On 30/10/2012 at 23:36, mjt said:

you never answered the question, were the players instructed to lose?

Don't bother, most people don't understand what "tanking" means.

  On 30/10/2012 at 22:47, rpfc said:

I have been very adamant about the fact that nothing would happen vis-a-vis the Clothier Investigation.

But I didn't account for one thing - the AFL losing control of their investigators.

Tanking needs a narrow and deep definition for legal purposes. Telling players to lose would sum up that definition.

Every other thing that clubs have done, and will do, in losing seasons is not tanking. You can't prove it and as long as the 22 you send out there are trying to win you are safe because when it comes down to it - that is all that matters.

If the Commission wishes to make an example of us we will blow this up in the courts.

F___ them.

We are no-one's patsy.

The best post of all on this subject.

The first thing a court would do is examine what "tanking" actually means. Did the MFC say to the players, OK guys, today I want you to go out there and lose. Or better still, any body lining up from within 40 metres needs to aim to miss. Now that would be tanking.

List and player management? Now that's another thing entirely and every club does it to varying degrees. If the AFL pursues this to the point of sanctions, they will walk out of a court room very red faced. While we are at it, we will go them for damages.

This entire issue is a crock.

Some key factors in our favour.

1. everyone knew and understood it was to the MFC's advantage to lose those games.

2. at the time CS was supported by AD who in effect "approved" our strategy.

3. the previous year we have experienced Carlton doing exactly the same thing we were to do the next year, and get away with it.

4. the rules in this area are ill-defined unlike salary cap breaches, and to date no club has been sanctioned for "tanking".

5. analysis of the finishing positions of many clubs over the past decade indicates a broad statistic trend toward "tanking" by many clubs.

6. the then president is unavailable to be called to the stand (apologies if this sounds callous), so unable to prove it was a decision of the "club" or several over-zealous administrators.

7. the MFC has lost many games, and had bad, worst seasons than the year they "tanked".

8. the evenness of the AFL competition will be damaged by the AFL hand the MFC sanctions. Any fine would most likely be paid by the ALF anyway.

9. the MFC may be prepared to take the AFL to court to contest any sanctions they may seek to impose

That said, when the dust settles I'd be keen for the club to move those involved in this period on, and ensure such foolish episodes are avoided in the future.

  On 30/10/2012 at 23:38, iv said:

The best post of all on this subject.

The first thing a court would do is examine what "tanking" actually means. Did the MFC say to the players, OK guys, today I want you to go out there and lose. Or better still, any body lining up from within 40 metres needs to aim to miss. Now that would be tanking.

List and player management? Now that's another thing entirely and every club does it to varying degrees. If the AFL pursues this to the point of sanctions, they will walk out of a court room very red faced. While we are at it, we will go them for damages.

This entire issue is a crock.

Iva, the thing is that we could've got away with the "List Management" line, but c0ck head CC (alledgedly) called a meeting to discuss plans to not win too many games. That's why the "others" that have done it have gotten away with it.

  On 30/10/2012 at 23:38, Clint Bizkit said:

Don't bother, most people don't understand what "tanking" means.

Clint - what does "tanking" mean? (Serious question - hoping for serious answer!)

  On 30/10/2012 at 23:38, iv said:

The best post of all on this subject.

The first thing a court would do is examine what "tanking" actually means. Did the MFC say to the players, OK guys, today I want you to go out there and lose. Or better still, any body lining up from within 40 metres needs to aim to miss. Now that would be tanking.

I've maintained a similar point of view, however I think there is one exception.

If (big if) they find proof that the motivation for playing players out of position, resting players and alike was to deliberately lose then I would classify it as tanking. But, the evidence for this motivation needs to be concrete.

  On 30/10/2012 at 23:38, iv said:

The best post of all on this subject.

The first thing a court would do is examine what "tanking" actually means. Did the MFC say to the players, OK guys, today I want you to go out there and lose. Or better still, any body lining up from within 40 metres needs to aim to miss. Now that would be tanking.

List and player management? Now that's another thing entirely and every club does it to varying degrees. If the AFL pursues this to the point of sanctions, they will walk out of a court room very red faced. While we are at it, we will go them for damages.

This entire issue is a crock.

Yep agreed,

Nothing will come of it in the end except maybe a little slap on the wrist as a face-saving measure by the AFL. It's a massive can of worms and we're not the only club involved either. They won't risk it.

  On 30/10/2012 at 23:44, billy2803 said:

Clint - what does "tanking" mean? (Serious question - hoping for serious answer!)

Broad definition to me would be: to consciously gain advantage though losing.

  On 30/10/2012 at 23:44, billy2803 said:

Clint - what does "tanking" mean? (Serious question - hoping for serious answer!)

Deliberately trying to lose.

Winning not being a top priority isn't tanking. Fremantle didn't deliberately try to lose when they rested ten of their best players in Tasmania, but on that day winning wasn't their number one priority.

Why hasn't the club come out and complained loudly about the AFL Investigation leaking like a sieve?

Whatever happened to due process or isn't that in the AFL's lexicon of Integrity?

I'm really started to develop a persecution complex here

  On 30/10/2012 at 23:44, billy2803 said:

Clint - what does "tanking" mean? (Serious question - hoping for serious answer!)

CB agrees with me that it should be narrow and deep.

Players being told to lose.

Therefore, we didn't tank.

Sorry to speak for you, CB.

  On 30/10/2012 at 23:47, daisycutter said:

Why hasn't the club come out and complained loudly about the AFL Investigation leaking like a sieve?

Whatever happened to due process or isn't that in the AFL's lexicon of Integrity?

I'm really started to develop a persecution complex here

Yeah, no sh!t.

The AFL seems to have lost all control of their little Elliot Ness...

  On 30/10/2012 at 23:43, billy2803 said:

Iva, the thing is that we could've got away with the "List Management" line, but c0ck head CC (alledgedly) called a meeting to discuss plans to not win too many games. That's why the "others" that have done it have gotten away with it.

The AFL and it's star chamber investigators can hypothesise all they like - and may I say, many on here are doing just that - but at some point you have to define - CLEARLY - what the parameters are, which constitute 'tanking'. Again, what does it mean? What constitutes serious tanking and what does not? Where do you draw the line?

If the AFL wants to go down this path, it does so obiter dictum, - which means a remark or observation made by a judge that, although included in the body of the court's opinion, does not form a necessary part of the court's decision.

Like I said, this is a crock and only designed to massage Carro's ego and salve the souls of Demon haters.

Look it's a small point but it shows how hyberbole can inflate the situation ...

"The Vault" is not a conspiracy to tank. It was the nickname for a portable building used as the FD meeting room at the Junction Oval. I went to a post-draft members meeting in "the Vault" with Barry Prendergast in 2008 - tanking was not discussed. The meeting that has been raised in The Age may have taken place in the Vault but that's as far as it goes.

I think a little less panic is advisable.

  On 30/10/2012 at 23:38, why you little said:

ask Dean or his boss. I wasn't in the room. Neither were you

its the coaches that have tanked not the players, i think you will find that penalties handed down wont be that severe, on one side people will give evidence , and the people on the other side will deny it, but there is now way they have instructed players to lose, and if they did Mclean and others would have already spilled there guts like the rats that they are.

  On 30/10/2012 at 23:47, PaulRB said:

Broad definition to me would be: to consciously gain advantage though losing.

Broad definitions are not helpful if you want to beat a MFC employed QC.

And people 'conciously' gain from losing all the time.

Doesn't mean you contravened the rules or brought the game into 'disrepute.'

The fallout from this may be a tipping point for me...

I'm surprised the AFL gave "Your mum gave me AIDS" McLean's comments enough credence to launch an investigation.

Further, it's amazing it was an investigation of substance when considering that 'proving' tanking would not suit the AFL's agenda nor Demitriou's. The findings combined with the cheif's past statements make him look a real dill.

I'm saddened but given its track record not at all surprised that the club has completely ballsed this up. I was pro tanking but in fairness I did think the pack of dills running the joint would be a little more subtle than having secret "vault" caucus meetings. I'm a little disappointed I wasn't invited it seems as though every other c*** was there.

Finally, a giant middle finger to the rats. Dean Bailey was a terrible coach, he almost effed up losing & copped a 31 goal hiding - that's his legacy. I don't by the "poor Dean the admin was mean" line - Bailey must've in some ways agreed with tanking - if he didn't he would've done better in 2008 than taking a side that 18 months previous had made 3 consecutive finals series to 3 wins for the season.

However my greatest hate goes towards *spits* Prendergast - tanking delivered him a recruiting managers wet dream & he delivered Watts, Blease, Strauss, Scully, Gysberts, Tapscott & Cook with his top 20 picks - the only one he got right was Trengove & he's captain. Go figure.

So it's not enough that this d-head stuffs our rebuild by a terrible array of draft choices he then drops us further in the [censored] by squealing like a stuck pig when interviewed by the AFL's goon squad. The only solace I get from it is that his career & reputation will be destroyed.

The club could well be staring down the barrel of massive draft sanctions, financial penalties & possibly the stripping of premiership points. The sheer incompetence of this monumental [censored] up pretty much warrants it. But it would just about be the end for me as it would eliminate hope for another decade. I imagine many others would feel the same & drop off - the flow on effects from this would mean the club would revert to complete basketcase.

Ultimately it's going to be the fans that suffer these penalties the most. We've had to pay our hard earned to watch this dross for the past six years - heavy sanctions will ensure this continues. While the fools that bungled this will surely be run out of the club/game they were earning hundreds of thousands of dollars for running the club into the ground during this time. They should be thrown in jail as frauds.

  On 30/10/2012 at 23:47, Clint Bizkit said:

Deliberately trying to lose.

melbourne was incapable of doing anything deliberately id suggest.

The players would have been playing to win...just couldnt

  On 30/10/2012 at 23:47, Clint Bizkit said:

Winning not being a top priority isn't tanking. Fremantle didn't deliberately try to lose when they rested ten of their best players in Tasmania, but on that day winning wasn't their number one priority.

They were entitled to play as they saw fit to suit a bigger picture ...so did we.

  On 30/10/2012 at 23:48, rpfc said:

CB agrees with me that it should be narrow and deep.

Players being told to lose.

Therefore, we didn't tank.

Sorry to speak for you, CB.

I'd love to have your optimism RPFC and hope that I am wrong, but I reckon we are farked. We've made Vlad look like a drip (which I know isn't hard) he's going to be baying for blood, just like the media.

Again I'd love to have my tail tagging between my legs on this one, but alas I think we're into deep.

  On 30/10/2012 at 23:51, Fifty-5 said:

Look it's a small point but it shows how hyberbole can inflate the situation ...

"The Vault" is not a conspiracy to tank. It was the nickname for a portable building used as the FD meeting room at the Junction Oval. I went to a post-draft members meeting in "the Vault" with Barry Prendergast in 2008 - tanking was not discussed. The meeting that has been raised in The Age may have taken place in the Vault but that's as far as it goes.

I think a little less panic is advisable.

Well, there you go.

The meeting wasn't called 'The Vault of Evil Deeds' as Wilson and others have implied.

The effing room was called the Vault.

Doesn't mean much outside of a HUN headline but the connotations are obvious and wrong.

  On 30/10/2012 at 23:47, daisycutter said:

Why hasn't the club come out and complained loudly about the AFL Investigation leaking like a sieve?

Whatever happened to due process or isn't that in the AFL's lexicon of Integrity?

I'm really started to develop a persecution complex here

Me too.

I've always had this inkling the AFL hired guns for hire in Sheahan and Wilson to help them out now and again in leaking headlines.

The last words from AD or AA after the leak..are reminiscent of the penguin from Madagascar: "You didn't see anything...."

  On 30/10/2012 at 23:47, Clint Bizkit said:

Deliberately trying to lose.

Winning not being a top priority isn't tanking. Fremantle didn't deliberately try to lose when they rested ten of their best players in Tasmania, but on that day winning wasn't their number one priority.

I'm not trying to be a smart a$$, but a lawyer would have a field day with that definition, plain and simply, because that's not the definition!

How's this definition;

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tank

"Slang To suffer a sudden decline or failure".

Tanking DOES NOT mean to tell players to lose. There is no formal definition of it meaning "to intentionally lose".

  On 30/10/2012 at 23:37, timD said:

Seriously, talk about baby and bathwater. Hazy has an ageda - wow, you noticed - and what he intimates still deserves consideration. It is intellectual short-stepping to 'go' hazy and fail to consider that issues he raises about coporate governance and performance on the board and admin at the club.

So you're talking about posts on another thread ?

I'm purely responding to his "squibbing" comments on this particular one. And you talk of rhetoric ? If you can highlight one post with substance he's made on this thread be my guest.

How you can endorse anyone that has a clear and deep-seated agenda, as you've acknowledged, but never contributes in any positive or meaningful way is beyond me. Your choice, of course. I'd have far more respect for them and their position if they did. But clearly that's beyond their capacity.

  On 30/10/2012 at 20:03, monoccular said:

Dont forget the at least two of the "powerhouse clubs", both starting with C, did whatever it is that we are alleged to have done: use the AFL's own rules to maximum advantage.

Which AFL rule have we allegedly broken anyway? Please quote.

Calm down mate, I'm on your side. I don't think we should be in trouble or punished. But when you're a club that is held up by the AFL you can't just go storming in yelling and screaming and telling them to get f$%#@d... Need to be smart, reasonable, and patient with this matter, too much is at stake.

  On 30/10/2012 at 23:51, mjt said:

its the coaches that have tanked not the players, i think you will find that penalties handed down wont be that severe, on one side people will give evidence , and the people on the other side will deny it, but there is now way they have instructed players to lose, and if they did Mclean and others would have already spilled there guts like the rats that they are.

i tend to agree with you, but i still believe too many ears heard the agenda including players.

Not cool at all.