Tippett!!

[ScottH]

Hmmm.

Bloods transfusion | MakingtheNut.com

[AnnieH]

Mmmmmmmm..... I think we should all contact the club and tell them that the computer says nooooooooooooooooo.
We have the no dickheads policy to uphold.

[Hartijon]

100% agree. I'm too busy enjoying the flag to give a @@@@ at what clearly jealous people think of our club.

The history books will always show:

2012 AFL Premiers - Sydney Swans.

Nothing will take away the sheer joy of this fact... Absolutely nothing.

ME TOO! Getting right up my Pie loving colleagues and the Geelong (Team of the Century) mates who still can't accept we did it! (Which century?:-) 19th? I keep asking)
We can go back to back with the exciting team we already have. I trust the recruiters and if they say yes to KT so be it.They are legends!If they say no,doesn't worry me a bit..Basking in the glory!!!

And Big Al,like you,nothing can take the sheer joy away.

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Re: Tippett?

Yay we're still premiers! **** you Adelaide.

[DST]

I think what you say is wrong on so many levels. Its up to Tippet where he is traded, so doesnt matter what GCFC or GWS offer. He's chosen Sydney. A trade can only happen with Sydney.

Reading between the lines, all we have to offer is our first pick (23). Crows have no more room on their list for our 2nd pick, and we are unlikely to get a better pick than 23 by trading white/tdl to other clubs.
Our only sweatener is to give them Jesse White, and pay his salary. Not one I'd comfortable with.

What the AFL want is for a trade to happen that doesnt include a 2nd round pick only. Sydney satisfy that (just), and obviously GCFC may satisfy that too.

KT will only nominate for the PSD, as thats the only draft he can stipulate his salary and contract length.

Sorry Barry, but it GCFC offer AFC pick 13 and KT knocks it back becuase he only wants to play for the Swans then they will simply let him walk to one of the drafts.

With the GCFC interested in using pick 13, they will simply pick him up at their first pick in the PSD as they are one of the only clubs who have the cap space.

Clearly the GCFC are agitating here with the AFL behind the scene's (regarding the off contract arrangement) to disrupt the deal with Sydney to force Adelaide to deal with them or simply pick him up in the PSD.

I have no issue with it, in fact it is a brilliant strategy as they have also put the AFC in the poo at the same time.

DST

[Wardy]

Yay we're still premiers! **** you Adelaide.

Now thats what I'm talking about!!!

[barry]

Sorry Barry, but it GCFC offer AFC pick 13 and KT knocks it back becuase he only wants to play for the Swans then they will simply let him walk to one of the drafts.

On what logic would Adelaide reject all trades because Tippett wont go to the GC ?

With the GCFC interested in using pick 13, they will simply pick him up at their first pick in the PSD as they are one of the only clubs who have the cap space.

They may. GWS also have massive cap space because they havent signed anyone of note yet, and the "Whos tippet" publicity has already been done for them in Sydney.

Clearly the GCFC are agitating here with the AFL behind the scene's (regarding the off contract arrangement) to disrupt the deal with Sydney to force Adelaide to deal with them or simply pick him up in the PSD.

GCFC cant force Adelaide to do anything. Its Tippetts choice, not GCFC or Adelaide.

I have no issue with it, in fact it is a brilliant strategy as they have also put the AFC in the poo at the same time.

Tippett is sitting pretty. He will end up in QLD or NSW either way. His best bet is to get the deal to Sydney, which will only not happen if Adelaide spit the dummy and dont trade him.

[ScottH]

ME TOO! Getting right up my Pie loving colleagues and the Geelong (Team of the Century) mates who still can't accept we did it! (Which century?:-) 19th? I keep asking)
We can go back to back with the exciting team we already have. I trust the recruiters and if they say yes to KT so be it.They are legends!If they say no,doesn't worry me a bit..Basking in the glory!!!

And Big Al,like you,nothing can take the sheer joy away.

I just found another swans nut at work on my floor.
Desk is adorned with posters and pics from the GF

[Mug Punter]

Sorry Barry, but it GCFC offer AFC pick 13 and KT knocks it back becuase he only wants to play for the Swans then they will simply let him walk to one of the drafts.

With the GCFC interested in using pick 13, they will simply pick him up at their first pick in the PSD as they are one of the only clubs who have the cap space.

Clearly the GCFC are agitating here with the AFL behind the scene's (regarding the off contract arrangement) to disrupt the deal with Sydney to force Adelaide to deal with them or simply pick him up in the PSD.

I have no issue with it, in fact it is a brilliant strategy as they have also put the AFC in the poo at the same time.

DST

I'd have no issue with Tippett going to the Gold Coast and I suspect he wouldn't either really.

As long as the Crows get nothing for him and big penalties

[View from stand]

Lastly can someone please tell me wtf she means by "Sydney . . . . is in reality owned by the AFL?

Hate to say it, but she is technically right. However, the crack about Head Office is crap, and she knows it.

Ownership does not mean control in the case of the club. It goes back to 1993 or 1994 when the private ownership ended, and the AFL took over and re-structured the club. If I remember correctly, it was stated the AFL would hold the only shares in the Club, and would continue to do so until the AFL decided continued support to the Club was no longer needed. After that, the AFL would continue to hold the shares until they decided support would never be needed again. It was a technical way of ensuring that the AFL would always have a team from Sydney, which it needed for TV rights, and would have made it easier for the AFL to help if the problems of those times happened again. At the AGM last year, Richard acknowledged that the AFL is still the only shareholder, so I assume the arangement is still in place.

The AFL ceded control to the Board long ago, and I do not believe the AFL would contemplate interfering in the running of the club. If they did, I am convinced the Board would all walk, and the AFL cannot afford that. So any consideration of a challenge by the Club would ignore this non-issue.

The whole thing is technical and was designed to allow the AFL to provide assistance at that time, and potentially allows this to happen again. Howver, the AFL world has changed significantly since it was done, and it is proably unnecessary for it to continue.

[Beerman]

Tippett?

And I would imagine the AFL may go lightly on Tippett because they don't want their restraint of trade policies to be challenged in the courts, where it seems that players always win.

There was a post on bf from someone who sounded pretty knowledgeable about legal matters who said it would be difficult for a player to bring a restraint of trade case because of the terms of the AFL's contracts. I can imagine there might be ways around this but it would be a difficult case and not guaranteed to succeed. Given that the AFL would fight it all the way, it would be a very expensive and risky move.

I imagine the league players won their case because they were not covered by such contracts and the case was actually about whether they could be forced to sign one.

[Mug Punter]

There was a post on bf from someone who sounded pretty knowledgeable about legal matters who said it would be difficult for a player to bring a restraint of trade case because of the terms of the AFL's contracts. I can imagine there might be ways around this but it would be a difficult case and not guaranteed to succeed. Given that the AFL would fight it all the way, it would be a very expensive and risky move.

I imagine the league players won their case because they were not covered by such contracts and the case was actually about whether they could be forced to sign one.

There is a clear precedent that the Draft is a Restraint of Trade from the Rugby League case. It's a gentleman's agreement and only requires one player or club to challenge it for the whole house of cards to fall.

Because it is generally viewed as good for the game and they run a tight ship it hasn't happened. Just IMO of course, but I don't think that the AFL would dare risk a court case as it is waaaay to risky. They can direct Tippett to the draft but if they try to take away his livelihood because of something that is a restraint of trade itself then I think they would be in deep poop.

Pretty sure it will be Adelaide that wear the rap on this, and perhaps also his manager. Tippett would have largely been unaware of the implications I think as at face value it is not an unreasonable request and precisely why the AFL had to bring in a degree of free agency to avoid a court challenge from the ALFPA.

Fun times....

[undy]

Tippett threatened AFC with Supreme Court action ?
See end of this story.

[BillyRayCypress]

Tippett threatened AFC with Supreme Court action ?
See end of this story.

That just might tippet the trade over the edge in favour of the Swans. I don't mean to be kert about it all.

[barry]

Tippett threatened AFC with Supreme Court action ?
See end of this story.

To me, this is outside the AFL's authority.

If Sydney have offered a 2nd round pick, and Adelaide reject it, he can take them to court for breach of contract. Totally outside the AFL. In fact its outside the AFL already.

Whether it breaches AFL draft rules is completely irrelevant to legal contract laws.

The AFL however, may impose its own penalty which might see him sit out 2013. Thats up to them.

The question remains, have Sydney offered the 1st round pick at all ?

Dont think we'll find out until 2pm tomorrow.