Crows 'tamper' affair

[Ziplock]

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.

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.

[Dudge]

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

[JBs-Hawks]

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.

[Ziplock]

and pick 23 is the swans first round pick :P

[tbagrocks]

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!

[Boomz]

Hopefully the AFL take it seriously and give the punishment it deserves...

[JBs-Hawks]

Because crows used that clause as a bargaining chip.

[Mailman the 2nd]

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.

[Dudge]

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?

[AFEV]

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.

[Spite]

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

[Capper]

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

[PowerBug]

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

[tbagrocks]

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!

[kilbluff1985]

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