Playing semantics with the definition of the word "tanking" does not remove the moral flaw of trying to milk the system (get high draft picks) while claiming to be doing other wise (win every game of footy).

When does trying to "win every game of footy" begin paul?

What do you call the ACB's practice of resting fit key players under the reasoning of "rotations"

What do you call cricket teams playing for a draw in order to win or hold a series

What do you call soccer teams playing for a draw on away games

What do you call resting players before the finals so you have a better chance at the flag

etc etc

Clubs don't focus on winning every game. The focus on winning the series. There is a difference

Ah Barry Prendergast... not only did he "michael tuck" our club with his recruiting and this long term legacy, he is now working to undermine the club by testifying as to tanking.......

Like an alleged murderer claiming that someone else getting off murder somehow mitigates his crime...I dont think so.

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

Like an alleged murderer claiming that someone else getting off murder somehow mitigates his crime...I dont think so.

I was arguing that it was not like an alleged murderer making that claim, though i used the case of the speeding motorist. You might disagree with my reasoning, but to just ignore it is a bit odd.

stop there my friend.

What you have said above is the very essence of Tanking & what the club did.

With a very clear vision.

I have never believed players are involved in tanking. That could be life threatening to not be switched on 100%.

"But too lesson the likelihood of winning" is absolutely Tanking in a nutshell

Once you remove the players - they did not try and lose - and once you remove the coaches instructions to the players - the players were never instructed to do anything adverse - then it is so muddy in my opinion, that without concrete evidence of a systematic plan the whole issue is dead in the water.

This, however, is not good:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/tanking-affair-afl-to-lift-the-lid-on-melbournes-vault-20121030-28h3c.html

no it is not good at all, but i am not suprised.

It was a 2 year strategy because that was how the priority pick was given out.

Now the shi!t is being thrown. How much will stick?

It is understood Melbourne remains determined to fight any sanction and is looking at the legal definition of 'tanking' in a bid to redefine their actions and those of other clubs over the past decade.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/tanking-affair-afl-to-lift-the-lid-on-melbournes-vault-20121030-28h3c.html#ixzz2AkkFFlMj

There are your semantics PaulRB.

This, however, is not good:

http://www.theage.co...1030-28h3c.html

hm, definitely picking up steam now.

Thanks for the memories Barry. What a fine legacy.

Once you remove the players - they did not try and lose - and once you remove the coaches instructions to the players - the players were never instructed to do anything adverse - then it is so muddy in my opinion, that without concrete evidence of a systematic plan the whole issue is dead in the water.

why are you removing coaches instructions?

They are always present.

When does trying to "win every game of footy" begin paul?

What do you call the ACB's practice of resting fit key players under the reasoning of "rotations"

What do you call cricket teams playing for a draw in order to win or hold a series

What do you call soccer teams playing for a draw on away games

What do you call resting players before the finals so you have a better chance at the flag

etc etc

Clubs don't focus on winning every game. The focus on winning the series. There is a difference

Like most things it's about motivation and degree. the group strategy discussions revealed in The Age imply we'd switched our motivation heavily to gaining high pick by losing and were up to it to a high degree.

Greed does that.

Shame for us hapless supporters because it's crap to watch at the time and now looks likely to haunt us for years to come.

This, however, is not good:

http://www.theage.co...1030-28h3c.html

yikes - concrete evidence of a systematic plan.... (glad I put in the disclaimer about a concrete proof !!!)

memo : MFC

Now would be a really good time to come out swinging.

Best defence is an attack

Edited October 30, 201212 yr by belzebub59

If you haven't noticed, the story has developed in the last half an hour. Caro's article has increased in volume.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/tanking-affair-afl-to-lift-the-lid-on-melbournes-vault-20121030-28h3c.html

She now opens with this: 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.

Unsurprisingly, this is a change in tack from her original opening paragraph: The AFL investigation into the Melbourne tanking affair has escalated with several key witnesses coming forward with fresh evidence, including repeated versions of at least one football meeting in 2009, the season in which the club was trying to win no more than four games.

There is defamation potential in that statement.

But I digress.

We absolutely designed our playing list and game day strategies to lessen the likelihood of winning. That isn't tanking. Tanking is telling players to lose. Because that is the only thing that can be proven to be tanking: EXPERIMENTATION Miller in midfield. Pfft. What about Garland in the forward line? Dunn in the backline? Bennell on the ground? We we tanking this season? Experimentation is not tanking. LIST MANAGEMENT Retiring players and removing seasoned pros has a devastating effect on immediate playing ability. But it also allows McDonald to be placed on the list at 53 and Jurrah (eyes roll) in the PSD. List management is not tanking. SEASON ENDING SURGERY/REHAB Player welfare is paramount and takes on significant importance in losing years. Protecting investments in losing years is perfectly fine. Season ending surgeries/rehab is not tanking. So please tell me again how we tanked and why I am wrong? And why those in charge are culpable for something that is not prosecutable.

This post is all good.

However, if, as Caro claims, the AFL can prove that there was a meeting in which the board, senior members of the MFC, or anyone at all involved with the administration and management of the club, discussed and agreed to lose games, or undertake strategies which would lower our competitiveness for the purpose of lowering our competitiveness, then we are in trouble.

In other words, if all they can pin their hat on is the externally visible actions of what we did, we can't be guilty of anything, for your reasons. But if they can trace those actions to an overarching objective to attempt to lose games, then that's where the guilt will come from.

It is understood Melbourne remains determined to fight any sanction and is looking at the legal definition of 'tanking' in a bid to redefine their actions and those of other clubs over the past decade.

Read more: http://www.theage.co...l#ixzz2AkkFFlMj

There are your semantics PaulRB.

Desperate graspings of a drowning argument. We're already losing the PR arguement, MFC brand being tarnished weekly, and a legal fight with the AFL over the degrees with which we "tanked" or didn't "tank" should be a bonus for our membership, and progress as a club.

why are you removing coaches instructions?

They are always present.

I am removing coaches instructions to the extent that Brock saying there was tanking is useless unless he can say "bailey told us to go half speed, Bailey told us to miss shots at goal" . Players testifying that it felt wrong is nothing more than fluff . players testifying that a coach told me to throw the game is another thing altogether.

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

The only positive is that the ruling may not be final until after this years draft, so any draft sanctions will apply next year. Still not great but at least we can plan for it. In terms of fines, is there any point the AFL fining us? They either bankroll it themselves or lose a club. Neither would appeal to them i dont think.

Frustrating that we are the only club who will go down for this after many have done it before us. That would be just typical. Also frustrating that its all media driven and been caused by one individual who spoke unecessarily on television. We were home free otherwise. The AFL had previously ticked it off. Unbelievable bad luck.

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)

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

They will never ever get caught, unless they have McLean, Wellman, West type's who want to bend them over.

I am removing coaches instructions to the extent that Brock saying there was tanking is useless unless he can say "bailey told us to go half speed, Bailey told us to miss shots at goal" . Players testifying that it felt wrong is nothing more than fluff . players testifying that a coach told me to throw the game is another thing altogether.

no Nut, this has little to do with the players per se.

This is all to do with the round table discussions between coaches during the week. The players may get wind of it, but i would be horrified if it was direct conversations. At Carlscum it may be different.

Could it be that Schwab stuck his head in on these meetings and did not loke what he heard or saw?

Just a thought.

It hurts that little bit more that the individual in question is a complete plod like Brickhead McLean, who was so incensed by playing for a tanking team that he signed up with Carlton.

Desperate graspings of a drowning argument. We're already losing the PR arguement, MFC brand being tarnished weekly, and a legal fight with the AFL over the degrees with which we "tanked" or didn't "tank" should be a bonus for our membership, and progress as a club.

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.

At least the coach and most of the current FD were not at Melbourne when this occured and should be able to plow on with pre-season, as this issue now consumes the rest of the club.

When will it end.

Sigh

Edited October 30, 201212 yr by PaulRB

(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)

That's the bit that gets me about the article. It seems too weird and sinister to be true.

Like most things it's about motivation and degree. the group strategy discussions revealed in The Age imply we'd switched our motivation heavily to gaining high pick by losing and were up to it to a high degree.

Greed does that.

Shame for us hapless supporters because it's crap to watch at the time and now looks likely to haunt us for years to come.

I don't think greed is the word you are searching for

Greedy for success is fine

Greed for money does not apply here

A wiilingness to step over the line is more like the problem

Problem here is the line is poorly defined and the precedents set by other clubs do not help either

Having said all that I personally am uncomfortable with tanking despite the difficulty in definition

I would only be satisfied if the inquiry covered all clubs and all clubs come clean