When will the Tippett contract affair end?

It now appears the allegation that the Crows and/or Kurt Tippett failed to disclose his full contractual arrangements to the AFL are true, given the player and club are to be summoned to the AFL to answer as yet undisclosed charges.

It is a saga that the AFL could well do without. It has the potential for significant ramifications for the league, the club and its CEO, the player himself and his manager.

The tolerance for inappropriate dealings, let alone outright cheating has changed dramatically in recent years. If found guilty as is widely expected, the Crows cannot not expect sympathy.

As yet the full circumstances are unclear. While the AFL had confirmed an inquiry into the particular 2009 contractual arrangements was under way, it had elected not divulge the details of the inquiry to this time.

The allegations circulating widely and which no one seems to deny, suggest that there was a undisclosed side deal whereby at the end of his three-year contract, Tippett would be traded to a club of his choice for not less than a second round selection.

Further, that the Crows would guarantee an additional sum, reputedly $200,000 which had been intended to be paid by third parties.

Until the full facts are known, it is difficult to comment authoritatively but it is human nature to speculate. So assuming the allegations have substance it is interesting to ponder the potential ramifications, as necessarily there would need to be some.

The Crows have said little publicly.

They have however asserted they went to the league voluntarily to seek clarification of certain arrangements. Arrangements they have euphemistically described as a ‘gentleman’s agreement’, presumably with the intention of suggesting something less than binding.

The Crows position would be somewhat hollow if it transpires that their disclosure followed a threat by Tippett’s lawyers to enforce the arrangement through the courts. In that case the deal would have become public. Clearly the Tippett camp has a vastly different view as to the enforceability of the arrangement.

It is pertinent to note that the negotiations with Tippett in 2009 were conducted in the context of Tippett being a major target of the newly formed Gold Coast Suns. As Tippett hails from Queensland it was quite understandable he would be attracted to playing in his home state and correspondingly attractive to the Suns.

The consequence being that Tippett became the Crows’ highest paid player.

What shocked the Crows three years later was not so much the decision of Tippett to leave the Crows as this had been widely anticipated, but his decision to join the Sydney Swans rather than returning home to native Queensland.

A move to either of the Queensland clubs would have been far more palatable given they are not seen as being in serious premiership contention at this time. The Swans on the other hand are an already strong club who will be formidable opponents in an era where the Crows have serious designs for a flag.

When considering possible defences, it could well be expected the Crows may say they were simply stating the obvious. That rather than allowing a player to go into the draft for which it would receive no return, that it would not object to a trade where at least a second round selection was received.

For the player there was the confidence of knowing he would end at the club of choice and not be at mercy of the draft as is currently the case.

For the player and club, the logic is impeccable. The issue however is whether this compromises the trade rules. Whether it undermines the concept that an out of contract players submits to the draft for the benefit of all, and particularly the lesser performing clubs.

If Tippett asserts the arrangement was enforceable, it constitutes a term of his contract and is required to be disclosed.

Players are required to file Statutory Declarations to confirm the signed contract lodged with the League contains all the terms of any agreement.

The lawyers for Tippett or perhaps the Swans would need to have factored into their deliberations that any decision to enforce the agreement or take Adelaide to court may be an admission of a breach of league rules and likely to result in an investigation.

A review of the tactics of the parties at the end of the saga will make fascinating reading as there appears to be a degree of ‘brinkmanship’ from both sides resulting in the present position which is potentially bleak for all concerned.

From the Crows point of view if there was ever uncertainty as to the arrangements, then the appropriate time to have sought clarification from the league was at the outset, not the end when relations had soured.

There is no escaping the fact that full disclosure would have avoided the problem if the deal was so innocently made as the Crows wish the public to believe.

It is more difficult to anticipate a plausible explanation for a $200,000 payment. Perhaps it was intended a local sponsor would provide employment or promotion opportunities to the agreed figure.

There are rules around third party arrangements. The Chris Judd and Visy Board arrangement however suggests a degree of flexibility for marque players which it would be expected would include a player such as Tippett.

The curious aspect is that the Crows are said to have had sufficient room in their salary cap to have accommodated the payment in any event.

If the payment was simply an undisclosed payment in breach of rules then it deserves condemnation. It warrants ramifications for the relevant participants concerned. This includes the player, the manager, the representatives of the club who negotiated the arrangement and all those who had knowledge of it.

The administrators of the Crows at the relevant time include experienced CEO Stephen Trigg and Football Operations Manager John Reid who seems to be implicated in communications.

If Trigg had knowledge of the arrangements, his position becomes untenable. That should be a given. At best, even if an explanation is proffered, it may well indicate such a lack of judgement that the Board could not in all good conscience retain him.

That of course assumes the Board had no knowledge of the circumstances, and it would be staggering to think that they would. The Board is entitled to delegate this aspect of the conduct of the club to the executive staff, and it would be expected they would have sought assurances from their CEO that the club was complying with league rules.

Carlton is the last club to have received a significant penalty for a deliberate breach of player rules. Their $900,000 plus fine and loss of draft picks for two years severely affected the club, and properly so.

The Blues supporters have long memories and would no doubt seek similar penalties regardless of whether the facts are entirely comparative.

In an episode like this, it would be presumed the player would be a knowing and willing party. The obligation to submit a Statutory Declaration with the league ensures this is the case.

At least in the NRL Melbourne Storm controversy the players were able to assert limited knowledge as to how their contracts affected the clubs overall salary cap position to escape a level of scrutiny and penalty.

Here, however, the issue is confined the very contract Tippett has signed.

The inquiry has already resulted in Tippett not being able to achieve a trade to the Swans at this time and running the risk of being forced into the draft.

Greater Western Sydney have made noises to the effect that they may recruit him.

Why a club would want to pay a truckload of money for a player who does not want to pay with them is a separate issue. Given, the comments would have come from the wily Kevin Sheedy, one suspects it is another Giants media opportunity rather than being a serious consideration.

If the allegations are true, Kurt Tippett would have real cause for concern as he would be at risk of deregistration for an extended period. The precedent being Greg Williams, who was suspended for eleven weeks in 1992 for breaching league rules.

If Tippett is found to have offended, he won’t suffer in isolation. Tippett is represented by a player agent. Player agents are accredited to operate in the AFL.

They undertake to act in the best interests of the player and within the rules of the League. The AFL has the power to cancel the registration of the agent as was the case with the high profile but out of control Ricky Nixon.

Peter Blucher of Velocity Sports is Tippett’s manager. He acts for a host of players including Tom Scully, Jonathan Brown and Simon Black, having had dealings with Brendan Fevola.

He would have been involved in negotiations, recommendations to Tippett and the documentation of the deal. The explanation for the failure to document material conditions will be eagerly awaited.

Blucher has a media relations and journalism background which he may need to revisit in a worst case scenario.

Of interest is the role of the Swans and their state of knowledge of events. Whether they could in any way be said to be complicit will be interesting to find out.

There is insufficient material to hazard an opinion so far. The talking point will be the close relations of the player manager with the CEO of the Swans, Andrew Ireland.

The two worked together at the Brisbane Lions during their glory era. Currently Ireland’s daughter works for Velocity Sports. This all adds to the intrigue.

It is said these events create the potential for a court challenge. There are veiled threats that if Tippett does not get to his club of choice, or is deregistered for a significant period, he could challenge the league player transfer rules.

It would be ironic if a player found to have acted dishonestly and flouted the rules was to resort to the Courts to protect his career and bring about fundamental change to the way the AFL operates.

There are a number of lawyers who are of the view that the current trade rules would not stand up to scrutiny. The recent allowance of “free agency” may in part be recognition of this and have been designed to strengthen the league’s position.

The current league rules are a restraint of trade. It is a question of whether the restraint is reasonable for the benefit of the competition for it to be legitimate.

The AFL would argue that the restraint has been necessary for the preservation of the game and instrumental in its growth and current record levels of interest. They would argue that the rules have improved the position of players by increasing the numbers of players in the game and their current salary levels.

The alternate position is that the AFL is a mutli-million dollar business underwritten by media deals and does not need such prohibitive rules which limit a players ability to earn income and play for their chosen club in their chosen state.

It will be a brave player or club which takes on the league. It should also place the Players Association in a difficult position given the potential for harm to the struggling clubs such as Port Adelaide, North Melbourne, Footscray and Melbourne.

These clubs are not travelling so well financially that they could afford a change which will necessarily benefit the wealthy clubs.

There is the potential for a direct impact on players stocks if the change ultimately results in the net loss of two clubs or an unequal competition a la soccer. It makes this episode such a compelling story.

In short, players, their agents and administrators must be accountable for their actions. Integrity in sport both on and off the field is imperative.

The allegations if proven amount to deceptive conduct, despite the Crows protestations that their motives were innocent and genuine.

If so, the penalties must reflect the gravity of the conduct. It is not difficult to envisage the loss of a CEO, deregistration of the player and manager for some time, and for the club to receive a significant fine plus the loss of draft selections for a year or two.

We will know the answer shortly as the position needs to be clear before the impending trade period, given the effect upon two clubs and a number of players, not just Tippett.

The Swans Jessie White for example would have been traded as part of any Swans-Tippett deal. His career is in currently in limbo and that is part of the tragedy.

It is not just about Kurt Tippett. It is unclear where this will all end, but what is apparent is that there will be significant losers. It is a question of who, and how many.

Watch this space.