If that were true and could be proved I would think the MFC could have grounds to sue the AFL. There is a fair difference between a club constructing their affairs to advantage themselves (within the rules) as opposed to the overseer of the competition constructing things to advantage one team to the detriment of another.........oh! Hang on, silly me! The AFL has been doing that for decades!!

Carlton receptionist, "It's Visy calling Mr. Judd they need you to come in and get your annual pay check. They haven't seen you since you got your check last year."

i don't believe that players Tank. The risk of serious injury is too great. The MFC had to tank harder against Richmond because both sides were absolute rubbish. Against Carlscum they just left Trapper roam free to kick goals.

well explain how trapper johnstone got 40+ kicks with no-one within 10m of him if players didn't tank

and how did we thrash a side that was roughly at our standard if not slightly better

Players were told to stay off Trapper, no doubt. That is following the coach's instruction in my book. Players do not Tank. You drop that 3-5% in intensity then you get bumped without being ready for it. Snap of bone etc happens.

I shall never agree that players Tank. It is actually life threatening.

Players were told to stay off Trapper, no doubt. That is following the coach's instruction in my book. Players do not Tank. You drop that 3-5% in intensity then you get bumped without being ready for it. Snap of bone etc happens.

I shall never agree that players Tank. It is actually life threatening.

If the coach gave a player an instruction to tank and the players agreed then the players tanked. It's quite simple and a different proposition to playing players out of position and leaving key players on the bench at critical times and for long periods. The Carlton players tanked.

If the coach gave a player an instruction to tank and the players agreed then the players tanked. It's quite simple and a different proposition to playing players out of position and leaving key players on the bench at critical times and for long periods. The Carlton players tanked.

No the players did not tank, that would take an agreement by ALL players on the ground. The coaching staff tanked games certainly as Bails said in his final press conference. Players do not tank once they cross the white line. As i said it is dangerous to even think that. Just think neck or spine.

No the players did not tank, that would take an agreement by ALL players on the ground. The coaching staff tanked games certainly as Bails said in his final press conference. Players do not tank once they cross the white line. As i said it is dangerous to even think that. Just think neck or spine.

What about $cully this season? IMO tanked every minute of every game he reluctantly played in.

What about $cully this season? IMO tanked every minute of every game he reluctantly played in.

Interesting point and one i have thought about. As $cully was a midfielder and as such inside the heat, i don't think he did tank. What he did do was just enough. I do believe though that in the final game i saw him play against carlscum in the clash atrip $cully definately positioned himself wide of the action. I watched him do this through binoculars for most of the game. I knew that was the last time i would see him play.

No the players did not tank, that would take an agreement by ALL players on the ground. The coaching staff tanked games certainly as Bails said in his final press conference. Players do not tank once they cross the white line. As i said it is dangerous to even think that. Just think neck or spine.

we are talking here of Carlton not Bailey. You already agreed that Ratten told his players (or some of them) to not go near Trapper and that they didn't. That therefore makes them complicit in tanking.

Like I said, simple logic

DC - being told not to go near TJ and telling someone 'on' him to find the footy are not the same thing, but they get you the same result.

Players don't tank.

we are talking here of Carlton not Bailey. You already agreed that Ratten told his players (or some of them) to not go near Trapper and that they didn't. That therefore makes them complicit in tanking.

Like I said, simple logic

NO. I am talking about player welfare. Players on the field do not Tank. It's dangerous. A coach can give instructions to steer clear of an opposition player. There is a difference.

NO. I am talking about player welfare. Players on the field do not Tank. It's dangerous. A coach can give instructions to steer clear of an opposition player. There is a difference.

Rubbish (re the player welfare argument)

If the instruction to steer clear of a player is obviously intended towards not performing at best or losing a game then it is tanking. If the player then under instructions allows his player to beat him pointless then he is tanking too regardless of whether he was following instructions or not. It didn't work at Nuremburg and it doesn't work here

Anway getting back to the original claim by you that McMahon Cup was the most blatant example of tanking.

My belief is that the Kreuzer Cup was more blatant (or at least as prominent and obvious)

If the AFL was so upset about McMahon Cup and wanting to extract some payback, why weren't they equally looking for payback over the Kreuzer Cup

DC - being told not to go near TJ and telling someone 'on' him to find the footy are not the same thing, but they get you the same result.

Players don't tank.

right............sure............(cough)

.

Rubbish (re the player welfare argument)

If the instruction to steer clear of a player is obviously intended towards not performing at best or losing a game then it is tanking. If the player then under instructions allows his player to beat him pointless then he is tanking too regardless of whether he was following instructions or not. It didn't work at Nuremburg and it doesn't work here

Anway getting back to the original claim by you that McMahon Cup was the most blatant example of tanking.

My belief is that the Kreuzer Cup was more blatant (or at least as prominent and obvious)

If the AFL was so upset about McMahon Cup and wanting to extract some payback, why weren't they equally looking for payback over the Kreuzer Cup

.

Let's just agree to disagree because my opinion of these events will not change DC. my views are not Rubbish they just differ to yours.

In the McMahon Cup the coach tanked but the players tried to win.......result close game lost by kick after siren In the Kreuzer Cup the coach tanked and the players tanked..........result scum lost by a walkover you tell me which was more blatant

I agree the kreuzer cup with witnall not kicking more than 25 meters

I agree the kreuzer cup with witnall not kicking more than 25 meters

That would have been an instruction from the the Coach's Box, i have no doubt.

I am not disputing the Kreuzer Cup game did not go on....just from where it was managed.

Obvious tanking has been going on for over 10 years . The AFL changed the rules on priority picks about 5 years ago it was so bad .

I don't know why so many on here feel guilty - I don't .

There's only about 3 or 4 Clubs that haven't tanked . 9 clubs received a priority draft pick ( before the 1st round ) in the years 2003,2004 and 2005 .

The reason they don't cop it ? At a guess "out of sight, out of mind" and "strength in numbers"

Hawthorn and Collingwood tanked to win Flags - fact . Carlton tanked to get Gibbs , Murphy , Kreuzer and Judd - fact .

The reason the Demons copped it so much is largely unexplainable . Maybe we're just an easy head to kick .

Or , people started looking more around the T$ time period . Before that people turned a blind eye .

That would have been an instruction from the the Coach's Box, i have no doubt.

I am not disputing the Kreuzer Cup game did not go on....just from where it was managed.

History now tells us that instead of it being called the "Kreuzer Cup" , it should be called the "Chris Judd Cup" .

From memory , there were rumours that he wanted to come home to Victoria but this was not set in concrete until after West Coast's Finals campaign .

It then became a bun fight for Judd's signiture and guess what , Carlton had the best bargaining tools . Kreuzer went on to the backburner .

Who cares about theories or Scully, we have got lucky they wanted Tom.

He cant kick and is about as manly as Bryce Gibbs.

Not sure many of our players would be fearful of playing on Tom Scully, put it that way.

Even if his knees hold up - which I doubt, he is part female, its already inbuilt.

Not sure many of our players would be fearful of playing on Tom Scully, put it that way.

Even if his knees hold up - which I doubt, he is part female, its already inbuilt.

Then why did the MFC use a number one pick to draft him??

Then why did the MFC use a number one pick to draft him??

Because they thought he would most likely leg it after one contract.

Win win.

For all you conspiracy theorists who enjoy these, here is one to consider.

Could the AFL have masterminded the whole Scully scenario from the very time he was first chosen by Melbourne at the draft. Demetriou was clearly sick of defending tanking and it really hit the headlines as a result of some of our performances. He orchestrates GWS taking him away from us and we get compo picks that while ok are not the real worth of what was lost, a number 1 draft pick player two years into his development.

The headlines early on when Scully announces he is off are massive publicity for the new club and he hurts Melbourne for blatant tanking. He then praises an illegal act by the GWS in trying to hide the father's contract with GWS at a heavily inflated price and duration, even though the league investigator has called the deal a total sham.

It all has a ring of truth to it now, doesn't it?

sorry late coming to this... but this is essentially what some of us suggested a long time ago and were thought crazy. Its still along bow perhaps but in light of Vladium slips of the mouth possibly not as long as we might have thought.

There's two games in town today...one with a oval ball on green grass and another off field played with smoke and mirrors.

Quite frankly this has smelt dodgy from the start. Further to this conspiracy notion I have always thought ( and wrote ) that I sense Jim seriously twigged to it early on and the club ( mfc) has been playing its own game there-after.

Because they thought he would most likely leg it after one contract.

Win win.

sorry i do not see that as a win.

sorry late coming to this... but this is essentially what some of us suggested a long time ago and were thought crazy. Its still along bow perhaps but in light of Vladium slips of the mouth possibly not as long as we might have thought.

There's two games in town today...one with a oval ball on green grass and another off field played with smoke and mirrors.

Quite frankly this has smelt dodgy from the start. Further to this conspiracy notion I have always thought ( and wrote ) that I sense Jim seriously twigged to it early on and the club ( mfc) has been playing its own game there-after.

How early on is the question Bub? I Must admit I'm a little surprised at the deafening silence coming out of MFC in light of all the recent public knowledge of this whole facade. There was never a level playing field for us trumping GWS offer for TS whilst his Dad was already employed by them. I get the feeling our hands have been tied for well over 12 months and settled on 2 compensation picks quite some time ago

How about the possibility that Jimmy knew the whole story a long time ago, as did Vlad, and that the favourable compensation picks were sorted out at the time, under the condition that Jimmy didn't open his gob? And that if he did, Vlad would make sure that the compensation would be worse than agreed at the time.

How about the possibility that Jimmy knew the whole story a long time ago, as did Vlad, and that the favourable compensation picks were sorted out at the time, under the condition that Jimmy didn't open his gob? And that if he did, Vlad would make sure that the compensation would be worse than agreed at the time.

I think Jim knew something was up a long time ago, from that newspaper article about "kids having to lie"...but i doubt it would be to the extent we are now finding out about...

How early on is the question Bub? I Must admit I'm a little surprised at the deafening silence coming out of MFC in light of all the recent public knowledge of this whole facade. There was never a level playing field for us trumping GWS offer for TS whilst his Dad was already employed by them. I get the feeling our hands have been tied for well over 12 months and settled on 2 compensation picks quite some time ago

If I may have a go at answering your question. And for those of you who are still scratching your heads ...

1. My estimation is that alarm bells were going off at the club around about the time $cully flew the coop in China. Surely someone at the MFC would've twigged to the correlation between his homecoming and the GW$ window for talking to uncontracted players.

2. Nothing can be proven of course, but then you have Eddie McGuire coming out in March with his on-air rumour mongering setting the whole publicity train in motion.

3. The club, now seriously worried (but still in the dark), confronts the player who - on the instruction of his manager - lies to Stynes and Schwab is then pressured into making that ill-advised press conference.

4. A few weeks go by and, presumably having difficulty looking at himself in the mirror having lied to a football legend battling cancer, $cully comes clean in a private meeting with Stynes and a select few club brass. My guess is that this happened as early as May.

5. The MFC, gobsmacked that it has been blindsided in such spectacular fashion, goes into damage control. They are cool-headed enough to understand the ramifications of the situation and so we play out the charade accordingly. Our only interest from there on in was to lobby for the highest band of compensation, while keeping individual reputations (including their own) intact.

6. How do we go about doing this? We manufacture a phony $3 million/5 year offer for the player, showing how massively we rate $cully and then have it leaked to the media (which has already had details of GW$ $5 million offer leaked to it). In addition, Schwab goes into bat for $cully live on SEN, defending the guy's reputation ... an act mirrored by $cully's manager who gives a bizarre set of interviews doing exactly the same thing.

7. Finally, we witness the final scene in the whole sorry drama, complete with the bogus 'last minute upping of the offer' from GW$ and intelligence-insulting 'touring of the facilities' by the boy wonder himself.

8. Schwab goes before the cameras to hammer home our case for compensation, careful not to bite the AFL hand that feeds him but insistent that $cully will become the highest paid player in history and therefore we deserve top tier compo (which we are duly awarded, as much for playing along with Vlad's Circus as we are for actually being dudded of our number one draft pick).

* Someone above alluded to the fact that the MFC have remained eerily silent on events that have unfolded in recent weeks. I think the version of events I've given above would explain why.