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

That depends how much weight you want others to give your opinions.

To put all the arguments in our favour into one post:

1. What IS tanking? You're allowed to experiment with players in different positions (Garland was at FF and Bate in the midfield this year, and we weren't accused of tanking!). You're allowed to send players off for surgery in the middle of the season to best prepare them for the pre-season. You're allowed to play young players to try and get games into them. You're allowed to drop senior players. There's no minimum number of rotations per game. Everything we did was within the rules.

2. The players were never told to lose. Sure, they may have felt like they were being set up to lose, and that the board wanted them to, but they tried to win. Even Wilson said so.

3. From the time of the alleged tanking, Bailey is gone. The assistant coaches are gone. Stynes is gone. The majority of players are gone. Why should the current players, coach and President be punished for things that they didn't do?

4. The AFL were the ones that dangled the priority pick in front of us. Of course a club is going to be tempted to get the priority pick if they are near the bottom. What incentive do they have to win? The AFL allowed this to happen.

5. Many of the witnesses are no longer working for the MFC. How can their testimony be taken as gospel, when many of them left unwillingly? They may have vendettas against the MFC because of the way that they were dismissed.

I just don't see how we can be sanctioned for this. The MFC will win if it goes to court.

To all of those who say that we won't take the AFL to court if they sanction us, I ask, why not? We have a case. We can't go down without a fight.

\

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'

Haha................that's funny, outstanding response!

No I'm the type of supporter that doesn't buy the victim mentality many on here are espousing.

That if the club finds itself having to answer questions regarding its integrity, that those making management decisions within the club have played a role in this being the case.

That the MFC has former employees lining up to put the boots into the club says much about the management of our stakeholder relationships.

The club should absolutely fight this to the hilt, and do everything it can to clear its name, but at some stage those managing the club will need to assess their role in this, and ensure the clubs integrity is never questioned in such a manner again.

That depends how much weight you want others to give your opinions.

It would be a pretty boring forum to visit if every poster waited for undisputable facts before offering an opinion.

I'm more than comfortable sharing my views on a balance of probability basis, and if wrong,..........well opions can change.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/150595/default.aspx

Thisarticle says down the bttom that we could be stripped of pick 27. That wouldn't be bad at all as we would just have to use pick 50 (or what ever it is) on viney instead. Pick 4 can't be used for a father son pick because it is a compo pick so if that is all they take then its happy days! I still get the feeling though that we won't have much happen.

Changes have been made. Give Neeld a chance.

Neeld isnt the problem,even less so than Bailey and the senior players were.

The admin,presumably some of the Board and Holywood Boulevard are the likely culprits and must be drummed out so Neeld and Craig can start again.....if they want to, and with or without Viney,Hogan and Wines.

Dont get me started on Schwabb

Edited October 31, 201212 yr by IRW

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!

Based on my discussions with some players and what I've read to date, I don't believe there's any truth to this.

At the Debt Demolition Dinner in 2011, I spoke to (amongst other players) Stef Martin. This particular dinner was held during the period in which Todd Viney was the senior coach, and prior to the appointment of Mark Neeld.

Stef Martin kept saying what a relief it was that Viney was at the helm. Specifically he said Bailey seemed to over-work and over-analyse absolutely everything, and it didn't seem like football anymore - rather, it seemed like going to high school everyday - 8am to 5pm stuff. With Viney at the helm, it felt much more like a footy club again - to him at least. It was back to basics.

In short, I left those discussions not thinking we were dealing with a coach who had been instructed to tank by those above him. In fact, it seemed the opposite to me. And finally the board had taken the tough decision to stop mucking around with an approach that wasn't working and to try and straighten things up again.

To put all the arguments in our favour into one post:

1. What IS tanking? You're allowed to experiment with players in different positions (Garland was at FF and Bate in the midfield this year, and we weren't accused of tanking!). You're allowed to send players off for surgery in the middle of the season to best prepare them for the pre-season. You're allowed to play young players to try and get games into them. You're allowed to drop senior players. There's no minimum number of rotations per game. Everything we did was within the rules.

2. The players were never told to lose. Sure, they may have felt like they were being set up to lose, and that the board wanted them to, but they tried to win. Even Wilson said so.

3. From the time of the alleged tanking, Bailey is gone. The assistant coaches are gone. Stynes is gone. The majority of players are gone. Why should the current players, coach and President be punished for things that they didn't do?

4. The AFL were the ones that dangled the priority pick in front of us. Of course a club is going to be tempted to get the priority pick if they are near the bottom. What incentive do they have to win? The AFL allowed this to happen.

5. Many of the witnesses are no longer working for the MFC. How can their testimony be taken as gospel, when many of them left unwillingly? They may have vendettas against the MFC because of the way that they were dismissed.

I just don't see how we can be sanctioned for this. The MFC will win if it goes to court.

To all of those who say that we won't take the AFL to court if they sanction us, I ask, why not? We have a case. We can't go down without a fight.

Very well put GTG.

If this were to go to court the burden of proof would lie with the AFL and there's far to much of a grey area for them to proove anything.

No doubt the legal advice Melbourne are receiving is worst case scenario and the AFL take your picks away, get an injunction to stop that from happening and take the matter to court where you'll be unlikely to be proven guilty.

Based on my discussions with some players and what I've read to date, I don't believe there's any truth to this.

At the Debt Demolition Dinner in 2011, I spoke to (amongst other players) Stef Martin. This particular dinner was held during the period in which Todd Viney was the senior coach, and prior to the appointment of Mark Neeld.

Stef Martin kept saying what a relief it was that Viney was at the helm. Specifically he said Bailey seemed to over-work and over-analyse absolutely everything, and it didn't seem like football anymore - rather, it seemed like going to high school everyday - 8am to 5pm stuff. With Viney at the helm, it felt much more like a footy club again - to him at least. It was back to basics.

In short, I left those discussions not thinking we were dealing with a coach who had been instructed to tank by those above him. In fact, it seemed the opposite to me. And finally the board had taken the tough decision to stop mucking around with an approach that wasn't working and to try and straighten things up again.

Look, Bailey and the MFC are two peas in a pod on this - we are in the same boat - we are Thelma and Louise - insert any other analogy/metaphor/pop culture reference...

He was doing what we wanted him to do and so he could have another very good player to put into his team. The fact that it all fell apart in 2011 is outside of that fact. Bailey was not some selfless sheep dog being told to do anything against his will.

We are in this mess together. He may work for Adelaide but in this mess he is a Demon.

Nothing has happened to change my mind on that.

Were he to 'roll over' on us he would be effectively ending his career in AFL footy and possibly footy in general.

I don't see it happening.

Were he to 'roll over' on us he would be effectively ending his career in AFL footy and possibly footy in general.

I don't see it happening.

Unless the AFL have offered him immunity in return for the 'truth'

Edited October 31, 201212 yr by Lucifer's Hero

Unless the AFL have offered him immunity in return for the 'truth'

Immunity to the head coach?

And the first coach to come out and say "I forfeited matches" will struggle to keep and get a job regardless of any AFL edict of absolution.

*"Forefeiting" is a term used by Wilson and doesn't capture the coaches role at all. It isn't to ensure losing - you can't do that (Jordie kicked straight?!) - it is to minimise the chance of winning. But that doesn't sound as sexy as "forfeiting" now does it, Caroline...

I personally doubt we'll lose this year's draft picks.

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

What I dont understand is where has it been said that the players were told not to try by the Club. Players have come out and said that they were not instructed to lose so how can CW claim that players "refused to tank". What they refused to go to the positions that they were told to - absolutely ridiculous statement. One of many from our dear Caro.

IF the MFC is found guilty of tanking, they should be stripped of all their premierships from the last 30 years and then allowed to move on.

Its all pointing to the club losing draft picks, who knows they might even take our pick no. 4 this year and take next years as well. A massive fine will kill us and losing a lot of draft piucks will as well, could mean the end of the club as we know it. I can only hope they do what Patrick Smith said this morning on SEN that they set clubs up for this so its the AFL's fault its happened. Also go back and Liberatore about Carlton, ask Collingwood about the year they deliberatley lost the last 8 games and picked up Pendlebury and Thomas or when St.Kilda got Reiwoldt and Kozcinski. West Coast went down for ONE year to get the wooden spoon and got Natinui. All these questions must be asked if they are going to stick the boot into us.

I've already cut my membership card in half, but have kept them to this point. I was going to send bits to different organisations over difeering issues in protest.

If the AFL scapegoats MFC over this I will send one hlf to the AFL & the other half to the media & I wil be done with AFL footy.

That will be it for me, & I won't come back to AFL ever.

This to me should be a amnesty for all the clubs to clear the air & move forward.

I'll be going golfing, fishing, & I may even take a storm membership.

3. From the time of the alleged tanking, Bailey is gone. The assistant coaches are gone. Stynes is gone. The majority of players are gone. Why should the current players, coach and President be punished for things that they didn't do?

Agree with all your points but this (at least some of it). Don McLardy was a board member and Vice President, Schwab is still our CEO, and Connolly is still here (although I'm not sure to what extent), sounds like the last two were key ring leaders in the direction the club wanted to take, thus far I haven't heard Don's name mentioned in anything. I agree that it doesn't seem fair to punish the current players and coaches for something done by a previous group, but unfortunately anything that is deemed to be done will surely come under the banner of the MFC. It was "list management" to help the MFC.

IF something were to come out of this, if it were serious enough I would fully support the club fighting this in court and I would hope that most members would as well. Some of the sanctions talked about have the potential to undo everything that was done on a commercial level by Jim Stynes, and set the club back years (after being in the doldrums for so long). I hope the AFL would consider this and consider how valuable the MFC is to the competition in TV rights, and not do anything that could threaten our long term sustainability. My belief is that they will almost do an MRP style settlement, "we'll take pick 4, and your first round for 2013, take it or we will throw everything at you".

Agree with all your points but this (at least some of it). Don McLardy was a board member and Vice President, Schwab is still our CEO, and Connolly is still here (although I'm not sure to what extent), sounds like the last two were key ring leaders in the direction the club wanted to take, thus far I haven't heard Don's name mentioned in anything. I agree that it doesn't seem fair to punish the current players and coaches for something done by a previous group, but unfortunately anything that is deemed to be done will surely come under the banner of the MFC. It was "list management" to help the MFC.

IF something were to come out of this, if it were serious enough I would fully support the club fighting this in court and I would hope that most members would as well. Some of the sanctions talked about have the potential to undo everything that was done on a commercial level by Jim Stynes, and set the club back years (after being in the doldrums for so long). I hope the AFL would consider this and consider how valuable the MFC is to the competition in TV rights, and not do anything that could threaten our long term sustainability. My belief is that they will almost do an MRP style settlement, "we'll take pick 4, and your first round for 2013, take it or we will throw everything at you".

Fair enough. But it should be these individuals who are sanctioned, not the club as a whole. There has been a massive turnover since alleged tanking took place, with very few players or staff remaining from 2009. The club should not suffer for the actions of a few.

One thing I haven't heard mentioned anywhere yet, amazingly really, is where in the AFL rulebook does it say that a team MUST attempt to win every game of football or suffer sanctions?

The only outcome from this should be clarity on what is tanking and rules that outline this and what the sanctions wil be. All that is happening now is history being rewritten so that what happened can be shown to be tanking to suit the agendas of Caroline Wilson etc.We can't be convicted of something that wasn't breaking any rules at the time it may or may not have occured.

Also, the people wanting us to be sanctioned - [censored] off and support Richmond or some other club.

IF the MFC is found guilty of tanking, they should be stripped of all their premierships from the last 30 years and then allowed to move on.

Could be a little soft. Might have to make it 50.

Of course the cowardly AFL/Caroline Wilson wait for our Chief Executive to pass away before dispensing rear-vision mirror justice. Tacitly approving a course of action previously adopted by other clubs who dropping down the list, then coming in with the killer blow at a time of their own choosing. And of course there are the expansion franchises to think of.

I personally doubt we'll lose this year's draft picks.

l don't think we will because this could go on for another month at least and the draft will be done and dusted by then.

This may have already been mentioned, but I reckon Free Agency will save us in the coming few years!

I second the bloke who says he will turn his back on the AFL forever if they penalise us or penalise us alone as the only club that allegedly tanked. Its a farse. We actually resisted tanking in 2007 and were ridiculed by the media for winning too many games.

Most likely if we are held up on this a patsy will emerge and Sheahan will get his board tilt.

I second the bloke who says he will turn his back on the AFL forever if they penalise us or penalise us alone as the only club that allegedly tanked. Its a farse. We actually resisted tanking in 2007 and were ridiculed by the media for winning too many games.

Most likely if we are held up on this a patsy will emerge and Sheahan will get his board tilt.

He will never be voted in.