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....

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.

It's the "anyway" that changes the whole thing around... and we only have Caro's word for that - but again, if true, is really bad news, and tell us much about CS + CC + DB + the board - if the players were trying to win ANYWAY, then the whole management structure (pretty much intact, I note) needs to be fired out of the barrel...

To those complaining that the club isn't out there ranting and raving publicly defending our innocence, consider that it may be in our interests to 'keep the powder dry', await an 'outcome' and if any unproven finding is made and any sanction imposed then come out all guns blazing, court injunctions etc etc. Anything premature would only encourage the 'drip feeding' that we are all suffering.

All we have heard so far are lots of unproven allegations, mainly by disgruntled former players or employees, allegedly.

rp - if it can be proven that the intent of actions taken by the coaches was to lose a game of football, how would that not meet a legal definition of tanking?

Irrespective of whether the instruction was to the players directly, actions taken outside of that with respect to player selection, player positioning, gameday tactics etc could still make the club culpable.

For me it comes down to intent, and whether that can be proven.

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

It's all good, worth explaining.

I don't know why you expect Melbourne to come out and say something.

The Investigation is still ongoing, they haven't been called up by the AFL to explain anything at this stage so why would they want to talk to the "Dirty Scum of the Earth"

hiding behind titles called "Media or Journos"

At this stage No Comment should suffice.

Hopefully Demetriou understand what tanking actually is better than most seem to at the moment..

From the article: "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."

"Never told to lose".... ie: We didn't "tank".

Are you really this naive?

As I stated earlier we have incompetents running the club.

At least at the end of this they will be gone for ever.

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

That's been the trouble, we've had a bunch of pea hearts that have collapsed every time they were put under pressure and that's why we lost so many games; how many did we win in 2007 when we were expected to do well, 5 and one was as a result of Carlton tanking in the worst display ever. These same players that saw the downfall of Daniher then went on to see the downfall of Bailey with their insipid efforts.

There was talk about a player revolt leading up to 186 and if anything there should have been an investigation in to this and all the players that didn't try on that day should be deregistered.

We didn't have to tank we were that bad and the only mistake Connolly made was overestimating the calibre of the players we had. How in God's name are the AFL going to be able to prove that the players were in fact better than they are?

For me it comes down to intent, and whether that can be proven.

Agreed.

rp - if it can be proven that the intent of actions taken by the coaches was to lose a game of football, how would that not meet a legal definition of tanking?

Irrespective of whether the instruction was to the players directly, actions taken outside of that with respect to player selection, player positioning, gameday tactics etc could still make the club culpable.

For me it comes down to intent, and whether that can be proven.

That's all well and good, but as CB says 'intent to lose or winning as a lower priority'...

And what if they have multiple intents:

Yes, Miller isn't a natural midfielder, he is not a natural forward either...

Yes, Paul Johnson wasn't a natural defender, but he beat Nathan Brown in the air...

And how are these actions interpreted as 'intent to lose' even if there was a general desire amongst the club to not win more than 4 games?

You can't legislate (retroactively) against a general mood.

Get me examples, Clothier! And try to tell a judge that these are the actions of men 'forfeiting' a game or 'engineering a result.'

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.

Not that shallow. The word 'tanking' is a catchy buzz word that the ambulance chasers are using to colour up their beat up stories. Highly unlikely the AFL would ever use that term officially.

It is slang.

The general understanding of the use of that term implies that the people on the field are not trying. This is how it is applied across many other sports e.g. tennis.

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.

the Betting Agencies will insist on it.

This problem is not just going to go away sadly. It is getting bigger.

Too many have spoken now.

Do we know for sure who the unnamed second player is yet for sure?

Or is it a guess...?

Okay cool, I just think we need to steer away from, "if the players weren't told to lose, we didn't tank". It's a little broader than that.

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

It wouldn't do them any good to come out (come out infers the notion of talking to the media in relation to it, that won't help anything)

But internally I would be hoping that the appropriate people at our club are banging hard on AD's door asking how the heck an investigation by an 'integrity' officer seems to be playing out in the media as much as it is ...

That's all well and good, but as CB says 'intent to lose or winning as a lower priority'...

And what if they have multiple intents:

Yes, Miller isn't a natural midfielder, he is not a natural forward either...

Yes, Paul Johnson wasn't a natural defender, but he beat Nathan Brown in the air...

And how are these actions interpreted as 'intent to lose' even if there was a general desire amongst the club to not win more than 4 games?

You can't legislate (retroactively) against a general mood.

Get me examples, Clothier! And try to tell a judge that these are the actions of men 'forfeiting' a game or 'engineering a result.'

It won't be on field actions that sink the club, that can be easily explained away, if anything it will be the corroborated testimony of accounts of the words used to ensure that tanking would occur.

Even then there is no rule against tanking i understand it, if there were to be a a charge it would be something like "acting against the spirit of the game" or similar". I am no legal eagle but that is how I understand it? Can anyone clarify?

The debates about the dictionary or legal meaning of 'tanking' are irrelevant. There is no 'tanking' rule. The only possible (AFL) charge is something along the lines of bringing the game into disrepute.

Time lines in this need to be recognised. When some supporters, including myself, wanted the club to get on the front foot and deny any tanking had taken place it was in response to Wilson's first article yesterday morning. Since then there's been another dozen articles and far more information has come to light. Clearly there's nothing to be said now until any findings have taken place, although the club has made it clear that it's already consulting with lawyers, which I like hearing.

The debates about the dictionary or legal meaning of 'tanking' are irrelevant. There is no 'tanking' rule. The only possible (AFL) charge is something along the lines of bringing the game into disrepute.

You are 100% correct Sue. However, if there were to be a charge of bringing the game into disrepute, then on what basis is such an arbitrary judgement made? The point being, if and when the AFL moved to sanction us, they ought to be damn sure of grounds and not leave themselves open to being whacked by the legal principle of reasonableness and what I would confidently predict would be the adverse findings against the AFL, made by Court, under the provisions of Administrative Law.

Once again, while it is understandable that Wilson's article would raise the hackles of any true Dees supporter, the whole issue is without substance and as hollow as Paris Hilton's head.

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.

With regards to point no.2 what have you read, or heard that I may have missed ? It appears to me that Clothier is doing no more, or less than he's been asked to by Adrian Anderson.

"Never told to lose".... ie: We didn't "tank".

You, rpfc, CB, and anyone else who has this narrow definition, are just far too close-minded.

Stynes, McLardy, Bailey and Schwab all meeting. They decide that the best thing to do in 2009 is to finish with 4 wins, so that we get the priority pick. They debate how to do this, and decide that by resting players and playing them out of position, we could achieve this without actually telling our players to lose. So that's what we do. We play weird players in weird positions, we don't make player movements during a game that we might otherwise have done, we rest players, etc. But we don't tell them to lose.

And you think that is not tanking?

We're all banging on about the law. The law likes substance, not form. Call it what you want. If the board had the intent of us finishing with 4 wins or fewer, and they did things in pursuit of this goal, then it doesn't matter whether they told the players to lose. We're not concerned with the players tanking, we're concerned with the club tanking.

Despite all of the material presented, there is not one single piece of evidence pointing to the fact that Melbourne tanked. Not a single suggestion that the players were told by coaches and/or officials to go out and not try their best in a game of football.

See above. That's too narrow a definition of tanking. I don't think that kind of proof is required to show that a football club tanked.

Kiss this year's draft goodbye if pick 4 is taken off us, without a full hearing according to the rules of natural justice. This has been a selective inquiry without any right of testing the statements by the victim and the ability to call its own evidence.

An injunction will stop the draft. Can't see it happening. I can however see us getting fined in a messy situation where no other club is then examined.

The whole workings of the AFL would be up for examination in a Court case.

Now this I agree with.

The evidence is flakey, the charge (if there even is one) is undefined, and the penalty is exorbitant. Not to mention the potential lack of a proper hearing and an expedited investigation to ensure it's done before the draft.

We may well have tanked. But the AFL has to be able to show it. Properly. With no doubt. And I don't think they can do that. Not fairly, anyway.

Another salient point: the AFL gave us pick 4. They give the draft picks to the clubs based on ladder positions. It's their call as to who gets what pick. Why'd they give us pick 4? Because we sucked in 2012. To take it back off us for what was done in 2009 then becomes questionable.

Sorry if this has already been posted but i found this a good read

http://www.theage.co...1030-28hso.html

Sums up why the MFC are the ones being targeted here opposed to other clubs.

Only 2 teams have been investigated as they have had people openly speak out about it, Carlton and the MFC.

Carlton have answered to the allegations against them. We have not.

You, rpfc, CB, and anyone else who has this narrow definition, are just far too close-minded.

You missed the part where I clearly stated unless it can be proven that the motives (for playing players out of position) were to try to lose, and these motives can be proven.

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.

nah i think maloney was just sooking because of the LG thing and he left because he could see that soon as viney , wines came along he was not required , off to rot in the vfl

Stynes, McLardy, Bailey and Schwab all meeting. They decide that the best thing to do in 2009 is to finish with 4 wins, so that we get the priority pick. They debate how to do this, and decide that by resting players and playing them out of position, we could achieve this without actually telling our players to lose. So that's what we do. We play weird players in weird positions, we don't make player movements during a game that we might otherwise have done, we rest players, etc. But we don't tell them to lose.

And you think that is not tanking?

Does anyone know when this meeting occurred? We were 1-13 ... the three games that were considered suspect were rounds 17-18 and 19. At 1-13 is anyone suprised that our staff might have met to consider what is best for the club for 2010? given that it was clear there was a priority pick at stake?

If the club met at the start of the year, I would be concerned.... if they were discussing 2010 at or about round 15 or 16 which was when the club was 3-14 I think, then is anyone suprised? and does anyone honestly believe any of the other clubs that we believe to have tanked would not have had similar meetings about similar topics?

Another salient point: the AFL gave us pick 4. They give the draft picks to the clubs based on ladder positions. It's their call as to who gets what pick. Why'd they give us pick 4? Because we sucked in 2012. To take it back off us for what was done in 2009 then becomes questionable.

Pick 4 was compo for Scully, had nothing to do with us being crap.

The evidence is flakey, the charge (if there even is one) is undefined, and the penalty is exorbitant. Not to mention the potential lack of a proper hearing and an expedited investigation to ensure it's done before the draft.

We may well have tanked. But the AFL has to be able to show it. Properly. With no doubt. And I don't think they can do that. Not fairly, anyway.

Another salient point: the AFL gave us pick 4. They give the draft picks to the clubs based on ladder positions. It's their call as to who gets what pick. Why'd they give us pick 4? Because we sucked in 2012. To take it back off us for what was done in 2009 then becomes questionable.

this is how i see it.

I think the AFL will impose penalties on the MFC regardless of findings. They cannot be seen to do nothing.

Hopefully the draft happens before the sanctions are handed out.

We the MFC counter with court proceedings immediately.

The other fingered clubs can help pay the legal costs.

If the MFC just rolls over & takes a beating i will lose all respect