I didn't. I have been clear about this issue all the way along. Its a media beat up that is going nowhere. I now believe where I previously expressed disbelief.

Rhino, my point is that in one sentence you state that it's all a media beat-up based on BM's comments (agree) and that it will go nowhere (disagree) because the AFL are all over it like a rash, probably more so now that when DB made comments.

I understand fully where the situation is but have a difference of opinion in just how serious this is. I hope it blows over and we all move on but there is a real perceived threat that it won't.

Rhino, my point is that in one sentence you state that it's all a media beat-up based on BM's comments (agree) and that it will go nowhere (disagree) because the AFL are all over it like a rash, probably more so now that when DB made comments.

I understand fully where the situation is but have a difference of opinion in just how serious this is. I hope it blows over and we all move on but there is a real perceived threat that it won't.

Brilliant post McQueen. It's a direct comment that is 100% accurate, and both sides of the opinion/arguement have to agree with these words. To be so adamant that the AFL will brush it under the carpet, it's just being plainly arrogant. You don't know what Vlad will do, so you can't be so sure what will happen. Chances are that you will turn out to be totally correct, but, as opposed to the "will he stay or go" arguement last year, no one in the football community knows what Vlad's next move will be. We hope, and expect that this matter will not go any further, but the more it lingers in the media (rightly or wrongly), and the more people open their mouth that have been associated with the Club, the more chance there is of the AFL doing "something" of more significance.

but, no one in the football community knows what Vlad's next move will be.

Any "moves" will only be predicated by evidence, as opposed to suspicions.

I find the likelihood that they'll uncover evidence to be remote.

Any "moves" will only be predicated by evidence, as opposed to suspicions.

I find the likelihood that they'll uncover evidence to be remote.

While there is a glimmer of possiblity, I put nothing past Vlad. None of us expected Gardner to open his mouth, or Mclean to be on tv talking about it, so anything is possible.

I don't expect anything will eventuate, but like a small few on here, I'm prepared for anything. It't the ones that are 100% convinced that I'm concerned about should some form of hard evidence be discovered. Unlikely, but it can't be ruled out given the events of the past week.

Any "moves" will only be predicated by evidence, as opposed to suspicions.

I find the likelihood that they'll uncover evidence to be remote.

I would think that McLean would have to confirm that they were directed to underperform and Bailey would have to confirm it - or there would have to be something about our "strategy" in writing. If they were to act on suspicions or even appearances then there are a few clubs in trouble.

I agree with you BH.

None of us expected Gardner to open his mouth, or Mclean to be on tv talking about it, so anything is possible.

I don't see the correlation. Vlad can only act on hard evidence not suspicion or on how it looked. As I said above there will be more casualties than us if he acts purely on suspicion.

I don't see the correlation. Vlad can only act on hard evidence not suspicion or on how it looked. As I said above there will be more casualties than us if he acts purely on suspicion.

I just can't see how the AFL can take action against us based on the hearsay of one ex-player. They would then have to look at Carlton based on the previous statements by Fev & Libba.

Am I right in saying that Terry Wallace has also been heard to admitting similar actions?

And they would surely have to take action against Sydney for Roos' actions in the NAB cup.

It's a big can of worms.

The right thing to do is remove the cause, not punish clubs for using a flawed system to try to improve.

I don't see the correlation. Vlad can only act on hard evidence not suspicion or on how it looked. As I said above there will be more casualties than us if he acts purely on suspicion.

I agree NB, but what I'm saying is that none of us know if there is any hard evidence. Someone MAY have sent an email to Bailey, who in the initial investigation chose not to surface it for the sake of the MFC. Perhaps Paul Gardner has seen evidence, hence him sticking his nose in.

I am in total agreeance that if there is no evidence, we SHOULD be fine. I just can't beleive some people are so convinced that there is nothing. How the fcuk do they know? However, I hope they're right! Until then, nothing is fact.

I just can't see how the AFL can take action against us based on the hearsay of one ex-player.

They won't take action unless they have hard evidence. No one is disputing that.

What I'm disputing is that how can posters on Demonland know that there is no hard evidence?

I agree NB, but what I'm saying is that none of us know if there is any hard evidence. Someone MAY have sent an email to Bailey, who in the initial investigation chose not to surface it for the sake of the MFC. Perhaps Paul Gardner has seen evidence, hence him sticking his nose in.

I am in total agreeance that if there is no evidence, we SHOULD be fine. I just can't beleive some people are so convinced that there is nothing. How the fcuk do they know? However, I hope they're right! Until then, nothing is fact.

There is nothing because the AFL's definition of tanking is so narrow that we didn't 'tank.'

Nothing will happen.

There is nothing because the AFL's definition of tanking is so narrow that we didn't 'tank.'

Nothing will happen.

It is most likely RP, that you will be correct.

Would be interesting if Bailey had an email from higher up saying along the lines of "as part of our red & blue print, we are relying on the highest draft picks possible. As we would qualify for an additional prioirty pick at the end of this season should we win 5 games or less, it would be in all our best interests to ensure this happens, so that we adhere to our (AFL approved) red & blue print."

Something's obviously been communicated to Bailey, and perhaps the leadership group, if this was verbal, you're right, nothing will happen. If by some unfortunate or incompetent reason that their is the sniff of a paper trail, then COULD be a different story.

Would be interesting if Bailey had an email from higher up saying along the lines of "as part of our red & blue print, we are relying on the highest draft picks possible. As we would qualify for an additional prioirty pick at the end of this season should we win 5 games or less, it would be in all our best interests to ensure this happens, so that we adhere to our (AFL approved) red & blue print."

Yeah, it COULD be a different story but when you wrote the passage above did you ever think to yourself in that 30 seconds 'no-one is ever going to write this?'

I am bloody certain JFK was killed by anti-Castro members of the CIA and the mob - but they never wrote it down...

Yeah, it COULD be a different story but when you wrote the passage above did you ever think to yourself in that 30 seconds 'no-one is ever going to write this?'

I am bloody certain JFK was killed by anti-Castro members of the CIA and the mob - but they never wrote it down...

Off the thread a bit but it astounds what people write in public forums these days like facebook, tweeter etc..

Don't they understand the results!

bloody classic rpfc.

there couldn't possibly be a paper trail purporting to such events, not only would someone need to be incredibly stupid to ever write such a thing but surely some 3 years down the track non-financial emails and documents have long been discarded.

the only thing that could bring us undone is if brock or another player states they were advised by a coach or official to not try and win and it can be coroborated by another party. anything less than that is heresay and non-evidential

Off the thread a bit but it astounds what people write in public forums these days like facebook, tweeter etc.. .

Don't they understand the results!

Without meaning to offend - they are idiots.

Am I right in saying that Terry Wallace has also been heard to admitting similar actions?

Terry Wallace admitted to not doing everything in his power to give the Tigers the best shot at winning against St Kilda in Round 22 2007 knowing that a win would cost them Trent Cotchin. Instead of making odd positional changes, he became a spectator and let the game play out.

There is nothing because the AFL's definition of tanking is so narrow that we didn't 'tank.'

Nothing will happen.

I am firmly in the maybe camp on evidence. A year ago I would have said "Surely a club couldnt be that stupid to have any incriminating evidence"- that was right up until Tommy Voldemort flatly denied that any contact had been made with himself or his family or agent and 6 months later the AFL says " Sorry GWS, Fat Phil who you hired 12 months ago is part of your salary cap". Clubs can be that stupid.

Edit: after having re-read I think I still have to go with "Surely a club couldnt be that stupid"

Edited August 3, 201212 yr by nutbean

Would be interesting if Bailey had an email from higher up saying along the lines of "as part of our red & blue print, we are relying on the highest draft picks possible. As we would qualify for an additional prioirty pick at the end of this season should we win 5 games or less, it would be in all our best interests to ensure this happens, so that we adhere to our (AFL approved) red & blue print."

Godwin Grech has the e-mail.

They have interviewed Mclean already so we should have some sort of statement from the AFL shortly.

In the Age there is an article about it and at the end there is a comment from a very nervous Ratten.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/tanking-cynicism-wont-go-away-matthews-20120803-23kov.html

But Carlton coach Brett Ratten, who has previously faced AFL questioning over suggestions the Blues tanked during his first games in charge in 2007, said experimenting with positions did not equate to trying to lose.

Ratten said moves such as Melbourne forwards Matthew Bate and Brad Miller spending time as midfielders and big man Paul Johnson playing on Tigers small forward Nathan Brown during the 2009 clash could have reasonable explanations.

"These things are tried and I feel for the coaches," Ratten said.

"Matthew Bate has played centre square for Melbourne before that game, I know that, I've seen it, we've coached against them.

"We don't look right back to it, we just pick and choose what we want to from the tape on that certain day."

I wonder if he has had a word to the Brockster?

They have interviewed Mclean already so we should have some sort of statement from the AFL shortly.

In the Age there is an article about it and at the end there is a comment from a very nervous Ratten.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/tanking-cynicism-wont-go-away-matthews-20120803-23kov.html

But Carlton coach Brett Ratten, who has previously faced AFL questioning over suggestions the Blues tanked during his first games in charge in 2007, said experimenting with positions did not equate to trying to lose.

Ratten said moves such as Melbourne forwards Matthew Bate and Brad Miller spending time as midfielders and big man Paul Johnson playing on Tigers small forward Nathan Brown during the 2009 clash could have reasonable explanations.

"These things are tried and I feel for the coaches," Ratten said.

"Matthew Bate has played centre square for Melbourne before that game, I know that, I've seen it, we've coached against them.

"We don't look right back to it, we just pick and choose what we want to from the tape on that certain day."

I wonder if he has had a word to the Brockster?

If we go down so do Carlton...

If we go down so do Carlton...

Moreso in my opinion. The stakes for Carlton in the last rouind of '07 were huge. They wanted and needed Kreuzer but they also knew they were getting Judd and therefore needed the other pick despite the construct that happened post season.

Interesting that Denham got off his Melbourne bashing and tipped the bucket on WCE for their strange positional moves against Freo a couple of years back. A caller rang in to justify it but Denham went position for position, made interesting listening and Bailey's moves against the Tiges were conservative compared to what Worsfold did in that game.

I still don't know how they can prove anything.

Matthew Bate in the middle? Welcome to 2012.

Frawley up forward? Is that worse or better than Rivers and Garland up forward?

Paul Johnson down back? Stef Martin has successfully played down back. So has Sellar. Both have also rucked and played forward.

Unless you have physical evidence of officials or players discussing 'tanking', you can't prove sh*t.

We lost the game after the siren because a player who couldn't hit the side of a barn, kicked a goal from 50meters out. That would never have happened, if like Carlton, our players were told to go out and lose.

At least our players weren't missing shots on goal from 20meters out, and at least we didn't leave their best players unmatched so they could accumulate 40+ possessions.

I repeat, you can't prove sh*t. All you can categorically say is that we have been a terrible footy side for many years, and we deserve the priority pick more than Collingwood, Hawthorn and West Coast ever did!

There is no law that any player must play in any particular position. It becomes farcial.

Very poor form, copying a private email into an internet forum.

Any way, Paul is telling the truth, have never met one real person who doesn't believe Melbourne set up to lose.

Only a fool would think otherwise.

And sure, others did it, a bit like murder I suppose, doesn't make it righteous.

righteous?????

What like brown paper bags?

Like the Cowboy knocking out opponents in finals, or Dermie, or Dipper, or Andrews????

Or, Rhys-Jones/Williams/Evans/Mitchell/Spalding???