Sanctions

[Guest fitness]

For me the AFL, and most commentators, have completely failed to recognise the key point in the whole affair.

That being that Melbourne 'tanked'. Of course we did. We did so because we were incentivitsed to do so within the rules of the competition. Why hide from the fact? But why seek to punish the club for doing nothing against the rules... that is where the AFL has completely dropped the ball. I still struggle to comprehend what Brock actually said which warranted an investigation commencing...

As an MFC fan it sickens me that our club leaders made the choice to do this. But rightly or wrongly they did it because they felt it was in the club's best long-term interests. I don't buy the argument that the club deserves to be punished - yes we tanked but technically we have done nothing wrong.

[Samsara 65]

Shock. Horror. Gasp.

The MFC involve themselves in a practice that many clubs have engaged in due to a stupid system introduced by the AFL and we are the ones that get crucified and (probably) punished for it.

[Ouch! 2,215]

In the scenario that the AFL chose to penalise us this year (by excluding us from the first few rounds of the draft) I can't see any way it could impact upon Viney,

Ultimately it just would mean that MFC would have to use their first available pick for Viney. That would be late in the draft, but we can still use it. The only reason that pick 27 or 28 is pencilled in is because thats our next pick after Port nominated that they would take him (I think it was Port).

Losing 4 would hurt, and as others have said, Carlton got penalised only a few days before the draft when they got hit with penalties, so don't think it's too late for anything to happen this year. The only difference is that the MFC could chose to take it further (i.e court) and maybe stay any penalty until after that had run it's course, which would likely buy time, but not change all that much.

[rpfc 28,070]

I'm sorry but this is no time for hand-wringing and blood letting.

There is the AFLverse's version of Elliot Ness out there doing what the AFL does not want him to do, with supposed evidence of what he believes is tanking to string us up with.

We can do our quiet removal of rubes and idiots later on, right now we are resolute.

We didn't tank.

[jnrmac 19,928]

Does anyone think we have not been the worst team for 4 years???

(expansion teams excluded)

Unlike West Coast who miraculously finished last and then 4th, unlike the Filth who finished second last and them finals or Carlton who fished last 3 years running and then whoosh.

Unfortunately other clubs don't have motor mouths running around shooting their mouth off.

[cowboy_from_hell 2,390]

If any sanctions were to come I just want them to hurry up so we can move on. Our list isn't great but we are lucky it's young so if draft picks are taken we won't be completely stuffed. We will just be a pretty ordinary team in that time and I'm quite used to that.

[Waltham33 475]

Unfortunately other clubs don't have motor mouths running around shooting their mouth off.

Culture

[olisik 4,060]

Unfortunately other clubs don't have motor mouths running around shooting their mouth off.

Other clubs interview players and do psych tests ect

While we end up with McLeans, Moloneys, Scullys who just like to burn the club who drafted/traded/looked after them for their own self interests.

[Mac7 309]

The problem is that there is no defence, as we have to cop whatever penalty the AFL dishes out.

There is no way we would take the AFL to court.

Disagree, I think there will be discussions between the AFL and MFC, if they take pick 4 , this will go to court.

[reynolds46 1,112]

In the scenario that the AFL chose to penalise us this year (by excluding us from the first few rounds of the draft) I can't see any way it could impact upon Viney,

Ultimately it just would mean that MFC would have to use their first available pick for Viney. That would be late in the draft, but we can still use it. The only reason that pick 27 or 28 is pencilled in is because thats our next pick after Port nominated that they would take him (I think it was Port).

Losing 4 would hurt, and as others have said, Carlton got penalised only a few days before the draft when they got hit with penalties, so don't think it's too late for anything to happen this year. The only difference is that the MFC could chose to take it further (i.e court) and maybe stay any penalty until after that had run it's course, which would likely buy time, but not change all that much.

If the AFL introduce sanctions on the MFC that will have significiant ramifcations for the club and competition within the next 3 weeks before the ND then they will have acted impetuously and without regard for due process. 3 weeks out nothing of substance has been raised by the AFL just a lot of media rumours and innudendo. The AFL would be shooting itself in the foot by making any rash decisions on this matter in that time frame.

Edited October 30, 2012 by reynolds46

[beelzebub 23,240]

There will be NO sanctions, there will however be a tightening of descriptions of various AFL rules and guidelines re priority assitance etc.

The AFL by any definition is a political beast. There'll be no upsetting of apple-carts here lest one is found to be poisoned and inadvertently consumed by the AFL itself.

Word is Anderson is out buying up all the whitewash he can grab !!

[Longsufferingnomore 1,622]

For me the AFL, and most commentators, have completely failed to recognise the key point in the whole affair.

That being that Melbourne 'tanked'. Of course we did. We did so because we were incentivitsed to do so within the rules of the competition. Why hide from the fact? But why seek to punish the club for doing nothing against the rules... that is where the AFL has completely dropped the ball. I still struggle to comprehend what Brock actually said which warranted an investigation commencing...

As an MFC fan it sickens me that our club leaders made the choice to do this. But rightly or wrongly they did it because they felt it was in the club's best long-term interests. I don't buy the argument that the club deserves to be punished - yes we tanked but technically we have done nothing wrong.

We didnt tank. The players were not instructed to lose games. We did not tank.

[ben russell 764]

Let's just all take a deep breath and calm down. The majority of you worry far too much. No sanctions have been handed out as yet and there may not be any handed out by the end of the investigation.

Start stressing IF we are hit with sanctions, until then just chill out..

[jabberwocky 2,301]

Signed statement of testimony by more than one witness at this vault meeting would be a very big smoking gun.

Exactly, and I would be surprised if this actually occurred. Witnesses in this instance have little to gain.

It's one thing having a whinge to the media, another thing entirely to sign up to it and be ready to jump in the box.

Get ready for the media outrage when the investigation finds insufficient evidence to charge the club.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

Unfortunately other clubs don't have motor mouths running around shooting their mouth off.

Correct, other clubs have done the same, the difference is that they have remained staunch and professional.

[Striker475 696]

Looking at it, my guess would be the AFL intended on using the draw to 'fine' the club by denying them gate receipts. Something that I honestly expected.

But on top of that, some sort of actual punishment and sanction is now possible.

All the good financial work done by Jim is going to go down the tube over the next 12 months.

[Ouch! 2,215]

We didnt tank. The players were not instructed to lose games. We did not tank.

This is a key piece of this whole investigation that has not been proven.

Players wouldn't need to be rocket scientists to know that they are being played out of position, and also the significance of getting early draft picks. Brock (and potentially Moloney) would have known something is wrong, they might have also sensed that Bailey was doing something that he might not have been comfortable in doing, but ultimately unless the players were explicitly instructed by someone at the club to lose then it doesn't fit my definition of 'tanking'

Regardless of the outcome and yes I suspect there is more pain, and more muckraking I think it has already caused enough pain to this club and it's supporters, and you can see why Neeld has done what he has done with the list, with the coaching group etc....

Just sick of it all, TBH.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Oucher

[DeeZee 7,347]

Disagree, I think there will be discussions between the AFL and MFC, if they take pick 4 , this will go to court.

You can't bite the hand that feeds you.

[Guest bluey]

Sanctions? Well you have got be found guilty first, agree with those whom say the AFL will tighten a few rules, and remove the prizes for being the biggest loser.

[Ouch! 2,215]

Looking at it, my guess would be the AFL intended on using the draw to 'fine' the club by denying them gate receipts. Something that I honestly expected.

But on top of that, some sort of actual punishment and sanction is now possible.

All the good financial work done by Jim is going to go down the tube over the next 12 months.

Hmmm seriously?

You think that a draw that is defined as the most complex draw in professional sport in Australia has a provision or parameter to punish the MFC for potentially tanking as part of how it is calculated?

Even if you separate out the actual teams playing each other from the venues and timeslots (I don't even know if that's possible) You do realise that with such a big TV deal, that the broadcasters want to maximise their exposure and return on the investment that they paid for?

We don't get Friday nights because we are at the bottom of the ladder. 4 other clubs aren't getting these games either.... I don't see anything in the draw that looks like we have been harshly done by.

I think you are jumping at Shadows Striker! Don't see any correlation between the draw and the tanking issue.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Oucher

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

Do we actually need another thread on this. Please close it down. It is becoming tedious.

[Ouch! 2,215]

Sanctions? Well you have got be found guilty first, agree with those whom say the AFL will tighten a few rules, and remove the prizes for being the biggest loser.

You must have really liked what you wrote to consider liking it yourself bluey!!

For what its worth, the AFL at a very minimum needs to do what you say, before it can look to penalise any of the clubs that took advantage of the situation presented to them.

[beelzebub 23,240]

mfcss is alive and well.. agree IWS... this thread ought not exist.. many other places the weak can bleat

[Mac7 309]

You can't bite the hand that feeds you.

You can if its feeding you with one hand and punching you in the nuts with its other!!

[wisedog 350]

Signed statement of testimony by more than one witness at this vault meeting would be a very big smoking gun.

From past examples, draft penalties hurt a club for up to 10 years.

In a year in which Melbourne effectively delisted a former pick 4, pick 11, pick 12 and pick 13, I’d say we’re all pretty familiar with the effects of draft sanctions!

As long as we can hold on to Viney, then along with Hogan and Barry we should be relatively shielded from whatever sanctions come our way. However, I would expect more pain in 2014.