I think Jon Ralph is on wednesdays. They swapped people around the last few weeks. He isnt to bad.

The thing is though in future games we will be heavily scutinised. If Neeld dare plays a player out of position then people will talk.

Neeld must just go some nights throw his hands in the air wondering when all this crap will stop.

The key sentences i reckon of Wilson's article are:

'THE AFL has uncovered a secret meeting involving at least 10 members of the Melbourne football department in which coaches were reminded of the importance of forfeiting matches in order to gain early draft picks.'

'The club is now receiving legal advice after at least four witnesses were recalled by the AFL and admitted the club planned to deliberately lose games of football.'

Forfeiting and deliberately losing? Why has she used these words? Is she quoting someone who was at the meeting or an AFL official (either way if the leak is a problem)? Or has she used these word for dramatic effect?

As Pennant St dee said (good post btw) what if other at the meeting contradict statements that there was an explicit decision reached to deliberately lose games. Surely the say so of four people would not be sufficient given the potential commercial ramifications of draft penalties. And to penalise us they would have to solid proof, such as a memo or something in writing.

They do hold the whip hand given the money we receive from them but if there is any grey in their findings they would run the risk of us fighting them in court if they slam us with sanctions - even if they have sworn statements

Look at the investigation of the Crows. They are forensically going thorough bank records,contracts and they have something in writing (the email). They will be 100% confident they have proof of the breach of rules before penalising the crows.

Lets hope and prey there is nothing in writing in our case.

There are obviously a lot of dark clouds around.

Moreover,Caro's hatred of us, and Cam in particular, make it seem worse because it's a slow news day.

However, there does seem to be a touch of the Chicken Little's from a lot of posters.

The AFL site has an item on it (remember they also give oxygen to that other Melbourne hater Damien Barrett), but there has not been any official comment, or response to her muck raking, yet, from either the AFL, or the MFC.

There might (and most likely is) be a lot of truth in it.

There also seems to be a lot of guess work on her part and factual errors.

Therefore, I suggest it is better wait for something a bit more official before saying "the sky is falling"...

I'm just absolutely over the stench of incompetence from this club.

Couldn't agree more!

We can't even lose on purpose without screwing it up!!!!!

3AbolsuteWankers

You did mean to say "wakers" right?

Ok, this is all pissing me off so much I'm going to get my 'analysis' hat on and dig into this.

I've already done a first layer - built myself a table of 'wins by season' since 2000.

Based on sudden returns up the ladder, or on very temporary 'dips', particular years of interest include -

Carlton 2007

Collingwood 2005

Essendon 2006

Hawthorn 2005, possibly also 2004

Melbourne 2003 and 2009.

Richmond 2007

West Coast, 2001, 2008 and 2010.

Western Bulldogs 2004

Also of note, St. Kilda, Melbourne and Richmond are the only clubs ever to have won one more game in a season than the cut-off for a priority pick (i.e >5 wins prior to 2006 changes, >4 wins 2006-2011).

What are the chances of that... well... lets look at the distribution.

This chart clearly shows a generalised pattern of 'tanking' in the Australian Football League over a twelve year period.

Edited October 30, 201212 yr by Little Goffy

Think we may have a few hostile witnesses on our hands here.

Hopefully the AFL have the nous to consider their evidence in that light, particularly if it now contradicts what they had previously said (ie, during the period in which they were happily employed by the club).

Dead set, I think this is all so bloody amateur. Caroline Wilson is to investigative journalism what Basil Fawlty is to quality hotel management.

And don't get me started on Brock 'Burnouts' McLean. Surely that guy has zero credibility.

Ahhhhhhhhh offseason (aka trollseason) is kicking off earlier than normal this year...

If you can't understand what the current admin have done for us, then there's no way you'll be able to comprehend the subtleties of dealing with the AFL when you're not one of the 3-4 powerhouse clubs.

I'm no troll I just don't have faith that those 3 are upto the job of leading this club back to the top.

Schwab was basically sacked prior to 186, he put us in bed with a poor quality major sponsor who we then removed, He and Connolly treated Bailey as a muppet. None of them have come out on the front foot over the tanking claims because they organised a meeting, called it the vault, broadcast the obvious to all in the room. Now if thats not utter incompetance then what is.The club is still struggling financially save a tin rattle. Our membership numbers are poor and the football community treat us like a joke.

It took intervention from a reluctant Lyon to once again select our coach.

I'm sorry if my opinion of them differs from yours but I don't have confidence in them and I'll bet I'm not alone there

Edited October 30, 201212 yr by Roost It

Ok, this is all pissing me off so much I'm going to get my 'analysis' hat on and dig into this.

I've already done a first layer - built myself a table of 'wins by season' since 2000.

Based on sudden returns up the ladder, or on very temporary 'dips', particular years of interest include -

Carlton 2007

Collingwood 2005

Essendon 2006

Hawthorn 2005, possibly also 2004

Melbourne 2003 and 2009.

Richmond 2007

West Coast, 2001, 2008 and 2010.

Western Bulldogs 2004

Also of note, St. Kilda, Melbourne and Richmond are the only clubs ever to have won one more game in a season than the cut-off for a priority pick (i.e >5 wins prior to 2006 changes, >4 wins 2006-2011).

What are the chances of that... well... lets look at the distribution.

This chart demonstrates unmistakable evidence of a generalised pattern of 'tanking' in the Australian Football League over a twelve year period.

.

did't quite get the part after you said "this is all pissing me off"

10/10 for effort and great post all the same

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/tanks-but-thats-not-how-it-happened/story-fncqij35-1226506969336

Bev returns fire. Loving the reference to McLean's ironic move to Carlton. So this is what balanced media feels like.

Caroline Wilson's Tigers are not squeeky clean on this.

But first and foremost, the AFL should be investigated for gross incompetency and hypocrisy in all this. They set the rules and clubs have responded accordingly, the most blatant example in my opinion being Carlton at the end of the 2007 season (Kreuzer Cup). Did they consider "investigating" that one? Will they now?

Here's my list of suspected 'tankers' for the AFL to investigate, and it's just quickly from memory. Fill in all that I've missed:

2004 Richmond

2005 Collingwood (early player surgery, the Pendlebury/Thomas draft)

2004/5? Hawthorn

2006 Kangaroos (early "medical management")

2007 Carltank (Kreuzer Cup)

2008

2009 MFC ("player experimentation")

2010 West Coast

When you review the number of wins for 3 seasons before and after those stated above there are two obvious conclusions;

1. All of these teams tanked

2. Most did it better than us

Melbourne 13 5 3 4 8.5 8.5 4

Richmond 15 7 7 4 10 11 3.5

Collingwood 13 15 8 5 14 13 12

West Coast 15 4 8 4 17 15

Carlton 10 4.5 3 4 10 13 11

Hawthorn 11 12 4 5 9 13 17

Edited October 30, 201212 yr by Great Sage

This club is run by astute people who have got the club out of a $5 mil debt.......Have new sponsers in hugely difficult situation.....Have a FD which is funded as well as anyone else in the AFL.......When Schwab was at Freo he got them financial and out of debt(Don't know how much).......Schwab and Connolly got Freo to their first final series......I know the reasons Schwab was told to concentrate on the running of the club instead of putting his nose in the FD,a job that he does very very well.......As I stated in another thread the club in in the best position I have seen it for 20 years......As for Connolly he does his job very very well....Entertaining sponsers and bringing new community involvement to the club.........These are the facts......Either get over it or put in for the jobs

And while I'm at it, Jim started the revival but was too sick to see it through....The above two and the board has turned this Footy club around......If you don't want to be here....welll.....See Ya....

I'm not going anywhere yet. The debt was removed by a tin rattle rather than astute management. Connolly got removed from his position for being unable to do it. Any other organisation would have removed him, we chose to shunt him to a PR job away from all things football. Pretty clear we did that because he can't be used in any important roll as today as shown all too clearly

Our current sponsors are paying bargain prices because of managements inability to attract and keep a quality major sponsor. It will be interesting just how long the money lasts with the way we spend it and our lack of success in increasing revenue.

Astute people my [censored] ass, amateurs of the highest order

Edited October 30, 201212 yr by Roost It

I think Jon Ralph is on wednesdays. They swapped people around the last few weeks. He isnt to bad.

The thing is though in future games we will be heavily scutinised. If Neeld dare plays a player out of position then people will talk.

Neeld must just go some nights throw his hands in the air wondering when all this crap will stop.

Round 10, 2012.

Essendon 8 wins; 1 loss (to Collingwood by one point).

Demons 0 wins. 9 losses.

Demons win game with Garland playing a dominant forward key position role and an otherwise completely depleted forward line.

Conclusion - surely Essendon tanked this game.

What am I missing here?

http://www.heraldsun...5-1226506969336

Bev returns fire. Loving the reference to McLean's ironic move to Carlton. So this is what balanced media feels like.

Well said Bev!

Round 10, 2012.

Essendon 8 wins; 1 loss (to Collingwood by one point).

Demons 0 wins. 9 losses.

Demons win game with Garland playing a dominant forward key position role and an otherwise completely depleted forward line.

Conclusion - surely Essendon tanked this game.

What am I missing here?

our club leaks information, theres doesnt, thats what your missing.

Exactly who bungled things so badly as to have secret "vault" meetings with up to 10 people is the question. And I doubt that was Stynes. But if he was actively involved he was stupid too.

So he was either ignorant ("passively involved") and therefore incompetent, or just plain incompetent. Which one do you think it was?

Also, whilst I'm not about to excuse Bailey for dropping a hint on his way out, I wonder if it ever would have happened if his sacking had been handled with even the slightest bit of professionalism. I can imagine what it would have been like to have had to justify your bad win/loss as a departing coach after being hung out to dry by a bunch of blokes who instructed you to lose games and then betrayed you in a private meeting where they decided to keep their interfering mate instead. He should have at least been given an opportunity to resign.

You did mean to say "wakers" right?

wankker

This is going to end up in court.

Cant allow us to be the only ones to take the heat on this.

Either the AFL puts the fire out or it will find itself the fuel of the pyre !!

If this doesn't go to court and the MFC doesn't give it Absolutley everything , we may as well close the doors.

I keep coming back to two queztions:

Whats the underlying motive of this witch hunt ?

Who benefits ?

Ok theres a third. Who's driving this?

Also, whilst I'm not about to excuse Bailey for dropping a hint on his way out, I wonder if it ever would have happened if his sacking had been handled with even the slightest bit of professionalism. I can imagine what it would have been like to have had to justify your bad win/loss as a departing coach after being hung out to dry by a bunch of blokes who instructed you to lose games and then betrayed you in a private meeting where they decided to keep their interfering mate instead. He should have at least been given an opportunity to resign.

One of the reason's that 186 won't be something that we should just "get over and move forward". Things were rotten, and despite the new FD best efforts (100% support from most of us here on D'Land), a stench still surrounds those managing the events around that day.

I don't want to see us get any penalty (for all the reasons mentioned above - everyone else was doing it, the AFL turned a blind (or, rather, wide open) eye... but I don't believe the governance of the club was in good hands then, and nothing has effectively changed in that area since. A few people walking out the door might make a big difference.

It is now time for any persons within the club who were involved or agreed to the strategy of "Tanking" to quietly leave the building. I do not discriminate as to who you are.

But if pick 4 is swiped from our possession then your position can no longer exist.

IF we lose pick 4 will the club have the balls to fight to the death?

"This is it folks...over the top"

Absolutely, I cannot see the MFC being as forgiving as they were with the Jason Mifsud affair,

Ok, this is all pissing me off so much I'm going to get my 'analysis' hat on and dig into this.

I've already done a first layer - built myself a table of 'wins by season' since 2000.

Based on sudden returns up the ladder, or on very temporary 'dips', particular years of interest include -

Carlton 2007

Collingwood 2005

Essendon 2006

Hawthorn 2005, possibly also 2004

Melbourne 2003 and 2009.

Richmond 2007

West Coast, 2001, 2008 and 2010.

Western Bulldogs 2004

Also of note, St. Kilda, Melbourne and Richmond are the only clubs ever to have won one more game in a season than the cut-off for a priority pick (i.e >5 wins prior to 2006 changes, >4 wins 2006-2011).

What are the chances of that... well... lets look at the distribution.

This chart clearly shows a generalised pattern of 'tanking' in the Australian Football League over a twelve year period.

I don't reckon any of those clubs 'deliberately' lost (ie, tanked). Players talk. If those clubs sought to deliberately lose, it wouldn't be a secret for very long.

Those clubs just knew they weren't in the premiership cycle, and rebuilt and evolved their respective lists at the time by plugging game time into younger players, not striving for finals during that period (ie, focussing more on development), and re-injecting talent into the club through better draft picks which they received because the system awards better picks to the clubs which are less competitive. No surprises that the clubs that restructured their lists the most effectively during such times then became the most successful. It's a cycle - and, importantly, it is designed to be.

That said, I think it's a stretch to say any of those clubs went out of their way to lose (other than Carlton in one game - ie, round 22, 2007, when the result of the game was utterly meaningless but for the priority of picks that would occur immediately following it).

We obviously went through a similar period. We just weren't astute or professional enough to manage the change as well as the others. Hence, we're still ordinary - but the path was no different. It was factors such as our ordinary culture, our lack of on-field leadership, and our poor recruitment and development during the period that held us back. Quite frankly, we weren't good enough to try and lose. And, in any event, Junior McDonald wouldn't have allowed that to happen on his watch.

Companies restructure their balance sheets from time to time, retire debt, move employees into different roles, don't invest as much on certain things etc - it doesn't mean they are cheating or wish to become insolvent. They're just being astute and building towards future competitiveness. There's nothing wrong with this. And some are better at doing it than others.

Yet, when an AFL club knows that it needs to rebuild its list, then it is apparently tanking. I just don't agree. People who play sport at this level are just too competitive - it's what got them there in the first place.

Most of the bozo journos don't get this. In any event, they're looking for the sensationalist argument - it's what generates 20 pages on fan sites in one day.

I'm sure Caroline Wilson hasn't ever read a book with small print and without pictures. To me, that says it all.

I can imagine what it would have been like to have had to justify your bad win/loss as a departing coach after being hung out to dry by a bunch of blokes who instructed you to lose games and then betrayed you in a private meeting where they decided to keep their interfering mate instead. He should have at least been given an opportunity to resign.

It was certainly poorly handled. Bailey was really in a no-win position from the get-go and his dismissal wasn't handled as well as it should have been.

How would McLardy be expected to know what Bailey and Prendergast have said to the investigators? They are no longer at the club and I doubt the investigators would have shared the information with him.

If whatever they say is detrimental to MFC then they will effectively kiss their careers away,