Tippett!!

[SPC]

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..

Out of the same article they say 'Sydney and Adelaide had not made progress on the Tippett deal yesterday, and it seems unlikely the AFL would deem the current White-pick 23 deal strong enough to be approved.' How could the AFL even consider that our first round pick + a player with potential going to AFC for a player who is out of contract and can walk to the draft for no return to AFC is not strong enough? Not to mention that at the time of doing a trade today, it will be unclear if the player might be under a cloud for a large portion of next year.

[DeadlyAkkuret]

That's BS if the AFL don't deem it an acceptable deal. Tippett chose us and isn't contracted, our first pick and fringe player is perfectly acceptable.

[giant]

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.

A lot of this demeaning of White seems based on the fact that he couldn't make our best 22 - which is somewhat ironic given we've just won a premiership built around a core group of players that couldn't make the best 22 at premiers & grand finalists (and Richmond...).

[Ludwig]

It's easy to make a case that Tippett is a pretty ordinary player. In 2012 he received 3 times more concussions than Brownlow votes (3 and 1). I think he finished something like 15th in Adelaides's B and F, so even the coaches didn't rate him. He didn't make the short list for AA, and I don't recall if he ever has. His claim to fame is that he managed to manipulate the AFC into giving him the biggest contract at their club, and apparently a hell of a lot more.

If a stong bodied inside midfielder with good leadership skills and a lot of potential like Koby Stevens can go for pick 44, what is the commercial value of a greedy footballer that's not rated by umpires or his own club and has not demonstrated any improvement since his one big season when he kicked 55 goals and is prone to concussion. Is pick 45 overs? Why are we offering Jesse White?

Of course, this is over the top. But Tippett's value has really been blown up by the media. He has yet to produce big time and he has plenty of questions going into the future. The biggest contributor to his perceived value has been the hysteria around how Adelaide has endeavoured to keep him at the club.

Before all this under the table agreements came up I thought pick 23 and White were sufficient, but now I think he could well be a detriment to the club at any price.

[robamiee]

Out of the same article they say 'Sydney and Adelaide had not made progress on the Tippett deal yesterday, and it seems unlikely the AFL would deem the current White-pick 23 deal strong enough to be approved.' How could the AFL even consider that our first round pick + a player with potential going to AFC for a player who is out of contract and can walk to the draft for no return to AFC is not strong enough? Not to mention that at the time of doing a trade today, it will be unclear if the player might be under a cloud for a large portion of next year.

i think the reason there is no progress, has been AFC have had to wait on some feedback from the afl..the whole thing is murky..i for 1 feel sorry for Jesse...he has been part of this sideshow of adelaide whereby everyone in the media is saying how crap he is because of the trade...i mean the swans can only offer what they ahve available to offer...its not like jesse is a total dud..he just never fullfilled his potential here with us...but tippett can almost fit into that same category he has potential...we are also taking a big risk with his concussions..if he wants to be a swan he needs to start making some public comments that he doesn't want to go anywhere else but sydney so the lions and GC stay during the psd..but i think we will get the trade done today

[goswannie14]

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.

I agree with this too Liz, how can the AFL say what is fair and what isn't? Surely if two clubs agree on what is a fair trade then the AFL really has no business sticking it's nose in apart from signing off on the contract ensuring it fits within the salary cap.

[Swansongster]

It's easy to make a case that Tippett is a pretty ordinary player. In 2012 he received 3 times more concussions than Brownlow votes (3 and 1). I think he finished something like 15th in Adelaides's B and F, so even the coaches didn't rate him. He didn't make the short list for AA, and I don't recall if he ever has. His claim to fame is that he managed to manipulate the AFC into giving him the biggest contract at their club, and apparently a hell of a lot more.

If a stong bodied inside midfielder with good leadership skills and a lot of potential like Koby Stevens can go for pick 44, what is the commercial value of a greedy footballer that's not rated by umpires or his own club and has not demonstrated any improvement since his one big season when he kicked 55 goals and is prone to concussion. Is pick 45 overs? Why are we offering Jesse White?

Of course, this is over the top. But Tippett's value has really been blown up by the media. He has yet to produce big time and he has plenty of questions going into the future. The biggest contributor to his perceived value has been the hysteria around how Adelaide has endeavoured to keep him at the club.

Before all this under the table agreements came up I thought pick 23 and White were sufficient, but now I think he could well be a detriment to the club at any price.

I think we might be paying for our past trade/draft successes. Anyone targeted by the Swans is obviously worth more than what was previously thought. The sentiment appears to be that if the Swans are interested, he must be good.

[barry]

Interesting article by Naill today.

GWS, Suns show interest in Crow

GREATER Western Sydney last night said that it would be interested in Kurt Tippett if he entered the draft, while Gold Coast may also re-enter the market. ''If he was in the draft, we'd certainly have to look at him,'' said GWS list manager Stephen Silvagni.
The AFL has called Deloitte in to assist in an audit of the Adelaide player payments in what is expected to be a detailed and complex examination. In considering the case, the AFL will be mindful of the new landscape of free agency, in which players have fewer restrictions on their movement. The AFL has not told the Crows that they cannot trade Tippett during its investigation.
If, as expected, he cannot be traded to Sydney today, Tippett has three alternatives for getting to another club. He could enter the national draft, in which the Swans do not have an early choice; enter the pre-season draft, placing a hefty price on his head, or, most unlikely, he could be delisted by the Crows and cross to the club of his choice as a free agent.


never heard of that option before. We could get him for free!

[Swansongster]

I hope we don't delist Jesse if we can't get anything for him in a trade. Especially if Tippett trade falls over. It would only take an unfortunate run with injuries for him to still be useful to us.

[Plugger46]

Interesting article by Naill today.

GWS, Suns show interest in Crow

GREATER Western Sydney last night said that it would be interested in Kurt Tippett if he entered the draft, while Gold Coast may also re-enter the market. ''If he was in the draft, we'd certainly have to look at him,'' said GWS list manager Stephen Silvagni.
The AFL has called Deloitte in to assist in an audit of the Adelaide player payments in what is expected to be a detailed and complex examination. In considering the case, the AFL will be mindful of the new landscape of free agency, in which players have fewer restrictions on their movement. The AFL has not told the Crows that they cannot trade Tippett during its investigation.
If, as expected, he cannot be traded to Sydney today, Tippett has three alternatives for getting to another club. He could enter the national draft, in which the Swans do not have an early choice; enter the pre-season draft, placing a hefty price on his head, or, most unlikely, he could be delisted by the Crows and cross to the club of his choice as a free agent.


never heard of that option before. We could get him for free!

I don't think that's right.

[BillyRayCypress]

I hope we don't delist Jesse if we can't get anything for him in a trade. Especially if Tippett trade falls over. It would only take an unfortunate run with injuries for him to still be useful to us.

Still has 1 year on his contract so he will stay.

[MadCanuck]

Swans at least present in the trading room today so seemingly still willing to wheel and deal

[R-1]

Niall's wrong, free agency period is over.

[Jeffers1984]

Niall's wrong, free agency period is over.

Nope, he's correct. There is a secondary free agency period for delisted players that runs from November 1st till November 13.

AFL free agency: how it works

[Cpt. Kirk]

Niall's wrong, free agency period is over.

If they delist him i believe what he said is correct. The player can then seek offers from other clubs.