Tippett!!

**SydAFLFan** · 3rd October 2012, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by liz

Plus the fact that a mature key defender would be most attractive to the Crows, given they have lost Bock and Davis in the last couple of years, and Rutten probably doesn't have much longer to go.

One thing to remember is that Tippett has told the Crows he is leaving and as The Advertiser's Michelangelo Rucci wrote, "IF Tippett does not sanction the trade, he can nominate for the pre-season draft on December 11. Greater Western Sydney has the first pick, but cannot claim Tippett because it already has poached an uncontracted Crow Phil Davis last year. Gold Coast has the second pick."

Therefor, if Adelaide play hardball the Crows risk ending up with nothing as Tippett would nominate for the draft and end up in his home state anyhow (assuming Gold Coast select him). Sydney might be able to use this to its advantage by offering a lesser deal (ie a lowly draft pick) that is not the normal straight forward like-for-like trade but better than if Tippett nominates for the pre-season draft.

**Triple B** · 3rd October 2012, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by SydAFLFan

One thing to remember is that Tippett has told the Crows he is leaving and as The Advertiser's Michelangelo Rucci wrotes, "IF Tippett does not sanction the trade, he can nominate for the pre-season draft on December 11. Greater Western Sydney has the first pick, but cannot claim Tippett because it already has poached an uncontracted Crow Phil Davis last year. Gold Coast has the second pick."

Is that right? I have serious doubts.

They cannot claim more than 1 player per club via the concession, but once the player goes in the draft, surely GWS as pick 1 can claim him. If Rucci is right, then GWS cannot claim any Adelaide, Melbourne, Western Bulldog, Fremantle or Port Adelaide players. That cannot be right.

**SydAFLFan** · 3rd October 2012, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Triple B

Is that right? I have serious doubts.

They cannot claim more than 1 player per club via the concession, but once the player goes in the draft, surely GWS as pick 1 can claim him. If Rucci is right, then GWS cannot claim any Adelaide, Melbourne, Western Bulldog, Fremantle or Port Adelaide players. That cannot be right.

Looks like it might be true as this is what the AFL said in August 2011,

GWS Giants to have capacity to sign up to 16 uncontracted players. Maximum of one player from other AFL clubs, unless a club agrees to trade more than one player to GWS Giants. If the club does not sign 16 uncontracted players after the 2011 season, it can sign the balance of up to 16 players at the end of the 2012 season

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsartic...8/default.aspx

**Triple B** · 3rd October 2012, 04:08 PM

Syd, that refers to signing uncontracted players WITHOUT going thru the draft. It's a concession that GC had in year 1 (Ablett, Harbrow etc).

Once the player is in the draft, surely it is open slather.

**SydAFLFan** · 3rd October 2012, 04:09 PM

I think the rule was established to stop the Giants & Suns from approaching every uncontracted played and amassing a super team through the draft. Without the rule GWS could have approached players from a club like Collingwood and said to O'Brien, Wellingham, Cloke or any other player that was coming to the end of their contract in 2011 or 2012, that if they all nominated for the draft that they would all be picked by GWS on huge contracts.

**Triple B** · 3rd October 2012, 04:15 PM

Ok then Syd, you can run with Rucci's story, we'll wait and see...

**Swanner** · 3rd October 2012, 04:29 PM

By the Swans entering the race and tempting Tippett we are helping the player and Adelaide. Tippett gets to nudge up his price with the Suns and Adelaide get some leverage on the Suns to do a deal. Given the excellent cooperative trade history between the two clubs I wouldnt be suprised if Adelaide approached us first to get us keen on dealing. I reckon it will be a player plus pick 22 and $800k for Tippet (plus the attraction of playing finals and competing for premierships). the player most likely will be Grundy given his age and background. Given he is moving to a preliminary finalist it would be attractive - plus Adelaide desperately need a key backmen.

If that's all we did in trade week (along with re-signing JPK) i would be very happy.

**707** · 3rd October 2012, 05:51 PM

Just reading the Herald Sun, $1mill a season for Tippett, what a joke.

We haven't got a mill spare in our salary cap and he is not worth more than $500k IMO. What about if he gets another bad concussion in his first game?

This gets more ridiculous the more you delve into it. I reckon we are just the "other" team to get GCS to come to the party.

This is probably all just a smokescreen and there will be a sudden announcement we've actually traded for say Brent Moloney! Who by the way comes free of draft picks :-)

**Melbourne_Blood** · 3rd October 2012, 05:57 PM

I would rather we have a crack at Dawes on say 400-500k a year. Was a spud this year, but showed what he can do in 2010 and with confidence back could be a 50+ goal forward.

**jono2707** · 3rd October 2012, 06:05 PM

Sorry but has there been any solid proof that Grundy is on the table, or is this all speculation?

We won the premiership thanks mainly to the most solid defence in the league and I am not comfortable in doing anything to tinker with it.....

**Melbourne_Blood** · 3rd October 2012, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by jono2707

Sorry but has there been any solid proof that Grundy is on the table, or is this all speculation?

We won the premiership thanks mainly to the most solid defence in the league and I am not comfortable in doing anything to tinker with it.....

There is no solid proof we are even interested in Tippett, let one any of the rest of it.

**johnno** · 3rd October 2012, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by Melbourne_Blood

I would rather we have a crack at Dawes on say 400-500k a year. Was a spud this year, but showed what he can do in 2010 and with confidence back could be a 50+ goal forward.

What would we offer Collingwood?

What is it we have inexcess of that they need/want?