SA Footy

I know this whole thing has been done to death, so sorry for yet another new topic on it, but, reading through Emma Quayle's article, the following short paragraph stands out, and I think this needs to be addressed!!

"At a board meeting in late August 2011, Trigg was asked for an update on Tippett's contract situation, with the exchange recorded in board minutes. The CEO is understood to have confirmed the existence of the get-out clause, but expressed confidence that Tippett would stay."

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/t ... z2DmvzAt1d


Surely if this is the case, this matter is not done and dusted. Rob Chapman stated on 5AA the board had no idea about the side deal/s until recently. There have been other numerous denials from the board of this knowledge. "If" Emma's article is accurate surely the board has a case to answer? Can't be hard to determine if it is supposedly recorded in the board minutes?

yes, they knew

Of course they knew

JK wrote:Of course they knew

It seems likely they knew in August as stated, and then spent some time trying to find a quiet solution before deciding they had no way out short of "fessing up" before being found out.
It was a stupid thing to get into for a player who was promising and had potential, but was not consistent.

Psyber wrote:

JK wrote:Of course they knew

It seems likely they knew in August as stated, and then spent some time trying to find a quiet solution before deciding they had no way out short of "fessing up" before being found out.
It was a stupid thing to get into for a player who was promising and had potential, but was not consistent.

Doesnt matter what type of player he was, it was a stupid thing to get into.... fullstop. Wasnt just stupid it was illegal and cheating, and yet the blokes who knew about the deal and continually denied its existence are welcomed by the club to continue their roles within the club.... haha they are a rabble and a joke

Psyber wrote:

JK wrote:Of course they knew

It seems likely they knew in August as stated, and then spent some time trying to find a quiet solution before deciding they had no way out short of "fessing up" before being found out.
It was a stupid thing to get into for a player who was promising and had potential, but was not consistent.

Big problem is Psyb that it says August 2011. If this is true they lied for far too long and there needs to be further ramifications for the board here.

Perfect Drug wrote:"If" Emma's article is accurate surely the board has a case to answer? Can't be hard to determine if it is supposedly recorded in the board minutes?

You are right, it isn't hard to read board minutes. If it was in the minutes the AFL would have found it.

So either the AFL are involved in a cover up to protect the board or it isn't in the minutes or isn't worded exactly as Quayle is reporting it.

Chapman is currently taking calls from members who are demanding more information and he is being relatively open if transcripts I have read are accurate. He is adamant he only learned about the go-home clause in October this year.

If he lied to the AFL and is now lying to the members in direct conversations then he is breaching the Corporations Law directors' duties which actually spells out a law that directors must act honestly.

So I am not saying Quayle is wrong as I haven't seen the minutes. I am just saying if she is right then Chapman, by telling members lies, is risking penalties under the Corporations Law which could result in fines, disqualification or even jail time.

Hondo wrote:

Perfect Drug wrote:"If" Emma's article is accurate surely the board has a case to answer? Can't be hard to determine if it is supposedly recorded in the board minutes?

You are right, it isn't hard to read board minutes. If it was in the minutes the AFL would have found it.

So either the AFL are involved in a cover up to protect the board or it isn't in the minutes or isn't worded exactly as Quayle is reporting it.

Still in denial Hondo? How about the Adelaide board covered their tracks?

Covered their tracks after Emma Quayle reported it?

And no-one at the AFL noticed or thought to check it out?

OK

The board knew about the 2nd round trade deal they claim, not the extra side deals. Remember, Adelaide confessed to the draft "tampering", not the salary cap over payment.

Can we merge some of these Tippett and Crows threads together?

JK wrote:Of course they knew

That's why Trigg hasn't got the a*se.
Can't punish Trigg if they were in the wrong too.

Baron Greenback wrote:

JK wrote:Of course they knew

That's why Trigg hasn't got the a*se.
Can't punish Trigg if they were in the wrong too.

Exactly right, plus he upheld the number 1 mandate - Protect your board!

He also looked after Andy D in the Rendell saga, so had some points up his sleeve.

If the board genuinely had absolutely no idea of the dodgy Tippett deals, does anyone really think the CEO would have lasted? More likely they would have been seeking damages via a legal path.

Just to be clear my earlier post was saying that I don't believe there is a smoking gun in the board minutes.

Official board documents are always carefully worded to minimise risk. A dodgy deal deliberately hidden from the AFL would not be written into board minutes as clearly as that.

Very disappointingly to me, the club has not been as open about the events now the penalties are handed down as they promised they would be. They are claiming now that they cannot tell us the full story for legal reasons I suspect because some kind of legal gag was placed on all parties once the penalties were settled.

I reckon there were versions of the truth in and outside the club and that Trigg promoted in an attempt to bury the original deal from ever seeing the light of day.

As I said though, Chapman is now apparently claiming he didn't know the (full) story so if he is lying then as a Director he faces serious consequences. Note, I have inserted the word "full". I reckon he probably knew a Trigg version of the story, not the full one. I'd say Trigg's version of the story involved his claims that he verbally rescinded the deal with Blucher and so it was all "fixed" (nothing to worry about Rob).

Pity Trigg didn't think that "fixing" things involved informing the AFL, not burying it.

Very well written Hondo.

Now that this has "mostly" played out I am most dissappointed by the secrecy/lying/bending of truths which must have taken place by "some employees" of the Adelaide Football Club. I believe this to be more distressing than the actual action of giving Tippett the clause and diverting some sponsorship funds his way. Whilst those actions alone are against the rules, like many, I don't believe them to be a "hanging offence".

So many have known or at least had the suspicion of the side clause for many years. SURELY some questions were asked. Lies as answers must have been given, by whom, we can only speculate. Fairly educated speculation though I might add. For Rob Chapman to say no alarm bells were raised and none raised to him, reeks of unprofessionalism rather than extreme naievity.

The whole came clean thing annoys the carp outta me. Its like a 3 year old boy fessing up to drawing on the walls after interrogation by the parents. They only fess up cause there is no way out of it and its as an attempt to limit the punishment.
If they were asked by the AFL once things were beyond obvious and fessed up, then they get a tiny bit of recognition for owning up to it. To say that it came clear because of their honesty drive me insane.

Yes this is all coming from a Port Adelaide supporter and perhaps my judgement is pushed a little one way, but I think if this had all played out my club I would want answers and my conclusion at this point would definitely be that either the CEO kept this from the board and has to go, or the board was aware and has to go!! Once again its not the actual deal, its the lies and deciet that has gone along with it for SO LONG!

It's always a hard situation wanting transparency from a football club at the top level .. On one hand supporters are always nervous of Board members actions being in the best interest of them retaining their standing at the club. On the other hand, they need to be secretive about many, many things in the best interests of their club. This applies to most if not all clubs.

Perfect Drug wrote:Very well written Hondo.

Now that this has "mostly" played out I am most dissappointed by the secrecy/lying/bending of truths which must have taken place by "some employees" of the Adelaide Football Club. I believe this to be more distressing than the actual action of giving Tippett the clause and diverting some sponsorship funds his way. Whilst those actions alone are against the rules, like many, I don't believe them to be a "hanging offence".

So many have known or at least had the suspicion of the side clause for many years. SURELY some questions were asked. Lies as answers must have been given, by whom, we can only speculate. Fairly educated speculation though I might add. For Rob Chapman to say no alarm bells were raised and none raised to him, reeks of unprofessionalism rather than extreme naievity.

The whole came clean thing annoys the carp outta me. Its like a 3 year old boy fessing up to drawing on the walls after interrogation by the parents. They only fess up cause there is no way out of it and its as an attempt to limit the punishment.
If they were asked by the AFL once things were beyond obvious and fessed up, then they get a tiny bit of recognition for owning up to it. To say that it came clear because of their honesty drive me insane.

Yes this is all coming from a Port Adelaide supporter and perhaps my judgement is pushed a little one way, but I think if this had all played out my club I would want answers and my conclusion at this point would definitely be that either the CEO kept this from the board and has to go, or the board was aware and has to go!! Once again its not the actual deal, its the lies and deciet that has gone along with it for SO LONG!

I wouldn’t worry about justifying yourself PD about being Port supporter, I think you have played a straight bat with your comments and been very un biased.
It’s ended up being one of those cases when you tell one lie, you need to tell another one to keep the initial lie from coming out – then you damned if you do, damned if you don’t after that!
All AFC supporters shouldn’t be happy with what’s happened, for sure ask questions and reportedly many have but in the end you have to keep supporting the club. If you don’t you aren’t a real supporter IMO, you don’t support the administration you support the coaches and players. The Admin is there to do a job, make the club profitable and ensure the best possible outcomes for the players and supporters. If Trigg is the best person for the job, to keep the $$ rolling in and no doubt will be better off for this experience then why should he step aside if the board still has confidence? The Board I think you will find had too much trust in Trigg/others and let their guard down. Once they realised it was all a bit late and went in to damage control

It's an insult for them to even deny knowledge of it.

Perfect Drug wrote:Very well written Hondo.

Now that this has "mostly" played out I am most dissappointed by the secrecy/lying/bending of truths which must have taken place by "some employees" of the Adelaide Football Club. I believe this to be more distressing than the actual action of giving Tippett the clause and diverting some sponsorship funds his way. Whilst those actions alone are against the rules, like many, I don't believe them to be a "hanging offence".

So many have known or at least had the suspicion of the side clause for many years. SURELY some questions were asked. Lies as answers must have been given, by whom, we can only speculate. Fairly educated speculation though I might add. For Rob Chapman to say no alarm bells were raised and none raised to him, reeks of unprofessionalism rather than extreme naievity.

The whole came clean thing annoys the carp outta me. Its like a 3 year old boy fessing up to drawing on the walls after interrogation by the parents. They only fess up cause there is no way out of it and its as an attempt to limit the punishment.
If they were asked by the AFL once things were beyond obvious and fessed up, then they get a tiny bit of recognition for owning up to it. To say that it came clear because of their honesty drive me insane.

Yes this is all coming from a Port Adelaide supporter and perhaps my judgement is pushed a little one way, but I think if this had all played out my club I would want answers and my conclusion at this point would definitely be that either the CEO kept this from the board and has to go, or the board was aware and has to go!! Once again its not the actual deal, its the lies and deciet that has gone along with it for SO LONG!

Well said PD.
I agree on many of the points you made.
When Rob Chapman was questioned whether there were any discussions for Sturt being the Crows reserve side he denied it. Then all of a sudden he does "bounce" ideas with Steven Trigg over coffee.
I don't trust this man. Trigg has taken a big bullet for the faceless men. (BTW I think he did some dumb things to put his name to re 3rd party & trade arrangements)