There is a rule but it is quite ambigious. Whispers are that it will people rather than the club that pays. Idea being the players and supporters don't deserve it. Even heard that we traded our picks because we knew it was coming and that the AFL may delay the decision until after the draft. Rumour abound. All questionable of course.

But I agree with Eddie and Ian Collins. The AFL created the loop hole and punishing us now will just mean more handouts later but with more dejected supporters

The only precedent of taking away draft picks was for was black and white. Players were paid under the table and the amounts were not recorded under the salary cap.

Our tanking is black and white...no wait...grey....maybe light grey...could it be that there was any tanking at all - was it list management - was winning secondary to thinking to the future - what exactly is tanking ?????

You see the difference ?

Edited October 31, 201212 yr by nutbean

The speculation is also being driven by a journalist who clearly has a vendetta against Schwab. Wilson has always lacked a semblance of credibility. She jumps the gun with heresy and innuendo. I maintain the AFL will do nothing about this. It's a can of worms they don't want to open. They'll release articles like today, with Vlad sprouting things such as the AFL won't tolerate anyone undermining the rules, but ultimately will do nothing.

Its nothing to do with Wilson. It was our MFC that broke the rules with so much stupidity that it's going to hang for an offence no other club has even been seriously accused of.

we can only hope!!

The speculation is also being driven by a journalist who clearly has a vendetta against Schwab. Wilson has always lacked a semblance of credibility. She jumps the gun with heresy and innuendo. I maintain the AFL will do nothing about this. It's a can of worms they don't want to open. They'll release articles like today, with Vlad sprouting things such as the AFL won't tolerate anyone undermining the rules, but ultimately will do nothing.

We can only Hope!!!!

Let's talk about sanctions once there is proof that MFC people have engaged in activities that require punishment. Until then, this is all hearsay and speculation.

Its nothing to do with Wilson. It was our MFC that broke the rules with so much stupidity that it's going to hang for an offence no other club has even been seriously accused of.

accused of.

Has anyone considered that if they take pick 4 off us this year, they are likely to also remove our 2nd round pick ie. Viney?

As Viney is still yet to sign a contract with the Melbourne Football Club, which he can only do AFTER the National Draft - it means that Viney is not technically on Melbourne's books.

IF Melbourne are found guilty for deliberately throwing games to ensure priority selections, the ramifications will mean that Melbourne miss out on the first three rounds of the National Draft.

Put Simply, picks that are in the first three rounds in the National Draft are pick 4, 27 and pick 49.

Pick 27 has bee assigned to Jack Viney.

For those of you not catching my drift, it will mean that Melbourne will NOT be able to take Viney at pick 27 as that pick, amongst others will be stripped off Melbourne.

It means that Jack Viney would go into the draft like most other hopeful draftees, and could end up anywhere in the country.

The only way the dees could still secure Jack Viney is if teams decide to pass on him.

If teams do pass on him, the dees could select him with their fourth round selection, at pick 70.

Given that Jack Viney is considered to be a top 10 talent, one would suggest that he would be well and truly snapped before pick 70.

On a side note, wouldn't it be ironic that the team that Melbourne allegedly "tanked" in, against Richmond, could be the very team who could take him inside the top ten in this years draft?

There could still be hope for Melbourne fans, that the AFL might show some sort of "mercy" or "empathy" for the dees, and allow them to take Viney regardless, however I would imagine it wouldn't sit well with opposing supporters.

But i am tending to believe this more I think you are wrong with this. Under father-son rules Melbourne must use their next pick after the one that another club nominates Viney. Regardless of whether that is pick 26 or 70 it won't matter. Viney will be a demon in 2013.

But i am tending to believe this more I think you are wrong with this. Under father-son rules Melbourne must use their next pick after the one that another club nominates Viney. Regardless of whether that is pick 26 or 70 it won't matter. Viney will be a demon in 2013.

Correct viney will be a demon regardless and I'm certain if the afl bend us over which I can't see happening all 17 clubs would pass on viney out if respect and allow us to take him with whatever pick we have left!

If all our games are for no points - like the sanction for Melbourne Storm - it might harden us up and build some character. Leave our current draft picks alone - history shows we haven't benefited from them. It didn't hurt Storm and is not playing to lose. Next year we get pick 9 as a default option.

For those of you not catching my drift, it will mean that Melbourne will NOT be able to take Viney at pick 27 as that pick, amongst others will be stripped off Melbourne.

It means that Jack Viney would go into the draft like most other hopeful draftees, and could end up anywhere in the country.

Actually, no. We are obliged to use our next pick after the rival bid to take Viney. If they take away our pick 27, we would then be obliged to take him with our next pick (forty-something?). We still get him.

Regardless, the AFL can't afford to take picks off us for this years draft, because the first thing the club does in reply is get a court order preventing the draft from taking place until our legal challenge is heard. The AFL can not reasonably hold the draft while those picks are in dispute as, should the challenge fall in our favour, they would then be forced to hold it over again, remove players from teams who have already signed them etc. It would open a massive can of worms that the AFL simply could not afford. What if a player is drafted by his dream club, signs a contract and is then told that his contract is void and he needs to go in the draft again? I think he'd have a very good case to challenge that as well.

Even if they somehow manage to find cause to penalise the club, they will not dare try to mess with this year's draft.

Extreme masochist.

We are a laughing stock for what has happened over the past 4 years.

There has been very little to be proud about.

We continue to be a C grade circus act.

So, how would you change things, maybe we should get you to take the role of CEO.

I honestly cannot believe the last 12 months we have had. For all the good work carried out by Schwab, Stynes, McLardy and co, you have to ask how we are in the situation we are in today. Why are languishing on the bottom of the ladder so long after starting a rebuild, why are we plums deep in a massive investigation that potentially has huge ramifications, while other clubs have done the exact same thing have managed to do so without being probed so thoroughly by the AFL.

We as the supporters of this club, who fork out are hard earned on memberships and debt demolition campaigns, don't ask for much in return, but I have never been so disillusioned with supporting a club as I am supporting the MFC right now. I consider myself as passionate and loyal a supporter as possible, and I am not going to say I am not renewing my membership etc, but if I am feeling so disillusioned with all this, then I really worry about all the fair weather fans and family members that, like it or not, are crucial to sustaining this club's future. The board really need to get on the front foot and do something about this, otherwise I fear that all that will be left of us are the couple of hundred die hards that post on here.

Sorry for the rant, but my missus wasn't interested in listening to my speil, so I thought you lot might relate more.

Dont worry - most of the fair weather supporters of the dees I know havent been back since Jnr was given the flick...

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/150573/default.aspx

The AFL will not hurt the club but it will take down the 2 or 3 that thought of this great tanking idea.

You cant take it out on the members and the players who had no hand in any of this.

Come to think about it Andrew and Adrian thought of this great idea of tanking ,and they know it.

Edited October 31, 201212 yr by BIG JIM

I understand the premise of taking down the individuals involved, and not harming the club/supporters, but that wasn't the outlook taken to previous punishments for salary cap rorting etc. And Adelaide fans certainly don't deserve to cop it over the Kurt Tippett saga any more than we do. To be honest, if the AFL take out a few individuals over this, then they could be doing us a favour, ridding the club of incompetent administrators who have held the club back.

http://www.afl.com.a...73/default.aspx

It definitely makes sense. Bailey didn't want to do what he did, he was forced into by those above him, so the people who forced his hand should be the ones punished, not the whole club along with the supporters! its good to see that not everyone is against melbourne through this even eddie maguire seems to be against the investigations!

Edited October 31, 201212 yr by young dee enthusiast

I take it that you were at that meeting and heard everything that was said??????....Otherwise pure speculation and until it is sworn to via affidavit or a court of law...It is heresay evidence......So many experts these jurnos with not having to PROVE anything

I don't need unequivocal evidence to have an opinion on this.

Keep your head in the sand as long as you like.....................we appear to have the big top, jugglers, clowns, and audience in place.............once the ringmaster/s are confirmed, the circus will be complete!

it is hearsay. It is a meeting. No directive was ever given to the players to lose games. case closed. Can we get on with trying to not have a stressful freaking time supporting this club?

it is hearsay. It is a meeting. No directive was ever given to the players to lose games. case closed. Can we get on with trying to not have a stressful freaking time supporting this club?

This club is making it very freaking difficult for us.

Has anyone considered that if they take pick 4 off us this year, they are likely to also remove our 2nd round pick ie. Viney?

If this happens - that's it. Shut the place down.

This isn't the AFL's fault this happened, it's the MFC's fault plain and simple.

It's the fault of a weak culture, and managerial incompetence.

A 10 person meeting to conspire the deliberate loss of football matches.................it tells you everything you need to know about those involved.

Perhaps when Schwab was dicking around with the new club emblem, he could have included a symbol that represents the clubs interest or intent to win every game we participate in, or does that go without saying????

\

your the type of supporter who will just accept anythying, if the AFL bend us over and do what they want to do you will go, oh well its our fault we deserve everything we getl Grow some balls and stand up for your club you weak lily-livered 'supporter'

\

your the type of supporter who will just accept anythying, if the AFL bend us over and do what they want to do you will go, oh well its our fault we deserve everything we getl Grow some balls and stand up for your club you weak lily-livered 'supporter'

I find this really offensive. He is not saying anything of the type.

He is saying it's the fault of the MFC.

How can you disagree with that?

No, I forgot. It's a big AFL, Caroline Wilson, Damien Barrett, Brock Mclean, etc, conspiracy against Melbourne.

it is hearsay. It is a meeting. No directive was ever given to the players to lose games. case closed. Can we get on with trying to not have a stressful freaking time supporting this club?

Caro herself has said that some players actually refused to tank

Is it tanking if it can be proved (!) that one or two players didn't try - or does it have to be 6 .... or 11 ....or....

So what if Connolly reminded the coaches that some stakeholders would be pee'd off if we didn't get a priority pick.?After all a lot of Carlton supporters would have been pee'd off if their team had blown the Kreuzer Cup. Connolly is a bit of a feisty little bloke with a cryptic turn of phrase and a sardonic sense of humour. The club has since taken him out of the Footy Department

Is Brock McLean ( who said at the time that he left the club because he got tired of driving to Casey) a credible witness. The captain of the day has clearly said that the team was never instructed to lose. The lawyers will have a field day

Edited October 31, 201212 yr by hoopla