We can pay Dangerfield's and Thompson's wage if salary cap pressure is doing them in. Would love to raid the [censored] out of their team!

  On 24/10/2012 at 13:13, monoccular said:

Well, if this is all true then they have well and truly compromised this year's FA and trade period; surely they would have to be excluded completely from the draft, and probably next year's trade and FA period too.

How did they compromise mono?

Maybe I'm missing something here.

Gossip, some say more from the ABC in Adelaide is the Tippett deal is big and off the record.

To the point that Tippet may be fined, extensive band or deregistered as a player for breaching the rules. Also its going to affect more than Tippett including his manager etc, its a big story.

  On 24/10/2012 at 15:19, skills32 said:

How did they compromise mono?

Maybe I'm missing something here.

surely the whole drawn out saga has effected other trades - has to with some holding off as most trades are linked in one way or another, as the stack of cards falls or is built up.

  On 24/10/2012 at 15:19, skills32 said:

How did they compromise mono?

Maybe I'm missing something here.

Its draft tampering if Adelaide has already pre-ordained what kind of a pick they will take for Tippet it makes it an unfair bidding process. If say Brisbane had said they would trade pick 9 for Tippett but Adelaide accepts 23 from Sydney due to a previous arrangement they are preventing a fair bidding process from taking place and Brisbane is unfairly disadvantaged. Also Tippett, while he can express where he wants to go, has no ultimate say, he is not an UFA, and when this deal was made there were no FA at all. A good comparison would be that if Mitch Clark had this kind of deal there would have been no way for Melbourne to get him as Brisbane would have to accept whatever pick Freo offer. It ultimately tampers with how a bidding process works to the detriment of the clubs as players will chose sucessful clubs and lesser clubs, who would usually have a higher draft pick bidding advantage are prevented from having so.

Its salary cap breach because Tippett had undeclared income as a result of this deal outside Adelaide's salary cap.

The thing is though jammin, that sort of arrangement would only disadvantage Adelaide. Tippett can and has chosen where he wants to play, and as it turns out he chose the worst possible scenario for the Crows.

If this is causing hold ups with other trades, and it looks as though it is then the AFL need to look at coming to a quick decision (investigation) which they don't seem to be able to do these days or unfortunately delay the finish of the trade period. This now effects other players futures and will open up a can of worms if not resolved quickly.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the contentious clause was signed into Tippett's contract 3 years ago. Was our own Neil Craig not the Coach at the time? Intersting thought...

it would appear that not only was the an agreement made outside the official contract re: trade but also same fat wads of non-sequential bills in brown paper bags. so to speak.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/new-twist-in-tippett-probe-20121024-285vi.html

bad times ahead for Adelaide by the look of it

How is it draft tampering more than Luke Ball for example?

The contract signed between Tippet and Adelaide states that it contains everything between them. A side deal won't be worth the paper its written on - its likely not a contract. BUt the AFL are right on to it so we don't need to worry. all will be sorted out

  On 24/10/2012 at 21:08, The Demon 2565 said:

it would appear that not only was the an agreement made outside the official contract re: trade but also same fat wads of non-sequential bills in brown paper bags. so to speak.

http://www.theage.co...1024-285vi.html

bad times ahead for Adelaide by the look of it

Where is the reference to money on the side? COuldn't see it.

This is serious stuff...The Crows & Tippett are in steaming poop.

  On 24/10/2012 at 21:51, jnrmac said:

Where is the reference to money on the side? COuldn't see it.

you couldn't see this at the start of article?

  Quote

The email is believed to refer to an agreement that Adelaide would trade Tippett to the club of his choice for a second-round draft pick at the conclusion of the three-year contract, as well as an additional payment.

Neither the payment nor the trade deal were disclosed in Tippett’s contract, which was approved by the AFL at the time, leaving the Crows facing major sanctions for both the agreement to trade him, and the possible salary cap breach.

  On 24/10/2012 at 22:12, why you little said:

This is serious stuff...The Crows & Tippett are in steaming poop.

As are his management company.

Worse the AFL will be horrified that the Tippet camp were thinking of going to the Supreme Court. That would be the nuclear option for the AFL who must know the whole system wont survive an action like that. For his management group to even threaten that is strange and wont win them any friends at the AFL.

Now the problem is if the deregister him he may well decide to go to court and say its a restraint of trade.

  On 24/10/2012 at 22:12, why you little said:

This is serious stuff...The Crows & Tippett are in steaming poop.

His management are in it up to their teeth. Sydney are getting off lightly, they would have known of the deal otherwise there is no way that they would have thought themselves in the race for Tippett. They knew that the deal was done and they could get him with a 2nd round pick, offering White was a joke and eventually Adelaide had to come clean to pacify their own supporters who were wondering why they were rolling over so easily.

The AFL will need to rule on this today, so the trades can be completed tomorrow. Can not see how they can allow the Tippett deal to stand (and him go to the Swans) given the deal was outside the rules of the AFL, salary cap etc...

So a scenario that may benefit the MFC is a big fine for Adelaide and Tippett goes into the National Draft (i.e. Adelaide get nothing for him and he loses right to determine where he ends up), this would ideally see GWS using one of their first three picks on Tippett... pushing Toumpass or Grundy to be available to us at pick 4...

And we all thought Scully was unpopular with the crowd at the G this year. The reaction of the Adelaide supporters when Tippett plays there next year will be truly something to behold

Thanks Adelaide . Top club !!

Lights, camera, spotlight >>>>>Crows

Lol

  On 24/10/2012 at 23:02, rjay said:

His management are in it up to their teeth. Sydney are getting off lightly, they would have known of the deal otherwise there is no way that they would have thought themselves in the race for Tippett. They knew that the deal was done and they could get him with a 2nd round pick, offering White was a joke and eventually Adelaide had to come clean to pacify their own supporters who were wondering why they were rolling over so easily.

yes, interesting point where Sydney sat in this all year. Not sure if they did know. It will all come out very soon. As is said above it really needs to be sorted today.

I think the AFL will dish out the worst possible punishment for Tippett and the Crows.

Tippett to Port Adelaide.

  On 25/10/2012 at 01:21, Deestroy All said:

I think the AFL will dish out the worst possible punishment for Tippett and the Crows.

Tippett to Port Adelaide Melbourne.

Better.

  On 24/10/2012 at 19:37, pantaloons said:

The thing is though jammin, that sort of arrangement would only disadvantage Adelaide. Tippett can and has chosen where he wants to play, and as it turns out he chose the worst possible scenario for the Crows.

Actually this situation disadvantages any team that wants Tippett and can bid more than Sydney (in terms of payment to Adelaide) as in a fair system without this deal they would be able to get their man. Adelaide knows exactly what they will get and while it is not market value its nowhere near as bad as being a team that has bid a top ten draft pick only to be shot down for pick 23 and a dud. The teams disadvantaged would be Carlton, GWS, GC, Brisbane, Bulldogs and potentially even us. it also provides Sydney an unfair advantage as their ladder position would usually count them out of acheiving this sort of trade, where they will actually pick him up to add to their premiership team for next to nothing (comparitively). Imagine if Judd had a go home clause and West Coast had got pick 23 for him from Sydney at least Carlton had to give up something decent (despite their brown paper bagging)! For those mentioning the Ball situation this is still far worse, as any team coud have picked Ball up and made him sit on the pine for a year if that was his intent, while it was still draft tampering if a team had the cojones to pick Ball up the whole situation could have been avoided (I wish we did regardless of the consequences, it would have stopped the pies winning a flag!).

Also cash being involved is a big no-no and will be a bigger issue than the draft rorting.

I might be dumb but I still can't see it.

Melbourne over trumped Freo's bid for Clark and were able to get the deal done. That was legal.

Sydney over trumped Bris and GC but haven't been able to get the deal done. Legal so far.

It then turns out that Tippett wanted a guarantee to be traded to a club of his choice at the end of his contract. Still legal.

And Tippett wanted to make sure that this trade would go through so he stipulated that Adelaide had to accept a second round pick in return.

Still legal.

Adelaide now want more than a second round pick thus reneging on their agreement.

No draft tampering as yet as no club has been mentioned.

The reason this was done is because he wanted out three years ago and Brisbane offered two first round picks which were knocked back by Adelaide

and it was either stay or take pot luck in the draft.

Where it does become murky is that the agreement was a secret part of his contract not divulged to the AFL.

I would still like to know how any of the above can be construed as draft tampering.

He has every right to ask be traded to a club of his choice.

Similar to Caddy he wants to be traded but won't go to MFC who actually could get the trade done with more $$$ in his pocket.

Is that draft tampering too?

  On 25/10/2012 at 10:36, skills32 said:

I might be dumb but I still can't see it.

Melbourne over trumped Freo's bid for Clark and were able to get the deal done. That was legal.

Sydney over trumped Bris and GC but haven't been able to get the deal done. Legal so far.

This is where you are wrong, Sydney is unable to trump its competitors, it has lower picks, but Adelaide has to accept them as it agreed to this draft tampering arrangement. The very reason Mitch Clark came to Melbourne was that Freo was unable to satisfy Brisbane with the picks they had, Mitch was happy with both contracts, but the fact Melbourne could trump them in the trade period meant he came to us. This is the very process which has been rorted by Tippett's deal

Adelaide isn't Carlton, which is a criminal organization that should've been liquidated 10 years ago for it's filthy cheating.

Sydney isn't Carlton. Sydney won the premiership with very few high draft picks but lots of grit and courage. It's not offering [censored] Visy deals for a filthy merc like Carlton did with Judd.

Comparisons unwarranted, in my view.