Tippett!!

[Auntie.Gerald]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/150208/default.aspx

[Ludwig]

Mark Fine says on SEN that Tippett will be deregistered for some time. A lot of people will have egg on their face if it comes out that this secret agreement was at the instigation of AFC. If Adelaide is taking this tack to spite Tippett (if it was at Tippett's instigation) then surely they are equal parties as they should have known it was against the rules. Player managers will be looking really closely at AFC from now on. I can imagine that parents of kids in the draft are hoping like hell they don't get drafted by AFC.

There is no way AFC are doing this to spite Tippett or anyone. They are trying to get as light a penalty as possible for having violated AFL regulations in 2009 by making a side agreement with Tippett to induce him to extend his contract with them and not informing the league of this side agreement. They are fessing up, cooperating fully and doing everything possible to get off as lightly as possible. That's the only motive I can see.

Even if KT had been traded to Brisbane last year, for instance, the AFC would still be in trouble, because the 'crime' occurred in 2009 and the mere passage of time doesn't change the facts that they failed to disclose part of an agreement with one of their players. Look, the AFL is still ostensibly investigating the tanking allegations.

It's just a shame we got caught up in this.

[annew]

So If Tippett gets de- registered does this mean he has to go in th ND and depending on the length of time he is de-registered for that is either this year or next year. If it is this year we could still get him. If Adelaide didn't know it was wrong (cough, cough, splutter, splutter) how would you expect a player to know. I am thinking we won't get him now, what a waste of three weeks.

[liz]

I confess I am struggling to understand exactly what rules have been broken.

It sounds like there might be an issue around the disclosure of the arrangement to the AFL. But suppose it had been disclosed. What would the AFL have done? It sounds like Tippett was on a pretty decent salary over his last contract given he was hardly a superstar when he signed it. Is there any financial benefit to such an arrangement existing? Hard to see that there is, given that whichever club lured Tippett at the end of his contract was going to have to pay him a salary he, and they, deemed appropriate to his status in the game.

If such an agreement does exist, it sounds like the Crows might have been a bit daft in limiting their ability to trade him in three years time. But I am not sure why they need to be further punished for being daft, over and above losing him for less than "fair" trade value. And I am not clear what Tippett or Tippett's manager have done wrong either.

Help me. What am I missing?

[Ludwig]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsartic...8/default.aspx

I suppose if the AFL can determine that Sydney has nothing to answer in this case, the deal can go forward on a commercial basis and the AFL can deal with sanctions for Adelaide at a later date. The only problem is what about penalties for Tippett? How can we take a player that might be de-registered or suspended for some period of time?

[Auntie.Gerald]

what if every club and player decided to add in "end of contract terms re trading" ?

if it is not standard procedure it is generally because it prohibits "trade" to work as effectively as the AFL desires

now sitting in the Swans camp...........they were very very clever to announce very early on that they have no knowledge of a gentlemans / agreement for Tippett and AFC to trade as per what has been suggested "2nd round pick"

I would be astounded that we are implicated in this unless we did become aware and we sighted the agreement and we didnt let the AFL know before the AFC did

[satchmopugdog]

Oh I don't know if he has actually been ripped off Satch. If it doesn't come off it means he doesn't have to go to Adelaide, and the way things are that's probably a good thing. He's a good bloke who gets to stay in Sydney. He knows he is not going to have a stella career, he has another business anyway, he has a life, and a wicked sense of humour.

Suggest everyone takes a stand on his behalf and send an email to Swans headquarters about where he stands. I did. They replied in a reassuring manner about his situation.

Thanks Primmy..very reassuring..I've been worried about him

[Rod_]

Interesting outtakes on this issue...

Legal terms like Force Majeure Force majeure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and or Unjust enrichment Unjust enrichment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Joke "unjust in Richmond") will be used by the legal teams trying to get to the bottom of this..

IMO the bottom line is that the AFL has contract conditions! Appears that the AFC have applied a separate contract condition that it thought would be nice at the time (and probably thought it could offer more $ to keep KT) KT in good faith agreed (wrongly) with this condition. Both are in error.

Would appear that the AFC have created an extra over within the approved AFL contract! It does appear to be a nil cost adjustment assuming he is only worth a second round trade... The AFC, under common law should / would need to honor their offer and agree to the commitment and trade KT for the agreed offer (round 2 selection). Could be seen to be a big Loss for them assuming he is worth more!

What sanctions that the AFL chooses to apply should be commiserate to the breach. (Guess warnings to both KT and AFC)

Swans are not in the picture at the moment and are likely winners assuming they can resolve issues prior to close to trade times on the 26th of Oct! (and make the agreed trade or increased offer to resolve this issue)

Rod_

PS I can just imaging the Queens council that is going over the fine print on the extra over clauses from the 3 interested parties. AFL, AFC and the Swans. Does he go to Queensland somewhere? Both parties can agree to waiver conditions is they can agree to nil enrichment's solution...

[satchmopugdog]

That's a bit knowledgeable Rod..what the heck?

[Steve]

The Crows just keep digging themselves further into a hole.

Now they're saying they didn't realise what they did was breaking any rules, suddenly realised they might have, but regardless have been trying for the past 3 weeks to avoid honouring what they did agree to in the first place.

I'm also not sure exactly what the AFL have been 'investigating' for the past 5 days. If the Chairman and CEO have given "full disclosure" of what happened, surely only Phil Harper and Peter Blucher can substantiate or deny it. Blucher has already publicly made various comments directly confirming there was an understanding reached 3 years ago, so he could quickly confirm, and it was Harper and Trigg who signed off on this extra agreement, so the'd have to have their stories in sync anyway.

How embarrasing for the AFL to now sanction a club over something that had been widely reported for 3 years, more recently as common fact. Maybe the Crows were also tanking in 2011 to get an easy draw and the AFL will have to acknowledge that as well.

[Ludwig]

I confess I am struggling to understand exactly what rules have been broken.

It sounds like there might be an issue around the disclosure of the arrangement to the AFL. But suppose it had been disclosed. What would the AFL have done? It sounds like Tippett was on a pretty decent salary over his last contract given he was hardly a superstar when he signed it. Is there any financial benefit to such an arrangement existing? Hard to see that there is, given that whichever club lured Tippett at the end of his contract was going to have to pay him a salary he, and they, deemed appropriate to his status in the game.

If such an agreement does exist, it sounds like the Crows might have been a bit daft in limiting their ability to trade him in three years time. But I am not sure why they need to be further punished for being daft, over and above losing him for less than "fair" trade value. And I am not clear what Tippett or Tippett's manager have done wrong either.

Help me. What am I missing?

I believe the rule that has been broken is that all contracts, in full, must be approved by the AFL. I would seem that the AFC made a binding agreement, in general law, that was not submitted to the AFL for approval. This part of the agreement was an inducement, and therefore consideration, in getting Tippett to sign a 3 year contract with Adelaide. Perhaps, without this inducement, Tippett would have chosen to go into the draft. So Adelaide made an undisclosed deal so that a player who would be out of contract would not enter the draft, or be forced to be traded to another club. Adelaide benefited by being able to retain Tippett for another 3 years, something they may not have been able to do if not for this side agreement.

It would seem unlikely that the AFL would have approved such a stipulation in the contract, so the parties decided simply not to disclose it. It is not clear to what extent each of the parties are involved in the non disclosure, which I imagine is the focus of the AFL investigation.

It's not dissimilar to the Scully deal in a broad sense, where it was deemed that a separate agreement with Scully's dad was in fact an undisclosed part of the player's inducement to come to the club and the father's compensation was made a part of the total compensation for salary cap purposes.

[Matty10]

How embarrasing for the AFL to now sanction a club over something that had been widely reported for 3 years, more recently as common fact. Maybe the Crows were also tanking in 2011 to get an easy draw and the AFL will have to acknowledge that as well.

It does seem, to the AFL, that wrong-doing only becomes fact if it is admitted to by the guilty party.

[aardvark]

So if we are forced by the AFL into a fair trade senario should the club challenge the ruling in the courts in the hope of only giving up a second round pick on the grounds that the "Gentlemans agreement" contract condition is legally binding?

[aardvark]

It does seem, to the AFL, that wrong-doing only becomes fact if it is admitted to by the guilty party.

Conspiracy theory no.24637......AFC got wind the AFL was looking at the situation and fell on their sword in the hope they would get a light penalty.

[sharp9]

On the Adelaide BF board are quotes form the AFL contract guidelines, which, once you read them, will leave you in ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that this is a massive, calculated and very, very breach of the TPP rules.

There is plenty of coverage for "things in kind" (ie sign this and we'll let you go to your club of choice) which are expressly prohibited....also language including "understandings, verbal agreements" etc, etc, etc,

The AFL have to sign off all contracts and they would never, ever, ever had agreed to this clause....hence why it was hidden. ("It wasn't that he cheated that hurt...it was the lying about it!")

The rules actually say that any breach of this kind "will result in the player and/or the player's agent being de-registered' They are scary, legal pooh-pooh sentences.

It is IMPOSSIBLE that the agents and management did not know that this was a contravention of the rules. It is the teensiest bit possible that Tippett did not understand that Adelaide were not actually allowed to just "be nice" in this way.

Either way if the Sydney move goes out the window he has a pretty clear cut civil lawsuit against Velocity Sport and Adelaide FC for his lost earnings. According to lawyer types it doesn't matter even if the client knew the agreement was "illegal" it is the agent's JOB not to let his client sign something the agent knows is "illegal" or else the agent is liable.

Not only that but if the AFL screw Tippett over this you will hear the words "High Court" and "Restraint of Trade" in the same sentence within the week.....and nobody wants to go there! :-)