Tippett!!

[R-1]

Quayle again.

THE AFL investigation into alleged draft tampering by Adelaide has been broadened to include accusations of salary cap cheating.

Read more: New twist in Tippett probe

Additional payment as well as the agreement to trade cheaply. If this is true there's no way in hell Tippett's playing next year.

[annew]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh. I can't keep up.

Who can?

[Melbournehammer]

It is now being tweeted that Tippett had a secret deal that broke the salary cap, it gets worse and worse for both Tippett and Adelaide.

I dont think twitter is an unimpeachable source.

In relation to Liz's position - the fundamental basis to all sports law where salary caps and drafts exist, is that there are standard player contracts which enable the principles of competitive balance to operate. The standard player contract enables the league to operate on the basis that all terms and conditions are standard and can be appropriately compared. It is the competitive balance in a league which enables a league to use matters such as drafts and salary caps which would, in other fields of work, be regarded as unlawful restraints of trade. Standard contracts which can be scrutinised enable the league to operate efficiently and allow effective oversight of a salary cap. Further the references to standard terms and conditions are likely to be included in the AFLPA/AFL collective bargaining agreement.

In theory a breach of the SPC (ie a variation which is not allowed for) will be contrary to the rules the parties commit to when entering the competition.

There is not necessarily a financial value - but the fundamental issue is that this sort of agreement has the capacity to tear the entire framework of the competition down. In practical terms it may be no more than a small advantage to retain Tippett at a slightly lower rate during the 2009-2012 period, but if the advantage could be quantified and adelaide was close to the TPP cap then you have a potential breach. But the overall effect on the league is that the unlawful restraint of trade is something that football leagues are constantly having to consider.

Any contractual terms which might subvert this place the whole system at risk.

[R-1]

Quayle knows her stuff and doesn't make stuff up. If she's writing it, I'd expect the allegations and investigation are there. Doesn't mean they have substance, of course.

At any rate I hope we have a backup trade plan because we can't possibly risk Tippett now.

[annew]

Maybe Jesse will prove next year that he was more than worth a trade for Tippett by exceeding all expectations at the Swans and having a phenomenal year and kick a bag of goals for us.

[R-1]

"It is understood the Crows came forward after receiving correspondence from lawyers acting for Tippett late last week, threatening to take the matter to the Supreme Court if the agreement was not adhered to and he was not traded to his club of choice, Sydney."

Isn't that extortion?

[Jewels]

Maybe Jesse will prove next year that he was more than worth a trade for Tippett by exceeding all expectations at the Swans and having a phenomenal year and kick a bag of goals for us.

Yer and maybe I'll wake up in the morning and look like Jennifer Hawkins......

[liz]

"It is understood the Crows came forward after receiving correspondence from lawyers acting for Tippett late last week, threatening to take the matter to the Supreme Court if the agreement was not adhered to and he was not traded to his club of choice, Sydney."

Isn't that extortion?

It sounds like someone indicating that he intends to take legal action to enforce his contractual rights. If the agreement was something other than "to trade him to the club of his choice" maybe you could argue it to be extortion. But given he just appears to be insisting they abide by this clause, I don't think it can be seen as extortion.

Of course, if the clause was illegal within the framework of the AFL rules (which appears possible, even likely) then it may not be enforceable.

[R-1]

It sounds like someone indicating that he intends to take legal action to enforce his contractual rights. If the agreement was something other than "to trade him to the club of his choice" maybe you could argue it to be extortion. But given he just appears to be insisting they abide by this clause, I don't think it can be seen as extortion.

Of course, if the clause was illegal within the framework of the AFL rules (which appears possible, even likely) then it may not be enforceable.

Is it just me or must the lawyers be nearly as clueless as Tippett's management? They musn't have realised the agreement was against the rules.

[Ludwig]

I don't see how you can argue draft tampering. Tippett signed a contract to stay at the Crows after the two parties agreed to terms. It is what a substantial proportion of players do every time their contract expires (or sometime before it expires). Every time a club re-signs a player they are ensuring that player does not go into the draft. That doesn't make it draft tampering. When players and clubs agree to part ways, the club will often try to trade said player to another club, meaning he doesn't go into the draft. That doesn't make it draft tampering.

I can see there may be some technical disclosure issues that have been breached, and the AFL might choose to fine the Crows for these. But I still don't see how this clause impacts their TPP unless you can assign a monetary value to the agreement and it doesn't feel to me like anything unethical has happened, unless the Crows are now trying to renege on the agreement they made with Tippett.

I see no parallels with the Scully family situation. In that case the AFL determined that there was an additional amount being paid to a close associate of Scully (ie his dad) which should be deemed to be part of the total benefits paid to Tom Scully. In determining this, they must have come to the decision that Scully Snr would not have secured the position with the Giants had it not been for Tom joining the club (or that he was being paid at a higher rate than was normal for such a role). Completely different set of circumstances.

I do agree that some of the terminology that's generically used, like draft tampering, can be misappropriated. But terminology aside, the principle violated was that there was some consideration given that was not disclosed to the AFL, and the AFL does not permit any such agreements outside what is submitted to them. The promise of an easy trade in the future or a job for your dad both can fall into this category if not disclosed as part of the inducement to sign a contract. The specifics may differ, but the general principle is that the AFL want to know and approve everything.

[Lucky Knickers]

Of course, if the clause was illegal within the framework of the AFL rules (which appears possible, even likely) then it may not be enforceable.

Hence the Supreme Court and a few precedents like Chris Judd.
Would the Supreme Court view Judd's verbal demand to go only to Carlton and Ablett to Gold Coast any differently from a written agreement for AFC to trade Tippett to a club of his choice?

[Cpt. Kirk]

I just feel sorry for Tippett i mean we have heard all the details that are out at the moment about his father and all the other details but i just can't help wondering how much he really had to do with it. I hope tomorrow or on Friday Sydney work out a way to still get him the AFL should be required to at least outline the results of the founding with enough time in the trade period for Sydney to take appropriate actions.

Just another day i am proud to be a Swans supporter.

[jono2707]

Wow I think my head is now done in by all of this. Tippett has now gone from a 'nice to have' to a 'walk away now' option. In my opinion. This is turning into quite the saga and not what the AFL would have envisaged when they came up with the 3 week trade period...... My opinion is that we walk away from this deal if possible, unless agreements had already been made which we need to honour. It doesn't sound like it though and if we have no link to any of the sordid goings on now being dug up, we should walk away and start planning our 2013 title defense with essentially the same squad as we have now...

[Matty10]

It is hard to see how it can be argued that it adds to Tippett's ability to maximise his future earnings because if the club that he wants to join (hypothetically, lets call them the Sydney Swans) is offering more than anyone else, the current draft provisions effectively enable him to go to that club anyway, or at least ensure he gets the same financial deal from any other club.

I am not sure that I fully understand what you mean here. How does a player effectively go to their club of choice now, if they are not a free agent, and the two clubs in question cannot reach a 'fair' deal? Lots of trades from past years have fallen through because the two teams could not agree on fair compensation - these failed deals would likely have negatively affected a player's earning potential in many instances. Isn't the whole point of free-agency that it gives a player the potential ability to maximise earnings?

I do agree that it would be hard to quantify a $ amount over the length of a deal (perhaps only Tippett, his manager and the Crows in this situation would be able to answer that question).

[CureTheSane]

I bet the Crows are kicking themselves for not just doing teh deal early and avoiding all this mess now