A former Melbourne sponsor says a senior Demons official boasted about securing top two draft picks

[dee-luded 2,958]

So if the MFC gets punished should we take it to court? Is the MFC bigger than the AFL, more important?

The NRL no longer has a draft because 1person thought he was more entitled than the rest 20 odd years ago, could the code handle a trial of such magnitude?

Would johnny cochranes start running the agenda?

There are mumblings about the salary cap being a restriction of trade. do we want MFC to create a letigious era where the rich clubs like collingwood can simply outspend opposition like manchester city did?

Yes, if they bang us up, because the principle a fair play is the argument here.

[dee-luded 2,958]

Does anyone actually believe we didn't tank?

We list managed, just as more than half the other clubs have done over the last 12 years.

[Supermercado 2,682]

Does anyone actually believe we didn't tank?

So 'innocent until proven guilty' doesn't apply? If they want to apply penalties let them prove it (beyond the evidence looked at in the two investigations which have already cleared us), and if they do then bend over for the league and say "please sir may I have another".

I'd say that of course we did, but then again I also have bugger all evidence to prove it.

[The Great Pretender 430]

Does anyone actually believe we didn't tank?

If you're talking about the wide definition of the word, we did it and every other club in a position to gain from the AFL's system of priority picks did it.

If you're talking about the AFL's definition as stated by the AFL and its officials for a number of years leading up to 2009, its doubtful on the evidence so far that we can be found guilty of anything.

[Guest]

I think, and I say this as someone with no hidden agenda or any bollocks like that, IF the club is guilty as defined by the AFL's terms of what 'tanking' is, those behind it need to be moved on (if they are at the club) and all involved need to be given a one year ban from the game. That is if tanking is defined as the act of actively coaching and selecting players so they are set up to fail. If tanking is defined exclusively as directing players not to give their best effort, and really THIS would be an indictment, we are home free because there has been no indication that anyone at the club intimated this should happen. However, those at the club who did advocate the former strategy need to be run over the coals as this should never have happened.

What staggers me about our list management in 2009 is that no-one really bothered to consider the possibility that maybe the list could improve to premiership standard without the need of a priority pick. Sure, there was probably the need for a few more first round draft picks (and a few more senior players to give them some time to develop properly) but it was entirely possible to build a good squad using what we had supplemented with a few more players. Geelong hasn't had a number one draft pick since Stephen Hooper. Sydney hasn't had one since Darren Gaspar.They have both been able to rebuild their list via the draft without bottoming out. No one also seemed to consider as well that a culture built on the back of failure, however you wish to define it, might not be healthy for the long term psyche of the playing group.

[Biffen 12,567]

I think, and I say this as someone with no hidden agenda or any bollocks like that, IF the club is guilty as defined by the AFL's terms of what 'tanking' is, those behind it need to be moved on (if they are at the club) and all involved need to be given a one year ban from the game. That is if tanking is defined as the act of actively coaching and selecting players so they are set up to fail. If tanking is defined exclusively as directing players not to give their best effort, and really THIS would be an indictment, we are home free because there has been no indication that anyone at the club intimated this should happen. However, those at the club who did advocate the former strategy need to be run over the coals as this should never have happened.

What staggers me about our list management in 2009 is that no-one really bothered to consider the possibility that maybe the list could improve to premiership standard without the need of a priority pick. Sure, there was probably the need for a few more first round draft picks (and a few more senior players to give them some time to develop properly) but it was entirely possible to build a good squad using what we had supplemented with a few more players. Geelong hasn't had a number one draft pick since Stephen Hooper. Sydney hasn't had one since Darren Gaspar.They have both been able to rebuild their list via the draft without bottoming out. No one also seemed to consider as well that a culture built on the back of failure, however you wish to define it, might not be healthy for the long term psyche of the playing group.

I think we know that now ,as does Carltank .WCE and Collingwood have done very well out of it though .

We will be forced to point to other examples if we are held responsible for the system.

Constantly playing kids is dangerous for the group and the club.

But it is not a crime.

[hoopla 418]

And for those bleating about carlton, richmond and the pies...they were all able to keep their mouths shut.

We would have been fine if everyone kept their mouths shut but people talked and we must now pay thevprics

We did keep our mouths shut. The "person" who opened his mouth is employed by the rival who won the Kreuzer Cup!

[One or two other ex-Melbourne people may have opened their mouths since. Ex Carlton ( Libba and Fev) and ex Richmond ( Wallace) people have also opened their mouths]

but none of this would stand up in a court of law. The rule is not black or white.

We may have done some wrong morally, we may have said too much which is stupid, but even on here for 2 years it was the Hot Topic.

The reason any of this happened is because the AFL left a door open.

Since 2001 we have not been alone in walking through that door.

Yes, The AFL expected us to watch the power clubs exploit the rules - and are now attacking us for trying to mimic them. When "natural justice" is in place its OK to follow the leader

No of course the media won't make that decision. The AFL will based on their investigations of which the media have been leaked some of.

My point was that rather than outright attacking CS or CC the media will throw muck at and deride the club until they get what they're after.

Unfortunately the Wilson-led media has already done the damage. The reputation of the Melbourne Football Club - and its appeal to sponsors - has already been trashed. As for CS and especially CC - what employment options do they have now?

Let's assume the AFL Investigators ultimate exonerate us . Wilson's headline will be " AFL goes soft on Disgusting Demons". Kids in the schoolyard will start bating the (few) kids in Melbourne jumpers " You got away with cheating - double cheaters"

As for CC - even if he is only guilty of overuse of a sardonic sense of humour - he has little chance of working effectively in "Community Relations"

The media has already got what it is after!

[Outside fifty 967]

This spelling is acceptable in its derivation from the Ancient Greek ,emanating from the Athenians needing to leave the Island of Crete very quietly and quickly under cover of dark . DIS (as in disembark) and Crete (Greek Is.)They failed in their attempt at DISCRETION and were slaughtered by the chorus .

This is why I love Demonland.

[Pirlo 592]

Did Kaspersky not quit because of Schwab?

[Guest]

I think we know that now ,as does Carltank .WCE and Collingwood have done very well out of it though .

We will be forced to point to other examples if we are held responsible for the system.

Constantly playing kids is dangerous for the group and the club.

But it is not a crime.

Spot on. Playing kids constantly when they don't deserve a game is dangerous but on other occasions it has worked out fine. I will grant it was 19 years ago and the AFL was a very different beast but if tanking is defined as playing kids over the veterans, Kevin Sheedy tanked and won a premiership.

The bigger issue is how players were positioned and selected. Bomber Thompson began pruning veterans off his list starting in 2000 and played kids but they were kids who were mostly played on their merits. I believe Brent Grgic was at Geelong in 2002 hence adding a little weight to my theory.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Have they actually produced a positive doping test for lance armstrong?

To my knowledge it is from team mate testimony only that he has had his titles stripped and they were from longer ago than 4 years.

The difference is the team mates dropped themselves in it as well, they were not exempt from penalty, they weren't just pointing the finger.

[Household Demon 34]

Nov 19th, is the day

[rpfc 27,692]

We didn't tank.

We did what most people see as 'tanking' - list management, early rehab, young players, and experimentation.

But that isn't tanking because those actions are perfectly legal and ethical for a team in a losing season to do: prepare for when games are relevant again.

This is why AD has such a narrow view of tanking and so should you all. In a draft regulated sport the incentive once finals are out of sight is to 'bottom out.'

We did what we felt was right for us as a club.

We didn't tank.

[bing181 8,359]

The difference is the team mates dropped themselves in it as well, they were not exempt from penalty, they weren't just pointing the finger.

Not to side-track the thread, but .... technically perhaps not, but in reality they were exempt from penalty. Their bans were delayed to allow them to complete the last season, and only really cover the off-season. They'll be back next year as if nothing happened. The only one who has been sanctioned by his team (sacked) is Leipheimer, the others still actively involved can continue as normal.

Not supporting Armstrong or anyone involved, but the whole case was the opposite of McClardy's "natural justice".

[Tatu 416]

Does anyone actually believe we didn't tank?

I believe we didn't tank..... Tanking is something made up by the supporters, to feel better about the fact that their team is [censored]!

I fell for it..... I thought we tanked to get picks.... But if that was true than why are we still [censored]!

We didn't tank we are just [censored]!!!

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,087]

No one told the players to try and lose therefore we did not tank.

[Guest José Mourinho]

God love the spelling and grammar Nazis. Because if there's one thing that can unravel an argument, it is the misuse of a word.

Not a spelling nazi, but pretty funny when your post is based around a single word... that you haven't spelled correctly.

Just amusing.

Doesn't take anything away or add anything to your post.

Be precious if you must.

[Guest]

Not a spelling nazi, but pretty funny when your post is based around a single word... that you haven't spelled correctly.

Just amusing.

Doesn't take anything away or add anything to your post.

Be precious if you must.

Well, considering I do speak two languages and currently am doing a masters on said language, I do get a little cheesed off when someone starts to criticize my linguistic ability on an internet football forum. Especially when they have had nothing to say about the topic at hand.

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,087]

Ofcourse we will take it to court - if even to try and keep access to pick 4

[DEE fence 4,602]

As a former Policeman (not a gun investigator but qualified enough to say calm the procreation down), I have been quite amazed at some of the things written in the news and on the forum, so wanted to add my two cents.

1 first of all it is a civil, not criminal matter so the rules for a finding of fact are based on 'balance of probabilities' not 'beyond a reasonable doubt') findings are based on evidence, heresay unless certain exemptions are made, cannot be allowed into evidence. 99% of everything I have read has not been direct evidence but would be dismissed after consideration by a judge. Mr. Haddad is mentioned as a UN investigator this means nothing but it does sound good. If he had been with the armed robbers squad or the hommies then I would take him a little more seriously, but he was not appointed via any balanced recruitment process, nothing personal but he is just a good soldier not Dirty Harry. Any reasonable silk will take large chunks out of a statement by a peanut like Brock, you can make statements too good and they look cooked when you read them.

2 a witness can only provide evidence of what he or she saw, so former sponsors ... Meh means nothing except 2" of news print.

3 there are literally dozens of witnesses, does anyone have any idea how long this would take to hear and depose, think Milperra Bikie Massacre, that took two years this would be longer, no one is going to be up for that not the AFL not the club (actually I'm wrong the lawyers would love it). My point being that if the AFL hits us with punitive sanctions we should make very clear to our board that we want them to challenge them in court, I really deeply believe a compromise will be worked out that doesn't gut the club.

4 there was no direct profit or financial misconduct, while draft picks are gold, their tangible value is very hard to debate, they cannot be redeemed for cash and which individual profited? there is no criminal conspiracy to defraud (a criminal charge) unless you had the board as a group put there hand up and confess, which considering their personal financial positions, they would not jeopardize, and even then proving the 'for benefit' bit would probably set a legal precedent. My point is in other areas that the AFL has come down hard on there has been a clear financial trail, whether gambling or salary cap rorts. In this case it's 60 different muppets all with a slightly different tale to tell, can anyone really prove what Bailey did as a result of a conversation with Connolly or Schwab?

5 football clubs have always sat slightly outside the law, this has caused me much consternation because I am a great believer in the rule of law, which directly conflicts with my love of the club. I think the AFL gets this and that is why they have generally been keen to stay away from the courts. AFL is part of Australian culture that is why it has been cut some slack in the past and will continue to do so-Societies being protective of their culture (I could tell you about some really obnoxious cultures I see here in Africa). For all the [censored] we hang on the AFL it's been pretty good at moving forward, thuggery, violence towards women, alcohol, and race are all issues that they have been moving forward on over a period of time to make sure the good aspects of our football culture remain, I don't think they will tear all that down which is what would happen if they really tried to kill us over tanking. The good aspect of football culture that stands out for me is getting a group of young men to play together for a common purpose and with each other, it breeds good people and allows an outlet for all the crap that goes with being young and male, short of sending them to the army or on a cattle drive. But it is a fine thing to balance collective responsibility (the club ) versus individual actions ( the player ), and sometimes this loyalty means that societies rules get bent in a football club, for the greater good I'm happy with that because they (the afl) have been getting rid of the excesses mentioned previously.

6 The AFL got the priority pick thing wrong, the lesser evil for them will be to amend the rules and incentivize winning games over draft picks via a lottery.

This is typed on a dinky widget so please excuse typos/ grammar/spelling mistakes.

[hoopla 418]

As a former Policeman (not a gun investigator but qualified enough to say calm the procreation down), I have been quite amazed at some of the things written in the news and on the forum, so wanted to add my two cents.

1 first of all it is a civil, not criminal matter so the rules for a finding of fact are based on 'balance of probabilities' not 'beyond a reasonable doubt') findings are based on evidence, heresay unless certain exemptions are made, cannot be allowed into evidence. 99% of everything I have read has not been direct evidence but would be dismissed after consideration by a judge. Mr. Haddad is mentioned as a UN investigator this means nothing but it does sound good. If he had been with the armed robbers squad or the hommies then I would take him a little more seriously, but he was not appointed via any balanced recruitment process, nothing personal but he is just a good soldier not Dirty Harry. Any reasonable silk will take large chunks out of a statement by a peanut like Brock, you can make statements too good and they look cooked when you read them.

2 a witness can only provide evidence of what he or she saw, so former sponsors ... Meh means nothing except 2" of news print.

3 there are literally dozens of witnesses, does anyone have any idea how long this would take to hear and depose, think Milperra Bikie Massacre, that took two years this would be longer, no one is going to be up for that not the AFL not the club (actually I'm wrong the lawyers would love it). My point being that if the AFL hits us with punitive sanctions we should make very clear to our board that we want them to challenge them in court, I really deeply believe a compromise will be worked out that doesn't gut the club.

4 there was no direct profit or financial misconduct, while draft picks are gold, their tangible value is very hard to debate, they cannot be redeemed for cash and which individual profited? there is no criminal conspiracy to defraud (a criminal charge) unless you had the board as a group put there hand up and confess, which considering their personal financial positions, they would not jeopardize, and even then proving the 'for benefit' bit would probably set a legal precedent. My point is in other areas that the AFL has come down hard on there has been a clear financial trail, whether gambling or salary cap rorts. In this case it's 60 different muppets all with a slightly different tale to tell, can anyone really prove what Bailey did as a result of a conversation with Connolly or Schwab?

5 football clubs have always sat slightly outside the law, this has caused me much consternation because I am a great believer in the rule of law, which directly conflicts with my love of the club. I think the AFL gets this and that is why they have generally been keen to stay away from the courts. AFL is part of Australian culture that is why it has been cut some slack in the past and will continue to do so-Societies being protective of their culture (I could tell you about some really obnoxious cultures I see here in Africa). For all the [censored] we hang on the AFL it's been pretty good at moving forward, thuggery, violence towards women, alcohol, and race are all issues that they have been moving forward on over a period of time to make sure the good aspects of our football culture remain, I don't think they will tear all that down which is what would happen if they really tried to kill us over tanking. The good aspect of football culture that stands out for me is getting a group of young men to play together for a common purpose and with each other, it breeds good people and allows an outlet for all the crap that goes with being young and male, short of sending them to the army or on a cattle drive. But it is a fine thing to balance collective responsibility (the club ) versus individual actions ( the player ), and sometimes this loyalty means that societies rules get bent in a football club, for the greater good I'm happy with that because they (the afl) have been getting rid of the excesses mentioned previously.

6 The AFL got the priority pick thing wrong, the lesser evil for them will be to amend the rules and incentivize winning games over draft picks via a lottery.

This is typed on a dinky widget so please excuse typos/ grammar/spelling mistakes.

All good points neatly summed up in #6 "The AFL got the priority pick thing wrong, the lesser evil for them will be to amend the rules and incentivize winning games over draft picks via a lottery".

Unfortunately Wilson and her media mates have already done significant damage to the MFC - and the AFL

[Longsufferingnomore 1,500]

Nov 19th, is the day

What is this - sanctions day. Nov 22 is draft day - please not before Draft Day. I've a feeling in my waters there goes No4.

[dees189227 11,315]

MELBOURNE'S benching of Liam Jurrah in Round 22, 2009, could form part of the evidence against it in the AFL tanking inquiry.

Jurrah's mentor and biographer, Bruce Hearn Mackinnon, said yesterday he could not fathom Melbourne's treatment of the exciting forward.

This is in the herald sun. i think they are getting desperate for more news and try to interview anyone. Now Jurrahs mentor is waying in. Give me a break. What next. A players dad sying my son was benched.

[bing181 8,359]

MELBOURNE'S benching of Liam Jurrah in Round 22, 2009, could form part of the evidence against it in the AFL tanking inquiry.

Jurrah's mentor and biographer, Bruce Hearn Mackinnon, said yesterday he could not fathom Melbourne's treatment of the exciting forward.

As if it would have made a difference against the future grand finalist - they only won by 8-odd goals.

[7-UP 107]

Well isn't Jurrah's mentor is a demonland member?

lets ask him?