Tippett!!

[annew]

Isn't it funny that we started off as the bad ones, with too much money because of the COL allowance and now Adelaide is being accused of draft tampering, it seems such a long time since the GF.

[Nich]

And is anyone aware whether we have a plan b at all out there ?

Ben McGlynn

[liz]

I believe the rule that has been broken is that all contracts, in full, must be approved by the AFL. I would seem that the AFC made a binding agreement, in general law, that was not submitted to the AFL for approval. This part of the agreement was an inducement, and therefore consideration, in getting Tippett to sign a 3 year contract with Adelaide. Perhaps, without this inducement, Tippett would have chosen to go into the draft. So Adelaide made an undisclosed deal so that a player who would be out of contract would not enter the draft, or be forced to be traded to another club. Adelaide benefited by being able to retain Tippett for another 3 years, something they may not have been able to do if not for this side agreement.

It would seem unlikely that the AFL would have approved such a stipulation in the contract, so the parties decided simply not to disclose it. It is not clear to what extent each of the parties are involved in the non disclosure, which I imagine is the focus of the AFL investigation.

It's not dissimilar to the Scully deal in a broad sense, where it was deemed that a separate agreement with Scully's dad was in fact an undisclosed part of the player's inducement to come to the club and the father's compensation was made a part of the total compensation for salary cap purposes.

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.

[liz]

And is anyone aware whether we have a plan b at all out there ?

Presumably plan B is that we take the field with the squad that won the Premiership last year and see whether we can do it again!

[707]

She rarely gets anything right.

Including her fashion sense!

[CureTheSane]

I'd like to know who suggested the clause in the contract.
Either side seems to have an upper hand, depending on how Tippett developed over the years.
It seems that Adelaide certainly didn't expect his worth to be what it is now at the time.

You'd think that the Swans have to be fairly innocent here.
Even if they sighted the 'secret agreement' it would have to have been done with an explanation that it had not been overseen by the AFL etc.
Earlier comments by the club now seem to indicate that regardless of what they had actually been told, that they may have cottoned on that it was a bit shady and have purposefully ignored it, leaving it as an issue between Tippett and the AFC.

[Auntie.Gerald]

Best punishment for the Crows would be to make them honour their illegal agreement. We get him for pick 40 something.

luv it !!!!!

[giant]

A right royal @@@@ up - don't see how this can all be settled by end of trade week. Shame, would have been nice to have him on board.

[giant]

A right royal @@@@ up - don't see how this can all be settled by end of trade week. Shame, would have been nice to have him on board.

But then again what do I know...

http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7106/newsid/150209/default.aspx

[Matty10]

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.

As I said in my earlier posts I do not fully understand how a charge of 'Draft Tampering' can be applied here either, however, I am beginning to see how issues related to TPP could be raised.

Ask yourself this question: what value, as a player, would you put on free agency? By committing to three years at Adelaide (and having the undisclosed contract terms honoured), Tippett was essentially provided with free agency. Surely that would be worth an extra $100,000 or so.

Of course this has all come undone in that Adelaide does not want to honour the deal, but I can understand why this would raise some flags in relation to the TPP.

[707]

Yep, funny how the Adelaide Bigfooty board has us as the baddies to be penalised - sheesh, soft brains that lot.

How is this much different to say Gunston who walked out on the Crows last year and wanted to be traded to Hawthorn only. Crows and Hawthorn got a deal done quickly that was probably under Gunstons worth?

Or different to any number of other players who only want to go to a specific club?

The AFC gained by having this agreement in getting Tippett to sign a new deal in 2009 when he was wavering.

Tippett gained by having a fixed trade price of second round so a trade would happen without fuss.

We are in no way guilty of anything here, we are merely Tippett's desired new club.

I think the AFL will be well aware of potential damaging court battles they could easily lose if they try and punish Tippett with either stopping him getting to us or dergistering him for say X games. The AFLPA will being batting for him too.

The AFC club will get some kind of sanction to serve as a warning to other clubs and they will accept what ever the AFL gives them to be seen to be shamed for their naughtiness.

So I think the AFC will get the sanction, Tippett will be told he's a naughty boy as will his manager and everyone will be on alert that the next breach will be more severely punished.

Expect a Tippett to us trade before 2pm Friday!

[liz]

As I said in my earlier posts I do not fully understand how a charge of 'Draft Tampering' can be applied here either, however, I am beginning to see how issues related to TPP could be raised.

Ask yourself this question: what value, as a player, would you put on free agency? By committing to three years at Adelaide (and having the undisclosed contract terms honoured), Tippett was essentially provided with free agency. Surely that would be worth an extra $100,000 or so.

Of course this has all come undone in that Adelaide does not want to honour the deal, but I can understand why this would raise some flags in relation to the TPP.

I partly agree, but I struggle to see how a financial value can be put on this "free agency". 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 arguing that the clause has no value, just that it is incredibly hard to put a value on it that could have been included in the Crows' TPP for the past three years.

[annew]

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.

[ShockOfHair]

Isn't it draft tampering because the agreement allegedly stipulates specific club/s (ie, Suns, Lions)? You can't artificially limit player's and clubs' ability to trade. This might also explain why the Crows are furious at Tippett for having changed his mind.

Plus they kept it secret from the AFL which is naughty.

[ShockOfHair]

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.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh. I can't keep up.