If the story is accurate as written - then we have a football department that made a plan to actively lose games of football.

If the story is accurate as written.....

(if the story is accurate as written then how stupid are we to have a meeting including 10 members of the FD discussing how to lose games of football)

What's more how unbelievably dumb is it to give the whole thing a code name: The Vault. Its a Club not a 007 production set! Dumb as...! Bewildering!!

If we took the AFL to court we would lose financial assistance, support and be playing 15 games a year in Darwin.

Drowning argument?

We didn't tank. Our players don't go out there to lose. There was incentive to expose kids, protect better players, and move players into seemingly foreign positions. And that is what we did.

How dare anyone claim that our players went out there to lose.

That is not an argument under water. We can worry about PR when we win this argument.

we did Tank rp. And no the players were not the culprits.

Sadly the MFC is not squeaky clean on this one...it is going to be a rough old summer.

Idiot Anderson should have gone full tilt at this the day Bailey spoke down the camera, now it is going to drag on.

What's more how unbelievably dumb is it to give the whole thing a code name: The Vault. Its a Club not a 007 production set! Dumb as...! Bewildering!!

When it comes to incompetence and incomprehensibility i put nothing passed the MFC's capability.

In terms of going to court to argue 'definitions', i dont see how our legal team can beat that of a billion dollar organisation that is the AFL and their legal team.

Edited October 30, 201212 yr by stranga

Your Honour, i present into evidence : Carlton, Collingwood, Hawthorn, West Coast..........

...and Richmond.

Drowning argument?

We didn't tank. Our players don't go out there to lose. There was incentive to expose kids, protect better players, and move players into seemingly foreign positions. And that is what we did.

How dare anyone claim that our players went out there to lose.

That is not an argument under water. We can worry about PR when we win this argument.

We've already lost (in my eyes).

I'm keen now to ensure those driving the "systematic losing for draft picks brigade" are held responsible for bringing the club into disrepute and possible AFL sanctions...

Drowning argument?

We didn't tank. Our players don't go out there to lose. There was incentive to expose kids, protect better players, and move players into seemingly foreign positions. And that is what we did.

How dare anyone claim that our players went out there to lose.

That is not an argument under water. We can worry about PR when we win this argument.

What has me now worried is my constant theme that unless someone in the coaching panel says that there was a definitive plan to lose matches then all is good - whilst I never believe everything I read, you can draw the conclusion from Caro's article that there is verification from participants from our FD about a meeting where there was a plan on how to lose matches.

There is a difference between towing the line, early surgery, experimentation and games into kids and crumbling like a bad poker player and admitting to a meeting where a plan was discussed to lose games of football.

I for one and not feeling all that comfortable.

I'm petrified of losing pick 4

Heres my take...

IF our motivation to experiment, rest, etc etc was to lose games to better our draft choces then we tanked and deserve to be punished.

In my little world it's as simple as that.

No if's and buts. We cheated and deserve sanctions.

Very hard to prove, but if there was this meeting as reported and there was instruction to lose games then IMO we cheated.

we did Tank rp. And no the players were not the culprits.

Sadly the MFC is not squeaky clean on this one...it is going to be a rough old summer.

Idiot Anderson should have gone full tilt at this the day Bailey spoke down the camera, now it is going to drag on.

We didn't tank, wyl.

No tanking action that you believe is tanking can be exclusive to the intention of losing.

We didn't ask the players to lose and we didn't tank.

I agree that it will be a tense summer but if Clothier wants to kick the hornets nest he better realise that we aren't anybody's patsy and the AFL don't want anyhting other than a whitewash.

Bring it on.

We have got more QC's than the Liberal Party on stand by.

Is there an administration in AFL history that has as many leaks as ours?

Fair dinkum bunch of rats some of them!

If we get done (and I have no doubt we will) might be a few positions vacant in the MFC administration team.

What has me now worried is my constant theme that unless someone in the coaching panel says that there was a definitive plan to lose matches then all is good - whilst I never believe everything I read, you can draw the conclusion from Caro's article that there is verification from participants from our FD about a meeting where there was a plan on how to lose matches.

There is a difference between towing the line, early surgery, experimentation and games into kids and crumbling like a bad poker player and admitting to a meeting where a plan was discussed to lose games of football.

I for one and not feeling all that comfortable.

bailey's last words at his press conference confirmed to me regular meetings had taken place. The reason i have used the word strategy on this thread.

I do not blame Dean. That same strategy cost him his job.

But anyone else still at the club who was part of those meetings or knew of there content is on very shaky ground imo.

Edited October 30, 201212 yr by why you little

We've already lost (in my eyes).

I'm keen now to ensure those driving the "systematic losing for draft picks brigade" are held responsible for bringing the club into disrepute and possible AFL sanctions...

F___ that.

This is circle the wagons time.

There are a number of people attempting to use us as the 'cleanser' of the AFLs era of tanking. From Franklin and Roughhead, Pedlebury and Thomas, Kreuzer and Judd, and NikNat - clubs have punished themselves for the 'greater good.'

We punished ourselves and I for one won't stand for the club to be a sacrificial lamb on this.

If we get done (and I have no doubt we will) might be a few positions vacant in the MFC administration team.

A very good thing! Finally, those that are really responsible for the inept management of our beloved Club will be 'delisted' or 'retired' as many of the players that were their fallguys, have been.

F___ that.

This is circle the wagons time.

There are a number of people attempting to use us as the 'cleanser' of the AFLs era of tanking. From Franklin and Roughhead, Pedlebury and Thomas, Kreuzer and Judd, and NikNat - clubs have punished themselves for the 'greater good.'

We punished ourselves and I for one won't stand for the club to be a sacrificial lamb on this.

I'm all for bringing down every other team that has similarly "tanked".

But I'm also keen to use this episode to continue to clean and improve our club, for the sole reason of preventing such follies occurring again down the track.

We didn't tank, wyl.

No tanking action that you believe is tanking can be exclusive to the intention of losing.

what are you talking about?

Meetings took place.....upstairs, not on the ground.

It did happen. Dean said so after 186.

On camera.

When it comes to incompetence and incomprehensibility i put nothing passed the MFC's capability.

In terms of going to court to argue 'definitions', i dont see how our legal team can beat that of a billion dollar organisation that is the AFL and their legal team.

We have some of the best lawyers going around

The AFL wouldn't get to that stage unless they have a water tight case and with the lack of evidence, questionable witnesses (i.e McLean) combined with the greyness of tanking - I'd be extremely surprised if they even bothered.

This issue isnt new, meaning the board and legal team would have had a defense no matter what actually happened. If they didnt think they had an extremely good defense and if they did actually do it they would have done an Adelaide with Tippett and confessed.

Edited October 30, 201212 yr by PJ_12345

Apparently stated on 3AW that Pick 4 will be taken off us? Taken with a grain of salt at this stage but worrying times.

yeah, we're in for a world of trouble.

just as well we traded all our draft picks, cos we might not have any left in 2012.

i was thinking we'd cop the fine in 2013, but it might even be we lose pick 4 this year. we're in big, big trouble.

Edited October 30, 201212 yr by DemonAndrew

We didn't tank, wyl.

No tanking action that you believe is tanking can be exclusive to the intention of losing.

We didn't ask the players to lose and we didn't tank.

I agree that it will be a tense summer but if Clothier wants to kick the hornets nest he better realise that we aren't anybody's patsy and the AFL don't want anyhting other than a whitewash.

Bring it on.

We have got more QC's than the Liberal Party on stand by.

RPFC - can you please give me the definition of "Tanking"?

The only thing I can find anywhere on the net under "Tanking definition" that would be deemed appropriate in this situation is;

"4. (Economics, Accounting & Finance / Stock Exchange) (Business / Commerce) (intr) Informal to fail, esp commercially See also tank up"

With that definition in mind, were the players guilty of tanking? No, not those games as I refuse they delibrately failed. I would argue that a number of players tanked in 186 though.

So, then we look higher, were the coaches sending us out to fail? Ie. Tank? This is the concern.

But, I'm happy to believe you when you say we didn't tank, but please, can you give me a formal definition of the word Tanking?

Look at all the rightous, moral high ground, people jumping off.....

If this vault garbage turns out to be true then you can't say we don't deserve punishment. To have a big round table on how to lose games is beyond belief in the stupidity and integrity stakes..

You are however essentially moving into the area called "precedence"

Not suggesting murderers get off , but they can advocate diminished responsibilities, or provocation, amongst a myriad of defences.

Unlike the Filth not much is black and white but in reality is coursing the minefield of grey

Unfortunately precedence actually doesnt apply to this situation.

Partly because there are no binding or persuasive precedence actually available

Also you might need to review your definition of precedence - its not entirely correct (maybe for persuasive but not binding) and also provocation isn't a defense (since 2006).

Am I the only one that finds this part a little odd:

As many as 10 witnesses are understood to have rolled over under pressure from AFL investigators Brett Clothier and Abraham Haddad, the league's intelligence co-ordinator.

Haddad, an internationally recognised police officer who worked as an investigator for the United Nations and has worked as a tactical intelligence operative for the Victoria Police sexual crimes squad, is believed to have warned several witnesses that he had been made aware of the meeting and expected their co-operation.

So the AFL has resorted to coercing witnesses to make a case??