On 30/10/2012 at 23:54, rpfc said:

Well, there you go.

The meeting wasn't called 'The Vault of Evil Deeds' as Wilson and others have implied.

The effing room was called the Vault.

Doesn't mean much outside of a HUN headline but the connotations are obvious and wrong.

Yesterday Caro's article on-line in The Age spoke of "The Vault" conspiracy - I note that the article now doesn't mention "The Vault" - the headline and associated image do - maybe they realised it was bull-[censored]

  On 30/10/2012 at 23:50, rpfc said:

Yeah, no sh!t.

The AFL seems to have lost all control of their little Elliot Ness...

I doubt it's Elliot Ness doing the leaking. He may be exceeding his KPIs but I doubt he is the one leaking

It's the AFL leaking and Id like to know why and why the club just rolls over while due process gets shafted you know where

If the curtain comes down over this and they don't expand the investigation to at least six other clubs then it will be confirmed to all and sundry just where the AFL stands on issues of Integrity. If this happens it will be interesting to see how the press force-fed lap-dogs react. Given half now work for the AFL media centre and most of the rest are permanently bent over double I doubt they will do anything beyond a few obligatory squeaks.

The integrity of the integrity investigation is questionble

  On 30/10/2012 at 23:47, daisycutter said:

Why hasn't the club come out and complained loudly about the AFL Investigation leaking like a sieve?

Whatever happened to due process or isn't that in the AFL's lexicon of Integrity?

I'm really started to develop a persecution complex here

Possibly a brave attempt at the stoic repose of waiting til you see the whites of their eyes.

I sense Melbourne consider they cant really win any public argument just a the moment, nor will the AFL, who are remarkably quiet also. Possibly mercenaries doing their dirty work.

Once you have a greater sense of who is actually your adversary then you can take aim.

The wise pick and choose the time and place of battle, generally somewhere you can create an advantage.

This hasnt truly begun yet

I hope the club has been strategising about appealing and taking this to court, the next charity dinner could be the funding for it!

I must admit this is the first time I've truley been worried about this, I thought for a while we could get in a bit of strife with perhaps a fine but now this have moved up a gear and the media want blood much like they want the blood of an under pressure coach.

The worst part is the fact that other clubs have done it, but we are the only ones to stuff it up. The rifts that were caused during the 2011 season could have repercussions that prevent the club finally moving forward, Connolly and Schwab (despite them perhaps doing their job well now) will have to go if we are sanctioned.

I wish someone could get some of the Carlton head honchos at the time on record saying they tanked as well, unfortunately it looks like something has to be said public to get an investigation going.

I forgive you Thomas... you had this media trollop pegged from the get go !!

  On 30/10/2012 at 23:58, billy2803 said:

I'm not trying to be a smart a$$, but a lawyer would have a field day with that definition, plain and simply, because that's not the definition!

How's this definition;

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tank

"Slang To suffer a sudden decline or failure".

Tanking DOES NOT mean to tell players to lose. There is no formal definition of it meaning "to intentionally lose".

Fair call, I suppose I was looking at in in the context of which most people use it (right or wrong).

  On 31/10/2012 at 00:00, Fifty-5 said:

Yesterday Caro's article on-line in The Age spoke of "The Vault" conspiracy - I note that the article now doesn't mention "The Vault" - the headline and associated image do - maybe they realised it was bull-[censored]

This is a pseudo nazi style propaganda smear campaign. Intermingle just a few snippets of fact, elements the public, ( generally ignorant of the mater ) can associate with and then paint it with filth. Offer up a scapegoat to all ills and victimise them, villify them constantly and just about everyone will forget or lose sight of the actual/ if any transgression.. Often there isnt one , just someone want a particular outcome. All means to an end.

Even the "Truth" would have blushed printing some of this manure

  On 30/10/2012 at 22:52, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

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.

Quite correct, just who were we capable of beating back then, or in fact since then?

If this continues we may have a situation where, like Netball, the players will have to wear little bibs with HBF or FB on them and no one will be allowed to venture out of a certain area of the ground, only the FF or the CHF will be allowed to kick goals.

Until that happens just who decides when a player is played out of position, last I heard there was no need to register with the AFL the position of each player you draft and no need to supply a running sheet of who will be playing where before each game.

  On 31/10/2012 at 00:10, Clint Bizkit said:

Fair call, I suppose I was looking at in in the context of which most people use it (right or wrong).

Like you, I'm like "most people". It's the blokes that wear funny wigs that aren't like most people, and they're the ones that may eventually be fighting our case!

  On 30/10/2012 at 23:11, why you little said:

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

They are linked.

Unfortunately they are; unless someone comes forward with a lot of credibility, an Ian Dicker like person then I would prefer the AFL to appoint an administrator, a well qualified and experienced football person with the runs on the board to get the club back on track. I have no faith in this board to make good decisions.

  On 30/10/2012 at 23:51, Fifty-5 said:

Look it's a small point but it shows how hyberbole can inflate the situation ...

"The Vault" is not a conspiracy to tank. It was the nickname for a portable building used as the FD meeting room at the Junction Oval. I went to a post-draft members meeting in "the Vault" with Barry Prendergast in 2008 - tanking was not discussed. The meeting that has been raised in The Age may have taken place in the Vault but that's as far as it goes.

I think a little less panic is advisable.

And this is exactly why I loathe the ambulance chasing crud also known as football journalists.

People can defend them as 'messengers' all they want, but they instigated this and are continuing to drive it.

All this crap about a 'secret' meeting with 10 people attending is laughable.

No one is that stupid.

I am still to see a shred of anything suggesting anyone in a Melbourne jumper was instructed to lose a game.

  On 30/10/2012 at 20:37, frankie_d said:

From the age

"

Less supportive, it is understood, were some Melbourne players who spoke up at three-quarter time and vowed to try to win anyway, which they nearly did. What a sorry affair.

"

If (if) this is true, those running the club then, if they're still around,have to walk out the door. It's sickening to think that the players would have to speak up. In opposition to something (directive, culture, whatever) that made losing the desired outcome.

First I've read or heard of that.......{insert silly emoticon}

When don't players rev each other up at 3/4 time when the game is in the balance..???

Bloody ridiculous....

  On 31/10/2012 at 00:14, GM11 said:

And this is exactly why I loathe the ambulance chasing crud also known as football journalists.

People can defend them as 'messengers' all they want, but they instigated this and are continuing to drive it.

All this crap about a 'secret' meeting with 10 people attending is laughable.

No one is that stupid.

I am still to see a shred of anything suggesting anyone in a Melbourne jumper was instructed to lose a game.

GM, not having a go at you, but this is the shallow thought that a few posters have. Tanking isn't telling a player to lose. The true meaning of it is about failing, or suffering a sudden decline. Coaching moves can ensure this happens without the knowledge of the players (although some moves would be pretty obvious to them). It's up to the AFL to have enough evidence to prove that's what our intentions were. A few months back it looked almost impossible for them to find anything, but things are starting to leak and it aint great. It could get to the stage where it is up to the MFC to prove their innocence. Our defence was list management (which is what a few on here are calling, and understandably so), but that can be taken out of the equation if people start signing stat decs, etc.

  On 30/10/2012 at 22:38, Jonesbag said:

Brent Moloney is the second player

All of these things are still just unproven allegations.......however IF Brent was involved it would explain a lot about his dismal "efforts" and pi55poor attitude throughout 2012.

  On 30/10/2012 at 21:19, why you little said:

i think it will. On all of them. This is the AFL's chance to stop tanking stone dead.

And I may be wrong but this is where I think you have it wrong - the AFL first and foremost priority is not to stop tanking stone dead - they just want this to GO AWAY. The AFL do not want to sanction the MFC and then other clubs in what is still a subjective prosecution that will end up in courts. They want this to GO AWAY.

Again I may have this wrong but I am still tipping - Vlad "after looking at all the evidence it is still difficult to say with certainty that teams went on the field to lose. However to remove all hint of this going forward, the priority picks have been removed and the bottom four teams will participate in lottery system similar to the NFL in the future".

I just cant see the AFL wanting this stinking fetid issue to end up in court AND the pressure of then lining up Carlton next and ...then..WCE and Hawthorn and Stkilda etc etc.

  On 31/10/2012 at 00:13, rjay said:

Unfortunately they are; unless someone comes forward with a lot of credibility, an Ian Dicker like person then I would prefer the AFL to appoint an administrator, a well qualified and experienced football person with the runs on the board to get the club back on track. I have no faith in this board to make good decisions.

Administration is the way to go.

  On 30/10/2012 at 23:58, billy2803 said:

I'm not trying to be a smart a$$, but a lawyer would have a field day with that definition, plain and simply, because that's not the definition!

How's this definition;

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tank

"Slang To suffer a sudden decline or failure".

Tanking DOES NOT mean to tell players to lose. There is no formal definition of it meaning "to intentionally lose".

Have you seriously given me a dictionary definition of a slang word?

I am talking about a legal definition of what actions - that can substantiated and proven - encapsulate tanking in the AFL.

If you, or anyone, on here think that is slam dunk because the FD had a meeting surrounding the ramifications if we won 2 more games then you are kidding yourselves.

Tanking has to be narrow and deep otherwise actions that are in no way 'tanking' would be damned by association.

  On 31/10/2012 at 00:18, H_T said:

First I've read or heard of that.......{insert silly emoticon}

When don't players rev each other up at 3/4 time when the game is in the balance..???

Bloody ridiculous....

more ridiculous that most of them were incapable of the required 'trying to win" from the first bounce ( of any game )

  On 31/10/2012 at 00:23, rpfc said:

Have you seriously given me a dictionary definition of a slang word?

I am talking about a legal definition of what actions - that can substantiated and proven - encapsulate tanking in the AFL.

If you, or anyone, on here think that is slam dunk because the FD had a meeting surrounding the ramifications if we won 2 more games then you are kidding yourselves.

Tanking has to be narrow and deep otherwise actions that are in no way 'tanking' would be damned by association.

It's a lot better than what you've found RP!

I'm trying to find a way for us to get away with this. If tanking = to tell a player/s to lose a game, then I think we're fine as I strongly believe this didn't happen.

It is also my point that if "tanking" can't be used as the charge, then the AFL, if they want to, will find a different rule that we've broken.

At this stage, and has been for a while, the ball is in Vlad's court. Sadly, I think he has racquet in hand and is about to serve. Let's hope he double faults!

  On 31/10/2012 at 00:12, billy2803 said:

Like you, I'm like "most people". It's the blokes that wear funny wigs that aren't like most people, and they're the ones that may eventually be fighting our case!

The point is "tanking" (or whatever the correct term is, if there is one) is about deliberately trying to lose ("match fixing" in a way) which is what Caroline Wilson is insinuating.

I argue that there is a difference between deliberately trying to lose, and winning not being a top priority. It is very hard to prove that actions such as resting players constitutes deliberately trying to lose unless there is concrete evidence to prove that was the motivation for it.

  On 31/10/2012 at 00:28, Clint Bizkit said:

The point is "tanking" (or whatever the correct term is, if there is one) is about deliberately trying to lose ("match fixing" in a way) which is what Caroline Wilson is insinuating.

I argue that there is a difference between deliberately trying to lose, and winning not being a top priority. It is very hard to prove that actions such as resting players constitutes deliberately trying to lose unless there is concrete evidence to prove that was the motivation for it.

or that the inclusion of any player or location of any player on the ground would have DEFINITELY resulted in a win !!

  On 31/10/2012 at 00:28, Clint Bizkit said:

The point is "tanking" (or whatever the correct term is, if there is one) is about deliberately trying to lose ("match fixing" in a way) which is what Caroline Wilson is insinuating.

I argue that there is a difference between deliberately trying to lose, and winning not being a top priority. It is very hard to prove that actions such as resting players constitutes deliberately trying to lose unless there is concrete evidence to prove that was the motivation for it.

I agree with this (apologies if I didn't communicate that to make it sound that I do!).

The latter part of that paragraph is the bit that we all thought wasn't possible, but the last 24 hours events aren't filling us with as much confidence!

This simply a fishing exercise.

Not one person has publicly said 'we deliberately lost games'. They hint at player movements, restings etc but never 'we were told not to win games'.

The AGE is sensationalising this by calling our meeting room 'The Vault' and 'secrets from the Vault' etc.

The AFL have to be seen to be looking into it. There is no smoking gun.

Oh and BTW in case anyone hadn't noticed we were (and still are) a shiite team. As if we could manufacture wins on demand???!!!! 'Oh hang on better not play too well today, we don't want to win'. It's simply laughable.

  On 31/10/2012 at 00:27, billy2803 said:

It's a lot better than what you've found RP!

What I have found?

I haven't found anything.

God only knows what Clothier thinks he has found if he doesn't have a definition of what constitutes a breach.

So Clothier may think he has found something but nothing if you know what I mean.

I'm in one of my moods again and I apologise but three things are annoying me today:

1. What idiot openly talks about intent with a meeting of the FD.

2. Clothier is off-leash. AFL didn't reign in his scope at the start when they should have (ie. give him a definition)

3. We are alone in a court of public opinion where half the gallery should be sitting next to us.