The allegation is that we tried to lose in 2009. Laughable, because we couldn't win even if we wanted to in 2009. And to go one step further, what is alleged that we did was, in fact, to try to win...just not in 2009. And I will argue that that is a legitimate tactic.

To fix this problem, AFL rules should be amended so that clubs are obliged to explain their decisions. For example, that they are resting players rather than claiming they have "general soreness". That they intend to try players in alternative positions for the rest of the year. And that players are being sent off for surgery because the club has no chance of playing finals, etc. And the best rule change should be that a team which is picked on Thursday night must line up in the positions named on the ground with no players moved around for the first, say, three minutes. I appreciate it would be difficult to enforce but the sport is now inextricably linked, whether we like it or not, to betting.

A question I have is that if the AFL comes down on us hard and takes our draft picks off us, what is to stop them taking the Viney pick off us? We are worried about losing pick 4, but could lose that too. People will argue that they wont take the father son off us but if they go really hard, wouldn't surprise me if we lost this also.

Hopefully I am wrong, but with the year we have had, probably more than likely.

What about Hogan?

A question I have is that if the AFL comes down on us hard and takes our draft picks off us, what is to stop them taking the Viney pick off us? We are worried about losing pick 4, but could lose that too. People will argue that they wont take the father son off us but if they go really hard, wouldn't surprise me if we lost this also.

Hopefully I am wrong, but with the year we have had, probably more than likely.

We wont lose Viney, only way that would be remotely possible is if we lost all our draft picks this year (I think we have about 10 of them). It doesn't matter what pick we said we would take Viney. If they take pick 27 of us then we will just use 49 on him, or 53 ect ect.

It is just going to be the next available pick we have.

Brent Moloney and Brock Mclean can GAGF.

I hope we beat the [censored] out of them this year. This will probably end up in court if the dees are already seeking legal advice.

What about Hogan?

We cant lose Hogan, unless the AFL are prepared to take picks 3 and 13 off GWS, and pick 20 off Collingwood for Dawes, and then players like Dawes will be unlisted. Also the follow on effect of picks traded onward from that. To messy and effects every club. It wont happen.

So you're still squibbing and now you're playing the man and not the ball because you've lost the contest. Pathetic.

Face it, the current administration can't even lose properly. They are a bunch of ex-jocks and liniment sniffing groupies that are way out of their depth and they are ruining our club.

Continuing to apologise for the current admin isn't standing up for the club - it is the opposite. You've never been able to separate the two.

Your comments never have any substance, or provide any answers, yet you have cheerleaders like timd. Cute.

I've already said that they were incompetent and "couldn't even lose properly". Those making some of the decisions down their are a lame joke. Who would deny that ? If you're going to tank, which imo was the right course to take, you don't need 10-15 club officials in on it. You've got to be smarter than that. The best intentions of the club were clearly at stake, but just as clearly the whole saga was mismanaged. And those at the helm of such incompetence definitely need to be held accoutable. But right now I'm more interested in how things are handled from here. I want the club on the front foot and to take any action necessary to ensure we don't get sanctioned in this year's draft. If that means an injunction to ensure this then that's what they must do. The club must not roll over even if some individuals past and present do..

But let's get back to you - you'll get support from anyone that has a gripe with the club, that's obvious, but you act like a jilted mistress and provide no semblance of support, or balance in anything you ever say. The timd's of this world think you're great, but I see you for what you are, which is just another divisive person that thrives on club politics and is systematic of the stench that has permeated this club for decades.

You make me sick.

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.

hear hear hehehe

The grand dame aint even warming up yet

The quotes from the unnamed player:

"It was disgusting what was going on and you felt for Bails because everyone knew he was under the pump to lose," said the player, who the Herald Sun agreed not to name.

"Players had meetings and asked him what was going on but there was nothing he could do.

"The club had a plan. They wanted the two kids, (Tom) Scully and (Jack) Trengove and you just shook your head.

"You'd work your butt off in the pre-season and hang up all these words in the gym and the change rooms or whatever and what did it all mean? Nothing.

"Players were never told to lose. They were just rested and played out of position. (Backman) Matthew Warnock would play full-forward and (forward) Paul Johnson would play full-back."

Source: http://www.heraldsun...o-1226506978308

Der. read the bold quote. Been going on since adam was a boy.

The AFL despite its claims to grandeur is NOT the law, let alone a court of law. it may have its rules, but they are subject to scrutiny and fairness , tested in a REAL court of Law.

Does it dare go there ?? thats the 64 $ question.

I thought moloney but he is up in brisbane.Unless he snuck into melbourne yesterday to speak to League headquarters. This is the danger the h/sun are in by not naming the player. Poeple are going to speculate. It sounded like to me it was a player from 2009 who has been out of the club for a couple of years.

Maybe Paul Johnson spoke again. He opned his mouth previously. However the player said we were told never to lose. Well then thats not tanking.

Pick 4 shouldnt be taken away. Mark neeld shouldnt be punished for this.

We won't lose Hogan or Viney as the AFL won't want to start playing with young people's lives.

And as elequently stated by Redleg, I doubt there's time to take pick 4 off us as an injunction will halt the entire AFL draft in 3 weeks. My guess is we'll keep pick 4 this year.

Dear Don

I can't believe that you have led the club into this position in regard to the AFL's tanking investigation.

The appointment of someone as CEO who's actions cost us draft picks in a previous tenure was bad enough but to reappoint for a further 3 years just beggars belief.

The decks needed to be fully cleared after the Geelong debacle in 2011 and only half the job was done, this has set up a huge division in the club that is now back to bite us on the bum, in fact it derailed the 2012 season.

I have never been in favour of Cam Schwab being at the club and my justification for that is now vindicated, Schwab and Connelly must go now. Hopefully with consultation from the AFL we can get through this mess.

Our club cannot afford to have another season derailed, anyone who thinks we should test any sanctions in court is totally misguided. We need to get on with playing football and rid ourselves of any distractions, going to court will be the death of the club.

I wonder if Carscum will have the guts to play that lowlife against us ? Doubt it..." I can hear "soreness" already !!

Dear Don

I can't believe that you have led the club into this position in regard to the AFL's tanking investigation.

The appointment of someone as CEO who's actions cost us draft picks in a previous tenure was bad enough but to reappoint for a further 3 years just beggars belief.

The decks needed to be fully cleared after the Geelong debacle in 2011 and only half the job was done, this has set up a huge division in the club that is now back to bite us on the bum, in fact it derailed the 2012 season.

I have never been in favour of Cam Schwab being at the club and my justification for that is now vindicated, Schwab and Connelly must go now. Hopefully with consultation from the AFL we can get through this mess.

Our club cannot afford to have another season derailed, anyone who thinks we should test any sanctions in court is totally misguided. We need to get on with playing football and rid ourselves of any distractions, going to court will be the death of the club.

if Schwab & Conolly go so does the entire board imo.

They are linked.

The thing that needs addressing, before anything can be done, is an official and clear definition of "Tanking".

If the AFL want to, they will find a law that we have broken, especially if all these people come forward and their stories are consistent. Will we be charged with tanking? It depends on what the rule book defines as tanking.

From my recollection, the only thing the AFL has said is that they are investigating allegations that the MFC weren't giving themselves the best opportunity to win certain games. The general public call that tanking, but half the people on here say we didn't tank. How do you know we didn't if you don't know the meaning of it?

I said in an earlier post, the only relevant, formal definition of tanking I could find was to fail. Did our players go out on purpose to fail? I strongly believe they didn't in tha tseason, just as strongly as I believed they did in 186. In 2009, did the coaches purposely set out to fail? That's the debate, and while it would seem hard to prove, I'm not liking the evidence that's appearing.

Der. read the bold quote. Been going on since adam was a boy.

We won't lose Hogan or Viney as the AFL won't want to start playing with young people's lives.

This will be music to my ears. All the tanking discussion to me represents what were were (not saying we are guilty of anything). Neeld, Hogan, Viney represent what we are going to be.

I just cannot believe that so many people knew what was going on.

It was crucial if this formula was going to work only 1-3 people could know.

For the players to know is a disgrace. I feel really sorry for them.

Bloody Clown School.

F$&@k it.

I just cannot believe that so many people knew what was going on.

It was crucial if this formula was going to work only 1-3 people could know.

For the players to know is a disgrace. I feel really sorry for them.

Bloody Clown School.

F$&@k it.

were does it say that the players were told to lose?

Looking at it the AFL want to punish a [censored] team for being [censored]. By doing this they will be making the [censored] team even shitter. Never ending loop?

were does it say that the players were told to lose?

mate. The players knew what was going on.

Let's not hide that one. They shouldn't have.

Loose lips.

Looking at it the AFL want to punish a [censored] team for being [censored]. By doing this they will be making the [censored] team even shitter. Never ending loop?

I don't understand this "poor us" mentality. If we are guilty of what the AFL throw at us, we deserve to be punished. If that means making us sh!tter, then we have to deal with that.

I'm on the fence with it. Will feel better (?) when I know what rule the AFL think we have broken.

mate. The players knew what was going on.

Let's not hide that one. They shouldn't have.

Loose lips.

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

Any journo's interested in discussing the test squad or rehashing the winners and loosers of the trade/FA period?

FFS report on this investigation when its over. Drip feeding the masses partial info and speculation helps no one.

Your comments never have any substance, or provide any answers, yet you have cheerleaders like timd. Cute.

I've already said that they were incompetent and "couldn't even lose properly". Those making some of the decisions down their are a lame joke. Who would deny that ? If you're going to tank, which imo was the right course to take, you don't need 10-15 club officials in on it. You've got to be smarter than that. The best intentions of the club were clearly at stake, but just as clearly the whole saga was mismanaged. And those at the helm of such incompetence definitely need to be held accoutable. But right now I'm more interested in how things are handled from here. I want the club on the front foot and to take any action necessary to ensure we don't get sanctioned in this year's draft. If that means an injunction to ensure this then that's what they must do. The club must not roll over even if some individuals past and present do..

But let's get back to you - you'll get support from anyone that has a gripe with the club, that's obvious, but you act like a jilted mistress and provide no semblance of support, or balance in anything you ever say. The timd's of this world think you're great, but I see you for what you are, which is just another divisive person that thrives on club politics and is systematic of the stench that has permeated this club for decades.

You make me sick.

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. It allows you a rhetorical tool to avoid thinking. It is also inconsistent and hypocritical. So NOW you can state that the board look bad or have acted poorly, but if I suggest so (as I did about Jimmmy and the board last year), I have an 'axe to grind'? I'm a cheerleader? Only people with no 'agenda' can comment? Really? Hazy could well suggest that I'm a cheerleader for you, given the number of your post's i've endorsed. Hazy is one the few people who speak about this issue and I'm glad for it. He could back up what he is saying a bit, or actually be honest. That would help too.

And H, don't tell me what I think as part of a rhetorical exercise in order to support attacking hazy or anyone else. It irritates me and if you want to attack hazy, you can do so without it.

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

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