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 .

I completely agree with your comments.

The only basis i can see for the AFL to charge us with 'Bringing the game into disrepute' is if there were damning evidence found against the club that came out of the supposed 'Vault" meeting.

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 !!

I hope you are right bb I hope it is not needed but if it comes to it I hope the MFC board have balls for it

I hope you are right bb I hope it is not needed but if it comes to it I hope the MFC board have balls for it

Cheer up Old Dee....All is not lost.....

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 !!

Totally Agree with this.

When this whole proceedure was started i thought the AFL would have solid evidence to put us and others to the sword

But as the months have passed that feeling is no more because i don't think the AFL even know what to charge us with...and if they do, they are well aware that the MFC has a legal team ready to rip them apart.

This is where the media has it all wrong...That C...t Denham said this morning "The MFC Bears MUST be punished..." How & with what i am still waiting to hear.

But as i have repeated adnauseum on here IF the AFL do find damming evidence against the MFC we will cop an absolute beating for this i have no doubt.

I don't think they will find anything so have not lost any sleep.

I completely agree with your comments.

The only basis i can see for the AFL to charge us with 'Bringing the game into disrepute' is if there were damning evidence found against the club that came out of the supposed 'Vault" meeting.

Given that everyone knew about the draft incentives, I struggle to understand how a few odd positional changes in a game brought the game into disrepute anyway.

Now by publicly voicing his disillusionment with an incentive system which jeopardised his place in the first choice midfield of his former club,Brock McLean certainly damaged the reputation of the AFL. He could have expressed his concerns directly to Mr Anderson - but he chose to do it through the media instead.

If every player who has left his first club with a grievance followed Mc Lean's lead, the reputation of the AFL would quickly be in tatters

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

That's an in-house issue. Did we screw our culture? Was it already stuffed?

But that doesn't mean we broke any rule or did anything that was not within our rights to do.

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

If the AFL is going to engage in retrospective investigations into the performance of teams in seasons past then it is the point.

In 2009 the chief of the AFL condoned our behaviour in season 2009, yet 3 years later they re-open an investigation on us.

If they can do that to us they are setting a precedent that decency and fairness requires they also apply this approach (an investigation) to the other clubs in the AFL who have acted similarly...

They do not know or care that I exist.

But I do.

Couple of things:

- If we go down as a club, it'll be under the 'bringing the game into disrepute' clause. That'll happen for CS and CC too.

- That said, I don't think we will. Adrian Anderson gone hurts the investigation, considering he would have been leading it. Further to that is the reports in the AA-resigning articles which suggests that DB agrees with the humour contention that has been going around.

- Furthermore, the AFL do now have their fall guy. They can claim Anderson was dumb about it all.

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 !!

Couldnt agree more

Let the AFL make the case and all we have to do is defend it and i agree that we shoild go in as hard as we can if we are required to defend

First what is the actual rule that was broken? Unless the afl can charge the club with something then we have nothing to defend

MFC just has to wait to see what the Investigators come up with. In the normal world they would actually have to lay a specific charge Investigate all that is relevent to that charge not more nor less and gather sufficient evidence to prove that charge

I dont believe the club has been charged with a specific infraction so all we are witnessing is an abuse of process

I still believe it will all go away over Xmas AFL doesnt have the stomach for a legal battle

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.

I was there and saw every minute of it. There is no way the players were doing anything but trying to win. We had 3 players injured on the bench.

Player experimentation is fine and not unusual particularly when you have a young team and are gifting them games. Dimwit even called us to congratulate us on our experimentation telling is to hold the line against the critics.

I have even seen the Morton on Goodes move criticised yet nowhere have IU seen written that Morton killed Goodes that day. Its all selective bulltish.

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 !!

So take this to its logical conclusion.

The investigators/commission give an unambiguous definition of "tanking" and how the MFC has brought the game into disrepute - Melbourne is sanctioned and it goes to court - Personally I think it is so grey and fluffy that a court would have problems upholding any charge of wrongdoing on a rule that required significant defining AFTER the event but lets say that they did uphold the charge. A standard has been set and the AFL would be obliged to measure 6 other clubs against the same court approved standard.

Can you see this as something the AFL wants ???

The only thing I can possibly see happening ( and the MFC would have to tacitly agree to it) is the AFL will find no case to answer but question the actions/comments of CC as a "role model" for good admininstration of the game even if the comments were said in jest and he would fall on his sword. As yet I have yet to hear anything that implicates CS. As I said - the club would have to agree to this. Anything harsher than this - including monetary punishment or draft pick removal I think you will find the MFC going the AFL head on in court.

Couple of things:

- If we go down as a club, it'll be under the 'bringing the game into disrepute' clause. That'll happen for CS and CC too.

- That said, I don't think we will. Adrian Anderson gone hurts the investigation, considering he would have been leading it. Further to that is the reports in the AA-resigning articles which suggests that DB agrees with the humour contention that has been going around.

- Furthermore, the AFL do now have their fall guy. They can claim Anderson was dumb about it all.

Anderson landed the AFL in a huge mess when - with Demetriou on leave- he took the self-serving whinges of McLean seriously.

The priority pick has effectively gone - and the whole "tanking for picks debate" could have died a natural death. Anderson has spent timeand money putting a dead issue back on the table .Whack Melbourne and the AFL ( with good reason) will be beaten up for gross inconsistency - exonerate Melbourne and the AFL will be accused ( by Wilson at least) of softness and naivety.One of the reasons the investigation is still going is surely because the AFL is desperately trying to find something that will give them a way out of the mess they ( through Anderson) have got themselves into. They haven't finished it yet - because they don't know how to.

Anderson said the two big integrity issues facing the AFL today are drugs and gambling - yet he has his staff digging through 2009 emails between the Melbourne boot studder and his wife looking for proof that Melbourne broke some sort of rule. If you were his chosen successoryou'd want in your contract that finalisation of the Melbourne investigation wouldn't be part of your brief.

How significant was this monumental [censored] -up in Anderson's departure?

But I do.

Well thanks Redleg

Well thanks Redleg

Jeez, knock it off you blokes,, I'm tearing up.

I was there and saw every minute of it. There is no way the players were doing anything but trying to win. We had 3 players injured on the bench.

Player experimentation is fine and not unusual particularly when you have a young team and are gifting them games. Dimwit even called us to congratulate us on our experimentation telling is to hold the line against the critics.

I have even seen the Morton on Goodes move criticised yet nowhere have IU seen written that Morton killed Goodes that day. Its all selective bulltish.

Jnr had no stage have I ever said that the players were trying trying 100%

I have never said the FD told them to lose.

However the reason they did lose is because the FD / coach made ridculous positional changes.

We all know what they were.

Player experimentation is done one or two at a time not six or seven.

The example you give was probably the only one that dayand it was from early in the game and worked.

Why were some many dees supporters celebrating after the game? why were many celebrating the loss for the next two years?

Jeez, knock it off you blokes,, I'm tearing up.

Your secret is safe with me mate, I won't tell a soul

Promise

I have no choice but to violently disagree rpfc

The hurricane IMO is in Dylan's top 5 maybe the best

What about:

Positively Fourth Street

Desolation Row

Hard Rain's Gonna Fall

Like a Rolling Stone

Blowin in the Wind

It's all over now Baby Blue

Knockin on Heaven's Door

It ain't me babe

Don't see much prospect of Hurricaine getting a guernsey

Positively Fourth Street

Desolation Row

Hard Rain's Gonna Fall

Like a Rolling Stone

Blowin in the Wind

It's all over now Baby Blue

Knockin on Heaven's Door

It ain't me babe

Don't see much prospect of Hurricaine getting a guernsey

A couple of good ones there CtM

Just personal preference mate but I still like the Hurricane still in my top 5

Pity he could not sing as well as he wrote.

Positively Fourth Street

Desolation Row

Hard Rain's Gonna Fall

Like a Rolling Stone

Blowin in the Wind

It's all over now Baby Blue

Knockin on Heaven's Door

It ain't me babe

Don't see much prospect of Hurricaine getting a guernsey

What a genius & that list just scratches the surface.

Blonde on Blonde...Blood on the Tracks

Even infidels.

Love Bob.

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

True, but over those years when other teams were tanking, Andrew continually stated that "tanking does not exist". It can be only concluded that the list manipulation and questionable tactics during those games were acceptable...

Jnr had no stage have I ever said that the players were trying trying 100%

I have never said the FD told them to lose.

However the reason they did lose is because the FD / coach made ridculous positional changes.

We all know what they were.

Player experimentation is done one or two at a time not six or seven.

The example you give was probably the only one that dayand it was from early in the game and worked.

Why were some many dees supporters celebrating after the game? why were many celebrating the loss for the next two years?

I hear ya. It just doesn't 'prove' anything though.

I could point to 100 weird positional changes. There was no instruction to deliberately lose games. Case closed.

It's all over now Baby Blue

That's the one I'd like to hear in the context of this inquisition.

The club's brand continues to suffer damage as a result of the misinformation and innuendo bandied abroad, mainly because of the poor treatment of stories leaked to the media.

Those of us who closely study the allegations made against the club and have some knowledge of the issues and personalities involved are better able to understand that what's been presented in the media witch hunt is not evidence of wrongdoing in the context of what the AFL has defined as "tanking" in the past. Call it "list management" or "experimenting" (as Baby Blue did when questioned on OTC), or give it the descriptions Fevola and Liberatore have used in the context of Carlton who were investigated for 15 minutes over the issue. The fact remains that the only instance where tanking has been proven was in the case of the Richmond Football Club when Terry Wallace admitted to it publicly by saying he did nothing to win a game that would have deprived the Tigers of Trent Cotchin had they won (and the AFL has done nothing about this).

It's damaging because most of the public simply do not study closely what's been said or written about the inquisition. I have had conversations with intelligent, well educated people who believe that Melbourne called meetings to direct its coaches and other personnel in the football department to do everything in their power including direct orders to players to lose games under sufferance of dismissal from their jobs. They seriously believe this after misreading articles written by some in the media whose agendas deviated far from the normal role of reporting or commenting on real facts. Some have formed opinions on the basis only of newspaper headlines or 10 second grabs on the news. Chalk it down as a victory for the Josef Goebbels style of journalism that's becoming all too prevalent in certain segments of our print media.

The AFL can trumpet on about the inquisition having to go on its normal course but this one continues to us and the broader game much damage. At this rate, it's going to last almost as long as an entire football season eating into valuable resources and doing nothing more than bring many of the league's personnel and its investigative processes into disrepute.

I agree with the OP. Demetriou needs to find a way out of this and soon.

I have not changed my stance McQueen.

I have no doubt we were tanking in the later part of the 2009 season

I was at that Richmond game with a couple of Tiger supporter friends

There is no doubt in their minds or mine that the MFC FD did everything they could in the last quarter to not win.

I don't believe they told players not to win but the moves that day were blatantly obvious.

Now was it any worse than Carlton in the K Cup ? No

Was it any worse than other clubs in that period? No

None the less in my mind we tanked.

Please answer this simple question: who took the mark on the siren and kicked a very difficult long goal? Bailey? Connolly? Schwab?

Had we really wanted to make sure of losing at that time, surely Brock would have been instructed to 'do a Jimmy' and step over the mark to ensure the goal.

Jnr had no stage have I ever said that the players were trying trying 100%

I have never said the FD told them to lose.

However the reason they did lose is because the FD / coach made ridculous positional changes.

We all know what they were.

Player experimentation is done one or two at a time not six or seven.

The example you give was probably the only one that dayand it was from early in the game and worked.

Why were some many dees supporters celebrating after the game? why were many celebrating the loss for the next two years?

If you believe that the players were never told to lose - then you believe that we have done nothing wrong - and should say so.

The fact that the supporters cheered McMahon's goal through is not evidence that the club committed a crime - but a demonstration of the fact that the supporters understood the AFL's incentives to bottom out ( just as Carlton supporters understood them after the Kruezer Cup)

(Although I disagree with your take on the Richmond game in 2009,I reckon you are spot on putting "Hurricane" into the jester's top 5!)

That's the one I'd like to hear in the context of this inquisition.

The club's brand continues to suffer damage as a result of the misinformation and innuendo bandied abroad, mainly because of the poor treatment of stories leaked to the media.

Those of us who closely study the allegations made against the club and have some knowledge of the issues and personalities involved are better able to understand that what's been presented in the media witch hunt is not evidence of wrongdoing in the context of what the AFL has defined as "tanking" in the past. Call it "list management" or "experimenting" (as Baby Blue did when questioned on OTC), or give it the descriptions Fevola and Liberatore have used in the context of Carlton who were investigated for 15 minutes over the issue. The fact remains that the only instance where tanking has been proven was in the case of the Richmond Football Club when Terry Wallace admitted to it publicly by saying he did nothing to win a game that would have deprived the Tigers of Trent Cotchin had they won (and the AFL has done nothing about this).

It's damaging because most of the public simply do not study closely what's been said or written about the inquisition. I have had conversations with intelligent, well educated people who believe that Melbourne called meetings to direct its coaches and other personnel in the football department to do everything in their power including direct orders to players to lose games under sufferance of dismissal from their jobs. They seriously believe this after misreading articles written by some in the media whose agendas deviated far from the normal role of reporting or commenting on real facts. Some have formed opinions on the basis only of newspaper headlines or 10 second grabs on the news. Chalk it down as a victory for the Josef Goebbels style of journalism that's becoming all too prevalent in certain segments of our print media.

The AFL can trumpet on about the inquisition having to go on its normal course but this one continues to us and the broader game much damage. At this rate, it's going to last almost as long as an entire football season eating into valuable resources and doing nothing more than bring many of the league's personnel and its investigative processes into disrepute.

I agree with the OP. Demetriou needs to find a way out of this and soon.

As I have said above , I believe that Anderson has dumped the AFL into a huge hole on this. The AFL needs this investigation out of the way as quickly as possible.The trouble is they don't how to conclude - because every which way they do it will make them look foolish.

Whereas McLardy initially said we would fight for "natural justice" ,he is now saying that we will fight to "protect our integrity". I am probably reading to much into it but that sounds to me like a much stronger protest of innocence - and a much stronger warning to the AFL that it needs to get its findings right. As WJ has said - through the poison pen of people like the Wilson Woman - this saga has damaged our reputation - and Melbourne expects the AFL to help restore it.

If the integrity issues of 2012 are drugs and gambling, the AFL shouldn't be tying up resources on priority pick incentives in 2009. Hurry up Mr Demetriou - Anderson has gone.