Caroline Wilson's descent into gutter journalism

[H_T 2,941]

Schwab, McLardy and Connolly. Better start making arrangements to clear your offices.

I wonder what the recently departed former leadership group have to say about all this?

Have you been interviewed recently?

[H_T 2,941]

You missed the Richmond game then?

Pick 4 and future drafts if found guilty.

Sounds like you're a little close to the fire RR.

[Hannibal 5,814]

The one thing that annoys me about the current administration is their reticence to get on the front foot and defend the honour of the club. Now that the article is in print and its contents are being discussed on the airwaves I want them to categorically deny that tanking ever took place and that Melbourne will vigourously defend any suggestion to the contrary. Some will say that they can't comment because it's a current investigation, or that it won't matter anyway, but they can most certainly declare the club's innocence and willingness to fight these suggestions.

I'm absolutely certain that Kennett or Maguire would be denying these suggestions and defending thie club to the hilt in the same circumstances. Get on the front foot and defend your club. And do it now.

[beelzebub 22,230]

I totally agree BH.. Melbourne needs to come out and hit. Demand the accusers put up or shut up and be prepared for the defence from Hell..

They need to start attacking some of these crap journos and put them back in their box.

[binman 38,599]

I don't want to be a panic merchant and the article is a little sensationalist however the talk of meetings worries me. I agree with Rhino on this one. If at least 2 relatively senior people are prepared to sign stat decs that we deliberately set out out to maximise the chances of losing we are in trouble. It would have to be at least 2 because they have to be confident any evidence could be corroborated. I don't think it will have to even be a blatant we set out to lose scenario either.

Now forget the players as they would never have been privy to such discussions - you'd hope!- and therefore any testimony they might provide is unlikely to have traction.

The senior people will be the coaches, CEO and board representatives. Lets say there was a meeting to discuss the situation (maximising the chances of losing - I simply can't believe they would discuss deliberately trying to lose) - you'd assume nothing would have been committed to writing. So any evidence would come down to participants being prepared to go on the record and clearly articulating what was discussed and agreed to. Then proof would have to be found to show that any decisions made (eg playing players out of position) were carried out by the coaching staff.

Still, in that scenario it wouldn't be deliberately trying to lose which is how the AFL seems to be defining tanking so there is some grey there. None the less i could see if proved us receiving sanctions and the logical ones are draft penalties. If that happens lets hoe it is next year not this draft asit would potentiall throw a major spanner in the works in terms of getting Viney ant 26 and Hogan.

[nutbean 8,837]

The one thing that annoys me about the current administration is their reticence to get on the front foot and defend the honour of the club. Now that the article is in print and its contents are being discussed on the airwaves I want them to categorically deny that tanking ever took place and that Melbourne will vigourously defend any suggestion to the contrary. Some will say that they can't comment because it's a current investigation, or that it won't matter anyway, but they can most certainly declare the club's innocence and willingness to fight these suggestions.

I'm absolutely certain that Kennett or Maguire would be denying these suggestions and defending thie club to the hilt in the same circumstances. Get on the front foot and defend your club. And do it now.

I hear you but I am of the exact opposite opinion. The AFL are still saying nothing - it is the media beating the drums. Don't give it more oxygen. There is plenty of time to defend the club IF the AFL come out and start making unsavoury noises. I am still of the firm opinion that there are two factors that will make this a non event - firstly, tanking is purely subjective (unless there is something in writing or someone who was privvy to the strategy willing to say " we threw" games) for tanking to be proven there needs to evidence that we actually threw games - such a fine line between list management and tanking. Secondly, if the AFL wants to take us down then they are obIiged to go at least 4 other clubs which I am sure they are reticent to do.I am happy with the "nothing to see here - lets move on" approach.

[rpfc 27,539]

I hear you but I am of the exact opposite opinion. The AFL are still saying nothing - it is the media beating the drums. Don't give it more oxygen. There is plenty of time to defend the club IF the AFL come out and start making unsavoury noises.

Yes, but if I was Schwab I would say to the AFL - get this over with. We have a reputation to defend.

WJ's post covers this piece this morning well.

I am still surprised by the amount of posters that think what we did should be punished.

To the head of the AFL (and I can only assume the AFL itself) says that tanking ONLY involves the players being told not to win a game.

Experimentation and list management may be regarded as a good way to ensure a result but they are not considered tanking by those in power because you can't prove that these two policies are exclusive to a desire to lose - in fact some would argue the exact opposite.

Nothing will happen.

As much as Wilson would like to see the end of Schwab and the Hun writers would like to see something controversial to write about - we are not the patsy on this.

Nothing will happen.

[PaulRB 5,974]

I suspect that Caroline's story was prompted by the opposite of what she claimed, i.e. that the AFL is actually going to do nothing.

So she's trying to stir the pot and set the AFL up as weak when they announce their "verdict", hence creating a "story" that the media can masticate on for a couple more weeks.

[hells bells 2,022]

2005 Round 20 - Collingwood v Carlton was the dodgy Collingwood game...

[BAMF 3,787]

i dont understand the negativity towards carro. she is only reporting the story. she is not the one behind the investigation.

[Redleg 37,796]

Also, a question for those that know more than me - is there an actual rule or doctrine in built into the draft system that specifically states that a team must not deliberately loose to further their position in the draft, priority pick included?

No, there is a rule that a club, player or official must not bring the game into disrepute, whatever that is.

[King Kunta 97]

Think the final line is the most important; I can

"AFL supremo Andrew Demetriou has consistently defended the Demons."

I can't see Vlad punishing us after he has vehemently denied any tanking has ever occurred by any club. He knows if he punishes one club it will open a whole new can of worms which he doesn't want any part in. If we're going to be punished I don't think it will happen under the current CEO.

[Redleg 37,796]

Schwab, McLardy and Connolly. Better start making arrangements to clear your offices.

I wonder what the recently departed former leadership group have to say about all this?

What would Demonland be without you sticking the boots into the club at every opportunity? Who the hell are you, clearly not a MFC supporter?

[rjay 23,929]

Like him or not Patrick Smith put up a pretty good defence of the club today with KB. I don't always agree with Patrick but many on here write him off too easily, I think he has a different view on a lot of issues and whether you agree or not they are always well thought through.

[Redleg 37,796]

If MFC are found guilty then it will be on better evidence that McLean.

And what exactly is "evidence"? Usually it is a version given on oath or affirmation, that is then tested by the other side. That usually happens in a hearing, not an investigation.

If one is unhappy with the reuslts of an investigation that lead to sanctions, one has the right to a Court hearing.

[GM11 692]

You missed the Richmond game then?

Pick 4 and future drafts if found guilty.

A stay of proceedings would totally screw the draft for this year then.

[Redleg 37,796]

The one thing that annoys me about the current administration is their reticence to get on the front foot and defend the honour of the club. Now that the article is in print and its contents are being discussed on the airwaves I want them to categorically deny that tanking ever took place and that Melbourne will vigourously defend any suggestion to the contrary. Some will say that they can't comment because it's a current investigation, or that it won't matter anyway, but they can most certainly declare the club's innocence and willingness to fight these suggestions.

I'm absolutely certain that Kennett or Maguire would be denying these suggestions and defending thie club to the hilt in the same circumstances. Get on the front foot and defend your club. And do it now.

Maybe someone has told them not to.

[Redleg 37,796]

Like him or not Patrick Smith put up a pretty good defence of the club today with KB. I don't always agree with Patrick but many on here write him off too easily, I think he has a different view on a lot of issues and whether you agree or not they are always well thought through.

What did he say?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

And what exactly is "evidence"? Usually it is a version given on oath or affirmation, that is then tested by the other side. That usually happens in a hearing, not an investigation.

If one is unhappy with the reuslts of an investigation that lead to sanctions, one has the right to a Court hearing.

Evidence for the purposes of the AFL may be different to a Court of law.

I posted earlier today what the AFL would require.

Whether this goes to Court will depend upon a few commercial realities which you as a lawyer know to well.

I am concerned that this investigation has dragged on and I wonder who the other attestations are from. If its the level of Brock McLean then I would rest easy.

The best outcome for all would be an outcome which could not prove/establish tanking in breach of AFL rules and we all move on.

[Pates 9,537]

I don't actually have a huge amount of problems with the article and the way it's been written. Caro is always into this sort of scandal, and while I don't agree with her conclusions and opinions her sources do tend to hold up fairly well compared to other journos.

My issue with this whole thing is the investigation. Bailey started the fire when he said he had no hesitation ensuring we were well placed for draft picks, and McLean's comments gave it the fuel it needed to gain momentum. BUT the AFL "investigated" us after Bailey's initial comments and cleared us, now clearly their investigation was zero and now their trying to save face by doing it all over again.

The other problem is what defines tanking? Is it the deliberate action of trying to lose, or is it covered in not being concerned about winning? Does it have to involve collaboration with players? Does it need to be a directive from the top of the food chain? Are there levels of tanking?

I really just want this to be over. If their going to sanction us then get it over with but this farce of an investigation needs to come to an end.

[daisycutter 28,609]

Did the players play to lose? - I very very much doubt it

Did the coaching staff coach to lose? - possibly/probably

Is the coaching staff playing to lose but at the same time experimenting = tanking? Debatable

Is there a definition of tanking? No (only the ubiquitous 'bringing the game into disrepute' rule)

Did other clubs' coaching staff play to lose in the past decade? - possibly/probably

Will the AFL investigate all clubs equally and fairly? probably not

Did Jorge Lorenzo ride to lose at Phillip Island for future rewards - Definitely

[DeeVoted 582]

If this wasnt serious it would be laughable, ok so we "tanked". Define tanked.?

Did we do anything different to improve our list that any other club had not done in the past? No!

Perhaps we deliberately went out and threw the game,so we didnt win. If that was the case why didnt the club rest 50% of our players in that game.

Yes we had a lot more to gain,by losing, But the fact remains, we were in front until the final siren. Did we experiment by playing players in different roles, yes we did, We also did that this year and years gone by. So have many other clubs before us, and it will continue.

http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/playing-dead-robs-our-game-of-meaning-20090719-dpdn.html

There are more examples of this,the above is just one example.

Now IF the real issue was the club being nibbled by bookies or shoddy bets to throw the game, then thats a differnt kettle of fish,IF THAT was the case, then go hell for leather, and cruxify the guilty parties, But thats not the case here.

The AFL set the agenda,they themselves made it so that its benefical to finish last and gain a reward. If you dont supply the bullets its impossible to fire a gun. To single out one club, that numerous others have 'tested' the waters before, is just wrong. The Kruzer Cup has been a long standing joke

since it happened. I ask the question why, hasnt /isnt that being investigated with the same vigor??

My view isnt that it shouldnt [censored] for tat, if the real agenda is to keep ALL clubs honest ,then I am all for it. Make it known 'big brother' is watching.

We didnt throw any game, in our history of 150+ years (as far as I know) We didnt this time, we have at worst been guilty of throwing players around in different positions. And we were still trying, once on the field its against all what we are taught (as players), that is to win and do your best.

You cant convince me the players were told to lose, or they werent trying. So for FS let it go, or end this stupid saga, of making the MFC the scapegoat.

As for C.Wilson, she got same sort of a vengetta for Schwab? Did he steal her lollies when her old man and Schwab was at Richmond?

I am not a fan of hers, but she is one of the better footy journalists,why she is now following the other nuff nuffs, is she now using this and has a new avenue to bring down Schwab, and who else goes down is just bad luck?

I would expect more from her, thats not to single out the MFC, but also to report on matters that involved a few other clubs that did worse or at least exactly the same. And reaped the same benefits,in some cases gained a lot more. So how about an even playing field here, then we can all take it on the chin and get on with it. We really need a Eddie clone, we are soft targets, the media know that. At every turn we cop it and cant do anything right in their eyes.

If some arent aware, SportsBet etc, are now being vocal, on such matters, so who tail is wagging the dog now?

They have a vested interest to protect their profits, and they use the wording of 'making sure its in the interest of their customers'

Crap! They want to be sure bets, and their odds are protected,so they dont lose out. The day they have the best intersets of their 'punters' at heart

is when hell freezes over. Being a major sponsor of the AFL, they have a right,be ir right or wrong. to feel they have a say of such matters.

In closing dont single out one club, if thats the path chosen, then 1/3 of the league is going down,if they really want to head that way.

To bow to media pressure,to target one club is wrong, so give us a system that doesnt leave the door open for clubs to take advantage.

The AFL is seen to be doing something, investigating, and they have nothing on us, apart from hearsay, disgruntled ex employees and the fact

we experimented. So rubber stamp it, and lets get on with it.

[hoopla 418]

.

Is the evidence against other clubs as strong as the apparent evidence against MFC?

If there isn't then it is at least partly due to the fact that no-one has seriously looked at it. The fact that Fevola was taken off in uninjured in the last quarter of the Kreuzer Cup and that he himself has said that Carlton tanked is sufficient evidence to warrant an enquiry

There is no way we should feel the brunt of any 'statements' being made by the AFL without not only undeniable solid evidence that we were guilty, but also that we are alone in the past decade of similar actions.

It is undeniable that from time to time clubs put development / future planning ahead of short-term victory. How often is a player who "would have played if it was a final" given a rest? Did Freo tank in Round 22 of 2010? Did Collingwood tank a decade ago when they sent all their first choice players for season ending surgery half a sason in advance?

All that - and the Kreuzer Cup!!

Why are we the only club being investigated?

Perhaps its because we have more disgruntled ex-employees than anyone else

[beelzebub 22,230]

Like him or not Patrick Smith put up a pretty good defence of the club today with KB. I don't always agree with Patrick but many on here write him off too easily, I think he has a different view on a lot of issues and whether you agree or not they are always well thought through.

what was Smith's stance by way of curiosity, cheers.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

If sanctions are imposed on the MFC over this it would be an absolute travesty.

This may have already been spoken about, but who can forget the so-called "Kreuzer Cup". Now don't get me wrong, as I know Trapper had some talent, but from memory Trapper had 48 possessions that day/night. The on-field moves made by Carlton were breathtaking and I remember making comment to my mates that night that it may as well have been a training session, with witches hats being the only obstacles to the Dees.

Then there is Terry Wallace. Wallace is on the record about a game the Tigers played at the end of one season. He commented years later that he was confronted with a terrible "Sophie's Choice", in that if they had won that game, they would have lost precious draft picks.

On SEN, Wallace went on to comment that the investigation into the MFC's supposed tanking was a non-issue and what was problematic was a system implemented by the AFL itself, which rewarded mediocrity with priority picks. He went on to say that if any tanking is perceived, then it is a symptom of a problem of the AFL's own making. Tanking is the result, not the cause of the problem. Both Paul Roos and Robert Shaw have echoed these sentiments. Their view is that the system is in bad need of an overhaul and should be fixed. Don't punish clubs which operated within the rules as they existed at that time.

Seems some have very short memories in football and the worst miscreants are journos, who love to fling dung, in the hope that it will stick and give their grubby stories more legs.

Any sanction handed down to the MFC over this, would be summarily dismissed in the relevant jurisdiction, which upholds relevant Law.

Oh, and a message to Brock. You now play for a team that is recidivist in its flaunting of the laws. Pots and Kettles Brock, Pots and Kettles.