt Adelaide are the only club with sins to confess! I just cannot believe Adelaide will be screwed because of this White Goodman nobody in Adelaide really wanted to keep!
yeah mate. Nobody in adelaide wanted to keep him. That's why you were paying him 500K (+ allegedly 200k above the salary cap). Because you didn't want him.
mate, it's not tippetts fault- you know what, when most clubs have a decent player they want to keep, but can't afford, they'll trade him off, and not breach the salary cap and give him side contracts- wellingham at the pies for instance, he wanted to go to WCE, so they sent him there in exchange for an early pick in the 20s.
you can't just blame tippett because your club seriously flowered up and broke the rules. You cheated, and this is what happens.
deal with it.
Quote from: SilkySkills on October 27, 2012, 06:43:41 PM
Quote from: tbagrocks on October 27, 2012, 06:38:14 PM
Even still I doubt Adelaide are the only club with sins to confess! I just cannot believe Adelaide will be screwed because of this White Goodman nobody in Adelaide really wanted to keep!
Every Crows supporter wanted Tippett to stay.... Only when HE didn't want to stay did Crows supporters suddenly think he was worthless.
+1 save us the bullshower you wanted to keep him, that's why the clause was there. don't try deny it.
No we cannot compare Cycling to Footy, just an example of how others may also be corrupt
I don't know many at all who did not want the recent trades for Tippett from 2009+ to go through, we all knew Tex would take over and we wanted the compo for Tippett, not just me but most the supporters I know. He can't kick, McKernen and Tex can!
Most of us were annoyed with the Adelaide staff for not trading Tippo, and what did they pay him? :-\ We were not happy!
Well I'll put my hand up as one of the supporters who wanted him to stay, only after he said he was leaving did I want us to get a good deal. I would have preferred he stayed though.
Tbag I don't get you at all, you say you didn't want Tippett and that he can't kick, yet you wanted a top quality draft pick for him. Makes no sense ::)
If he signed a five year deal instead of quitting you would all be crazy in love with him.
All crows fans I know think McKiernan is s spud
McKernen will prove you all wrong,
I wanted the market value for Tippett as I knew Tex would gun it, also Tippo always wanted to go home eventually (to Sydney?)
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on October 27, 2012, 06:55:53 PM
If he signed a five year deal instead of quitting you would all be crazy in love with him.
All crows fans I know think McKiernan is s spud
Agree 100% with the 2nd bit. And the first bit is pretty much what has happened with Dangerfield, if he said he wanted to go to Geelong crows followers (+ the Adelaide media) would be pointing out the amount of clangers he gets instead of the amount of ball and how quick he is. ftr i think he's a gun though.
and tbag, Walker hasn't shown anything apart from 2012, last year people were calling for his head when he was caught drinking when suspended...
exept I'm the guy who followed Walker since his arrival and know what he did for Norwood and what he can do ::)
Walker was terrible.
He was lazy, a sook and complained about Craig hating him.
lol that's like saying that I should go tell John Longmire now, "Hey Horse. Trade Sam Reid, he's useless. Jesse White will shine in 2013"
You never actually thought Walker would be half useful.
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on October 27, 2012, 07:20:51 PM
Walker was terrible.
He was lazy, a sook and complained about Craig hating him.
lol that's like saying that I should go tell John Longmire now, "Hey Horse. Trade Sam Reid, he's useless. Jesse White will shine in 2013"
You never actually thought Walker would be half useful.
Not sure if that statement is even worthy of a response but meh.
Fact, Taylor player only 11 senior games for norwood in his first year and how many did he kick? That's right! 56
Like I said I have followed him since he was 18 and he was always going to be this good! Pitty I wasn't on ff then because now I could laugh all the way!!
Don't try to tell me about Taylor Walker, he's my man and I always knew what he would do!
You may be the stereotypical one eyed crows supporter however you don't speak for all crows supporters.
Quote from: tbagrocks on October 27, 2012, 07:29:47 PM
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on October 27, 2012, 07:20:51 PM
Walker was terrible.
He was lazy, a sook and complained about Craig hating him.
lol that's like saying that I should go tell John Longmire now, "Hey Horse. Trade Sam Reid, he's useless. Jesse White will shine in 2013"
You never actually thought Walker would be half useful.
Not sure if that statement is even worthy of a response but meh.
Fact, Taylor player only 11 senior games for norwood in his first year and how many did he kick? That's right! 56
Like I said I have followed him since he was 18 and he was always going to be this good! Pitty I wasn't on ff then because now I could laugh all the way!!
Don't try to tell me about Taylor Walker, he's my man and I always knew what he would do!
No doubt Tex is a player of the future but its the brain fades that worry me. The real stupid stuff that he gets suspended for
Quote from: tbagrocks on October 27, 2012, 07:29:47 PM
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on October 27, 2012, 07:20:51 PM
Walker was terrible.
He was lazy, a sook and complained about Craig hating him.
lol that's like saying that I should go tell John Longmire now, "Hey Horse. Trade Sam Reid, he's useless. Jesse White will shine in 2013"
You never actually thought Walker would be half useful.
Not sure if that statement is even worthy of a response but meh.
Fact, Taylor player only 11 senior games for norwood in his first year and how many did he kick? That's right! 56
Like I said I have followed him since he was 18 and he was always going to be this good! Pitty I wasn't on ff then because now I could laugh all the way!!
Don't try to tell me about Taylor Walker, he's my man and I always knew what he would do!
walker lost you your last shot at the GF.
My oppinion is thet Craig dropped him for his lack of pressure, then in 2012 he over stepped the mark with his pressure, now he has learnt the differance and it should not be a problem
His lack of pressure wasn't just bad. As quoted by Nathan Basset, "His defensive pressure was mediocre."
I know several mediocre players in the AFL. I'm going to pick one to be best player in 2013
Well Taylor worked this part of his game out and he over compinsated big time, we all saw the ferociousness he displayed this year, poor lad!
He gets drilled for not tackling so he works hard on it, tackles to hard and gets drilled again!
Well the Great Man has now learnt from what I saw in the last 6 games he now knows what to do so...
Look out
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on October 27, 2012, 08:33:08 PM
His lack of pressure wasn't just bad. As quoted by Nathan Basset, "His defensive pressure was mediocre."
I know several mediocre players in the AFL. I'm going to pick one to be best player in 2013
Raph Clarke or Richard Tambling? Both priced at $5001 for the Brownlow ;)
Quote from: tbagrocks on October 27, 2012, 08:38:42 PM
Well Taylor worked this part of his game out and he over compinsated big time, we all saw the ferociousness he displayed this year, poor lad!
He gets drilled for not tackling so he works hard on it, tackles to hard and gets drilled again!
Well the Great Man has now learnt from what I saw in the last 6 games he now knows what to do so...
Look out
Will definitely be a Coleman medal winner one year. Not next year though
Quote from: Ziplock on October 27, 2012, 06:36:04 PM
Quote from: tbagrocks on October 27, 2012, 06:17:45 PM
So I assume that the AFL are going to be looking at every club as Adelaide cannot be the only team breaking rules, alot like Lance Armstrong! otherwise it's just a which hunt!
so, when carlton broke the salary cap, were other clubs doing it too?
this is a really, really specific side arrangement and deal. I'm sure the afl will look into other clubs, but I doubt they'll find anything.
it's not a witch hunt if you tell the AFL that you did it...
Grazz- I'm really struggling to see the difference here. The contract was signed 3 years ago- the crows wouldn't have done that with the intention of then telling the AFL about the side contract/side agreement/ money on top of the salary cap. So,the deal was ready to be done, and then your chief executive decides to 'come clean' after 3 years.... it's bizarre...
Yeh i get that a suspicious mind looking at it could come to the conclusion that its about shafting Tippett for a percieved reniging on a deal, but i think it was more about the Crows getting in first to attempt to soften any punishment coming their way, not to flower Kurt as pen was about to be put to paper. I also hope although i dont know that they had a bit of concern for White as he is the innocent party in this and Sydney to a large degree. If a deal had been done id hate to think what affect that may of had on White. I think we are just going to have to agree we disagree and move on zip.
Tbags mate cmon theres no witches hunt going on, we flowered up and dobbed ourself in to save our own butt as much as possible. Its wonderful to be passionate and protective of our club but theres no shame in accepting they stuffed up, not you not me not any of the 50 thousand other supporters but the Crows management. Throw your passion behind Sando and the rest of the boys who would be hearing alot of this for the 1st time and direct your dissapointment at those that created the drama which isnt Tippett either by the way its at the feet of those that submit the contract and knew better but did it anyway.
I am like 5 pages off and do not feel like reading. What did I miss -_-
Quote from: whatlez on October 27, 2012, 09:56:54 PM
I am like 5 pages off and do not feel like reading. What did I miss -_-
Not alot mate. :P
Quote from: whatlez on October 27, 2012, 09:56:54 PM
I am like 5 pages off and do not feel like reading. What did I miss -_-
tbagrocks has been defending Taylor Walker and the club, by saying that he's been following him since he was 18. He's putting 100% of the blame on Yippett, saying the club 'never' wanted him to begin with, and he should be the only one that get's in trouble.
^The last few pages in a nutshell.
SS. :)
A bit harsh but Tex is the savior.. also
What happens to Triggy? He did the deal and I didn't want it ti happen as I wanted a high draft pick for the potato! But someone will answer and that someone will be Trigg!
Also is Muppett, sorry Tippett was honest this debacle would have been delt with moons ago
Lets not forget he quit via text and left his team mates with a flowering text message, so the doubters go plant a flower pot.
Quote from: tbagrocks on October 27, 2012, 10:41:28 PM
A bit harsh but Tex is the savior.. also
What happens to Triggy? He did the deal and I didn't want it ti happen as I wanted a high draft pick for the potato! But someone will answer and that someone will be Trigg!
Also is Muppett, sorry Tippett was honest this debacle would have been delt with moons ago
Lets not forget he quit via text and left his team mates with a flowering text message, so the doubters go plant a flower pot.
Have you seen some of the comments coming out of Adelaide re: Tippett?
If I was him I wouldn't exactly be popping around for a cup of tea and a conversation about my future either...
Tbag, i'm over in the US & have just read a page from the Advertiser called Darkest secrets back to haunt crows. I can't copy n paste as on a Tablet, but it clarifies it a lot to me. Have a read & maybe someone could paste the link here. Oh & by the way it's Rucci. Lol.
Couldn't happen to a nicer bloke, oh wait... Shows what he meant to them and what he did to them!
http://www.fanfooty.com.au/forum/index.php/topic,57809.0.html
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/tempers-boil-over-as-taylor-walker-and-matthew-jaensch-battle-it-out-at-adelaide-training/story-e6frf9jf-1226260960017
"Tex is the savior" said the truthful Adelaide supporters
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on October 27, 2012, 11:05:49 PM
http://www.fanfooty.com.au/forum/index.php/topic,57809.0.html
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/tempers-boil-over-as-taylor-walker-and-matthew-jaensch-battle-it-out-at-adelaide-training/story-e6frf9jf-1226260960017
"Tex is the savior" said the truthful Adelaide supporters
wow i am surprised that Tex can use twitter
Tippett has already lawyered up
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/150388/default.aspx
He won't be de-registered, he never was going to be de-registered.
if he gets de-registered it'll go to supreme court and get over turned, it's technically a violation of human rights to deny someone their livelihood like that :P
As i said in another thread. don't want to see it go down this path
literally dudge, a violation of human rights.
similar to the carlton cap breach, I doubt tippett himself is going to cop severe penalties.
I mean, we'll hear in the end who's at fault for this anyway. Probably.
Quote from: Ziplock on October 28, 2012, 03:53:37 PM
literally dudge, a violation of human rights.
similar to the carlton cap breach, I doubt tippett himself is going to cop severe penalties.
I mean, we'll hear in the end who's at fault for this anyway. Probably.
Violation of human rights for being sacked for breaking the rules? Long bow that one!
He won't get deregistered though
the club's the one who's mostly at fault in these situations, not the individual player (once again, the carlton salary cap breach).
he won't get deregistered.
and os- yeah basically, the supreme court is going to look at it and be like: so.... you're preventing a man from earning a living because his club paid him breaking their cap, which he possibly didn't know about, and because his club signed a contract with him saying if he stayed with them for three years, they'd trade him wherever he wanted, and then didn't? flower off mate.
obviously that's a summation of what'd be a reasonably lengthy case, but that's how it'd go down os.
moot point, they won't de-register him.
Quote from: naste on October 27, 2012, 10:50:28 PM
Tbag, i'm over in the US & have just read a page from the Advertiser called Darkest secrets back to haunt crows. I can't copy n paste as on a Tablet, but it clarifies it a lot to me. Have a read & maybe someone could paste the link here. Oh & by the way it's Rucci. Lol.
Here's the article in question, care of The Australian -
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/darkest-secrets-come-back-to-haunt-crows/story-e6frg6n6-1226504267884 (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/darkest-secrets-come-back-to-haunt-crows/story-e6frg6n6-1226504267884)
I doubt Adelaide are the only ones to cheat, here's some back up!
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/secret-deals-rife-in-afl/story-e6frecjc-1226504551979
Nice non biased source there tbag ::)
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on October 28, 2012, 04:45:37 PM
Nice non biased source there tbag ::)
Well it will do :P
What anonymous administrators?
For all you know that could be me.
I'm fairly sure most clubs are guilty of some kind of off-contract agreement/clause for various players, its just the Crows have been caught red-handed here. Having said that, shouldn't the AFL do a search on all clubs to see if this is happening anywhere else before handing down a penalty on the Crows?
Quote from: Tominator on October 28, 2012, 08:33:10 PM
I'm fairly sure most clubs are guilty of some kind of off-contract agreement/clause for various players, its just the Crows have been caught red-handed here. Having said that, shouldn't the AFL do a search on all clubs to see if this is happening anywhere else before handing down a penalty on the Crows?
I'd say other clubs do it - But I'd also say they lodge it with the AFL/AFLPA and have it approved instead of just making brown paper bag payments...
Great lets go to the supreme court, its a given if you take sport into the supreme court and apply the same rules we all live under 9 times out of 10 the AFL/sporting body will loose. We all agree to play under a certain amount of guidelines imposed by the AFL that are difficult to defend in a federal court. Those that take that path i see them as weak as p**s unless there are exceptional circumstances and a glaring injustice has happened. Dont go there. He signed the contract his manager signed it, mum and dad new all about it and all knew it was wrong. If you advocate this path under these circumstances then your just as pathetic. They are all guilty as each other, all broke the same rules but as we all except from the beginning the club should suffer the most because all breaks of the law can be cut off if the club says no thats against the rules. To hell with the flack i'll cop with that but i dont care. You take this path over this situation then your a pretty weak individual and a mercenary. Go to the supreme court haha get stuffed wimp.
Quote from: Tominator on October 28, 2012, 08:33:10 PM
I'm fairly sure most clubs are guilty of some kind of off-contract agreement/clause for various players, its just the Crows have been caught red-handed here. Having said that, shouldn't the AFL do a search on all clubs to see if this is happening anywhere else before handing down a penalty on the Crows?
I'm sure the AFL does investigate all this stuff, there's a whole office of people that is tasked with this im pretty sure.
there definitely are third party deals going on (e.g. Chris Judd and Visy), but most of them are probably lodged with the AFL and therefore approved, nothing illegal about it.
that being said, there probably are other deals going on, but its not as if the AFL just trusts all the clubs and assumes nothings going on, they would be constantly looking at clubs' dealings to try and put a stop to it.
Ok so here are my propsed penalties for what is clearly looking like both club & player being busted.
Player penalty - Kurt you will spend the next 24 months living in and playing for Port Adelaide.
Club penalty - All current draft picks for 2012 will be null & void and instead the Crows will be forced to re-draft Richard Tambling and Will Young.
Fair? A deterrent?
Quote from: Cruiseon on October 28, 2012, 10:50:18 PM
Ok so here are my propsed penalties for what is clearly looking like both club & player being busted.
Player penalty - Kurt you will spend the next 24 months living in and playing for Port Adelaide.
Club penalty - All current draft picks for 2012 will be null & void and instead the Crows will be forced to re-draft Richard Tambling and Will Young.
Fair? A deterrent?
They should be drafting Jetta (Melb) as well in my opinion. It's only fair.
Quote from: Cruiseon on October 28, 2012, 10:50:18 PM
Ok so here are my propsed penalties for what is clearly looking like both club & player being busted.
Player penalty - Kurt you will spend the next 24 months living in and playing for Port Adelaide.
Club penalty - All current draft picks for 2012 will be null & void and instead the Crows will be forced to re-draft Richard Tambling and Will Young.
Fair? A deterrent?
Bit unfair on Angus Graham cruise but im happy to wear that.
A lot of other clubs probably do it but I doubt they are stupid enough to put it in writing..........
And the saga continues....
QuoteADELAIDE will have to cut a wanted Crows player on Wednesday as the pain from the Kurt Tippett scandal turns to list management at West Lakes.
And the Crows will have to gamble on which player to turf into the AFL national draft pool where Adelaide may not get a call until No. 83. That gives Adelaide's 17 rivals 82 chances to claim this contracted Crow in the AFL national draft on November 22.
The main candidates remain out-of-favour midfielder Richard Tambling or any of Adelaide's recent draftees Nick Joyce, Mitch Grigg or Cam Ellis-Yolmen.
This is disappointing, it's not fair for these young blokes to have their careers flowered around by Tippett and the Crows because they failed to agree on a trade.
Source:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/adelaide-must-delist-a-wanted-man-due-to-the-kurt-tippett-saga/story-e6frf9jf-1226504878477
Quote from: Toga on October 29, 2012, 10:46:24 AM
And the saga continues....
QuoteADELAIDE will have to cut a wanted Crows player on Wednesday as the pain from the Kurt Tippett scandal turns to list management at West Lakes.
And the Crows will have to gamble on which player to turf into the AFL national draft pool where Adelaide may not get a call until No. 83. That gives Adelaide's 17 rivals 82 chances to claim this contracted Crow in the AFL national draft on November 22.
The main candidates remain out-of-favour midfielder Richard Tambling or any of Adelaide's recent draftees Nick Joyce, Mitch Grigg or Cam Ellis-Yolmen.
This is disappointing, it's not fair for these young blokes to have their careers flowered around by Tippett and the Crows because they failed to agree on a trade.
Source:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/adelaide-must-delist-a-wanted-man-due-to-the-kurt-tippett-saga/story-e6frf9jf-1226504878477
I reckon Ellis-Yolmen or Joyce will go if Tambling doesn't... Grigg will stay though, he dominated as a junior and has the potential to be a 200-game player, he was a steal at Pick 46 and is very similar to Scott Thompson so Crows would be stupid to dump him
Yeah i think Nick Joyce will be the one to go, but will redraft him with the 2nd pick. 3rd pick to be used on Callinan.
It is going to be horrible missing out on a potential gun at around 20 this year if we do lose our draft picks, especially as someone like Ben Kennedy or Menzel COULD be still around. At around pick 80 we are probably going to have to draft a mature age / delisted player...
That Sucks for someone to lose their job because of this. innocent third party
That was a stupid article because no way will Grigg or Ellis Yolman be delisted. Adelaide has lost enough and with the pending drafting restrictions these two will be needed going forward, as is my boy Rory Laird!
grazz, calm your farm. I can guarentee that if you were barred from seeking employment in your occupation for a year because your employer screwed you, that you would take it to court.
Quote from: Toga on October 29, 2012, 10:46:24 AM
And the saga continues....
QuoteADELAIDE will have to cut a wanted Crows player on Wednesday as the pain from the Kurt Tippett scandal turns to list management at West Lakes.
And the Crows will have to gamble on which player to turf into the AFL national draft pool where Adelaide may not get a call until No. 83. That gives Adelaide's 17 rivals 82 chances to claim this contracted Crow in the AFL national draft on November 22.
The main candidates remain out-of-favour midfielder Richard Tambling or any of Adelaide's recent draftees Nick Joyce, Mitch Grigg or Cam Ellis-Yolmen.
This is disappointing, it's not fair for these young blokes to have their careers flowered around by Tippett and the Crows because they failed to agree on a trade.
Source:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/adelaide-must-delist-a-wanted-man-due-to-the-kurt-tippett-saga/story-e6frf9jf-1226504878477
Lies done by the spin doctor.
It was going to be Tippett for Pick + Jesse White
If they got in Jesse White, they would have to delist someone anyway.
If they wanted to use all there picks, they would have to delist TWO people.
ok, ummm, that one would go to supreme court, and ummmmmm I really don't think anyone would have a problem with it either....
Quote from: Ziplock on October 29, 2012, 12:40:53 PM
grazz, calm your farm. I can guarantee that if you were barred from seeking employment in your occupation for a year because your employer screwed you, that you would take it to court.
In the outside (not AFL) world where we all work of course i would. I'm talking from purely a sporting perspective i'm not flipping back and forth from the world we operate under compared to the rules AFL players are under so i can mount an argument.
Tippett is as guilty as all parties involved, he would of been 100% aware that what he was signing was entirely illegal as did his manager as did the Crows. To then say well i'll go to the Supreme Court knowing full well it operates under different guidelines to the AFL and advantages your case is weak as p*+s when under the rules you agreed to abide and play by does not. Personally i would be to embarrassed to look anyone in the eye and have a pretty low opinion of myself if i did, but when it comes down to money it appears the Tippetts their lawyers have no shame.
That's my honest opinion i'm not going around just throwing petrol on the fire and standing back enjoying the carnage it causes like some because they have a deep seated dislike of the state and the teams that reside in it. Im just trying to add to the debate not inflame it.
Edit: you keep throwing this "Employer screwed him" rubbish up which is just absolute garbage and you only do it because you know its annoying.
The AFL would have issues with the Supreme court so would the clubs and i think you under estimate how the general population who follow footy would feel about it. Your advocating breaking the AFL rules because if you get caught you can just go to court and be reinstated without any problems or punishment so why have any rules in the 1st place just let everyone do as they want and i am only commentating here on the Tippett Crows scenario.
So he should take his manager to court also for allowing him to sign a dodgy contract but I bet that doesn't happen. If people outside of the afl know you can't sign those contracts surely a player with sports management does also.
He agreed to abide by afl rules so he was eligible for this employment he the crows and velocity sports are all at fault although it seems only the crows are. Yes they should of never offered it but velocity sports should of also stopped it and tippet wasn't held at gun point to sign.
I wonder if in 09 when it was offered any other club would of offered 800 a year? If that info is correct based on his earnings isn't he better off bar the issue now due to the dodge contract
Quote from: Chopps on October 29, 2012, 01:44:38 PM
So he should take his manager to court also for allowing him to sign a dodgy contract but I bet that doesn't happen. If people outside of the afl know you can't sign those contracts surely a player with sports management does also.
He agreed to abide by afl rules so he was eligible for this employment he the crows and velocity sports are all at fault although it seems only the crows are. Yes they should of never offered it but velocity sports should of also stopped it and tippet wasn't held at gun point to sign.
I wonder if in 09 when it was offered any other club would of offered 800 a year? If that info is correct based on his earnings isn't he better off bar the issue now due to the dodge contract
+1 to this.
Quote from: Chopps on October 29, 2012, 01:44:38 PM
So he should take his manager to court also for allowing him to sign a dodgy contract but I bet that doesn't happen. If people outside of the afl know you can't sign those contracts surely a player with sports management does also.
He agreed to abide by afl rules so he was eligible for this employment he the crows and velocity sports are all at fault although it seems only the crows are. Yes they should of never offered it but velocity sports should of also stopped it and tippet wasn't held at gun point to sign.
I wonder if in 09 when it was offered any other club would of offered 800 a year? If that info is correct based on his earnings isn't he better off bar the issue now due to the dodge contract
hey, I wouldn't have known that this contract was illegal- all most none of us did and that's why so many people were saying saying adelaide should honour the gentlemans agreement.
The contract itself isn't illegal- it's the fact that aspects of it wasn't presented to the afl that makes it a breach of the rules, I know that would be a club responsibility, but I'm not sure if it would be the players responsibility as well.
The fact that tippett and his lawyers were constantly saying that adelaide should honour their agreement makes me think that it's possible that tippett didnt know the whole contract had been signed off by the afl- of course that's presuming the player has responsibility to take the contract to the afl, and it's all the clubs prerogative.
The clubs going to cop a fine and lose picks- you want an equivalent fine for a player, he should have to pay a few hundred thousand over the next few years as a fine. That's an appropriate punishment. Deregistering him isn't, and it won't happen.
There's even a precedent, once again, with the carlton cap breach- no individual player was punished, only the club.
Id prefer to see the player left out it except for missing x amount a games as punishment if he willingly was part of an illegal act.
The club should be the one to wear a fine and loss of draft picks etc. The managers should be fined also as there is no other way to do it without involving innocent parties that he may also look after but if the manager is continually found to be involved in shady dealings then deregestering is and should be an option.
Do what the NRL did to the Melbourne Storm and make every game they play next season count for nothing. :P
That way Melbourne, GWS, GC and Port can win a match. :P
Adelaide does not have to delist a player now as Brad Crouch is not used as a draft pick but a player traded in.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/adelaide-must-delist-a-wanted-man-due-to-the-kurt-tippett-saga/story-e6freck3-1226504878477
Quote from: Grazz on October 29, 2012, 05:54:39 PM
Id prefer to see the player left out it except for missing x amount a games as punishment if he willingly was part of an illegal act.
The club should be the one to wear a fine and loss of draft picks etc. The managers should be fined also as there is no other way to do it without involving innocent parties that he may also look after but if the manager is continually found to be involved in shady dealings then deregestering is and should be an option.
if tippetts gets deregistered for a year, adelaide should be banned from the afl for a year.
Quote from: Ziplock on October 29, 2012, 06:26:20 PM
Quote from: Grazz on October 29, 2012, 05:54:39 PM
Id prefer to see the player left out it except for missing x amount a games as punishment if he willingly was part of an illegal act.
The club should be the one to wear a fine and loss of draft picks etc. The managers should be fined also as there is no other way to do it without involving innocent parties that he may also look after but if the manager is continually found to be involved in shady dealings then deregestering is and should be an option.
if tippetts gets deregistered for a year, adelaide should be banned from the afl for a year.
I doubt Tippett will be deregistered for a year and i would be one of the first to stand up and say that the punishment doesnt fit the crime. I think worse scenarios have occured in the AFL and nothing like that has been handed to a player nor should it here.
Delisting a club would dip into the AFL's piggy bank so that would never happen they like their money plus you got issues with TV rights etc. I know youd love it zip but wishful thinking dont you agree.
oh I know and completely agree. I'm just saying that if tippett was to be deregistered, then logically and fairly the entire adelaide fotball club would be banned from competing since they had just asmuch, if not more, to do with it.
Quote from: Ziplock on October 29, 2012, 06:56:48 PM
oh I know and completely agree. I'm just saying that if tippett was to be deregistered, then logically and fairly the entire adelaide fotball club would be banned from competing since they had just asmuch, if not more, to do with it.
I understand the sentiment behind what you say but punishes to many innocents that way. A loss of points for x amount of wins would be a fairer option for all involved but even this hasnt been applied before in extreme cases so that to could be deemed as to harsh for what has happened.
When do they reckon it will all be revealed? everybody seems to have gone a bit quiet on it lately
Quote from: Tominator on October 29, 2012, 07:11:50 PM
When do they reckon it will all be revealed? everybody seems to have gone a bit quiet on it lately
Id expect the AFL to say something prior to the next draft but that doesnt help with your question much. The longer it goes with no comment from the AFL could be a bad sign but i imagine they have a mountain of stuff to go through. Could take a number of weeks.
Quote from: Tominator on October 29, 2012, 07:11:50 PM
When do they reckon it will all be revealed? everybody seems to have gone a bit quiet on it lately
Thursday/Friday according to Adelaide media ::)
they'll say it before the delisted free agency period I would think.
Quote from: Ziplock on October 29, 2012, 07:26:13 PM
they'll say it before the delisted free agency period I would think.
he's not eligible for that so i don't think there's any real rush, they just need to have it sorted by the national draft...
I'd hope they sort it earlier though
Quote from: Toga on October 29, 2012, 07:31:15 PM
Quote from: Ziplock on October 29, 2012, 07:26:13 PM
they'll say it before the delisted free agency period I would think.
he's not eligible for that so i don't think there's any real rush, they just need to have it sorted by the national draft...
I'd hope they sort it earlier though
Ditto the sooner the better for all.
Quote from: Grazz on October 29, 2012, 08:59:42 PM
Quote from: Toga on October 29, 2012, 07:31:15 PM
Quote from: Ziplock on October 29, 2012, 07:26:13 PM
they'll say it before the delisted free agency period I would think.
he's not eligible for that so i don't think there's any real rush, they just need to have it sorted by the national draft...
I'd hope they sort it earlier though
Ditto the sooner the better for all.
+1
Quote from: SilkySkills on October 29, 2012, 06:15:10 PM
Do what the NRL did to the Melbourne Storm and make every game they play next season count for nothing. :P
That way Melbourne, GWS, GC and Port can win a match. :P
Melbourne, GWS, GC and Port would still have to beat them!
not sure if this is really likely or just Rucci going over the top again
http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/trade-and-draft/adelaide-crows-in-danger-of-being-stripped-of-premiership-points/story-fna8vsun-1226506315662
QuoteAdelaide is at risk of becoming the first AFL club to be stripped of premiership points as punishment for its Kurt Tippett scandal.
...
"Our view at the AFL Commission was stripping premiership points was the single greatest penalty we could apply against a club," (ex-AFL president) Wayne Jackson said.
"We felt fines washed over some clubs because they could cope with a financial penalty.
"But every club is super sensitive to losing premiership points. Stripping points has a greater impact on decisions being made at football clubs."
...
But as the figure is more than $100,000, the Crows are at risk of:
A FINE that is double the salary cap breach.
A BAN from all or part of the next three drafts.
LOSS of premiership points.
Quote from: Tominator on October 30, 2012, 10:57:31 AM
not sure if this is really likely or just Rucci going over the top again
http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/trade-and-draft/adelaide-crows-in-danger-of-being-stripped-of-premiership-points/story-fna8vsun-1226506315662
QuoteAdelaide is at risk of becoming the first AFL club to be stripped of premiership points as punishment for its Kurt Tippett scandal.
...
"Our view at the AFL Commission was stripping premiership points was the single greatest penalty we could apply against a club," (ex-AFL president) Wayne Jackson said.
"We felt fines washed over some clubs because they could cope with a financial penalty.
"But every club is super sensitive to losing premiership points. Stripping points has a greater impact on decisions being made at football clubs."
...
But as the figure is more than $100,000, the Crows are at risk of:
A FINE that is double the salary cap breach.
A BAN from all or part of the next three drafts.
LOSS of premiership points.
seems a bit harsh but we still don't know exactly what the crows have done. it will depend on the severity of their mistakes i guess...
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/c0.0.403.403/p403x403/559558_300354020079207_1295764256_n.jpg)
I must say GWS has played this bloody well. Whether they plan to pick him up or not, Tippett now has two options:
1. Lets GWS pick him up
2. Puts a higher price on his head so the Giants can't afford him, but also meaning he will cost the Swan's an arm and a leg.
Sheeds you mischievous barbie!
will be interesting to see how this plays out in the PSD. There are some clubs apart from Sydney that may be able to afford his asking price.
Quote from: Ringo on October 30, 2012, 11:45:33 AM
will be interesting to see how this plays out in the PSD. There are some clubs apart from Sydney that may be able to afford his asking price.
Exactly. The Demons for instance would have a lot of room, and he would be a perfect fit for the Dogs also.
Would the Demons want him after picking up Dawes?
Quote from: CrowsFan on October 30, 2012, 12:07:06 PM
Would the Demons want him after picking up Dawes?
Crazy not to really, Dawes will just have to play in the ruck lol
Quote from: ossie85 on October 30, 2012, 12:12:03 PM
Quote from: CrowsFan on October 30, 2012, 12:07:06 PM
Would the Demons want him after picking up Dawes?
Crazy not to really, Dawes will just have to play in the ruck lol
Melbourne wouldnt have room for tippet.
They are already paying their new forwards more than they are worth.
Mitch Clarke over 600k a season
Chris Dawes over 500k a season
Quote from: quinny88 on October 30, 2012, 12:29:46 PM
Quote from: ossie85 on October 30, 2012, 12:12:03 PM
Quote from: CrowsFan on October 30, 2012, 12:07:06 PM
Would the Demons want him after picking up Dawes?
Crazy not to really, Dawes will just have to play in the ruck lol
Melbourne wouldnt have room for tippet.
They are already paying their new forwards more than they are worth.
Mitch Clarke over 600k a season
Chris Dawes over 500k a season
Everybody else = $200k. Seriously, Brad Green, Brent Moloney and Jared Rivers just left, they would have been high on the pay scale there. Really on the Trengove and Grimes would be on the highish dollars.
If Melbourne don't have salary cap room, nobody does.
Dees also have Jesse Hogan to come in next year... don't rule out the Dogs taking him at 5 or 6 though in the National Draft
Quote from: Tominator on October 30, 2012, 12:52:19 PM
Dees also have Jesse Hogan to come in next year... don't rule out the Dogs taking him at 5 or 6 though in the National Draft
and im sure they are spending millions to get Hogan in ::), especially since he cant play till 2014 ::) ::)
Quote from: tabs on October 30, 2012, 01:15:04 PM
Quote from: Tominator on October 30, 2012, 12:52:19 PM
Dees also have Jesse Hogan to come in next year... don't rule out the Dogs taking him at 5 or 6 though in the National Draft
and im sure they are spending millions to get Hogan in ::), especially since he cant play till 2014 ::) ::)
I think tom's saying they don't need Tippett, hogan is another KF coming through.
Adelaide used pick 32 when he was originally drafted. I refuse to believe that he's worth a top 5 now.
Quote from: Toga on October 30, 2012, 01:24:55 PM
Quote from: tabs on October 30, 2012, 01:15:04 PM
Quote from: Tominator on October 30, 2012, 12:52:19 PM
Dees also have Jesse Hogan to come in next year... don't rule out the Dogs taking him at 5 or 6 though in the National Draft
and im sure they are spending millions to get Hogan in ::), especially since he cant play till 2014 ::) ::)
I think tom's saying they don't need Tippett, hogan is another KF coming through.
right on the money Toga
Quote from: Mr.Craig on October 30, 2012, 01:34:44 PM
Adelaide used pick 32 when he was originally drafted. I refuse to believe that he's worth a top 5 now.
Going by that logic these players also wouldn't be worth a punt in the top 5-10...
Dayne Beams - taken 29
Dane Swan - taken 58
Andrew Swallow - taken 43
Sam Jacobs - taken in rookie draft
Rory Sloane - taken 44
Taylor Walker - taken 75
Not saying all of them would go in the top 5, but they are all worth a lot more than what they were originally drafted at!
one year the 79th pick was some guy called James Hird
Quote from: CrowsFan on October 30, 2012, 02:03:33 PM
Quote from: Mr.Craig on October 30, 2012, 01:34:44 PM
Adelaide used pick 32 when he was originally drafted. I refuse to believe that he's worth a top 5 now.
Going by that logic these players also wouldn't be worth a punt in the top 5-10...
Dayne Beams - taken 29
Dane Swan - taken 58
Andrew Swallow - taken 43
Sam Jacobs - taken in rookie draft
Rory Sloane - taken 44
Taylor Walker - taken 75
Not saying all of them would go in the top 5, but they are all worth a lot more than what they were originally drafted at!
Walker was taken with a NSW shools scholarship program pick, would have been interesting to see where he may have been drafted.
And the immediate ruturn of a clunking Key Forward who can kick 50 goals is worth a top 5 pick yes ;)
Quote from: tbagrocks on October 30, 2012, 02:49:21 PM
Quote from: CrowsFan on October 30, 2012, 02:03:33 PM
Quote from: Mr.Craig on October 30, 2012, 01:34:44 PM
Adelaide used pick 32 when he was originally drafted. I refuse to believe that he's worth a top 5 now.
Going by that logic these players also wouldn't be worth a punt in the top 5-10...
Dayne Beams - taken 29
Dane Swan - taken 58
Andrew Swallow - taken 43
Sam Jacobs - taken in rookie draft
Rory Sloane - taken 44
Taylor Walker - taken 75
Not saying all of them would go in the top 5, but they are all worth a lot more than what they were originally drafted at!
Walker was taken with a NSW shools scholarship program pick, would have been interesting to see where he may have been drafted.
And the immediate ruturn of a clunking Key Forward who can kick 50 goals is worth a top 5 pick yes ;)
Tbag you know exactly why he was taken where he was
Quote from: tbagrocks on October 30, 2012, 02:49:21 PM
Quote from: CrowsFan on October 30, 2012, 02:03:33 PM
Quote from: Mr.Craig on October 30, 2012, 01:34:44 PM
Adelaide used pick 32 when he was originally drafted. I refuse to believe that he's worth a top 5 now.
Going by that logic these players also wouldn't be worth a punt in the top 5-10...
Dayne Beams - taken 29
Dane Swan - taken 58
Andrew Swallow - taken 43
Sam Jacobs - taken in rookie draft
Rory Sloane - taken 44
Taylor Walker - taken 75
Not saying all of them would go in the top 5, but they are all worth a lot more than what they were originally drafted at!
Walker was taken with a NSW shools scholarship program pick, would have been interesting to see where he may have been drafted.
And the immediate ruturn of a clunking Key Forward who can kick 50 goals is worth a top 5 pick yes ;)
He kicked 39 goals this year. In a top 4 side. He is also 25.
How exactly is he going to find this 22% improvement!?!?
Quote from: CrowsFan on October 30, 2012, 02:03:33 PM
Quote from: Mr.Craig on October 30, 2012, 01:34:44 PM
Adelaide used pick 32 when he was originally drafted. I refuse to believe that he's worth a top 5 now.
Going by that logic these players also wouldn't be worth a punt in the top 5-10...
Dayne Beams - taken 29
Dane Swan - taken 58
Andrew Swallow - taken 43
Sam Jacobs - taken in rookie draft
Rory Sloane - taken 44
Taylor Walker - taken 75
Not saying all of them would go in the top 5, but they are all worth a lot more than what they were originally drafted at!
My argument is that Kurt Tippett isn't worth a top 5 pick, not then and not now.
Being hit in the head less will be a good start Sid!
Quote from: Ziplock on October 29, 2012, 06:56:48 PM
oh I know and completely agree. I'm just saying that if tippett was to be deregistered, then logically and fairly the entire adelaide fotball club would be banned from competing since they had just asmuch, if not more, to do with it.
logically? zip that makes no sense what so ever mate. punish 37 innoncent players because of a club and players mistake?
they had more to do with it sure but again if velocity sports dont know the rules of a contract how can they be managers it would be like a lawyer not knowing the law. yes the club shouldnt ever of offered such a contract outside of the rules but they did they arent the only one responsible for signing such a contract.
adelaide doesnt give kurt the contract and say hey buddy just sign this its all good and if they do and he is silly enough to sign without sports managers or lawyers checking first he is an idiot.
it's not punishing the players- they still get paid by the club, and play football.
it punishes the club.
chopps- the contract itself isnt outside the rules, what's outside the rules is that it was never signed by the afl, and subsequently breached the salary cap for adelaide.
It does punish the players, pre season will be worth nothing all their efforts for the year (2013) will be for nothing, thats punishment not to mention the supporters that have season tickets. Punish the club fair enough indirectly that punishes everyone involved with the club wihtout hurting the innocents directly. We did the wrong thing but in terms of whats happened in the past it doesnt compare. I wish people could put their dislike for the state and the club aside and just comment on the facts without involving external emotions.
im not saying they should- it would be a completely excessive punishment and shouldnt happen.
I was just saying if tippett gets deregistered, thats the type of punishment adelaide should be getting- it's the same deal.
you guys can just watch them play SANFL LO
Quote from: Ziplock on October 30, 2012, 09:58:33 PM
im not saying they should- it would be a completely excessive punishment and shouldnt happen.
I was just saying if tippett gets deregistered, thats the type of punishment adelaide should be getting- it's the same deal.
you guys can just watch them play SANFL LO
Zip i think your deep seated dislike for the state and the people that live in it is clouding your ability to discuss this situation rationaly mate.
once again to clarify, I really don't think this should happen.
A player getting deregistered however is equivalent to a team getting banned for a year, or not being able to get any point like what happened to the storm.
Ziplock you really hate SA and anything to do with it don't you.......
Crows may not be the only ones who get stripped of draft picks
Melbourne's tanking investigation could be revealed before the draft and lead to draft sanctions
http://www.facebook.com/theafloffseason/posts/300772566704019
I can't believe I'm typing this... But with all that's come about in this torrid affair...Demetriou could be our saviour :o
Demetriou has much invested in the corporate successes that should come from Adelaides move to Adelaide Oval. The penalty will be light for Adelaide to ensure that the Crows immediate on field progression keeps attracting the right sort of coin.
And Zip, the consistent way in which you seemingly post with baited innocuousness makes me think you are one lonely guy/ girl, maybe Zip it before you Lip it ;)
Quote from: Tominator on October 30, 2012, 10:32:39 PM
Ziplock you really hate SA and anything to do with it don't you.......
nup, got no issue with either of the clubs really.
port are shower, and adelaide cheated and screwed over their player
but that's not something against them, that's pretty much a fact.
Quote from: Ziplock on October 30, 2012, 10:35:24 PM
Quote from: Tominator on October 30, 2012, 10:32:39 PM
Ziplock you really hate SA and anything to do with it don't you.......
nup, got no issue with either of the clubs really.
port are shower, and adelaide cheated and screwed over their player
but that's not something against them, that's pretty much a fact.
what about the state itself?
never been there.
looks a bit boring, but I'm willing to give it a shot :P
It gets worse....
APPARENTLY, word out of Melbourne tonight is that the Crows are being investigated for alleged third-party payments to Nathan van Berlo as well......
Flower.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/adelaide-salary-probe-widens-20121115-29euo.html
Quote from: Tominator on November 15, 2012, 10:32:24 PM
It gets worse....
APPARENTLY, word out of Melbourne tonight is that the Crows are being investigated for alleged third-party payments to Nathan van Berlo as well......
Heard that too :-\ Same reporter that broke the first one, Emma Quayle from the age
Not looking good
So lets just check all the clubs to see what comes up, and if Adelaide is the only club to be "cheating" I'll leave ff ;)
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 15, 2012, 10:35:39 PM
So lets just check all the clubs to see what comes up, and if Adelaide is the only club to be "cheating" I'll leave ff ;)
all the other clubs will be checked.
its like the lance armstrong scenario- just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't make it right.
Quote from: Ziplock on November 15, 2012, 10:40:36 PM
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 15, 2012, 10:35:39 PM
So lets just check all the clubs to see what comes up, and if Adelaide is the only club to be "cheating" I'll leave ff ;)
all the other clubs will be checked.
its like the lance armstrong scenario- just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't make it right.
exactly, but every other club should be checked because I do not think Adelaide are the only ones that are guilty of this
you guys better hope to god other clubs are doing this, or you're going to get so flowered.
Honestly, you'll cop like 500k+ fine, lose your draft picks for probs the next 2 years, and have your premiership points taken away for 2013 if you're the only ones doing it...
I think Adelaide are in serious trouble.
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 15, 2012, 10:35:39 PM
So lets just check all the clubs to see what comes up, and if Adelaide is the only club to be "cheating" I'll leave ff ;)
Difference being other clubs are reporting it to the AFLPA/AFL.
:-X
Quote from: Sid on November 15, 2012, 10:48:56 PM
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 15, 2012, 10:35:39 PM
So lets just check all the clubs to see what comes up, and if Adelaide is the only club to be "cheating" I'll leave ff ;)
Difference being other clubs are reporting it to the AFLPA/AFL.
:-X
Crows reported it to the AFL because they knew they were gonna be found out
Are other clubs also saying they are guilty of things like this? Is that what you mean by your statement?
Quote from: Tominator on November 15, 2012, 11:00:23 PM
Quote from: Sid on November 15, 2012, 10:48:56 PM
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 15, 2012, 10:35:39 PM
So lets just check all the clubs to see what comes up, and if Adelaide is the only club to be "cheating" I'll leave ff ;)
Difference being other clubs are reporting it to the AFLPA/AFL.
:-X
Crows reported it to the AFL because they knew they were gonna be found out
Are other clubs also saying they are guilty of things like this? Is that what you mean by your statement?
No.
Other clubs lodge their 3rd party deals with the AFLPA. Straight up they have to say their player is going to be receiving some kind of income from somebody other than the club.
Adelaide tried to hide the Tippett deal, then were (about) to be found out and decided to come clean.
Different scenarios.
I think he means other clubs are reporting 3rd party payments
like 'chris judd is getting x amount by working for visy'
Quote from: Ziplock on November 15, 2012, 11:04:47 PM
I think he means other clubs are reporting 3rd party payments
like 'chris judd is getting x amount by working for visy'
Pretty much. While a lot of people didn't like the Judd deal it was all above board so it's fine. The Tippett (and potentially NVB) deal/s however...
if you're hiding something, it's because you've got something to hide.
Quote from: Ziplock on November 15, 2012, 11:10:49 PM
if you're hiding something, it's because you've got something to hide.
I'm a betting man, I'll bet that most profesional sporting clubs including the other 17 AFL clubs have something to hide ;)
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 15, 2012, 11:13:07 PM
Quote from: Ziplock on November 15, 2012, 11:10:49 PM
if you're hiding something, it's because you've got something to hide.
I'm a betting man, I'll bet that most profesional sporting clubs including the other 17 AFL clubs have something to hide ;)
I'll take this bet.
Assuming that by 'something to hide' we're referring to salary breaches and/or tanking. Pretty sure there's an honest club out there...somewhere...maybe. :P
I'd bet the giants aren't pulling this shower :P
but that's cause us sydney-siders are more honest than you adelaide scum :P
Quote from: Sid on November 15, 2012, 11:14:44 PM
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 15, 2012, 11:13:07 PM
Quote from: Ziplock on November 15, 2012, 11:10:49 PM
if you're hiding something, it's because you've got something to hide.
I'm a betting man, I'll bet that most profesional sporting clubs including the other 17 AFL clubs have something to hide ;)
I'll take this bet.
Assuming that by 'something to hide' we're referring to salary breaches and/or tanking. Pretty sure there's an honest club out there...somewhere...maybe. :P
Hmmm well ok I'm not betting with you Alex, but Zippy bring it, Sydney have more to lose than almost anyone (GWS the other) and how were they going to pay that trader a mil? :o As if GWS don't have agreements lined up, what was the spud Skully paid for the first year :o
Yeah we (Adelaide fc) are in mighty trouble but guess what! We don't need any further players to add to win Premierships, in fact we are delisting players we actually want to keep :-\ Only one spud left at Adelaide and we feel sorry for Tambling (but not his bank account)
mate, we didnt need to pay our first year players squat- we made up the rest of our cap by front loading our contracts- it's a completely viable, and legal method of tying up the required 92.5% of the salary cap.
unlike just breaching it.
Quote from: Sid on November 15, 2012, 11:03:41 PM
Quote from: Tominator on November 15, 2012, 11:00:23 PM
Quote from: Sid on November 15, 2012, 10:48:56 PM
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 15, 2012, 10:35:39 PM
So lets just check all the clubs to see what comes up, and if Adelaide is the only club to be "cheating" I'll leave ff ;)
Difference being other clubs are reporting it to the AFLPA/AFL.
:-X
Crows reported it to the AFL because they knew they were gonna be found out
Are other clubs also saying they are guilty of things like this? Is that what you mean by your statement?
No.
Other clubs lodge their 3rd party deals with the AFLPA. Straight up they have to say their player is going to be receiving some kind of income from somebody other than the club.
Adelaide tried to hide the Tippett deal, then were (about) to be found out and decided to come clean.
Different scenarios.
why were the Crows trying to hide these third-party deals then? Would there have been a problem with the AFLPA if they told the AFL straight up? Seems very odd to me and just when I thought I'd got my head around it I now don't...
Quote from: Tominator on November 15, 2012, 11:32:16 PM
Quote from: Sid on November 15, 2012, 11:03:41 PM
Quote from: Tominator on November 15, 2012, 11:00:23 PM
Quote from: Sid on November 15, 2012, 10:48:56 PM
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 15, 2012, 10:35:39 PM
So lets just check all the clubs to see what comes up, and if Adelaide is the only club to be "cheating" I'll leave ff ;)
Difference being other clubs are reporting it to the AFLPA/AFL.
:-X
Crows reported it to the AFL because they knew they were gonna be found out
Are other clubs also saying they are guilty of things like this? Is that what you mean by your statement?
No.
Other clubs lodge their 3rd party deals with the AFLPA. Straight up they have to say their player is going to be receiving some kind of income from somebody other than the club.
Adelaide tried to hide the Tippett deal, then were (about) to be found out and decided to come clean.
Different scenarios.
why were the Crows trying to hide these third-party deals then? Would there have been a problem with the AFLPA if they told the AFL straight up? Seems very odd to me and just when I thought I'd got my head around it I now don't...
The AFLPA probably would have said not to do it because it isn't actually a sponsorship deal or a second job or anything like that.
The Crows have hidden it because they were just giving Tippett extra cash on the side, no legitimacy to the payments at all.
Quote from: Ziplock on November 15, 2012, 11:31:49 PM
mate, we didnt need to pay our first year players squat- we made up the rest of our cap by front loading our contracts- it's a completely viable, and legal method of tying up the required 92.5% of the salary cap.
unlike just breaching it.
Will be fun when, not in two years but four-five, when these kids all want a decent contract! Watch a bunch of top players do an Israel and exodus for more money ;D
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 15, 2012, 11:39:01 PM
Quote from: Ziplock on November 15, 2012, 11:31:49 PM
mate, we didnt need to pay our first year players squat- we made up the rest of our cap by front loading our contracts- it's a completely viable, and legal method of tying up the required 92.5% of the salary cap.
unlike just breaching it.
Will be fun when, not in two years but four-five, when these kids all want a decent contract! Watch a bunch of top players do an Israel and exodus for more money ;D
Geelong managed to do it.
Basically a trade - Money --> Success.
Just need to get the success to give them a reason to stay. :P
/offtopic.
Tbag if you actually looked at the ins and outs of Sydney over the past 3-4 years you'd know why they'd be able to afford Tippett.
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on November 15, 2012, 11:42:15 PM
Tbag if you actually looked at the ins and outs of Sydney over the past 3-4 years you'd know why they'd be able to afford Tippett.
Let me guess, Ryan O'Keefe and Adam Goodes are on the veterans list, oh wait it's the extra mil in the cap, well either way, Andrew Demetriou should be sacked, just for being the biggest spud of the year
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 15, 2012, 11:46:59 PM
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on November 15, 2012, 11:42:15 PM
Tbag if you actually looked at the ins and outs of Sydney over the past 3-4 years you'd know why they'd be able to afford Tippett.
Let me guess, Ryan O'Keefe and Adam Goodes are on the veterans list, oh wait it's the extra mil in the cap, well either way, Andrew Demetriou should be sacked, just for being the biggest spud of the year
Actually I'm pretty sure Sydney don't just get an extra mil. I think there is a percentage increase to each wage to cover the living cost.
That's how it was intended and I'd be shocked if the AFL didn't
force them to use the extra space this way. :-X
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 15, 2012, 11:46:59 PM
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on November 15, 2012, 11:42:15 PM
Tbag if you actually looked at the ins and outs of Sydney over the past 3-4 years you'd know why they'd be able to afford Tippett.
Let me guess, Ryan O'Keefe and Adam Goodes are on the veterans list, oh wait it's the extra mil in the cap, well either way, Andrew Demetriou should be sacked, just for being the biggest spud of the year
Come on tbags, use your brain.
Outs:
- Bradshaw
- Bolton (Craig)
- Hall
- Kirk
- Jolly
- Buchanan
- Seaby
- Michael O'Loughlin
- Leo Barry
Who's come in? Like Jack and hannebery get paid a bit. Reid and Mumford got decent contracts but not huge.
And as you said only half of Goodes' (who's the hishest paid btw) and ROK get half counted to the cap.
The players get an extra 9.8% because its more expensive to live in Sydney than Adelaide. Significantly more so.
Plus, Tippett wasn't offered 1 million, this was already established
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 15, 2012, 11:46:59 PM
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on November 15, 2012, 11:42:15 PM
Tbag if you actually looked at the ins and outs of Sydney over the past 3-4 years you'd know why they'd be able to afford Tippett.
Let me guess, Ryan O'Keefe and Adam Goodes are on the veterans list, oh wait it's the extra mil in the cap, well either way, Andrew Demetriou should be sacked, just for being the biggest spud of the year
there are a lot of reasons that can be put forward for why demetriou should be sacked.
that adelaide are a bunch of cheating cows is not one of them.
I'm pretty sure the 9.8% cap is distributed evenly over all the players salary- on top of that, it's mre like 12-13% more expensive to live in sydney.
Yeah I heard Grundy is like the second highest player at the club. Not sure if true, just what this guy said who used to shag his sister lol.
Quote from: Ziplock on October 30, 2012, 11:06:53 PM
never been there.
looks a bit boring, but I'm willing to give it a shot :P
Says the bloke from Western Sydney? :P
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 15, 2012, 10:35:39 PM
So lets just check all the clubs to see what comes up, and if Adelaide is the only club to be "cheating" I'll leave ff ;)
Haha better start packing mate. Surely after the first scandal broke all the other clubs would have been thoroughly investigated.
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on November 15, 2012, 11:57:12 PM
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 15, 2012, 11:46:59 PM
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on November 15, 2012, 11:42:15 PM
Tbag if you actually looked at the ins and outs of Sydney over the past 3-4 years you'd know why they'd be able to afford Tippett.
Let me guess, Ryan O'Keefe and Adam Goodes are on the veterans list, oh wait it's the extra mil in the cap, well either way, Andrew Demetriou should be sacked, just for being the biggest spud of the year
Come on tbags, use your brain.
Outs:
- Bradshaw
- Bolton (Craig)
- Hall
- Kirk
- Jolly
- Buchanan
- Seaby
- Michael O'Loughlin
- Leo Barry
Who's come in? Like Jack and hannebery get paid a bit. Reid and Mumford got decent contracts but not huge.
And as you said only half of Goodes' (who's the hishest paid btw) and ROK get half counted to the cap.
The players get an extra 9.8% because its more expensive to live in Sydney than Adelaide. Significantly more so.
Plus, Tippett wasn't offered 1 million, this was already established
Goodes and ROK only get 100k of there contracts paid by the government.
Havent read through your arguments but this is on the article on question.
What about Dangerfields brand new Celica he got from Toyota that he flaunts around west lakes mall? Is that lodged with the afl? :P
The Swans did well and that final will hurt for a while, we all know now that sports are not an even playing field nor are they fair! I would now struggle to find the innocent party in any so called profesional organization that is not in some way cheating!
I think knowing how far to bend rules is key. The age reported the balfours deal was reported to the afl just not how the payment was to be made directly to tippet.
Zip use some tact mate no need to be calling adelaidian s scum. Yea the crows seem to have flowered up on a grand scale and yea we know you have a passionate hatred of the state and people that reside here. If you don't like it that's your choice no need to rag on it all the time, it gets old fast *rant over*
interesting how Judd's third-party deal has now been ceased by the AFL
Quote from: Tominator on November 16, 2012, 11:46:31 AM
interesting how Judd's third-party deal has now been ceased by the AFL
It was incredibly (almost to the point of corruption) that the AFL allowed it in the first place. Honestly.
It defeats the purpose of a salary cap if someone can be paid outside by a company already heavily involved in the club might as well let clubs employ players through their own non football related businesses
Quote from: Tominator on November 16, 2012, 11:46:31 AM
interesting how Judd's third-party deal has now been ceased by the AFL
very interesting!
Looks like the AFL is just going to completely cancel the possibility of
legal third party agreements so there's no confusion as to what's legal and what's not ;)
I think its a good idea anyway!
Quote from: Toga on November 16, 2012, 12:46:45 PM
Quote from: Tominator on November 16, 2012, 11:46:31 AM
interesting how Judd's third-party deal has now been ceased by the AFL
very interesting!
Looks like the AFL is just going to completely cancel the possibility of legal third party agreements so there's no confusion as to what's legal and what's not ;)
I think its a good idea anyway!
Part of me agrees Toga get rid of the third party deals, but then another part of me thinks if everything is passed by the AFL and gets rubber stamped by them then a player should be able to do a few adverts, media work etc whatever and be paid for it.
If a club is going to cheat the system as we did they will just go back to the brown paper bag stuff of days gone by if there are no options to earn money away from their football. We just need everyone to play by the rules which seems like an impossible ask when so much is on the line. Maybe the third party deals should go but there would be an abundant number of ways clubs could fill up a players contract illegally. All we all want is for our clubs to play by the rules, its time they all realised this and did just that.
Wishfull thinking on my part me thinks.
So remove third party and up the salary cap then continue increasing as they do now
There's always been something fishy about the Judd deal..
Quote from: Grazz on November 16, 2012, 01:28:34 PM
Quote from: Toga on November 16, 2012, 12:46:45 PM
Quote from: Tominator on November 16, 2012, 11:46:31 AM
interesting how Judd's third-party deal has now been ceased by the AFL
very interesting!
Looks like the AFL is just going to completely cancel the possibility of legal third party agreements so there's no confusion as to what's legal and what's not ;)
I think its a good idea anyway!
Part of me agrees Toga get rid of the third party deals, but then another part of me thinks if everything is passed by the AFL and gets rubber stamped by them then a player should be able to do a few adverts, media work etc whatever and be paid for it.
If a club is going to cheat the system as we did they will just go back to the brown paper bag stuff of days gone by if there are no options to earn money away from their football. We just need everyone to play by the rules which seems like an impossible ask when so much is on the line. Maybe the third party deals should go but there would be an abundant number of ways clubs could fill up a players contract illegally. All we all want is for our clubs to play by the rules, its time they all realised this and did just that.
Wishfull thinking on my part me thinks.
Yeah that's true grazz, ive got no worries with players getting extra sponsorship deals and all that, but I think maybe those sponsorships should be kept completely away from the club, to the sports companies like nike, Adidas etc, and that NO sponsorship should come from the clubs sponsors (ie visy, balfours)
Thats a great place to start Toga, 100% spot on, the waters get to muddy otherwise.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/151237/default.aspx
QuoteADELAIDE will be allowed to participate in this year's NAB AFL Draft after the AFL Commission granted an adjournment into the Kurt Tippett salary cap case.
Good news for now Crows fans, but not too sure waht happens to Tippett
Quote from: tabs on November 16, 2012, 05:54:16 PM
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/151237/default.aspx
QuoteADELAIDE will be allowed to participate in this year's NAB AFL Draft after the AFL Commission granted an adjournment into the Kurt Tippett salary cap case.
Good news for now Crows fans, but not too sure waht happens to Tippett
you'd think he'll find out his punishment at the same time as Adelaide wouldn't you?
Quote from: Toga on November 16, 2012, 06:56:16 PM
Quote from: tabs on November 16, 2012, 05:54:16 PM
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/151237/default.aspx
QuoteADELAIDE will be allowed to participate in this year's NAB AFL Draft after the AFL Commission granted an adjournment into the Kurt Tippett salary cap case.
Good news for now Crows fans, but not too sure waht happens to Tippett
you'd think he'll find out his punishment at the same time as Adelaide wouldn't you?
well it's not really fair if a club picks him up in the draft then he gets suspended think the AFL need to decide if Tippett will be able to play every game in 2013 before the draft
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on November 16, 2012, 07:00:48 PM
Quote from: Toga on November 16, 2012, 06:56:16 PM
Quote from: tabs on November 16, 2012, 05:54:16 PM
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/151237/default.aspx
QuoteADELAIDE will be allowed to participate in this year's NAB AFL Draft after the AFL Commission granted an adjournment into the Kurt Tippett salary cap case.
Good news for now Crows fans, but not too sure waht happens to Tippett
you'd think he'll find out his punishment at the same time as Adelaide wouldn't you?
well it's not really fair if a club picks him up in the draft then he gets suspended think the AFL need to decide if Tippett will be able to play every game in 2013 before the draft
good point kb ;)
QuoteIt has now been adjourned until a yet-to-be-determined date, expected to be in December.
I assume that 'date in december' will be before the 11th, which is the date of the PSD.
would imagine they ll know by the PSD as Toga said, wish this wasnt being dragged out longer :/
Bugger it, really wanted it done next week, sick of waiting.
Ironically if the Crows HAD taken Jesse White and pick 23 they still would have been under investigation for allowing such a shower trade :D
lol.
maybe, maybe not.
can players refuse trades? out of curiosity?
like cause if tippett was like- I'm only going to sydney, and he could refuse a trade anywhere else and walk, then it'd be reasonable for adelaide to accept 23.
Quote from: McRooster on November 16, 2012, 11:51:00 PM
Ironically if the Crows HAD taken Jesse White and pick 23 they still would have been under investigation for allowing such a shower trade :D
All jokes aside i reckon they would asked a few questions.
They can Zippy... Didn't use to happen a lot in the past but with free agency etc it's gonna happen a lot more IMO, with players picking "clubs of choice" and that stuff
I think though a contracted player like tippet can only say I d prefer to get to Sydney, he can't dictate it s the only club if he is leaving regardless and won't play for anyone else. This was the issue with the pies and Tarrant (correct me if I m wrong)
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/crows-in-draft-as-probe-widens-20121116-29hqx.html
Dangerfield has now been dragged into the ongoing saga.
QuoteIt is believed the AFL has accessed an email written by Harper, in which he indicated that Dangerfield, Kurt Tippett and captain Nathan van Berlo had been steered towards a company owned by a former Adelaide board member, Alan Sheppard.
The company, Alan Sheppard Constructions - part of Adelaide's ''Chairman's Circle'' coterie group - paid each player about $20,000 in 2011.
QuoteThe deals for Dangerfield, Tippett and van Berlo were lodged with the AFL and approved by the league, and Fairfax Media is not suggesting any wrongdoing by the players, or that Adelaide exceeded its salary-cap allowance.
what?
I dont get the second quote....
the tippett deal definitely wasn't lodged with the AFL/ approved by the league.... that's what this whole issue is about...
Quote from: Ziplock on November 17, 2012, 12:23:17 PM
what?
I dont get the second quote....
the tippett deal definitely wasn't lodged with the AFL/ approved by the league.... that's what this whole issue is about...
I think this is a seperate issue to the other Tippett/Crow deals zip that have us in strife.
Quote from: Grazz on November 17, 2012, 12:33:54 PM
Quote from: Ziplock on November 17, 2012, 12:23:17 PM
what?
I dont get the second quote....
the tippett deal definitely wasn't lodged with the AFL/ approved by the league.... that's what this whole issue is about...
I think this is a seperate issue to the other Tippett/Crow deals zip that have us in strife.
That is correct. The second quote is in relation to the first quote. That the $20,000 third party payments that NVB, Tippett and Dangerfield received from a company owned by a former board member was in fact lodged and accepted by the AFL.
Still, the third-party payment sagas continue...
ahhhk lol.
Don't think Dangerfield and NVB have anything to worry about
I thought the punishment was coming down today... whats the hold up?
Quote from: Marcz on November 19, 2012, 02:59:54 PM
I thought the punishment was coming down today... whats the hold up?
We need more time for our defence. = Dodge not Being available to pick in the draft.
yeah, I honestly dont know why the afl granted them the time... at this point, the only reason they'd ask for more time to prepare a defence would be to desperately try to find a loophole...
Quote from: Ziplock on November 19, 2012, 03:13:42 PM
yeah, I honestly dont know why the afl granted them the time... at this point, the only reason they'd ask for more time to prepare a defence would be to desperately try to find a loophole...
They asked for more time so they could participate in the draft this year
Possibly they smelt a slight chance of getting the boy they could've had last year, Ben Kennedy. I do find it unlikely he will slide all the way but then Sammy Colquhoun should become available. I do really think Adelaide wants to get Ben Kennedy on the half forward line ;)
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 19, 2012, 03:20:43 PM
Possibly they smelt a slight chance of getting the boy they could've had last year, Ben Kennedy. I do find it unlikely he will slide all the way but then Sammy Colquhoun should become available. I do really think Adelaide wants to get Ben Kennedy on the half forward line ;)
you'd love him tbag but I highly coubt he'll slip down to 20 unfortunately :'( i think Norths, GWS or Gold Coast will get him before you... But Colqs should still be there!
Quote from: ossie85 on November 19, 2012, 03:14:49 PM
Quote from: Ziplock on November 19, 2012, 03:13:42 PM
yeah, I honestly dont know why the afl granted them the time... at this point, the only reason they'd ask for more time to prepare a defence would be to desperately try to find a loophole...
They asked for more time so they could participate in the draft this year
Correct- and it stinks like a rotten Balfours pie to me
Quote from: Dudge on November 20, 2012, 12:04:55 AM
Quote from: ossie85 on November 19, 2012, 03:14:49 PM
Quote from: Ziplock on November 19, 2012, 03:13:42 PM
yeah, I honestly dont know why the afl granted them the time... at this point, the only reason they'd ask for more time to prepare a defence would be to desperately try to find a loophole...
They asked for more time so they could participate in the draft this year
Correct- and it stinks like a rotten Balfours pie to me
Grab a Villis pie instead
Quote from: naste on November 20, 2012, 12:19:17 AM
Quote from: Dudge on November 20, 2012, 12:04:55 AM
Quote from: ossie85 on November 19, 2012, 03:14:49 PM
Quote from: Ziplock on November 19, 2012, 03:13:42 PM
yeah, I honestly dont know why the afl granted them the time... at this point, the only reason they'd ask for more time to prepare a defence would be to desperately try to find a loophole...
They asked for more time so they could participate in the draft this year
Correct- and it stinks like a rotten Balfours pie to me
Grab a Villis pie instead
LOL
Hmmm not sure, would have thought a rotton Villis pie is worse :o
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 20, 2012, 12:31:36 AM
Hmmm not sure, would have thought a rotton Villis pie is worse :o
Yeah but aleast Tippett would of paid for the Villis
Villis pies are the best!!
Quote from: Dudge on November 20, 2012, 12:35:17 AM
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 20, 2012, 12:31:36 AM
Hmmm not sure, would have thought a rotton Villis pie is worse :o
Yeah but aleast Tippett would of paid for the Villis
Yeah, with the money he got from Balfours ???
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on November 20, 2012, 12:35:42 AM
Villis pies are the best!!
Yep, but reheated the next day when they're rotten and I recon it's worse
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on November 20, 2012, 12:35:42 AM
Villis pies are the best!!
Agree mate, the steak and mushroom- ohh yeah, especially after a few coldies :)
A bloody awesome steak burger at cafe devillies too.
Quote from: Dudge on November 20, 2012, 12:40:37 AM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on November 20, 2012, 12:35:42 AM
Villis pies are the best!!
Agree mate, the steak and mushroom- ohh yeah, especially after a few coldies :)
A Coopers Sparkling Ale and a Villis Steak and Mushroom Pie ;D
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 20, 2012, 12:43:36 AM
Quote from: Dudge on November 20, 2012, 12:40:37 AM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on November 20, 2012, 12:35:42 AM
Villis pies are the best!!
Agree mate, the steak and mushroom- ohh yeah, especially after a few coldies :)
A Coopers Sparkling Ale and a Villis Steak and Mushroom Pie ;D
Agree with the steak and mushroom tbag , but a Westend Draught for me :)
Quote from: Dudge on November 20, 2012, 12:49:58 AM
Quote from: tbagrocks on November 20, 2012, 12:43:36 AM
Quote from: Dudge on November 20, 2012, 12:40:37 AM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on November 20, 2012, 12:35:42 AM
Villis pies are the best!!
Agree mate, the steak and mushroom- ohh yeah, especially after a few coldies :)
A Coopers Sparkling Ale and a Villis Steak and Mushroom Pie ;D
Agree with the steak and mushroom tbag , but a Westend Draught for me :)
red tins! :P
good to see Nick Joyce still has a sense of humour ::)
QuoteNickJoyce42 on Twitter
Just down at the local Centrelink, applying for the doll. Can't wait for my first payment #timesaretough
Quote from: Tominator on November 21, 2012, 08:44:26 PM
good to see Nick Joyce still has a sense of humour ::)
QuoteNickJoyce42 on Twitter
Just down at the local Centrelink, applying for the doll. Can't wait for my first payment #timesaretough
Good on him, feel for the bloke, had nothing to do with it but finds himself umemployed for now.
that's not a joke...
Quote from: Ziplock on November 21, 2012, 08:56:00 PM
that's not a joke...
Wasnt making a joke, i genuinely feel for the bloke. Hasnt done a thing wrong but finds himself without a club.
I thought it was spelt "dole" not "doll"? :-\
Quote from: Grazz on November 21, 2012, 08:58:53 PM
Quote from: Ziplock on November 21, 2012, 08:56:00 PM
that's not a joke...
Wasnt making a joke, i genuinely feel for the bloke. Hasnt done a thing wrong but finds himself without a club.
only temporarily, the Crows will get him in the PSD hopefully. He's still training with them and everything so while he isn't officially on their list, he is still a Crows player in every other aspect
I think other clubs will just leave him to join Adelaide again given the circumstances
Bit of tongue in cheek though :P
Quote from: Tominator on November 21, 2012, 11:18:24 PM
Quote from: Grazz on November 21, 2012, 08:58:53 PM
Quote from: Ziplock on November 21, 2012, 08:56:00 PM
that's not a joke...
Wasnt making a joke, i genuinely feel for the bloke. Hasnt done a thing wrong but finds himself without a club.
only temporarily, the Crows will get him in the PSD hopefully. He's still training with them and everything so while he isn't officially on their list, he is still a Crows player in every other aspect
I think that will happen to, they owe him that. It will happen.
Quote from: Grazz on November 21, 2012, 11:39:54 PM
Quote from: Tominator on November 21, 2012, 11:18:24 PM
Quote from: Grazz on November 21, 2012, 08:58:53 PM
Quote from: Ziplock on November 21, 2012, 08:56:00 PM
that's not a joke...
Wasnt making a joke, i genuinely feel for the bloke. Hasnt done a thing wrong but finds himself without a club.
only temporarily, the Crows will get him in the PSD hopefully. He's still training with them and everything so while he isn't officially on their list, he is still a Crows player in every other aspect
I think that will happen to, they owe him that. It will happen.
they've already committed their first pick in the PSD to him, the only way it won't happen is if somebody picks him up before Adelaide get the chance. If that happens expect a huge Tippett-bashing in the SA media
Quote from: Tominator on November 22, 2012, 12:38:40 AM
Quote from: Grazz on November 21, 2012, 11:39:54 PM
Quote from: Tominator on November 21, 2012, 11:18:24 PM
Quote from: Grazz on November 21, 2012, 08:58:53 PM
Quote from: Ziplock on November 21, 2012, 08:56:00 PM
that's not a joke...
Wasnt making a joke, i genuinely feel for the bloke. Hasnt done a thing wrong but finds himself without a club.
only temporarily, the Crows will get him in the PSD hopefully. He's still training with them and everything so while he isn't officially on their list, he is still a Crows player in every other aspect
I think that will happen to, they owe him that. It will happen.
they've already committed their first pick in the PSD to him, the only way it won't happen is if somebody picks him up before Adelaide get the chance. If that happens expect a huge Tippett-bashing in the SA media
Other clubs are generally very good when it comes to these situations, he'll be on our list again soon.
Looks like the Crows aren't the only club in SA being accused of salary cap cheating
http://www.norwoodfc.com.au/News/LATESTNEWS/SALARYCAPCLAIMS.aspx
I didnt even know the bgrade comps paid people...
now West Adelaide are in it too
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/bloods-go-over-cap/story-fn525un5-1226521980309
Quote from: Tominator on November 22, 2012, 07:17:53 PM
now West Adelaide are in it too
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/bloods-go-over-cap/story-fn525un5-1226521980309
And the Bullsdoitunderatreecauseitsshady under 13's, so all is fine now lol
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/adelaide-crows-may-face-a-decade-of-pain-says-shane-osullivan/story-e6frf9jf-1226523439826
Quote from: Cicjose on November 25, 2012, 03:13:00 AM
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/adelaide-crows-may-face-a-decade-of-pain-says-shane-osullivan/story-e6frf9jf-1226523439826
well that was a rather useless article :o
Pitty he didnt say what we did was far worse than what the Crows have been accused of. :-X
Quote from: McRooster on October 30, 2012, 10:34:00 PM
I can't believe I'm typing this... But with all that's come about in this torrid affair...Demetriou could be our saviour :o
Demetriou has much invested in the corporate successes that should come from Adelaides move to Adelaide Oval. The penalty will be light for Adelaide to ensure that the Crows immediate on field progression keeps attracting the right sort of coin.
Told you so ::)
Methinks however, it ain't over.
Quote from: McRooster on December 06, 2012, 11:03:21 PM
Quote from: McRooster on October 30, 2012, 10:34:00 PM
I can't believe I'm typing this... But with all that's come about in this torrid affair...Demetriou could be our saviour :o
Demetriou has much invested in the corporate successes that should come from Adelaides move to Adelaide Oval. The penalty will be light for Adelaide to ensure that the Crows immediate on field progression keeps attracting the right sort of coin.
Told you so ::)
Methinks however, it ain't over.
Well done Rooster, how do you mean "it ain't over"
this is still irking me even after a few months but mainly because of the way the club dealt with Rendell when you compare with what they 'gave' Trigg et al as 'punishments' ... :-\ :( >:( ;)
Quote from: j959 on January 15, 2013, 04:27:18 PM
this is still irking me even after a few months but mainly because of the way the club dealt with Rendell when you compare with what they 'gave' Trigg et al as 'punishments' ... :-\ :( >:( ;)
Without wanting to assist in dragging all this up again i gotta agree mate, Rendell was crucified for not breaking any rules as far as im aware, where as Trigg did break atleast 3 from memory which were no small ones and remains. Highly hypocritical imo. >:(
once again I'll say this
cheating is rife in pretty much all sports- nobody particulary likes it, but everyone knows it happens, that's why so much effort is put into trying to find the cheating barbies, that being said, people can identify with someones reasoning to cheat.
a majority of people now days however, can not identify with racist discrimination.
Ftr, I still think rendalls comments were taken way out of context and blown out of proportion, but, I can understand the different levels of punishments.
Like you i really don't think Rendell was being racist at all. Over reaction by the Crows. Doubt the Pie's would of jumped on him so quick if he had any inkling of a racist bone in his body. I'm pretty confident the Crows behind closed doors would admit they over reacted.
i dont want to start any thing but how many indigenous players were picked up in the draft? I dont think there was that many.
Regarding the contracts though, i think the AFL will be looking at all the teams books and contracts to have a second look
Quote from: Ziplock on January 15, 2013, 05:13:19 PM
once again I'll say this
cheating is rife in pretty much all sports- nobody particulary likes it, but everyone knows it happens, that's why so much effort is put into trying to find the cheating barbies, that being said, people can identify with someones reasoning to cheat.
a majority of people now days however, can not identify with racist discrimination.
Ftr, I still think rendalls comments were taken way out of context and blown out of proportion, but, I can understand the different levels of punishments.
interesting view point zip in terms of you understanding the different levels of punishment.
FTR i too think Rendell's comments were taken way out of context and blown out of proportion - having seen his full interview (can't remember who with, think 9's Footy Show??) i was pretty ok with not labelling him as racist in any way.
i think in our goal of appropriate political correctness (ie not going to far one way and overblowing things), society is generally a little too quick to label legitimate debate on racial issues as 'racist' when that is not always a fair moniker.
i just think cheating is cheating - playing within the rules to best advantage (eg Joel Bowden goal-line points, which made AFL change the rules) is fine but cf #lancearmstrong. ;)
Quote from: j959 on January 15, 2013, 04:27:18 PM
this is still irking me even after a few months but mainly because of the way the club dealt with Rendell when you compare with what they 'gave' Trigg et al as 'punishments' ... :-\ :( >:( ;)
oh no you didnt..... thought this thread and the tippett threads were gone!!
Crows really had no choice, either Rendell went or AFL step in, absolutely shocking witch hunt though, he wasn't even being racist
Quote from: SydneyRox on January 15, 2013, 06:04:51 PM
Quote from: j959 on January 15, 2013, 04:27:18 PM
this is still irking me even after a few months but mainly because of the way the club dealt with Rendell when you compare with what they 'gave' Trigg et al as 'punishments' ... :-\ :( >:( ;)
oh no you didnt..... thought this thread and the tippett threads were gone!!
Haha yes we should possibly let sleeping dogs lay. :-X
Quote from: Grazz on January 15, 2013, 06:09:32 PM
Quote from: SydneyRox on January 15, 2013, 06:04:51 PM
Quote from: j959 on January 15, 2013, 04:27:18 PM
this is still irking me even after a few months but mainly because of the way the club dealt with Rendell when you compare with what they 'gave' Trigg et al as 'punishments' ... :-\ :( >:( ;)
oh no you didnt..... thought this thread and the tippett threads were gone!!
Haha yes we should possibly let sleeping dogs lay. :-X
it's the off-season, i'm procrastinating ... ;)
Quote from: tabs on January 15, 2013, 05:48:42 PM
i dont want to start any thing but how many indigenous players were picked up in the draft? I dont think there was that many.
Regarding the contracts though, i think the AFL will be looking at all the teams books and contracts to have a second look
indigenous people only make up 2.5% of australias population.
not including rookie promotions, or international selections, about 125 players were drafted this year
subsequently, statistically there should only be around 3.1 indigenous players drafted. Obviously you cant have .1 of a player, so 3-4 is an acceptable range.
goodes is indigenous, as is simpson, sumner, hartman
that's 4 there, I'm not sure about the rest of the rookie draft though, there could be more.
that statistically covers an indigenous contribution to the draft though doesnt it?
Quote from: j959 on January 15, 2013, 06:11:52 PM
Quote from: Grazz on January 15, 2013, 06:09:32 PM
Quote from: SydneyRox on January 15, 2013, 06:04:51 PM
Quote from: j959 on January 15, 2013, 04:27:18 PM
this is still irking me even after a few months but mainly because of the way the club dealt with Rendell when you compare with what they 'gave' Trigg et al as 'punishments' ... :-\ :( >:( ;)
oh no you didnt..... thought this thread and the tippett threads were gone!!
Haha yes we should possibly let sleeping dogs lay. :-X
it's the off-season, i'm procrastinating ... ;)
Haha fair enough. :P
Quote from: Ziplock on January 15, 2013, 06:12:11 PM
Quote from: tabs on January 15, 2013, 05:48:42 PM
i dont want to start any thing but how many indigenous players were picked up in the draft? I dont think there was that many.
Regarding the contracts though, i think the AFL will be looking at all the teams books and contracts to have a second look
indigenous people only make up 2.5% of australias population.
not including rookie promotions, or international selections, about 125 players were drafted this year
subsequently, statistically there should only be around 3.1 indigenous players drafted. Obviously you cant have .1 of a player, so 3-4 is an acceptable range.
goodes is indigenous, as is simpson, sumner, hartman
that's 4 there, I'm not sure about the rest of the rookie draft though, there could be more.
that statistically covers an indigenous contribution to the draft though doesnt it?
Did well there zip.
Now I know this thread is dead... But..
My wife just asked me while we were watching the footy show - didn't Nathan Buckley only agree to go to Brisbane if he was allowed to go to Collingwood the year after. Sounds just like Kurt Tippett extending his deal at Adelaide to ensure he got to go back to the club of his choice. Why all the bullshower about Kurt when the precedent was already there?
Help me out lads and ladettes.
I think because adelaide specified what for- a 2nd round pick, while brisbane probably said we'll trade you there for whatever.
or something like that.
it was the fact adelaide had like predetermined tippetts value or something.
Zip is correct in that the agreement was there for him to go to a Melbourne club of his choice. Pies or actual draft picks were not mentioned unlike Tippett. So basically it was a case of what we could get for him.
here is some of the record
"In early 1992 struggling Australian Football League (AFL) club Brisbane Bears drafted Buckley through its Northern Territory state zone. Buckley challenged the AFL draft system and sparked controversy by initially resisting a move to Brisbane. His dreams were to play in Melbourne due to its culture in the sport, therefore felt the Bears were an undesirable career option. However AFL draft rules prevented him from playing with another AFL club and so remained in the SANFL.
Buckley signed with the Bears for the 1993 AFL season as part of a deal between Buckley and the Bears that allowed him to go to the club of his choice the following season. Brisbane hoped his time in Queensland would be long enough to change his mind. Buckley immediately demonstrated his potential, playing 20 games, kicking 21 goals and impressing with his general play. He was the inaugural winner of the Norwich Rising Star Award and finished a close second in the Bears' best-and-fairest award."
Agree. Reckon it is more about that Brisbane told the AFL about the deal, but the Crows kept it secret....
wow if only Tippett was playing for the Swans this weekend...... boy that game would be a sell-out
How I wish he was suspended for one less game :'(
Would make for a spectacle, that's for sure!
Quote from: Toga on June 06, 2013, 10:20:20 AM
How I wish he was suspended for one less game :'(
Would make for a spectacle, that's for sure!
Dislike your DP Toga!! >:( >:( >:( >:(
How do you get away with two clean punches on the chin and not get sin binned is beyond me!!!
You're a maroons supporter? :o ???
Thought you were a Sydney & therefore Blues man! :P
Not sure mate, but they were mighty fine punches hey? ;)
haha. I keep hearing NRL supporters talking it up (the blues anyway), but honestly I think it's a show of shocking self control by an elite athlete.
Rugby League is a joke.
Quote from: Toga on June 06, 2013, 11:54:09 AM
You're a maroons supporter? :o ???
Thought you were a Sydney & therefore Blues man! :P
Not sure mate, but they were mighty fine punches hey? ;)
Two great hits, but way out of line against a guy who had both arms by his side??
In fact, I am an enigma. Sandgroper who follows the Swans, parents are Queenslanders, which is where the maroons and Broncos come from!!
Dont worry, 8 in a row still pretty likely!! 8)
Ps. Sorry for railroading the post
Quote from: Ziplock on June 06, 2013, 12:04:03 PM
haha. I keep hearing NRL supporters talking it up (the blues anyway), but honestly I think it's a show of shocking self control by an elite athlete.
yeah i would have to agree with you it wasn't the right thing to do... but who doesn't like a good ol' footy or rugby fight? :P
Quote from: SydneyRox on June 06, 2013, 12:06:07 PM
Two great hits, but way out of line against a guy who had both arms by his side??
In fact, I am an enigma. Sandgroper who follows the Swans, parents are Queenslanders, which is where the maroons and Broncos come from!!
Dont worry, 8 in a row still pretty likely!! 8)
Ps. Sorry for railroading the post
Yeah probably a bit out of line, although if you heard what Gallen said to the umpire it seems Myles was being a bit out-of-line with his tackles all night. :-X
Haha fair enough, good to hear something a bit out of the norm!
Yeah sorry for taking this off topic haha. :P