Naughty Adelaide?

For all things non Essendon related, tell us how much you hate the Blues, Pies, etc.
User avatar
j-mac31
Essendon Legend
Posts: 15233
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:13 pm
Location: The city of brotherly love (Detroit)

Naughty Adelaide?

Post by j-mac31 » Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:13 pm

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/c ... 283kp.html
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx

So Adelaide could be in trouble for draft tampering with their "gentlemen's agreement" with Kurt Tippet where they could trade him to the club of his choice for a second round pick when his contract expired. Which was recently.

I have two problems with all of this:

1. Why is the AFL only looking into this now? This agreement - whether in his contract or not - has been known about for years. Flogs.

2. More generally, why should the AFL be allowed to block trades if they don't represent "clear commercial value for both sides"? There could be so many factors in any trade and whether it is done for value can be highly subjective; surely if the two (or more) teams agree, that should be the end of it.
Aaron Francis is the Messiah.

User avatar
boncer34
Champion of Essendon
Posts: 9207
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: Naughty Adelaide?

Post by boncer34 » Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:57 pm

j-mac31 wrote:
1. Why is the AFL only looking into this now? This agreement - whether in his contract or not - has been known about for years. Flogs.

2. More generally, why should the AFL be allowed to block trades if they don't represent "clear commercial value for both sides"? There could be so many factors in any trade and whether it is done for value can be highly subjective; surely if the two (or more) teams agree, that should be the end of it.
1. Because until last Friday there was zero evidence of it on paper until Adelaide approached the AFL about it.
2. Because Tippett signed a contract for 3 years stating Adelaide would happily let him go to Brisbane or GC for a 2nd round pick. Thats illegal for a few reasons. The first is it prevented the Gold Coast from picking him up as a free agent which was their right. The second is it could entice a player to sign for less money then they otherwise would've.
Essendon Football Club- We arent arrogant, just better.

User avatar
little_ripper
Club Captain
Posts: 3816
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:46 am
Location: At a computer screen, punching out garbage on BT.

Re: Naughty Adelaide?

Post by little_ripper » Wed Oct 24, 2012 5:24 pm

the AFL are total FLOGS.

can't stand them.

from the umpire department, to the rules of the game committee, to Dimitreou and his side kick Anderson.
the take the worlds best sport and seriously do their best to f@#k it up.

dimitreo wears it as a badge of pride that he pulls in the big bucks come TV time and then turns around and screws the punters with high ticket prices.
and yeah they seem to be an administration that just make things up as they go along when it suits them.

User avatar
swoodley
Champion of Essendon
Posts: 7233
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:08 pm
Location: Perth

Re: Naughty Adelaide?

Post by swoodley » Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:21 pm

Nice rant LR :lol:

But I must say I agree with Bonce on this one.

The AFL have stated that Tippett's contract would not have passed (their contracts man Ken Wood) if it had made mention of the so called gentleman's agreement so they're not changing any rules in this instance.
"You can quote me on this... He is gawn" - bomberdonnie re Hurley's contract status 25 February 2012

User avatar
little_ripper
Club Captain
Posts: 3816
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:46 am
Location: At a computer screen, punching out garbage on BT.

Re: Naughty Adelaide?

Post by little_ripper » Fri Oct 26, 2012 10:19 am

breaking news is that he won't be traded and it looks like Tippett will be deregistered for the 2013 season.

wow :shock:

User avatar
ealesy
Champion of Essendon
Posts: 5576
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 8:19 pm

Re: Naughty Adelaide?

Post by ealesy » Fri Oct 26, 2012 10:54 am

Apart from Tippet's career being in limbo

You would think the Crows are facing a hefty fine and possible draft penalties as well.

Steven Trigg's career as and AFL Club CEO is all but over, and Peter Bulcher (Tippet's manager) career as a player agent is probably also done and dusted.

The more I read about this case the more trouble I think all parties are going to be in also you've got to wonder that if Adelaide did this with Tippet, have they done similar things with other players?

Reckon the AFL will be pretty closely examining all player contracts and records at the Adelaide Football Club for quite awhile. Makes you wonder if Patrick Dangerfield was given any inducements to re-sign earlier this year when he was one of the hottest commodities in the League.

User avatar
j-mac31
Essendon Legend
Posts: 15233
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:13 pm
Location: The city of brotherly love (Detroit)

Re: Naughty Adelaide?

Post by j-mac31 » Fri Oct 26, 2012 2:35 pm

boncer34 wrote:
j-mac31 wrote:
1. Why is the AFL only looking into this now? This agreement - whether in his contract or not - has been known about for years. Flogs.

2. More generally, why should the AFL be allowed to block trades if they don't represent "clear commercial value for both sides"? There could be so many factors in any trade and whether it is done for value can be highly subjective; surely if the two (or more) teams agree, that should be the end of it.
1. Because until last Friday there was zero evidence of it on paper until Adelaide approached the AFL about it.
2. Because Tippett signed a contract for 3 years stating Adelaide would happily let him go to Brisbane or GC for a 2nd round pick. Thats illegal for a few reasons. The first is it prevented the Gold Coast from picking him up as a free agent which was their right. The second is it could entice a player to sign for less money then they otherwise would've.
1. But the media talked about it as if it were fact. They would not go around making something like that up. Surely even at least a phone call should have been made?

2. You've missed my point on this. I don't care about this particular agreement, just the fact that the AFL can stop any trade that isn't commercially valuable. Sometimes a team won't be able to get a good deal done, so take what little they can get.
Aaron Francis is the Messiah.

bombercol
Regular Senior Player
Posts: 2376
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:35 pm
Location: Canberra

Re: Naughty Adelaide?

Post by bombercol » Sat Oct 27, 2012 3:46 pm

If Adelaide are banned from the draft.

How do they elevate that 17 year old kid they got in last year's mini draft.

Do they lose him?

Because I would presume Adelaide would be banned from the PSD and rookie draft too

User avatar
j-mac31
Essendon Legend
Posts: 15233
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:13 pm
Location: The city of brotherly love (Detroit)

Re: Naughty Adelaide?

Post by j-mac31 » Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:12 pm

I think they just put him on the list, he doesn't actually go through the draft.
Aaron Francis is the Messiah.

User avatar
boncer34
Champion of Essendon
Posts: 9207
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: Naughty Adelaide?

Post by boncer34 » Mon Oct 29, 2012 6:43 am

1. So the media talked about is as fact? Good thing they never make up stories or are full of shit to sell papers. The phone call might have been made and Adelaide said; "Nah doesn't exists." What does the AFL do then? Go; "Well Caro wrote about it so its true and you're in trouble." Come on Jmac you know they can't do anything without proof. The proof now exists so they act.

2. I think you've missed the point. They stopped the trade because Tippett has been paid an extra 200K on the side plus given an illegal out of contract deal plus had his brother given money to move down. Clearly something is fishy and if Adelaide are banned from the draft and Tippett gets deregistered then how does the trade work then? The picks lost? Reversed? Jesse White stays with his new club? Gets forced back to Sydney? Then what if the pick was on traded as part of a deal that saw other trades worked out? We reverse all them to? But how? GWS gives Adelaide picks 1 & 13 for Dangerfield + 23, do Adelaide get to use those picks? Does GWS?

Commercially viability doesn't come into it. Tippett AND the Crows both f***** up. They should both cop punishment.
Essendon Football Club- We arent arrogant, just better.

User avatar
j-mac31
Essendon Legend
Posts: 15233
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:13 pm
Location: The city of brotherly love (Detroit)

Re: Naughty Adelaide?

Post by j-mac31 » Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:56 pm

1. But it wasn't like Caro said it once and that was it. It's been mentioned so many times over the past few years.

2. Apparently I've missed my own point. I wasn't talking about the Tippet trade (or lack thereof). In several articles on this topic was the point that the AFL can block any trade that doesn't represent commercial value. Which is a rule I don't like.

The irony in all of this is if they'd let him go to the Gold Coast they would have gotten a first round pick for him and not done anything stupid/illegal. And apparently Brisbane last year offered them first and second round picks.
Aaron Francis is the Messiah.

User avatar
little_ripper
Club Captain
Posts: 3816
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:46 am
Location: At a computer screen, punching out garbage on BT.

Re: Naughty Adelaide?

Post by little_ripper » Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:46 pm

Would there be other contacts out there like Tippetts?

827 AFL listed players and his is the only one thats suspect?

User avatar
boncer34
Champion of Essendon
Posts: 9207
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: Naughty Adelaide?

Post by boncer34 » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:57 am

j-mac31 wrote:1. But it wasn't like Caro said it once and that was it. It's been mentioned so many times over the past few years.

2. Apparently I've missed my own point. I wasn't talking about the Tippet trade (or lack thereof). In several articles on this topic was the point that the AFL can block any trade that doesn't represent commercial value. Which is a rule I don't like.

The irony in all of this is if they'd let him go to the Gold Coast they would have gotten a first round pick for him and not done anything stupid/illegal. And apparently Brisbane last year offered them first and second round picks.
1. To be honest mate I hadn't heard squat until recently. But I still think the AFL can't act on rumours and muck raking. Only the facts in evidence and they had no hard facts until recently.

2. My apologies I misunderstood you. I thought you were talking about how could they stop the Tippett trade specifically not just any in general. I guess its like the power of the Govenor General to overthrow the government. They can do it if they want but as a rule don't. (As a rule now with this analogy anyway. :lol: )
Essendon Football Club- We arent arrogant, just better.

User avatar
j-mac31
Essendon Legend
Posts: 15233
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:13 pm
Location: The city of brotherly love (Detroit)

Re: Naughty Adelaide?

Post by j-mac31 » Wed Oct 31, 2012 3:59 pm

boncer34 wrote:1. To be honest mate I hadn't heard squat until recently. But I still think the AFL can't act on rumours and muck raking. Only the facts in evidence and they had no hard facts until recently.
I'd read about it enough to assume that "everybody" knew.
Aaron Francis is the Messiah.

JockStrap

Re: Naughty Adelaide?

Post by JockStrap » Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:39 am

In my opinion, I dont think Tippet should be penalised (deregistered).

The responsibility must rest with Adelaide who surely would have known that the "gentleman's agreement" was a potential breach of rules.
As such, they had the opportunity of dismissing Tippets request for a favourable trade outcome. Tippet has evry right to ask the question. Its his manager and club who should have provided a greater degree of responsibility and care.

Outcome. He should be released and dropped into the Pre Season Draft. In which case GWS will probably get their man.

User avatar
ealesy
Champion of Essendon
Posts: 5576
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 8:19 pm

Re: Naughty Adelaide?

Post by ealesy » Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:27 am

I'm sorry but of course Tippet should be punished as should Bulcher as should AFC.

They were all complicit in this.

Tippet would have known that making that agreement (particularly AFC agreeing to underwrite an additional $200K outside the cap regardless of whether they could fit that money in the cap or not) was against the rules but he didn't care.

Should be forced into the draft and his contract be decided by the AFL. He should not be able to put a $1 million price tag on his head to still try and get through to Sydney.

JockStrap

Re: Naughty Adelaide?

Post by JockStrap » Thu Nov 01, 2012 5:44 am

ealesy wrote:I'm sorry but of course Tippet should be punished as should Bulcher as should AFC.

They were all complicit in this.

Tippet would have known that making that agreement (particularly AFC agreeing to underwrite an additional $200K outside the cap regardless of whether they could fit that money in the cap or not) was against the rules but he didn't care.

Should be forced into the draft and his contract be decided by the AFL. He should not be able to put a $1 million price tag on his head to still try and get through to Sydney.

No more complicit than a child who is knowingly allowed to watch an R rated movie - if you know what I mean. Like the child, Tippet was engaged in something that he knew was wrong. However, ultimate responsibility must rest with the parties that allowed the incident to occur.

He should be punished but I believe de-registering him is too harsh

User avatar
ealesy
Champion of Essendon
Posts: 5576
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 8:19 pm

Re: Naughty Adelaide?

Post by ealesy » Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:26 am

Don't buy that logic at all.

AFC, Bulcher and Tippet all knew they were doing the wrong thing, they are all mentally sound adults, they are all equally complicit and should all be punished to the same degree.

To what degree that is, is for the AFL decide once they have completed their investigation and are completely aware of the severity of the breaches.

User avatar
swoodley
Champion of Essendon
Posts: 7233
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:08 pm
Location: Perth

Re: Naughty Adelaide?

Post by swoodley » Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:17 pm

JockStrap wrote:
ealesy wrote:I'm sorry but of course Tippet should be punished as should Bulcher as should AFC.

They were all complicit in this.

Tippet would have known that making that agreement (particularly AFC agreeing to underwrite an additional $200K outside the cap regardless of whether they could fit that money in the cap or not) was against the rules but he didn't care.

Should be forced into the draft and his contract be decided by the AFL. He should not be able to put a $1 million price tag on his head to still try and get through to Sydney.

No more complicit than a child who is knowingly allowed to watch an R rated movie - if you know what I mean. Like the child, Tippet was engaged in something that he knew was wrong. However, ultimate responsibility must rest with the parties that allowed the incident to occur.

He should be punished but I believe de-registering him is too harsh
Ultimate responsibility is his as I'm sure it his signature on the contract. Did Adelaide, his manager and/or his father hold him down and force him to sign the contract?

He knew exactly what he was doing and now he needs to pay a suitable penalty for his transgression.
"You can quote me on this... He is gawn" - bomberdonnie re Hurley's contract status 25 February 2012

User avatar
Western Red
Regular Senior Player
Posts: 1291
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:23 pm
Location: Penang, Malaysia

Re: Naughty Adelaide?

Post by Western Red » Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:46 pm

Kurt Tippett has been charged by the AFL

"THE ADELAIDE Crows, player Kurt Tippett, chief executive Stephen Trigg and former football manager John Reid have each been charged by the AFL and ordered to front the AFL Commission later this month.

They are each facing two charges of ‘engaging in conduct prejudicial to the draft’ and salary cap breaches.

Both are alleged breaches of AFL rule 17.

In a statement on Monday night, AFL football operations boss Adrian Anderson said the League informed the parties of the charges in writing on Monday.

"The Adelaide Crows FC, and each of the three individuals, have been advised their charges will be heard before the full AFL Commission next Monday, November 19, at 1pm at AFL House," Anderson said."


More on the AFL webpage.....

Post Reply