Wods? Oh you mean words. They won't be mine, they'll be yours.

Yeah, I wouldn't mind being interviewed by Clothier and Haddad, bring 'em on, sunshine.

What does that have to do with my question?

How have i changed my stance on this topic?

Good point. I am sure the reindeer have a lot to add to this.

About the olny contribution the reindeer could add, is a whole lot more crap.

What does that have to do with my question?

How have i changed my stance on this topic?

I don't think you have changed your mind - I think you have incongruous thoughts on the issue.

A cognitive dissonance that infuriates and dismays.

1. You think we are innocent.

2. You think we should accept whatever punishment that is handed down.

Thus the Bob Dylan song about the story of Hurricane Carter who was wrongfully imprisioned but decided against making a ruckus about it and did his 'full whack.'

Note: I know that when you explain jokes extensively it means it wasn't a very good joke, but I think there should be an exception for wyl - he's a few Germans short of an invasion of Poland if you know what I mean...

I don't think you have changed your mind - I think you have incongruous thoughts on the issue.

A cognitive dissonance that infuriates and dismays.

1. You think we are innocent.

2. You think we should accept whatever punishment that is handed down.

Thus the Bob Dylan song about the story of Hurricane Carter who was wrongfully imprisioned but decided against making a ruckus about it and did his 'full whack.'

Note: I know that when you explain jokes extensively it means it wasn't a very good joke, but I think there should be an exception for wyl - he's a few Germans short of an invasion of Poland if you know what I mean...

Haha that was genuinely funny (well almost)

IF the AFL find the MFC guilty on a charge that legally sticks we cop the wack...yes that is my stance.

We all know the objectives of 2008-09 was to win 4 or less games each year. But was that wrong?

At this stage of the investigation i do not think the club will be charged because of too many grey areas.

I wouldn't be opposed to the club doing an Adelaide by admitting guilt, in order to get a much lesser penalty.

This club cannot afford to be banned from the next 4 drafts.

Having said that, if the club truly believes its innocent and have done nothing wrong, then I'm happy for them to fight this to the bitter end.

OK - five points

1/ Please point to exactly which rule we have broken

2/ If you can point to rule that we have broken, the AFL needs to unambiguously state the definition of the rule we have broken and then have proof of exactly how the rule was broken ( ie playing players in wrong positions constitutes tanking, resting players constitutes tanking...etc).

3/ If point 1 & 2 are put forward by the AFL and since the "crimes" were done in the past, there needs to be clear and unambiguous statements/actions by the AFL that other clubs will be held to exactly the same standards and investigations ( and presumably charges) have to be made into other clubs. Carlton, Collingwood, Stkilda, Richmond, WCE, Hawthorn are in trouble and even Freo's and GWS's actions in one game each would have to breach the standard.

4/ Unless players were told to go out and lose and unless there is an action plan in writing on how to lose, comments by an administrator that are open to interpretation or players who had a feeling for what was happening (Brock) would hardly constitute proof of anything - or again if these are accepted as proof then they are the standard and Richmond must meet the same standard in terms of Wallace's Cotchen statement and Carlton with their Fevola and Barry Mitchell statements.

5/ Lastly - I have never been paranoid about the AFL being out to get us - but this will be severely tested if there is a hard finding against us after the sissy, nancy boy, amby pampby handling of Tippett case and the penalties brought down for a cut and dried case that was not open to any interpretation what so ever

edit - I think that should read namby pampby and you can add fairy floss marshmellow sooky la la as well

The AFL could be accused of trying their best not to win in this case.Which is ironic.

They've lost their chief lawyer during the battle because he bought the wrong donuts.

Their house is in disarray.

Ours is freshly cleaned.

The AFL can LMBB.

Saying we were crap in 2009 is correct but that does not mean we did not manipulate things in the last quarter of a game.

Jnr were you at the Richmond game in 2009?

You would have to be blind to not notice the moves that were made that enabled us to lose after the siren.

The end of that season we set our "culture" in concrete

The MFC should never ever again do anything other than try 100% to win every game.

Not sure why you are going out of your way to emphasise and re-emphasise the case for the prosecution. I may agree with you but - I'm certainly not going to broadcast it ahead of all the legitimate points we can raise in our defence. Caro has well and truly promoted the prosection case already - we need to restore the balance by putting the other side of the argument.

Nutbean's five points below are compelling. These are the points we should be promoting - not just in support of the MFC but in the interests of natural justice!

(PS Whatever else you might say about the Richmond game, we still put a team on the field that was good enough - and motivated enough- to be in front when the siren sounded)

OK - five points

1/ Please point to exactly which rule we have broken

2/ If you can point to rule that we have broken, the AFL needs to unambiguously state the definition of the rule we have broken and then have proof of exactly how the rule was broken ( ie playing players in wrong positions constitutes tanking, resting players constitutes tanking...etc).

3/ If point 1 & 2 are put forward by the AFL and since the "crimes" were done in the past, there needs to be clear and unambiguous statements/actions by the AFL that other clubs will be held to exactly the same standards and investigations ( and presumably charges) have to be made into other clubs. Carlton, Collingwood, Stkilda, Richmond, WCE, Hawthorn are in trouble and even Freo's and GWS's actions in one game each would have to breach the standard.

4/ Unless players were told to go out and lose and unless there is an action plan in writing on how to lose, comments by an administrator that are open to interpretation or players who had a feeling for what was happening (Brock) would hardly constitute proof of anything - or again if these are accepted as proof then they are the standard and Richmond must meet the same standard in terms of Wallace's Cotchen statement and Carlton with their Fevola and Barry Mitchell statements.

5/ Lastly - I have never been paranoid about the AFL being out to get us - but this will be severely tested if there is a hard finding against us after the sissy, nancy boy, amby pampby handling of Tippett case and the penalties brought down for a cut and dried case that was not open to any interpretation what so ever

All good stuff

No objective football follower who attended both the Kreuzer Cup and the McMahon Memorial could possibly conclude that Melbourne alone committed a crime

Not sure why you are going out of your way to emphasise and re-emphasise the case for the prosecution. I may agree with you but - I'm certainly not going to broadcast it ahead of all the legitimate points we can raise in our defence. Caro has well and truly promoted the prosection case already - we need to restore the balance by putting the other side of the argument.

Nutbean's five points below are compelling. These are the points we should be promoting - not just in support of the MFC but in the interests of natural justice!

(PS Whatever else you might say about the Richmond game, we still put a team on the field that was good enough - and motivated enough- to be in front when the siren sounded)

All good stuff

No objective football follower who attended both the Kreuzer Cup and the McMahon Memorial could possibly conclude that Melbourne alone committed a crime

That is not the point

If you commit a crime it is not a defence to say that 50 people committed the same crime that week.

I just get a little fed up with all the self righteous stuff some Dees supporters keep pedaling.

Please are you suggesting that the AFL will change their opinion based on what I say on Demonland.

They do not know or care that I exist.

We do not deserve the current investigation as the AFL set up the position that we and a number of teams tried to exploit.

But lets not get too outraged

That is not the point

If you commit a crime it is not a defence to say that 50 people committed the same crime that week.

I just get a little fed up with all the self righteous stuff some Dees supporters keep pedaling.

Please are you suggesting that the AFL will change their opinion based on what I say on Demonland.

They do not know or care that I exist.

We do not deserve the current investigation as the AFL set up the position that we and a number of teams tried to exploit.

But lets not get too outraged

I havent and wont peddle the defense that we should get off because others have done the same thing.

What I am strong in my view on, is if the AFL set standards/definitions of "tanking" and we are found guilty of what we did in the past then so be it. However then the AFL must also apply the same standards to ALL clubs and what they have done in the past.

This is not a call to use other clubs actions as a defense - its a call for equality in dispensing justice.

"No i have never said we are guilty at all."

"If the club is found guilty then yes we take the wack."

I hope that is clear for you Steve.

Crystal.

That is not the point

If you commit a crime it is not a defence to say that 50 people committed the same crime that week.

I just get a little fed up with all the self righteous stuff some Dees supporters keep pedaling.

Please are you suggesting that the AFL will change their opinion based on what I say on Demonland.

They do not know or care that I exist.

We do not deserve the current investigation as the AFL set up the position that we and a number of teams tried to exploit.

But lets not get too outraged

It amuses me when people trot out the old " its no defence to argue that others have done the same thing" line. That analogy is appropriate when the crime is clearly defined and fully understood - but that is not the case here.What is the crime- except as defined by precedent? If we are found guilty it will be because the AFL for the very first time has decided that a particular set of normal behaviours have suddenly become illegal.

I believe my in-principle comments about the preachings of Melbourne supporters are valid - even if they can be dismissed at the micro level. I am sure that in resolving to fight the charges the Board has gained strength from the support it has received from the overwhelming majority of Melbourne supporters (and Demonland posters)

So....If I get this right......Coaches must play recognised backmen on recognised forwards all the time??????

They are not allowed to experiment....ever???????

If the said experimentation causes a team that has only won a couple of games so far in the said season to lose...then this is termed tanking?????

FD staff must not say anything funny about said loss?????

Must not have FD meetings in the said "Vault"

The media shall have exclusive rights as to which players should play where therefore taking the job of coaches.(saving clubs millions)??????

This investigation is a joke and an blight on the AFL as a whole.....Driven purely by the media......

That is not the point

If you commit a crime it is not a defence to say that 50 people committed the same crime that week.

I just get a little fed up with all the self righteous stuff some Dees supporters keep pedaling.

Please are you suggesting that the AFL will change their opinion based on what I say on Demonland.

They do not know or care that I exist.

We do not deserve the current investigation as the AFL set up the position that we and a number of teams tried to exploit.

But lets not get too outraged

and that crime would be ??

A little left field but one of the reasons Tanking doesnt /cant exist officially ( and therefore be considered for recriminations ) is there is no actual definition or rule with respect to it. There are no guidelines, no qualifications to it, there isnt anything really. Its an abstract thats coined to describe an attitude/come legitimate tactic with regard to a clubs list.

This is essentially why there can be NO repercussions as there isnt a wrong-doing. Garbage and bottom feeding media types may want to see someone raked over the coals ( as it suits them ) but like it or not there hasnt been a rule broken. Therefore no punishment is legitimate. Its on this basis any defence would be based

your point : We do not deserve the current investigation as the AFL set up the position that we and a number of teams tried to exploit. is the only real foundation of reference. We worked within the existing climate and guidelines. We didnt make them, we only played WITHIN them.

1/ Please point to exactly which rule we have broken

Only thing I can think of is the old chestnut of bringing the game into disrepute. But given that can be used for Juddy's chicken wing equally as effectively as tanking allegations and anything else... I just don't know where this investigation can go from here if thats all they have.

Ok, so far as I can see, we can't get done for match fixing . There aren't any bookmakers involved . There are no large amounts of money involved . There hasn't been any 'plunges' and certainly no unusual betting has occurred . There is nothing that we've done that could be constituted as match fixing . I'm talking specifically about 2009 which is where the investigation seems to be mainly focused .

So .... we could only be sanctioned or incur penalties for 'Things' other than match fixing . Things like - playing certain players in different positions , giving young players more game time , putting players in for early operations so as to ensure those players can do a full pre-season , etc etc . These sort of things have been going on in all sports for a long long time . Experimentation like this is practiced by teams in contention as well . Not just in footy, in all sorts of sports . In our sport many young players have debuted in finals over the years (often replacing a veteran) . Apart from all this, there are no set rules on how much a team can experiment (in the sort of areas I've mentioned above) .

If they find us guilty and we incur sanctions they are going to have to explain why we've incurred sanctions . They can't just come out with the old 'Bringing the game into disrepute' angle without a foolproof explanation . There will need to be details given and this is why I reckon the investigation has (virtually) stalled .

bb my comment

"If you commit a crime it is not a defence to say that 50 people committed the same crime that week."

was a comment in general not about this situation it was not aimed at wether or not we had committed a crime.

I understand that a lot of dees supporters passionately defend the club.

But some of it is just zeal with no consideration as to what actually happened.

Do I want the MFC sanctioned for the Richmnond game or any others? No

But there is no doubt in my mind that the FD in that last quarter did everthing they could to lose.

I will go to the grave believing that.

For whatever the motivation it is a sorry day in the history of the MFC

Ok, so far as I can see, we can't get done for match fixing . There aren't any bookmakers involved . There are no large amounts of money involved . There hasn't been any 'plunges' and certainly no unusual betting has occurred . There is nothing that we've done that could be constituted as match fixing . I'm talking specifically about 2009 which is where the investigation seems to be mainly focused .

So .... we could only be sanctioned or incur penalties for 'Things' other than match fixing . Things like - playing certain players in different positions , giving young players more game time , putting players in for early operations so as to ensure those players can do a full pre-season , etc etc . These sort of things have been going on in all sports for a long long time . Experimentation like this is practiced by teams in contention as well . Not just in footy, in all sorts of sports . In our sport many young players have debuted in finals over the years (often replacing a veteran) . Apart from all this, there are no set rules on how much a team can experiment (in the sort of areas I've mentioned above) .

If they find us guilty and we incur sanctions they are going to have to explain why we've incurred sanctions . They can't just come out with the old 'Bringing the game into disrepute' angle . There will need to be details given and this is why I reckon the investigation has (virtually) stalled .

Macca unless the MFC is going to take it to court ( they are suggesting such but have not actually said it)

then the AFL can do exactly what you are suggesting.

They can say the MFC is bringing the game into disrepute.

They make the rules.

the question they will be asking themselves is will the MFC go to court?

That is the $64 question.

Personally I think the MFC should go to court if we are sanctioned.

For a change lets push this to the limit, no holes bared approach

The MFC wants to be a tough team.

Test number 1 is approaching

Saying we were crap in 2009 is correct but that does not mean we did not manipulate things in the last quarter of a game.

Jnr were you at the Richmond game in 2009?

You would have to be blind to not notice the moves that were made that enabled us to lose after the siren.

The end of that season we set our "culture" in concrete

The MFC should never ever again do anything other than try 100% to win every game.

Old Dee, I was there and yes, there were some pretty blatant moves, but please explain how these enabled us to lose 'after the siren'. I'm not sure Richmond were cooperating with our desire to lose so how did the coaching moves result in the goal after the siren. I'm sure that diet is doing you no good.

bb my comment

"If you commit a crime it is not a defence to say that 50 people committed the same crime that week."

was a comment in general not about this situation it was not aimed at wether or not we had committed a crime.

I understand that a lot of dees supporters passionately defend the club.

But some of it is just zeal with no consideration as to what actually happened.

Do I want the MFC sanctioned for the Richmnond game or any others? No

But there is no doubt in my mind that the FD in that last quarter did everthing they could to lose.

I will go to the grave believing that.

For whatever the motivation it is a sorry day in the history of the MFC

Old

I think many are missing the obvious. Hardly anyone suggests we didnt "list manage". Everyone does and did. Thats not really the issue. The point is..what rule did we break ? Answer, there isnt one. Thats the issue. We havent done anything WRONG. Therefore we cant be punished

If the AFL attempt to play fast and loose with interpretations then I think the answer to your question : do we go to court " is a resounding YES

The AFL wont want this anywhere near a legal system where they arent the ones making the rules. Vlad knows this was a mission impossible and why HE didnt instigate it. Vlad also knows weve lined up the Wigs. The media sewage swillers will be besides themselves should it go to court but it cant. The GAME would lose for very little if any gain.

I almost sense the club is primed for a fight. This would send a message to one and all. We're tired of being wiped , tired of being the easybeats. You want to fight..look out, we wont be pulling ours !!

Macca unless the MFC is going to take it to court ( they are suggesting such but have not actually said it)

then the AFL can do exactly what you are suggesting.

They can say the MFC is bringing the game into disrepute.

They make the rules.

the question they will be asking themselves is will the MFC go to court?

That is the $64 question.

Personally I think the MFC should go to court if we are sanctioned.

For a change lets push this to the limit, no holes bared approach

The MFC wants to be a tough team.

Test number 1 is approaching

Yep , you are right 'OD', they can come out with the 'Bringing the game into disrepute' angle but it's my view that there will need to be an 'Explanation' to go with it .

That's where it would get very murky . Even if they don't have an explanation the media and the general public will ask why . It stands to reason .

Example - 'The AFL' - "We hereby charge the MFC with bringing the game into disrepute and they will therefore lose 'such and such' draft picks in 'such and such' drafts .

'Media and the general public' - "How did they bring the game into disrepute, AFL ?"

'AFL' - "They played certain players in different positions , dropped veterans for young players , put certain players in for early operations etc etc."

'Media and the general public' - "Ok , so we take it that clubs are not allowed to do this in the future?"

'AFL' - "Er ..... can we start again?"

bb my comment

"If you commit a crime it is not a defence to say that 50 people committed the same crime that week."

was a comment in general not about this situation it was not aimed at wether or not we had committed a crime.

I understand that a lot of dees supporters passionately defend the club.

But some of it is just zeal with no consideration as to what actually happened.

Do I want the MFC sanctioned for the Richmnond game or any others? No

But there is no doubt in my mind that the FD in that last quarter did everthing they could to lose.

I will go to the grave believing that.

For whatever the motivation it is a sorry day in the history of the MFC

We did what ruthless teams do in losing seasons in draft-evened sport.

And we nearly screwed it up... (All other teams push players into surgery early - we still had a decent team on the park)

I cheered when Jordan kicked truly.

Sport is life and life is complex.

I have no problem with what we did.

Old Dee, I was there and yes, there were some pretty blatant moves, but please explain how these enabled us to lose 'after the siren'. I'm not sure Richmond were cooperating with our desire to lose so how did the coaching moves result in the goal after the siren. I'm sure that diet is doing you no good.

Easy Crawf Richmond were even worse than us at the time.

We really had to pull out all stops to get the desired result

and even then it almost did not happen.

I heard and saw large numbers of dees supporters cheering when the ball sailed through.

I was disgusted, still am.

On demonland there are still people making positive comments about the guy who kicked the Goal ( forgotten his name )

Makes me feel ill.

Oh diet is going slowly but well mate

We did what ruthless teams do in losing seasons in draft-evened sport.

And we nearly screwed it up... (All other teams push players into surgery early - we still had a decent team on the park)

I cheered when Jordan kicked truly.

Sport is life and life is complex.

I have no problem with what we did.

I did and still do.

Play every game to win and worry about draft selections when the time arises.

Otherwise you risk "186" as a possible result

Easy Crawf Richmond were even worse than us at the time.

We really had to pull out all stops to get the desired result

and even then it almost did not happen.

I heard and saw large numbers of dees supporters cheering when the ball sailed through.

I was disgusted, still am.

On demonland there are still people making positive comments about the guy who kicked the Goal ( forgotten his name )

Makes me feel ill.

Oh diet is going slowly but well mate

Jordan McMahon?

Yeah it wasn't pretty - but I'm still not sure how our moves turned victory into defeat after the siren.

Clothier and Haddad need hard evidence of an 'intent to lose'. Conflicting tatements about what was said and what was meant at some or other meeting will be ripped apart in court.

No smoking gun. No case.