Tippett!!

[The Big Cat]

Rucci is still implying in the AA that a trade is not totally out of the question with Sydney.

[Melbournehammer]

It feels all a bit sad to me. When we had him I wasn't sure we wanted him. Now we look like we have lost him I am rather thinking he might have made the world of difference to us. Feel worried for all of those associated with this - both clubs and the players. I dont know who is at fault but id be really happy if jesse gets picked up by someone tomorrow - he really is a better option than lots of players in this league and the whole event has left him in a terrible place.

[Cpt. Kirk]

It feels all a bit sad to me. When we had him I wasn't sure we wanted him. Now we look like we have lost him I am rather thinking he might have made the world of difference to us. Feel worried for all of those associated with this - both clubs and the players. I dont know who is at fault but id be really happy if jesse gets picked up by someone tomorrow - he really is a better option than lots of players in this league and the whole event has left him in a terrible place.

I agree on any other list maybe not adelaides with the introduction of graham he would be a great addition so many teams are looking for that ruck/forward player. He is in no way a "list clogger".

[DLBIA14]

@@@@ this is annoying. We really needed that key forward to stay ahead! We wasted 3 weeks for SFA unfortunately. We've got 800k up our sleeve and nothing to do with it this year. I'd love to say we'll find another player in the future but realistically it'll be difficult to find a decent KPF who actually wants to come to us and that's not even countign that fact that 2013 could be our last chance at a flag with this same group of players. FML.

[ShockOfHair]

What is known is that the Crows would have been happy with pick 23 and had the trade taken place on that basis no one would have been any the wiser. Whatever the other legal ramifications, Tippett faces possible deregistration.

I'm not sure about this. If so, why not just say to the Swans.

Anyway, the best thing about these developments is they blow out of the water the claims that the Swans guys traded unfairly and supposedly knew about the secret agreement.

[Ludwig]

There doesn't seem to be much incentive for Adelaide to do the trade as you would have to expect that the AFL will strip them of the draft pick anyway. So all they would get is White. Well maybe he will be the best player they will be getting for quite a while.

Except, if they don't do the trade, they may face a lawsuit from the Tippetts. What a mess. There's no telling how many unsavory twists and turns are yet to come in this sordid affair.

I read somewhere that the Swans just had a board meeting. I hope they decided to see if they can get out of this deal gracefully. I really thought KT was the solution to our forward line problems, but now I feel the cost is just too great and hope he doesn't come to us. Let's cut our losses and run. We haven't lost much, just a quiet trading season (trade-wise).

[longmile]

Can someone please try to summarize whats happening to a simpleton like me?

[Ludwig]

Can someone please try to summarize whats happening to a simpleton like me?

Just hang in there for a few more hours and all will become clear. Maybe.

[robamiee]

According to Jon Ralph and Mark Stevens..that the Alf have given the green light to the crows to approve the tippett trade...whilst they are still investigating...
so by all accounts, the trade was going through last week, got pulled in light of it all that has come out, crows seek some clarification, afl gives the green light to at least the trade...
so i think you may find the trade will be first off the cab tomorrow...get it done, get it out of the way before the other trades come through, so people are speaking about themn as they day goes on..

[R-1]

Re: Tippett?

Alternatively we might be able to use the Heath and TDL trades with Port and St Kilda to boost our draft placing slightly and make the offer more commercial?

[goswannie14]

From the Quayle article,

Details of the trade deal, first reported in The Age in August last year, were known to officials at most clubs. The alleged salary cap breaches and the agreement to trade him for a second-round draft pick - which could constitute a manipulation of the AFL's draft process - has the club, Tippett and his management company facing major sanctions.

I still don't understand how this could be seen as draft tampering. Can anyone explain?

[Primmy]

GS: all agreements between clubs and players must be sanctioned by the AFL. It keeps a lid on sneaky payments etc. Apparently.

This agreement was not sanctioned by the AFL, nor would it have ever been. It was actively kept secret from the AFL. It involves the AFC (sanction), the Player Manager (sanction), the Player (sanction) and ultimately the SSFC because if KT is sanctioned it most likely means he won't be playing the whole of 2013.

On top of this, we are faced with the fact that KT is either unacceptably stupid in the first place, or it seriously challenges the Swan's notion of what the players and footy staff hold dear, accountability, teamwork, and integrity. That above all is my heartfelt fear of where this saga can take us.

[goswannie14]

GS: all agreements between clubs and players must be sanctioned by the AFL. It keeps a lid on sneaky payments etc. Apparently.

This agreement was not sanctioned by the AFL, nor would it have ever been. It was actively kept secret from the AFL. It involves the AFC (sanction), the Player Manager (sanction), the Player (sanction) and ultimately the SSFC because if KT is sanctioned it most likely means he won't be playing the whole of 2013.

On top of this, we are faced with the fact that KT is either unacceptably stupid in the first place, or it seriously challenges the Swan's notion of what the players and footy staff hold dear, accountability, teamwork, and integrity. That above all is my heartfelt fear of where this saga can take us.

Yes, I get all that, but none of that constitutes tampering with the draft.

[Nich]

I'm not sure about this. If so, why not just say to the Swans.

Yes that line does seem a little strange. Considering all the journos crapping on during the past week about how Sydney needed to come up with more.

[liz]

The requirement for the AFL to sign off that each trade deal represents reasonable value stems from the "Veale deal' of a few years back, whereby a player was traded for something far far exceeding his reasonable value, and there was a side agreement over who would, or would not, be picked in the PSD (thereby allowing a club to secure themselves one of the Rawlings in the PSD). That also seems to be where the idea of draft tampering comes from. (Still doesn't explain why people are using this term in the Tippett situation - I am with GS - I can't see how a charge of draft tampering arises).

Can the AFL really say that 23 and White is manifestly "unders" for a trade for Tippett? They signed off last year on Mitch Clark for pick 12. And this year they have signed off on Tom Hickey plus 25 for 13. I don't think they can demonstrate that White is of less trade value than Hickey. Obviously it is in the eyes of the beholder but Jesse has far more runs on the board and did just have a pretty damn good NEAFL season. So it is hard to see how they can conclude that White and 23 is significantly less value than the Clark trade last year. It is not as if the Swans are sitting on a higher draft pick that they are refusing to include in the trade.