The AFL cannot properly confine its tanking investigation to the last in a long line of clubs which recognized that the AFL rules rewarded teams who lost games

I was one of thousands of Melbourne supporters goaded by Carlton supporters for losing the Kreuzer Cup. Make no mistake the football public ridiculed poor old Melbourne because it was outmanoevred by Carlton - even though the scoreboard had Melbourne in front when the siren sounded, Carlton supporters were the ones who went home happy.

An Assistant Carlton Coach Tony Liberatore came out and said that Carlton had tanked. The AFL turned a blind eye - just as it had done when Collingwood rested half its list a few years before - and when Hawthorn experimented with a losing handball-handball-handball game plan a couple of years after that.

Melbourne decided it wasn't going to be dudded again - it was going to follow the path of the power clubs. The AFL had developed a system that encouraged teams to bottom out - now it was going to be Melbourne's turn. Melbourne followed the leaders.

Now on the back of an outburst by a disgruntled former player reinforced by a sacked coach and a discredited recruiter the AFL has decided to dig back into the past. ............. selectively................ not to the heart of the issue let alone to those who first seized on it - but just far enough to catch out the last club in the line.

It would be unconscionable for the AFL Commission (under the Chairmanship of a former Carlton Captain) to strike at the heart of one club having stood by while others ( demonstrably Carlton) who wrote the book - stand back and laugh.

Melbourne supporters would not have cheered home Jordan McMahon's kick if the AFL hadn't effectively sanctioned Carlton's victory in the Kreuzer cup two years before

It is the integrity of the AFL that is really on the line here

The AFL would be best to re write some rule definitions and call a truce.

Whether they do it is another matter.

More than one club is at risk here.

Agree that the decision made will have far reaching ramifications.

Thats why i cant see a resolution before draft day, and why i am somewhat comforatable with the way things currently sit

It was interesting to read that Dumbitriou once again invoked "integrity" in his statement today, yet failed to mention the widely questioned 3 strike drug policy, sanctioning of the $cully double dealing etc etc.

Nor did he of course refer to the game that really put tanking on the map, when Brock McLean's chosen club won the Kruzer Cup in laughable circumstances. Had we managed to lose that one would we have been investigated for tanking earlier? Nor Collingwood, or Hawthorn.

Did he mention that only one club has actually won the hated fifth game when four would have resulted in a priority pick.....and that club did it twice? Now who was that? Melbourne of course.

Did Bailey, Schwab, Connolly or was it the ailing Jimmy who kicked the after siren goal to get the Toiges over the line?

Jimmy said in his book that we didn't tank, though had mixed feelings about results, but of course he can't be cross examined. Are the AFL questioning his integrity? I recall that Junior said the same. But, no, they choose to follow up on the oblique accusations of a rather dimwitted disgruntled ex player.

His selective reference to integrity absolutely stinks, but is nothing new.

What they should do is to not give away priority picks.

They should also instigate a system where the teams 9 to 18 draw out of a ballot , picks 1 to 10

Picks 11 to18 are then given in order from 8th to 1st.

This should eliminate tanking in the future.

Agree that the decision made will have far reaching ramifications.

Thats why i cant see a resolution before draft day, and why i am somewhat comforatable with the way things currently sit

What decision?

It was interesting to read that Dumbitriou once again invoked "integrity" in his statement today, yet failed to mention the widely questioned 3 strike drug policy, sanctioning of the $cully double dealing etc etc.

Nor did he of course refer to the game that really put tanking on the map, when Brock McLean's chosen club won the Kruzer Cup in laughable circumstances. Had we managed to lose that one would we have been investigated for tanking earlier? Nor Collingwood, or Hawthorn.

Did he mention that only one club has actually won the hated fifth game when four would have resulted in a priority pick.....and that club did it twice? Now who was that? Melbourne of course.

Did Bailey, Schwab, Connolly or was it the ailing Jimmy who kicked the after siren goal to get the Toiges over the line?

Jimmy said in his book that we didn't tank, though had mixed feelings about results, but of course he can't be cross examined. Are the AFL questioning his integrity? I recall that Junior said the same. But, no, they choose to follow up on the oblique accusations of a rather dimwitted disgruntled ex player.

His selective reference to integrity absolutely stinks, but is nothing new.

The selectivity of the whole thing is the real story

This is what every Melbourne supporter - and every fair-minded journo - should be shouting about.

Oh ... and something else - is the AFL happy for delisted / transferred players and coaches to publicly slander their former clubs?

Integrity...

AFL...

Nope. Sorry. Can't help you there.

What decision?

I think that's 'the decision [to be made] will have far reaching ramifications'. Not that one's already been made. But who'd know?

The root cause of this mess is that the AFL draft system is broken.

Some sort of ballot system would help and would need to be weighted towards giving the bottom clubs more of a chance of winning in the ballot, balanced with the process being sufficiently "random" to discourage any thoughts of a club not putting their best foot forward over the course of the season.

So, how about...

• Each team, 9th to 18th, gets a number of balls (like tattslotto) and once one of their balls gets picked their other balls become dormant.
  
• The team that comes 9th gets 1 ball, 10th gets 2 balls... and so on until the 18th team has 10 balls in the system
  
• This means that there will be 55 balls in the system.
  
• 1st ball out is pick 1 in the draft, 2nd ball out becomes pick 2 (but not if it belongs to a club that's already landed a pick) and so on.
  

Therefore the probabilities of getting draft pick 1 are as follows:

9th Team = 1.82%

10th Team = 3.64%

11th Team = 5.45%

12th Team = 7.27%

13th Team = 9.09%

14th Team = 10.91%

15th Team = 12.73%

16th Team = 14.55%

17th Team = 16.36%

18th Team = 18.18%

What do you think, would this system be sufficiently random enough to create greater integrity within the system?

No matter what the AFL do with this investigation, they can't punish us because no rules were broken. They can show that players were played out of position (as they were this year, incidentally), and that players may have been dropped, although we had a crippling injury list that year, as we did this season. What they can't prove is that players were instructed to not win, or that players did not try to win. Without that, they have no chance of making charges stick, and if they try, Melbourne have a number of lawyers ready and waiting to take them apart in court. Added to this is the fact that if the AFL try to take draft picks away from us in this years draft, they will face the scenario of the draft being delayed by the courts while our legal challenges are heard. In both legal and common sense arenas we win. The worst they can afford to hit us with even if they try to find us guilty is a fine.

The AFL cannot properly confine its tanking investigation to the last in a long line of clubs which recognized that the AFL rules rewarded teams who lost games

I was one of thousands of Melbourne supporters goaded by Carlton supporters for losing the Kreuzer Cup. Make no mistake the football public ridiculed poor old Melbourne because it was outmanoevred by Carlton - even though the scoreboard had Melbourne in front when the siren sounded, Carlton supporters were the ones who went home happy.

Exactly...

there are nearly 40K members who pump money into the dees and by virtue of that the AFL who through no fault of their own may well turn their back permanently on the league if we are royally and utterly unfairly shafted in this investigation.

there are nearly 40K members who pump money into the dees and by virtue of that the AFL who through no fault of their own may well turn their back permanently on the league if we are royally and utterly unfairly shafted in this investigation.

Let's not put the cart before the horse here. Never underestimate the need for the AFL and several clubs have to cover their own arses* on this issue. It's in an awful lot of powerful people's interests that this thing goes away as painlessly as possible. It's like the Golden Rule for holding Royal Commissions - never ask a question if you don't already know the answer. They've already stuffed up by not whitewashing Chook's comments, and I'm sure they are all praying that this stuff doesn't snowball any further. Heads might have to roll to keep up appearances, but smashing us will only keep all this front and centre and cause more questions to be asked.

* Yes, it's also fair to never underestimate the ability of the AFL to make a knee jerk decision because of media pressure, but I think they are all too aware of just what is at stake here to do that this time.

What I find strange is they have already investigated this when Bailey made his comments upon leaving,and they found nothing.

Why then investigate us again?

When questioned about Libbas comments about the Blues, they state they have already looked into it.

Why then investigate us twice for the same thing?

Holes everywhere.

And the integrity of the MFC isn't in question is it?

"They did it, and didn't get caught, why can't we?"

I love that line of thought and reasoning...................it takes me back to being a child, and arguing with my parents.

Does the founding club of the AFL need to be told not to conspire to lose matches?

The AFL cannot properly confine its tanking investigation to the last in a long line of clubs which recognized that the AFL rules rewarded teams who lost games

I was one of thousands of Melbourne supporters goaded by Carlton supporters for losing the Kreuzer Cup. Make no mistake the football public ridiculed poor old Melbourne because it was outmanoevred by Carlton - even though the scoreboard had Melbourne in front when the siren sounded, Carlton supporters were the ones who went home happy.

An Assistant Carlton Coach Tony Liberatore came out and said that Carlton had tanked. The AFL turned a blind eye - just as it had done when Collingwood rested half its list a few years before - and when Hawthorn experimented with a losing handball-handball-handball game plan a couple of years after that.

Melbourne decided it wasn't going to be dudded again - it was going to follow the path of the power clubs. The AFL had developed a system that encouraged teams to bottom out - now it was going to be Melbourne's turn. Melbourne followed the leaders.

Now on the back of an outburst by a disgruntled former player reinforced by a sacked coach and a discredited recruiter the AFL has decided to dig back into the past. ............. selectively................ not to the heart of the issue let alone to those who first seized on it - but just far enough to catch out the last club in the line.

It would be unconscionable for the AFL Commission (under the Chairmanship of a former Carlton Captain) to strike at the heart of one club having stood by while others ( demonstrably Carlton) who wrote the book - stand back and laugh.

Melbourne supporters would not have cheered home Jordan McMahon's kick if the AFL hadn't effectively sanctioned Carlton's victory in the Kreuzer cup two years before

It is the integrity of the AFL that is really on the line here

I can remember reading the herald sun that year of the Kreuzer cup, & toward the end of the season I'm sure I remember reading many of the old car'ton players saying in the paper, how Kreuzer was too good to miss & car'ton should make sure to not get any more wins/points that would cause them to miss the priority pick & Kreuzer.

Coercing witnesses, releasing their statements to the media, selective investigations,ignoring tanking admissions from Libba and Fev, allowing GWS to induce Scully to leave the MFC while a contracted player, rigged fixturing, 3rd party payments for some clubs but not others, extra salary cap room for some clubs, larger lists for some clubs, better draft allowances for some clubs, oppression of some clubs by denying sponsorship options and denial of friday night viewing, etc, etc, etc.

Yes the AFL's integrity is in question.

And the integrity of the MFC isn't in question is it?

"They did it, and didn't get caught, why can't we?"

I love that line of thought and reasoning...................it takes me back to being a child, and arguing with my parents.

Does the founding club of the AFL need to be told not to conspire to lose matches?

I'm not sure what you are saying here - unless you are saying that we should have known better - and that we should be punished.

Perhaps you are right - but such an inconsistent and selective ruling would not reflect well on the AFL.

The AFL should not have given credence to Brock McLean's bitter self-serving comments. Now that they have done so they owe it to the competition to either admit their own mistakes and withdraw - or to fully investigate the Kreuzer Cup as well ..... and etc

Try as they might the AFL can't credibly pretend that this is just about one club

This is all kind of funny to me, here in the States tanking isn't THAT bad of a thing. I mean, it's looked down upon, but it'd never be investigated or anything like that. A few years ago the top draft choice in the NFL was Andrew Luck. Fans of teams in contention to finish last called it "Suck for Luck." Of course no coaches or players ever said they were tanking but among fans it's just kind of shaken off.

There's some evidence the Cleveland Cavaliers tanked to get Lebron James, but here in the states for some reason it doesn't have the same stigma that it does over there. Or maybe the leagues here just don't care.

This is all kind of funny to me, here in the States tanking isn't THAT bad of a thing. I mean, it's looked down upon, but it'd never be investigated or anything like that. A few years ago the top draft choice in the NFL was Andrew Luck. Fans of teams in contention to finish last called it "Suck for Luck." Of course no coaches or players ever said they were tanking but among fans it's just kind of shaken off.

There's some evidence the Cleveland Cavaliers tanked to get Lebron James, but here in the states for some reason it doesn't have the same stigma that it does over there. Or maybe the leagues here just don't care.

That's an interesting perspective, thanks for sharing.

I'm not sure what you are saying here - unless you are saying that we should have known better - and that we should be punished.

I'm simply saying a fair degree of self reflection is also needed in this whole issue, instead of the widely prevailing attitude of blaming everyone else for the clubs latest debacle.

It's Caro, it's the former players with axes to grind, it's Bailey, it's the AFL, it's the media's agenda to ruin the club...................no, it's the MFC who put itself in this position.

I'm simply saying a fair degree of self reflection is also needed in this whole issue, instead of the widely prevailing attitude of blaming everyone else for the clubs latest debacle.

It's Caro, it's the former players with axes to grind, it's Bailey, it's the AFL, it's the media's agenda to ruin the club...................no, it's the MFC who put itself in this position.

Yes it did - but that doesn't mean the AFL hasn't got an obligation to oversee the competition with an even hand

Just as you might wish to judge the MFC harshly - I think you have to judge the AFL just as harshly for its inconsistent and selective approach to this matter

This is all kind of funny to me, here in the States tanking isn't THAT bad of a thing. I mean, it's looked down upon, but it'd never be investigated or anything like that. A few years ago the top draft choice in the NFL was Andrew Luck. Fans of teams in contention to finish last called it "Suck for Luck." Of course no coaches or players ever said they were tanking but among fans it's just kind of shaken off.

There's some evidence the Cleveland Cavaliers tanked to get Lebron James, but here in the states for some reason it doesn't have the same stigma that it does over there. Or maybe the leagues here just don't care.

A point well worth bearing in mind.

Of course, drafting in US sports has a much longer history, time enough for conventions to emerge, realities to be accepted. Here, not only is it more recent, the AFL has tried to set itself up as a sports administration beyond reproach, so any chink in that armour was going to set off some sort of crisis. Tanking was probably all well and good when the power clubs used it to restore the natural order. But when the bottom clubs might just start climbing back up the ladder with lots of advantageous draft picks, suddenly it becomes noticeable.

Coercing witnesses, releasing their statements to the media, selective investigations,ignoring tanking admissions from Libba and Fev, allowing GWS to induce Scully to leave the MFC while a contracted player, rigged fixturing, 3rd party payments for some clubs but not others, extra salary cap room for some clubs, larger lists for some clubs, better draft allowances for some clubs, oppression of some clubs by denying sponsorship options and denial of friday night viewing, etc, etc, etc.

Yes the AFL's integrity is in question.

Yes, and if someone is run out of the footy business because of this, and decides to sue, it would be very interesting to see what would happen in a court case. I am sure there are a great many people working hard to make sure it never goes to court.