Tippett!!

[liz]

If delisted prior to the second free agency period he can go to the Swans as a free agent. Sydney have already offered Tippet in excess of Adelaide's contract offer and Adelaide have already said that they cannot/wont match it.

I don't think this is the case. If he was always going to be available to the Swans as a free agent,why did they waste all that time during the trade period trying to trade for him? The FA rules are new and confusing but unless a player qualifies as a FA due to his time served at his current club, I believe he only becomes a FA when delisted if that delisting is at the instigation of his club. Every player out of contract who refuses to sign a new contract will eventually be delisted as a matter of course because his current club isn't allowed to force him to stay on their list. That doesn't mean everyone will eventually become a FA, or there'd be no point in the initlal restricted / non-restricted FA classifications.

[MightyBloods]

Thats my point Liz, Tippet will qualify for the second free agency period if delisted by Adelaide prior to the 23rd Nov. My take is that the Swans tried to do a trade with Adelaide in good faith knowing that they were getting the better of the deal (draft pick 23). I believe that the Swans also have a good reputation among clubs when it comes to trade talks and didnt want to damage this by getting a Tippet 'for nothing'. Unfortunately, I think we tried to push the envelope too much insisting they take White in the deal so as to help release some additional salary to help us with our cap. The Swans most likely knew of the agreement between the Crows and Tippet/Tippet's management and and were probably confident that Adelaide would deal. The Swans probably were told by Tippet and his management out of frustration that the agreement existed when trade talks stalled. I believe people within the Adelaide club were asking questions (including the AFL) why Adelaide wasnt getting more for the trade (including why White?). Tippet's management sending an email to the Adelaide club with the 'so called agreement' and threatening legal action unless a deal with Sydney was done wasnt a smart move. This made innocent people at the Adelaide club aware of an agreement and no option but to disclose to the AFL. I'm guessing that the AFL believe that the Swans became aware of the agreement duing trade talks and that they werent going to disclose ....leaving a sour taste in the AFL's mouth as well. Not that they could do anything to the Swans unless they had proof that the Swans knew. Anyway, just my take on events.

[Ludwig]

I don't think this is the case. If he was always going to be available to the Swans as a free agent,why did they waste all that time during the trade period trying to trade for him? The FA rules are new and confusing but unless a player qualifies as a FA due to his time served at his current club, I believe he only becomes a FA when delisted if that delisting is at the instigation of his club. Every player out of contract who refuses to sign a new contract will eventually be delisted as a matter of course because his current club isn't allowed to force him to stay on their list. That doesn't mean everyone will eventually become a FA, or there'd be no point in the initlal restricted / non-restricted FA classifications.

I am not at all certain about this, but I believe the question is when and by whom Tippett is delisted. If Adelaide delist him prior to the second uncontracted free agency period (not sure if it's before the start or the end), then I think Mightybloods is correct and he is an uncontracted player that can be signed by any club. On the other hand, if he is still on Adelaide's list after this period (the 28th I think), then Tippett's only option is to register for the PSD by the 4 December.

Under more usual circumstances, which of course this is not, it would seem to be of no benefit for Adelaide to keep Tippett on their list before the ND, since they would then be required to delist another player to make room for draft picks. In fact, it would seem that the AFC would open themselves up to legal action if they did in fact keep Tippett on their list. So depending of the AFL's findings as to culpability, the AFL might be seen to be interfering with the normal course of Tippett's right to move to another club of his choice, and this may become the crux of the legal issue. The AFL might also cause the AFC into a legal dilemma as well.

It seems destined that this will remain the big talking point of the 2012 post season for some time to come.

[liz]

But I don't think Adelaide will ever delist him. He will effectively delist himself because the Crows aren't entitled to keep him on their list once his contract has expired. There will come a time when the Crows lodge a list that doesn't have his name on it, but that won't constitute delisting from a FA point of view.

A normal player in Tippett's situation would be allowed to nominate for the ND because his contract has now expired. They changed this rule a few years back. Tippett's situation is far from normal, however, and he may be restricted from nominating for the ND due to the charges hanging over him. Or he may not, but might just have chosen to wait until the PSD.

[Ludwig]

I don't know why so many commentators think the AFL want Tippett to go to GWS. After another 6 top shelf draft picks this year, it will only be poor coaching or mismanagement that will keep them from being a very good side in a few years time. Tippett would just be icing on the cake. And players that want to leave GWS will just be traded for high draft picks, like GC did with Josh Caddy, thus ensuring a continuous stream of top players well into the future. If anything, I would think that the AFL would be embarrassed by how GWS have legally milked the generosity of the AFL, outside their original intentions. Add to that the legal problems that could unfold if Tippett doesn't get to the team of his choice and I would think that the AFL would be looking for a way that Tippett gets to Sydney without them looking weak or backing down.

Now that the only draft open to Tippett is the PSD, it would seem to eliminate all but GWS from getting in the way of a move to the Swans, excepting penalties imposed by the AFL.

[Ludwig]

But I don't think Adelaide will ever delist him. He will effectively delist himself because the Crows aren't entitled to keep him on their list once his contract has expired. There will come a time when the Crows lodge a list that doesn't have his name on it, but that won't constitute delisting from a FA point of view.

A normal player in Tippett's situation would be allowed to nominate for the ND because his contract has now expired. They changed this rule a few years back. Tippett's situation is far from normal, however, and he may be restricted from nominating for the ND due to the charges hanging over him. Or he may not, but might just have chosen to wait until the PSD.

Several players were delisted from clubs today, so why couldn't Adelaide delist Tippett, except for the fact of the AFL investigation? What would be the advantage of them keeping Tippett on their list if they know he is not going to sign a contract with them and is taking up a spot on their list for draft purposes?

He seems to have already decided not to nominate for the ND, and unless some exception is made next week, it would seem that the time has passed for him to register for it.

I think Mightybloods has laid out the options correctly. I'm just surmising that the Tippett camp is setting up a situation where they have a strong legal case if he does not get to the Swans, thus putting the pressure on the AFC and AFL to come up with a favourable outcome for him.

[DamY]

It would be interesting to find out what is going on behind all the closed doors. If I was the AFL, I would be playing devil's advocate and figuring out what would happen if this goes to court.

[707]

GWS have delisted Brogan to make way for the possibility of Tippett.

Haven't the AFL prevented Adelaide from delisting Tippett until hands are smacked next week.

Agree that the AFL is walking a tightrope in not wanting to invoke legal challenges by Tippett.

Not sure how the court system would view what Tippett is trying to do is any different from say Cripps who walked out on St.Kilda after two years, went home to Perth and demanded to be traded to the Weagles. St.Kilda took way unders for him at the 11th hour just to get something.

[The Big Cat]

I think Liz is right, now thinking about it. I don't think a delisted player can acquire FA status if they have been offered a contract. AS she said this would mean any un-contracted player "could just walk" and wait to be delisted then move to the club of their choice.

[MightyBloods]

?November 13, 2pm ? Out of Contract Listed Player Draft Nomination Deadline, New Player Draft Nomination Deadline.
?November 13, 2pm ? Deadline for Nomination of any use of 2012 GWS Giants Compensation Selections.
?November 15, 2pm ? List Lodgement Two.
?November 16, 2pm ? Delisted Player Draft Nomination Deadline, Non-Retained Rookies Draft Nomination Deadline, Nominated of Queensland Zone Priority Selections and Nomination of NSW/ACT Zone Priority Selections.
?November 22 ? NAB AFL Draft, Gold Coast Convention Centre.
?November 23 ? Second Gillette AFL Delisted Player Free Agency Period commences.
?November 28, 2pm ? Out of Contract Listed Players Nomination Deadline, International Players Nomination Deadline, Players Not Registered / Played Three Years Deadline, NSW Scholarship and International Scholarship Players Deadline.
?November 28, 5pm ? Second Gillette AFL Delisted Player Free Agency Period ends.
?November 29, 2pm ? List Lodgement Three.
?December 4, 2pm ? Delisted Player Nomination Deadline.
?December 4 - Deadline for GWS Giants to pre-list balance of any previously listed or previously nominated for draft players under List Establishment rules.
?December 11, 11am ? NAB AFL Pre-Season Draft.
?December 11, 11.05am ? Brisbane Lions, Gold Coast Suns, GWS Giants and Sydney Swans Eligible Pre-Selected Rookies.
?December 11, 11.10am ? NAB AFL Rookie Draft.

Free Agency rules - ex-AFL players.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/kurt-tippett-threatens-to-sue-adelaide-crows/story-e6freck3-1226516154257

Tippet is available for free agency if Adelaide decides to delist him before the 29th Nov. If I'm correct, reading the dates Adelaide has to submit their final list on Nov 29th by 2pm (one day after the second free agency period). The only way I see KT wont be available in free agency is if Adelaide keep him on their list or delist him on the 29th Nov.
.....and apparently an article above says the Tippet camp has already sent legal papers to sue the Crows if he is de-registered.

You could make a whole drama series on the Tippet saga....and think it was fiction!

[MightyBloods]

and the drama continues...........

New letter emerges on Tippett

[Ludwig]

I think Liz is right, now thinking about it. I don't think a delisted player can acquire FA status if they have been offered a contract. AS she said this would mean any un-contracted player "could just walk" and wait to be delisted then move to the club of their choice.

Since Tippett has rejected Adelaide's offer, can't they withdraw the offer and delist him? If not, clubs could make an offer to a player and be forced to keep the offer on the table indefinitely, or until the player chose to delist himself, as Ben Jacobs did. So Jacobs had to nominate for the draft and was not a free agent.

Tom Gillies, who was delisted by Geelong was just signed by Melbourne today, and there have been others, but they did not delist themselves. They were delisted by their team.

The point is that Adelaide must be the one doing the delisting. I am not clear about how much flexibility a team has after they have made an initial offer to a player. So the question is whether Adelaide have the option to delist Tippett now if they so choose, or are they tied down by their contract offer. If a team doesn't have this option, they could be saddled with players on their list that will not be signed but taking up list spots that they would prefer to use in the draft. For example, suppose Adelaide made offers to 5 players who all rejected their offers but chose not to register for the ND, so remained on their list. Then after the draft, Adelaide could find themselves 5 players short once these players delist themselves after the ND.

Now I know what they mean when footy PR people use the phrase "More than a game." There's a lot that goes on off the field.

AFL sanctions aside, there seems to be little difference from Adelaide's perspective whether Tippett delists himself or they do it first. In fact, it would seem better for Adelaide to do it since they would create an additional draft spot on their list and they have less to worry about from a legal point of view.

[Ludwig]

and the drama continues...........

And so it does, indeed!

What a flurry of interesting articles today. As suspected, all the heavyweight legal guns are coming to the party.

I would really hate to see the AFL get torn apart by this. I think it's bad for the game. Surely the AFL could not be stupid enough to let this get out of hand. I think they will have to go light on Tippett and hammer Adelaide, or else all hell could break loose. Tippett wants to come to the Swans and I think the AFL will have to find a way to make it happen. If he goes anywhere else, Adelaide will be sued.

[MightyBloods]

From the articles released late tonight, it would appear that Adelaide want to delist Tippet but have been instructed by the AFL not to until after the hearing next week.
If they are given the all clear to do so at some stage next week, the Swans will be free to pick him up in the second free agency window.
The Swans apparently have given an obligation to Tippet (and Tippet likewise to the Swans) to honour their verbal agreement for him to come on board. Including accepting any possible long term suspension in his first year. It would also appear that GWS are willing to draft, pay Tippet and accept any long term suspension in his first year also but seem to be going cold on the idea. Tippet refuses to talk to them and now they are talking about Plan B redrafting Brogan in the National Draft. Adelaide & GWS seem to be surprised by Tippet not nominating for the National Draft and his decision has left them with last minute list decisions that they preferred not to face prior to the National Draft.
...and my original feeling is playing out......GWS wont recruit a guy who doesnt want to play for them. Not good for their young list and bank balance.
And as much as I'd love to see Tippet in Swan's colours, this is turning out to be the biggest financial and emotional investment since Tony Lockett. I only hope that Tippet is half as good.

By the way, Tippet's legal counsel (QC Galbally) has been a legal adviser in the past to the AFL on their draft rules and regulations. He advised the AFL about how to deal with the Cousins' situation. I dont think the AFL would want this game being played too deeply into legal territory.

[alison.z]

Tippett?

Tippett is not a free agent because he was offered a contract by Adelaide. He has effectively delisted himself from Adelaide and the only way he can find a new club is through the ND or PSD. As he has not nominated for the ND, pending the result of the hearing next week, he can nominate for the PSD on Dec 11, state his contract terms and whichever club can meet them, can pick him.

I have spent weeks figuring this out but I'm almost 100% sure it's correct. Tippett was never, and is not, a free agent.