Tippett!!

[erica]

11.06am Patrick Keane ?@AFL_PKeane

"AFL is still investigating how Tippett contract relates to operation of AFL Player Rules.There is no further update to provide at this time."

[BillyRayCypress]

It could turn into a mini series at this rate.

Who is to blame for all of this? Those dumb fools at the AFC.

If they just traded him in the first place, there would have been no story.

Typical example of cutting off your own nose to spite your face. Just unbelievable.

[The Big Cat]

I suspect the Adelaide fessing up is putting a positive spin on it. I suspect Trigg went to AFL to get clarification on whether they could be held to a "gentleman's agreement".

[Matty10]

Quayle says:

Tippett could potentially be banned from playing for being party to such an agreement, while clubs found guilty of draft tampering or salary cap breaches can face draft penalties for up to four years.

Potentially means what? How is a trade arrangement draft tampering, when he does not go into the draft?

This is what I was getting at in an earlier post. I don't understand the problem as detailed by Quayle. If there is a particular rule that relates to this (trading players, not drafting them), why not just detail the specifics? Surely this has more to do with how Adelaide kept Tippett in the first place, not how they might trade him now.

The trading period is always a compromised transaction process. There are countless examples of players being given up for less (or in some cases more) than they are worth, particularly when their contract is about to expire (or teams need to free room in their salary cap). I don't see what the AFL can do about it, when the alternative is the PSD where the player has the ability to dictate contract length and value.

If this was really a big story then it should have been a big issue when Tippett's manager mentioned on radio it in the first place (whether written or verbal a contract is still a contract). This story needs more clarity.

[barry]

Tippets agreement for a 2nd round pick trade is draft tampering. Minor, but still preventing a "market value" trade process.

If Sydney are only offering a 2nd round pick, then the Crows and the AFL have a case.

The simple way out of this for Sydney to offer more than the 2nd round pick (1st pick + ). The crows and tippetts agreement is then null and void as its been exceeded anyway.

Which leads me to think the state of play is this:
- Sydney have only offered 2nd rounder and White.
- Adelaide are using the secret clause made public to try and make it more than the 2nd rounder.

We'll have to give up 1st pick at least to get Tippett otherwise he could be banned from playing in 2013 for draft tampering.

[ShockOfHair]

As one time hack, I say well done Emma. It's the first peice of decent media reporting on this whole sorry saga for mine. Sure, someone probably handed (read: leaked) her the tip but she has run with it really well. Most other articles about the Tippett trade have been merely speculative or downright vindictive and parochial (I'm looking at you Michelangelo).

Most likely the leak came from someone at the AFL doing Emma a favour. Though I wouldn't rule out a whistleblower at the Crows.

How could they have been so dumb to think they could get away with not declaring it?

[sharp9]

What the AFL can do about it is say "in our judgement these two parties are not attempting to come to a commercial agreement and are therefore guilty of draft tampering." That's all they have to do.

Giving Scott Stevens to Adelaide for pick 90 or whatever is OKed because he didn't have any trade value and we didn't have room for more picks.....Dempster to St. Kilda for nought was a bit back scratchy though(!!!!)

I strongly suspect that Pick 23 plus Jesse White WOULD be considered a commercial agreement because even though it is not FAIR it would be the best deal Adelaide can get under the circumstances...therefore it counts as "commercial."

Sydney offerring their second round pick and Adelaide accepting it would immediately be fishy, I think anyone would agree with me. Why? Well because it would be illogical for Sydney NOT to give up their pick 23 for a $million dollar a year player....there is no way we would stand on a second round pick and say "let him go to the draft." We just wouldn't do that under normal circumstances.

Also by enticing Tippett to sign on at Adelaide for a (potential) reward which is off the books and unknown to Ken Wood they were clearly and manifestly breaching the salary cap rules...but also INTENDING to tamper with the draft by DELIBERATELY not asking for a fair compensation. In other words the "clause" only has clout if the draft is tampered with.

My solution to this mess is that the AFL order Sydney to pay pick 23 and 44 and that Adelaide do not actually receive the picks....and Adelaide management resign, and Tippett's manager be sacked.

But maybe that is unfair reward for Sydney....so Tippett to the PSD and Adelaide docked their first round pick (20)....for being very stupid and very naughty.

[barry]

Does anyone know whether we have to offload Jesse (on $300K) to be able to fit Tippet (on $800K + ) in our cap. ?

[Dosser]

Tippets agreement for a 2nd round pick trade is draft tampering. Minor, but still preventing a "market value" trade process.

If Sydney are only offering a 2nd round pick, then the Crows and the AFL have a case.

The simple way out of this for Sydney to offer more than the 2nd round pick (1st pick + ). The crows and tippetts agreement is then null and void as its been exceeded anyway.

Which leads me to think the state of play is this:
- Sydney have only offered 2nd rounder and White.
- Adelaide are using the secret clause made public to try and make it more than the 2nd rounder.

We'll have to give up 1st pick at least to get Tippett otherwise he could be banned from playing in 2013 for draft tampering.

My thoughts as well. This is why Noble made the cryptic comment earlier about a coach getting to the end of the week and then releasing a first round pick.

[erica]

I love this saga. It's so much more enjoyable than a soap opera. Just gets funnier and funnier.

[Jewels]

It could turn into a mini series at this rate.
Who is to blame for all of this? Those dumb fools at the AFC.

If they just traded him in the first place, there would have been no story.

Typical example of cutting off your own nose to spite your face. Just unbelievable.

Yep. AFC - dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, DUMB!!!

The Crows board on BF must be going into meltdown (even moreso now than the last 1000 odd pages)!

[Matty10]

Giving Scott Stevens to Adelaide for pick 90 or whatever is OKed because he didn't have any trade value and we didn't have room for more picks.....Dempster to St. Kilda for nought was a bit back scratchy though(!!!!)

Which makes me think the whole process is extremely arbitrary.

Plus if you consider the way the AFL handed out draft picks to teams who lost players through free agency (which was compromised anyway by some teams not using the free agency process in order to retain compensation picks - such as the Essendon / Port deal with the Monfries trade) where a lot of clubs are unhappy with the fairness of their allocated picks.

Sydney offerring their second round pick and Adelaide accepting it would immediately be fishy, I think anyone would agree with me. Why? Well because it would be illogical for Sydney NOT to give up their pick 23 for a $million dollar a year player....there is no way we would stand on a second round pick and say "let him go to the draft." We just wouldn't do that under normal circumstances.

But the deal would be commercial for Adelaide if their alternative was obtaining nothing through the PSD. If the Swans knew that they were the only team capable of securing Tippett through the PSD (I am not saying that we are - I would still think GWS would have room) then why should they offer more?

[DST]

Indeed, Trigg comes back from overseas and cuts the trade off at the pass thinking he knows best by asking for clarification on an agreement left out of a contract. It appears this clause would have been vetoed by the AFL if included in the contract. (clearly you can't say I'll stay if you clear me to XYZ Club in 3 years). Another case of a club either not knowing the rules or blatantly flaunting them. We saw Evans from the Dawks claiming ignorance on the free agent compensation rules earlier in the week. I love the way we have kept our mouths shut. Unfortunately Trigg intervened, because it appears up until then we had played the pefect hand. Another point is; Tippett's manager mentioned this gentleman's agreement at the start of the trade period and the AFL did not intervene at the time. Why not?

A gentlemans agreement is hard to prove, but I think you will find that this agreement is a little more formal than what is being said (ie it is in writing and signed byt the parties).

Once the AFC owned up to it, the AFL are now obliged to act.

What will be interesting is not the draft tampering issues, but whether Tippett accpeted a lower deal from the AFC 3 years ago in order to receive the off contract get out easy clause. If that is the case we are now in the area of TPP minipulation and that is a world of hurt the AFC will want to avoid.

DST

[Steve]

The funny thing is that an appropriate penalty for Adelaide would to actually be held to the agreement they originally made (ie. lose Tippett for only a 2nd round pick).

The AFL really have their heads in the sand with these issues (including tanking etc). Just treat anything they don't want to know about as speculation, and at best ask a basic "is it true?" at the time. If they're told no, they blindly just accept it and move on.

As has been mentioned, Tippett's manager some time ago clearly admitted there was an agreement - whether verbal or written doesn't really make any difference. Yet it's only now the AFL have a closer look.

[Matty10]

What will be interesting is not the draft tampering issues, but whether Tippett accpeted a lower deal from the AFC 3 years ago in order to receive the off contract get out easy clause. If that is the case we are now in the area of TPP minipulation and that is a world of hurt the AFC will want to avoid.

I agree.