Tippett!!

[Matimbo]

Don't agree. Whilst players should, and I'm sure mostly do, understand the terms of their contracts...

They are professional footballers,paid to play football....they are not lawyers, not club administrators, not player managers.

To put all the onus on the player, regarding their, sometimes complex, contract arrangements..... is ridiculous.

Surely the onus should be on the club administrators and player managers, who negotiate the deal, including any lawyers involved, to make sure everything is compliant with the rules....this is what these people are payed for.

I don't think in anyway the AFL has "put all the onus on the player". They have penalised the offending club, it's implicated staff and the player in question. Further, it is likely the player's manager will be penalised. All parties should be held accountable IMO.

Whilst I agree with all the posters who note that your average 22 year old footy player would struggle to understand a legal contract, the alternative of letting KT go unpunished would be an interesting precedent. For example ... If "I trusted manager and my club that the these payments were OK under the rules" is a valid excuse ... Then why not "I trusted my manager and my club that these performance enhancing drugs they gave me were OK", etc. Yes, an extreme example, but my point is once you allow the player to be excused personal responsibility, smarter/more devious ones will exploit it.

On the other hand, I do have issues with the relative penalties handed out, simply can't understand the sizes of the fines each got.

Finally, on KT ... I trust our club mgt and senior players who are all saying they want him. And I hope that under the contract we pay him proportionally less for the 11 weeks he misses. Paying someone for time spent not doing what he's employed to do would really bug me.

[CureTheSane]

My recollections of the word bloods was all the toothless thugs in the outer who were half (or totally) drunk feeling like they couldn't yell 'go Swans'
To some degree, there is a romantic notion of recognising the past.
I was a South Melbourne supporter who reluctantly supported the move to Sydney to allow the survival of the club.
For me, the SMFC on the backs of the jumpers and the occasional old guernsey is enough of a salute to the past.

I don't mind that the Swans are referred to as the bloods.
I just don't get what the 'bloods culture' is...

[Swansongster]

That's not what I said.
I said that getting sucked into believing a no dickhead policy really exists makes you a sheep.
every club ideally recruits great, mature, well balanced players.
In the end unless a player has repeatedly infringed (eg: Fevola) he will be drafted.
No club drafted Fevola, so they can all claim a no dickhead policy if they like.

Don't even get me started on "Bloods Culture"
Please explain to me what this is.
Explain the culture of the team from the early century and why we are considered to be living it now.
Kirk should be in marketing

I respect your right to be cynical about terms such as "NDP" and "Bloods culture" but I also think you've been missing something if you have not warmed to and recognised the manifestation of both of these philosophies over the last 7-8 years.

Our performances in September, in particular on Grand Final day, exemplified everything that is good about the mysterious, undefined "Bloods culture". IMHO it is real. I felt it in my bones that day at the MCG and it made me so proud of the red and white.

As far as the AFL findings of yesterday go, I think Tippett certainly deserved some penalty. I'd even say that half a season is about right. That being the case, AFC, its officials and Tippett's agent were treated far more generously. I feel they were the true orchestrators of the fraud.

On another point, if Tippett signs the reputed $3.55m-over-four-years contract with Sydney, does he get the full remuneration in year one? If he does, then the Swans are also harshly penalised out of this sorry saga.

[Nico]

My recollections of the word bloods was all the toothless thugs in the outer who were half (or totally) drunk feeling like they couldn't yell 'go Swans'
To some degree, there is a romantic notion of recognising the past.
I was a South Melbourne supporter who reluctantly supported the move to Sydney to allow the survival of the club.
For me, the SMFC on the backs of the jumpers and the occasional old guernsey is enough of a salute to the past.

I don't mind that the Swans are referred to as the bloods.
I just don't get what the 'bloods culture' is...

You are probably about my age CTS. I don't recall too many supporters referring to us as the Swans even though it was our symbol. To us it was always the Bloods. My father was born in 1914 and supported us all his life and he referred to us as the Bloods.

[rojo]

'The 25-year-old, who yesterday delisted himself from the Crows and who has nominated for the December 11 pre-season draft, has until Monday week to nominate how much he believes he is worth a season. Given his preference for the Swans, it is expected Tippett will place a price of up to $1 million annually on his head in the hope of dissuading GWS, which has the first draft pick.' Quote from an article by Courtney Walsh and Peter Kojoy in yesterdays Telegraph . 'Even if the Giants opt against drafting Tippett, their interest will force the Swans to pay a premium for the forward.'

Go GWS I say. If they don't take him, I don't like the 'game' Sheedy is playing.

[dimelb]

Perhaps the discussion about the Bloods, their culture and continuity with South Melbourne needs its own thread. It's certainly a worthy subject.
On the Tippett saga:
1. I think Tippett has been harshly penalised, especially by comparison with the others involved. He has learned a hard lesson along the lines of "Don't sign anything you're not clear about" and that high risks are attached to high incomes. Even so, he did deserve some penalty; the AFL couldn't make others completely responsible when they weren't.
2. The AFC managed the whole matter, from the first practice to deceive down to the unravelling web, very poorly. If I were a member I'd be mightily annoyed. We moved Big Anthony on much more efficiently.
3. I share the misgivings about the AFL's, and particularly Andrew Demetriou's, role in the judgement delivered, as expressed in another thread. There is a lack of transparency that is a concern.
4. On balance, I'm happy we're getting Tippett. I feel confident that the coaches and the leadership group will sort him out and that he will become both a better player and a more mature person. I think that's an important part of what's meant by the use of the term 'culture' in our club.
5. There is no doubt we will be an even more formidable team with KT on board.

[dimelb]

[Double up deleted]

[CureTheSane]

I respect your right to be cynical about terms such as "NDP" and "Bloods culture" but I also think you've been missing something if you have not warmed to and recognised the manifestation of both of these philosophies over the last 7-8 years.

Our performances in September, in particular on Grand Final day, exemplified everything that is good about the mysterious, undefined "Bloods culture". IMHO it is real. I felt it in my bones that day at the MCG and it made me so proud of the red and white.

As far as the AFL findings of yesterday go, I think Tippett certainly deserved some penalty. I'd even say that half a season is about right. That being the case, AFC, its officials and Tippett's agent were treated far more generously. I feel they were the true orchestrators of the fraud.

On another point, if Tippett signs the reputed $3.55m-over-four-years contract with Sydney, does he get the full remuneration in year one? If he does, then the Swans are also harshly penalised out of this sorry saga.

No I understand what you are saying.
I love the culture that has been bred recently. This is real and tangible.
What I find interesting is how we got there, with the NDP and by pumping out the bloods thing.
It has been blindly lapped up by fans, hence my reference to 'sheep'
Worked a treat, but is in fact based on very little, as the NDP really does not exists, and nobody seems to know what a 'bloods culture' is

I guess I'm kind of bringing logic into a field where passion is the dominant force.
Hopefully this new culture and purpose the Swans have developed will take on a pseudonym of its own in time and will exist in its own right without having to refer to non-existent policies and histories.

As for Tippett, I am a big advocate of having him on board.
Haven't swayed from that through all of this, however would question any contract which allows full payment if he missed half a season.
Not for one second do I think the Swans will stick with the same offer/conditions after recent events.

Having said that, is it worth paying him for not playing if it means we get him rather than GWS or some other team?
Where would people stand in that scenario?

[CureTheSane]

Perhaps the discussion about the Bloods, their culture and continuity with South Melbourne needs its own thread. It's certainly a worthy subject.
On the Tippett saga:
1. I think Tippett has been harshly penalised, especially by comparison with the others involved. He has learned a hard lesson along the lines of "Don't sign anything you're not clear about" and that high risks are attached to high incomes. Even so, he did deserve some penalty; the AFL couldn't make others completely responsible when they weren't.
2. The AFC managed the whole matter, from the first practice to deceive down to the unravelling web, very poorly. If I were a member I'd be mightily annoyed. We moved Big Anthony on much more efficiently.
3. I share the misgivings about the AFL's, and particularly Andrew Demetriou's, role in the judgement delivered, as expressed in another thread. There is a lack of transparency that is a concern.
4. On balance, I'm happy we're getting Tippett. I feel confident that the coaches and the leadership group will sort him out and that he will become both a better player and a more mature person. I think that's an important part of what's meant by the use of the term 'culture' in our club.
5. There is no doubt we will be an even more formidable team with KT on board.

Good idea
Sorry for sidetracking the thread

[Ludwig]

I'm a little confused here, I thought the whole point was that the extra payments/ trade arrangement wasn't actually in his contract. And that is how it slipped by as the AFL vet all player contracts. If it had been in the contract the AFL wouldn't have allowed it.

Am I missing something here?

The point is that he would have to able to match statements in his contract to AFL rule references and question that some of his payments or conditions might contravene those provisions. Usually the rules themselves are not stated in the contract, but references to the rules are. Many contracts have references to compliance to specific legislation without restating what the legislation actually states.

Furthermore, why should he know how Balfours, for example, redirected payments from sponsorship to him, if he was not in the loop?

My other point was most of us sign things we don't completely read, especially if we hire an expert agent that says it's all okay. And your employer signs the contract too, and you wouldn't expect that the AFC would sign an agreement knowingly breaking AFL rules. Since rule breaches never came up at the AFC, why would anyone suspect that they would in one's own contract?

[Nico]

The point is that he would have to able to match statements in his contract to AFL rule references and question that some of his payments or conditions might contravene those provisions. Usually the rules themselves are not stated in the contract, but references to the rules are. Many contracts have references to compliance to specific legislation without restating what the legislation actually states.

Furthermore, why should he know how Balfours, for example, redirected payments from sponsorship to him, if he was not in the loop?

My other point was most of us sign things we don't completely read, especially if we hire an expert agent that says it's all okay. And your employer signs the contract too, and you wouldn't expect that the AFC would sign an agreement knowingly breaking AFL rules. Since rule breaches never came up at the AFC, why would anyone suspect that they would in one's own contract?

I wonder how many players have now rung their managers and said; "my contract is ok isn't it?"

Regardless of what people now say Tippett should have done about fully understanding his contract, it appears to me that his manager and father would have said we have done a great deal for you. Tippett then signs the contract on what he was told and didn't bother to read much of it. He may well have been told there was a third party agreement, but so what 75 players have them. As a 22 year old he would likely have accepted what he was told would land in his bank account on pay day, knowing it was going to be a truckload, and not questioned it.

Another thing; I haven't seen anywhere where it said the money outside the contract actually went to KT.

[royboy42]

I wonder how many players have now rung their managers and said; "my contract is ok isn't it?"

Regardless of what people now say Tippett should have done about fully understanding his contract, it appears to me that his manager and father would have said we have done a great deal for you. Tippett then signs the contract on what he was told and didn't bother to read much of it. He may well have been told there was a third party agreement, but so what 75 players have them. As a 22 year old he would likely have accepted what he was told would land in his bank account on pay day, knowing it was going to be a truckload, and not questioned it.

Exactly right Nico..expensive lesson that will help other players in future contract discussions..they would have to be extra thick not to ask lots of questions after this!

[sharp9]

The fact that Tippet and Trigg have received the SAME penalty is BIZARRE. How can that possibly be? They are EQUALLY culpable? What a joke.

Also why have Sydney been fined as much as Adelaide????? They get $300,000 fine and we have to play $300,000 to a player who isn't allowed to play!!!!!!!!!!!! OR we don't pay him and he receives a fine GREATER than that handed out to the entire PROFESSIONAL CHEATS in the AFC.....not ONE of whom loses anything out of his own pocket. Trigg gets a six month ban but Adelaide are still going to pay his salary. I believe that's called a holiday.

[Melbourne_Blood]

Tippett?

Did we get fined? I hadn't heard that?

[dimelb]

Did we get fined? I hadn't heard that?

I think he's referring to the required payment to a player who isn't allowed to play, in effect a fine.