I'm sorry but this "we broke the rules, but others did before us" strategy is something that people normally grow out of by about 12. If there's an adverse finding, and I fear there will be, we should follow the Storm's example. Accept the sanctions; forget about enriching lawyers; show unity and strength; and work hard to succeed.

I am talking about honest reporting. Nothing to do with us in my post. SHE IS SELECTIVE IN WHO SHE WILL BUCKET. THAT IS MY POINT.

I'm sorry but this "we broke the rules, but others did before us" strategy is something that people normally grow out of by about 12. If there's an adverse finding, and I fear there will be, we should follow the Storm's example. Accept the sanctions; forget about enriching lawyers; show unity and strength; and work hard to succeed.

Wrong. Adults call it precedence.

In an area like this one, where the rules are ill-defined, it's the actions (and consequences) of others that serve to guide us...

I'm sorry but this "we broke the rules, but others did before us" strategy is something that people normally grow out of by about 12. If there's an adverse finding, and I fear there will be, we should follow the Storm's example. Accept the sanctions; forget about enriching lawyers; show unity and strength; and work hard to succeed.

Of course, the difference with the storm case (like our salary cap cheaters) is the there is chapter, verse and a book of accounts that demonstrates the breach of rules. So far, we haven't been charged with ANYTHING by the AFL / AFL commission. If we are charged with breach of some rule then the Club will seek advice (legal and other) about both the substance of the charge and the procedural fairness of the process that led to the charges being laid (e.g. entrapment?). Then a response will be developed. In the case of a breach of the salary cap regs, with evidence in black and white, taking it on the chin may well be the course advised - in the case of tanking, the whole think might be a murky shade of grey, and we may be advised that a challenge is sensible and required.

Sponsors, I am sure, are being kept well informed!

I'm sorry but this "we broke the rules, but others did before us" strategy is something that people normally grow out of by about 12. If there's an adverse finding, and I fear there will be, we should follow the Storm's example. Accept the sanctions; forget about enriching lawyers; show unity and strength; and work hard to succeed.

I agree that it is not a defense at all but the AFL must be aware that they cannot stop at prosecuting only the MFC. It is like the gun amnesty. If there were only 3 illegal firmarms out there the police would have prosecuted the crap out of the culprits but there were tens of thousands so what was the approach ? Hand them in and nothing more will be done but if you are caught next time ....ohhhh.....there will be trouble young man.

I would think that the last thing AD would want is to have to prosecute MFC followed by the baying of the media pack to take on Carlton, StKilda, Collingwood, WCE and Hawthorn....Understand that to find Melbourne guilty they will have to cite firm and concrete examples and then the AFL will be forced to apply the same test to others.

We have already been penalized for NOT TANKING. If we lost the Kreuzer Cup we would have had Nic Nat and Cotchin as Demons, two All Australians. Both potential champions. The other clubs laughed their heads off at us, as did blues fans.

Write about that Caro and show the world you can put some fairness in your vile, bitter, agenda driven reporting. I can just imagine the same reporting if the club was Richmond.

I'm sorry but this "we broke the rules, but others did before us" strategy is something that people normally grow out of by about 12. If there's an adverse finding, and I fear there will be, we should follow the Storm's example. Accept the sanctions; forget about enriching lawyers; show unity and strength; and work hard to succeed.

We didn't break the rules.

We did what teams do in losing seasons.

People need to get over that fact.

How would members feel if the punishment was stripping of the pick traded to Collingwood, i.e. Pick 20? Heard a rumour of that, [censored] source, but it got me thinking.

Given the extent of reported evidence (albeit testimonial), and the knowledge that the AFL will need to be seen to act on this, I'd be tempted to cop that punishment and run. Escaping with Viney, Hogan and Pick 4 would be a win.

How would members feel if the punishment was stripping of the pick traded to Collingwood, i.e. Pick 20? Heard a rumour of that, [censored] source, but it got me thinking.

Given the extent of reported evidence (albeit testimonial), and the knowledge that the AFL will need to be seen to act on this, I'd be tempted to cop that punishment and run. Escaping with Viney, Hogan and Pick 4 would be a win.

IF we are penalised (if) I cannot see it being a retrospective punishment.

Having said that I would have no problem if pick 20 was stripped from the Pies.( and can they strip GWS of pick 3 as well ?)

Could someone please point out to Caro, that her club the Tigers, got Trent Cotchin, their best player, after the Coach Terry Wallace has admitted that he did nothing at all in the Coach's box to try and win a game that they lost giving them the Cotchin pick.

Also that Dustin Martin is in trouble again and that new player Aaaron Edwards was arrested for being drunk a couple of days after joining the club. She is obviously unaware of these matters or they are simply not highlighted on her agenda.

She was asked about that a couple of days ago and said "you've gotta laugh". Her exact words, not misquoting or applying context as she evidently does.

I'm sorry but this "we broke the rules, but others did before us" strategy is something that people normally grow out of by about 12. If there's an adverse finding, and I fear there will be, we should follow the Storm's example. Accept the sanctions; forget about enriching lawyers; show unity and strength; and work hard to succeed.

You are wrong. The situation is not the same as 'he took a biscuit and didn't get into trouble, whhaaa' that one grows out of before the age of 12 (I hope). The difference is that we are competing with the other clubs that allegedly tanked. A better analogy is when there is prima facia evidence that you cheated in an exam where you were competing against someone else for a job. And there is similar prima facia evidence against that person but only you are investigated.

We have already been penalized for NOT TANKING. If we lost the Kreuzer Cup we would have had Nic Nat and Cotchin as Demons, two All Australians. Both potential champions. The other clubs laughed their heads off at us, as did blues fans.

Write about that Caro and show the world you can put some fairness in your vile, bitter, agenda driven reporting. I can just imagine the same reporting if the club was Richmond.

Deserves to be quoted. Reason: Accuracy.

I am talking about honest reporting. Nothing to do with us in my post. SHE IS SELECTIVE IN WHO SHE WILL BUCKET. THAT IS MY POINT.

Fair enough, and I was moved by your earlier, now famous, post.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your intent, but there have been quite a few "but it wasn't just us" posts, and I unfairly lumped yours in with them.

BTW, I'm roughly your age (no grand kids yet, bugger it) and only a recent convert to the Demons. One of my boys is in a fairly senior position with the club, despite his young age, and it was only when they played my former team Brisbane (former Fitzroy supporter) and I was barracking for the Ds that I knew that "blood was thicker than water". Anyway I am passionate about the team, and sincerely hope we aren't sanctioned. I also understand the political dimensions of this whole issue, and fear the worse.

How would members feel if the punishment was stripping of the pick traded to Collingwood, i.e. Pick 20? Heard a rumour of that, [censored] source, but it got me thinking.

Given the extent of reported evidence (albeit testimonial), and the knowledge that the AFL will need to be seen to act on this, I'd be tempted to cop that punishment and run. Escaping with Viney, Hogan and Pick 4 would be a win.

So does that mean we have to give Dawes back to Collingwood?

So does that mean we have to give Dawes back to Collingwood?

I would assume so, though I'm not claiming to know what the flow-on effects would be.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/sheedy-weighs-in-on-demons-woes-20121102-28olu.html?rand=1351824955117

He can't let it go. Nothing to with tanking either. Just about himself.

http://www.theage.co...d=1351824955117

He can't let it go. Nothing to with tanking either. Just about himself.

He needs to get over the fact he didn't get the job, seriously.

http://www.theage.co...d=1351824955117

He can't let it go. Nothing to with tanking either. Just about himself.

Who the f writes a newspaper article on a job interview from 5 years ago that has no relevance to anything in the current news.

Seriously....?????

This whole saga would make one awesome ESPN "30 for 30" style documentary.

So does that mean we have to give Dawes back to Collingwood?

Dawes is a Demon the poor bloke, that trades done and dusted.

Dear AFL,

Melbourne may seriously be guilty of tanking.

Dean Bailey may have been a fruitloop and a useless coach.

But since than, we have new players, new staff, a new breed.

We do not deserve anything but a reprimand, do not punish the new breed of demons for something that the old crew did, when the new crew was not involved.

If you do decide to punish us.

Investigate Carlton, Collingwood, West Coast and many other teams who have "tanked".

You guys set the rule of the priority pick, dont expect teams to not take advantage of it.

I just read an article where Alan Eskander was quoted. He is a passionate Blues supporter apparently. He suggested "both punters and bookmakers will have more confidence in the game should the Demons be found guilty of, and sanctioned for, tanking in 2009."

I think this article should be considered after Caroline Wilson's comments on Footy Classified, after Brett Ratten was appointed as Care-taker Coach and after Denis Pagan's removal from the coaching position in 2007. Caroline Wilson's stated unequivocally "Carlton will not win another game this season." (Episode 1.16, 23rd July 2007). It was widely reported that Brett Ratten was hesitant to take the position because of the damage it could do to his reputation losing the last 6 games as Care-take Coach. He was allegedly reassured by Greg Swann that he wouldn't be judged on his win/loss record. With 6 games left in the season, and the Blues yet to play Melbourne in the Kreuzer Cup, CW's comments on Footy Classified looks like a smoking gun!

Carlton lost against St Kilda by under 2 goals the next week after Ratten took the position. Bucks the trend of most coaching changes mid-season. Carlton then mounted this effort stated below in the article against Collingwood.

http://www.theaustra...x-1111114114966

Tony Libratore came out against the Carlton Football Club and made claims against them of tanking. Greg Swann (Carlton CEO) came out and defended the club as was stated in this article.

http://www.news.com....e-1111115801333

At what point does the AFL consider that Melbourne is worth investigating over Brock McLean's comments and not Tony Libratore's and Caroline Wilson's comments about Carlton. At what point does Mike Fitzpatrick (who is a Carlton man) decide to stamp out any suggestion of tanking. At what point do we get the Blues chorus of fig suckers to shut their pie hole?

McLardy has it right. Make this process transparent, and so if the AFL are dumb enough to try and pin something on us then we know how we're going to pin it on everyone else.

Edited: Spelling, Grammar

http://www.theage.co...d=1351824955117

He can't let it go. Nothing to with tanking either. Just about himself.

what a sad little man he's become

Unfortunately whilst I support your sentiments, I think the club is going to be punished severely. Then it will go to court...

The board is saying what it needs to say. We've been dragged through the mud all week. When the AFL gets around to finalising its investigation, we deserve to be able to reply in a formal, proper, fair manner.

Demetriou's stance as depicted in The Australian is a huge help to us. He seems to have suggested that he only accepts the narrow definition of tanking (i.e. telling players to lose). Which makes sense. The AFL doesn't want tanking. It wants to be able to support its clubs and it doesn't want there to be an issue. The AFL wants its clubs to take a long term view, as it wants long term prosperity. That's why they give high draft picks to the worst clubs, FFS.

I am increasingly of the view that we will only be in trouble if the AFL finds a directive telling players to lose. And I am increasingly of the view that Caroline Wilson is drawing long bows between what she has found out and what she wants the situation to be.

People need to calm down and look at the facts. The facts, as yet, do not show that anyone at Melbourne told players to lose, or not try their best. The facts so far only show that we had meetings discussing the value of the PP, and the impact it would have on our attempt to get our 13th flag.

The facts show that players sensed something was up. Wow. No sh*t. So did everyone else in the world.

Let's all calm down. For now, at least, the facts still haven't ended it for us.

Top post.