Either charge us or drop the investigation

[beelzebub 23,313]

The Game has entered the premiership qtr. The AFL is plonking along having the wind at its back for most of the first half. They seem to have the game in their sights but have been unable to shake the Dees who have been plucky and determined in their defence even though the Umps are murdering them so far !!

The Awfuls might have gone too early as the Dees seem to have plenty of puff and fight left in reserve and now as one of the AFL's stars has retired from the game they are being shown up as possible pretenders.

Its a hard game to call but you just get the inkling that the mighty Demons might finish all over this upstart mob as the Red and Blue dig deep into their spirit the AwFuLs seem to be running around rather lacklustre and down on intensity. The breeze seems to have swung around to be at Melbourne's back.

3/4 time and the Dees have their nose in front. At the huddles Melbourne troops are being fully charged by their determined leaders, if body language alone was the litmus then the Dees have it in the bag as over at the over lot shoulders are drooping and one man to another they're looking around for some purpose and direction with no one seemingly able to provide it. The Awfuls seems to just be going through the motions now., just wanting this game over.

Not long to the finish now ;

Go Dees

[PaulRB 6,352]

Sounds like the commentary of a certain game in 2009, watch out for the Awful's Andy Dee to kick a match winning goal after the siren to steal it from the Dees (once again)...

[H_T 3,043]

....

Not long to the finish now ;

Go Dees

News from the bench BB, 'ever-ready-Anderson' has been subbed off after consultation with Andy Dee and Fitzy.

[Flying Cloud 152]

I'm confident that we'll escape any sort of penalty or sanctions . If that happens it then begs the question - "How and why did it take well over 4 months to come to this conclusion?" (McLean was on 'OTC' in late July IIRC) . We can only be found guilty of preparing for the next season (or seasons) . And that is not match fixing . If we do receive penalties it has to be for match fixing . What, are they going to take a draft pick off us because Paul Johnson played on Nathan Brown ? It can't stick , it just can't .

I reckon what's happened is that the investigators could have closed the 'Case' a number of times but then another little 'titbit' would surface - they'd spend another week or 3 'Investigating' that until another little 'titbit' would surface . And so on and so forth .

They've got nothing of any substance and their attitude might be to keep looking until they find something . Maybe the investigators haven't realised that if the smoking gun was there, they should have uncovered it by now . Maybe it's just plain stubbornness on their part . Trying (in vain) to justify their own involvement in this farce .

Edit : The other thing to remember is that if we receive sanctions for reasons other than match fixing, then that will impact on what is 'Allowable' for clubs in the future (on match days) . I reckon that is where they've reached an impasse . Many of us have been focusing on what 'Other' clubs have done in the past, but it's what clubs can do in the future that's at stake here . The AFL will end up making a rod for it's own back if they're not careful .

It's match fixing or nothing .

Correct, including ensuring each team plays their absolute best 22 for each NAB cup game.

[Ouch! 2,258]

In response to Hoopla's comments where Anderson has dropped the AFL into it. I tend to agree on this, but I don't think it's true that there isn't an answer to how to get out of it from the AFL's perspective and not lose face.

The best way for the AFL to do this is admit that they created an environment that could lead to the perception of tanking, and to come up with a clear definition of tanking. In addition they need to take steps to fix things... the priority draft pick was one thing, the next bit would be to do the lottery for the first 5 picks in the draft for example.

The AFL will not come out of this well if they attempt to put the blame onto clubs for what was a scenario caused by the AFL itself. It would open a can of worms that might find itself in the courts which puts them on a much less secure footing.

[Ouch! 2,258]

Correct, including ensuring each team plays their absolute best 22 for each NAB cup game.

Nah, can't be done. You cannot dictate match selection like this, it would almost be akin to saying Adam Goodes is worth X amount of DT points, therefore he should be played at all costs. List management is crucial in the modern game.

The AFL just needs to do whatever it can to ensure that clubs don't race to the bottom, once the race to the finals is out of reach in terms of not making the prize too valuable. But there should be NOTHING wrong with a club putting the queue in the rack if finals are out of reach, it's responsible to send players to get surgery if it means a full pre season, it's the best opportunity to get games into young players or try players in other positions.

The point of difference with tanking is that the club with whoever they put out on the ground.... needs to be seen to be winning the game with the players on the park.

[skills32 229]

Every nuance regarding the alleged tanking has been discussed here except one; if we were really trying to lose we would have Bartram in as 1st ruck.

The AFL want publicity throughout the off season and that is why the investigation started. It would not surprise me if CW was put up to it by the AFL. they have struck their publicity gold medal this year what with the Adelaide/Tippett case as well as Collywobble drugs etc.

Their will be no announcement until just before the NAB cup and it will be a non issue that will get swallowed up by the euphoria of the footie starting up again.

This thread and others of the same ilk are exactly what the AFL wanted.

ie to keep AFL brand in the public domain 24/365.

[Sir Why You Little 36,989]

In response to Hoopla's comments where Anderson has dropped the AFL into it. I tend to agree on this, but I don't think it's true that there isn't an answer to how to get out of it from the AFL's perspective and not lose face.

The best way for the AFL to do this is admit that they created an environment that could lead to the perception of tanking, and to come up with a clear definition of tanking. In addition they need to take steps to fix things... the priority draft pick was one thing, the next bit would be to do the lottery for the first 5 picks in the draft for example.

The AFL will not come out of this well if they attempt to put the blame onto clubs for what was a scenario caused by the AFL itself. It would open a can of worms that might find itself in the courts which puts them on a much less secure footing.

This^^

The entire reason i wanted the Tanking issue to be fully dealt with is so the AFL Laws of the game can rewrite the clause on this rule so it is bulletproof that tanking or match fixing is not an issue ever again as far as coaching & list management is concerned.

The AFL is already compromised with the gambling industry but that is a seperate issue.

[nutbean 8,838]

The AFL want publicity throughout the off season and that is why the investigation started.

This thread and others of the same ilk are exactly what the AFL wanted.

ie to keep AFL brand in the public domain 24/365.

I know there is an old saying " there is no such thing as bad publicity" but do you really believe that AD wants the publicity of this issue where there will be no winners (and one big loser which I am tipping will be the AFL) ? In most sections of the media we have be judged and sentenced passed - when the AFL come out with a finding of "insufficient evidence" do you think that the CW's of the world will say thats ok then, everyone move in. The AFL are damned if they do, damned if they dont - Unless there were players instructed to lose or there is manual that the investigators found on 20 ways to lose a footy match then the AFL can't bring charges but if they dont bring charges the media will lash the AFL.

AD does not want this publicity - he wants this issue to GO AWAY.

Edited December 7, 2012 by nutbean

[beelzebub 23,313]

Well once the AFL has pronounced " Move along, nothing to see here " I would suggest to the likes of Kerro et al that they ferme la bouche lest they be copped with legal action for libel.

Once this IS over the club ought to put these ferals on notice, put up shut up or we'll f*#k you up !! As they cant put up as the AFL will have removed the issue from judgement they ( media hyhenas) should silence themselves on the topic.

[skills32 229]

I know there is an old saying " there is no such thing as bad publicity" but do you really believe that AD wants the publicity of this issue where there will be no winners (and one big loser which I am tipping will be the AFL) ? In most sections of the media we have be judged and sentenced passed - when the AFL come out with a finding of "insufficient evidence" do you think that the CW's of the world will say thats ok then, everyone move in. The AFL are damned if they do, damned if they dont - Unless there were players instructed to lose or there is manual that the investigators found on 20 ways to lose a footy match then the AFL can't bring charges but if they dont bring charges the media will lash the AFL.

AD does not want this publicity - he wants this issue to GO AWAY.

I don't think the AFL were prepared for the public backlash.

When have the AFL ever really thought things thru?

I can see AD now saying 'well it sounded like a good idea at the time'.

[rjay 24,889]

This^^

The entire reason i wanted the Tanking issue to be fully dealt with is so the AFL Laws of the game can rewrite the clause on this rule so it is bulletproof that tanking or match fixing is not an issue ever again as far as coaching & list management is concerned.

The AFL is already compromised with the gambling industry but that is a seperate issue.

It has nothing to do with the laws of the game committee, they are responsible for what happens on the ground.

The AFL have changed their approach to the priority pick and that should go a fair way to alleviating the whole tanking thing.

The separate issue you talk about, lying in bed with the gambling industry opens up the possibility of match fixing. CW has called us on that one and it is way off the mark. We worked within the rules at the time to do what was right for the club, the rules were flawed.

[hoopla 418]

In response to Hoopla's comments where Anderson has dropped the AFL into it. I tend to agree on this, but I don't think it's true that there isn't an answer to how to get out of it from the AFL's perspective and not lose face.

The best way for the AFL to do this is admit that they created an environment that could lead to the perception of tanking, and to come up with a clear definition of tanking. In addition they need to take steps to fix things... the priority draft pick was one thing, the next bit would be to do the lottery for the first 5 picks in the draft for example.

The AFL will not come out of this well if they attempt to put the blame onto clubs for what was a scenario caused by the AFL itself. It would open a can of worms that might find itself in the courts which puts them on a much less secure footing.

I agree with your suggestion - but the AFL is not in the habit of admitting it was wrong - and it will find it difficult to acknowledge that the draft/priority picks system placed clubs in awkward positions - and to admit that the investigation was a waste a of time and money etc..

At least Anderson's personal stake in justifying the witch hunt is now out of the way

[PeterJames 46]

Every nuance regarding the alleged tanking has been discussed here except one; if we were really trying to lose we would have Bartram in as 1st ruck.

The AFL want publicity throughout the off season and that is why the investigation started. It would not surprise me if CW was put up to it by the AFL. they have struck their publicity gold medal this year what with the Adelaide/Tippett case as well as Collywobble drugs etc.

Their will be no announcement until just before the NAB cup and it will be a non issue that will get swallowed up by the euphoria of the footie starting up again.

This thread and others of the same ilk are exactly what the AFL wanted.

ie to keep AFL brand in the public domain 24/365.

It's funny how Caro's inside sources have dried up since Anderson has left. It comes out about the bullying tactics by the investigators and then Anderson quits. Pretty interesting really.

[Sir Why You Little 36,989]

It has nothing to do with the laws of the game committee, they are responsible for what happens on the ground.

The AFL have changed their approach to the priority pick and that should go a fair way to alleviating the whole tanking thing.

The separate issue you talk about, lying in bed with the gambling industry opens up the possibility of match fixing. CW has called us on that one and it is way off the mark. We worked within the rules at the time to do what was right for the club, the rules were flawed.

Yes the rules were flawed and must be rewritten. I don't think eliminating the priority pick is enough but it will take time to sort this out.

[rpfc 28,267]

I don't think the AFL were prepared for the public backlash.When have the AFL ever really thought things thru?I can see AD now saying 'well it sounded like a good idea at the time'.

And you have to remember it was not AD's idea: this was started by AA while The Bloated One was at the Olympics.

If he was here when McLean was on OTC there is no way Sheahan and co. Would have railroaded him into an investigation.

[Ouch! 2,258]

I agree with your suggestion - but the AFL is not in the habit of admitting it was wrong - and it will find it difficult to acknowledge that the draft/priority picks system placed clubs in awkward positions - and to admit that the investigation was a waste a of time and money etc..

At least Anderson's personal stake in justifying the witch hunt is now out of the way

Perhaps, but this really is the only way I can see the AFL managing to save face. They have to take responsibility and sort things out properly, which actually gives them the most control on how to get things right.

They cannot sweep things under the carpet and hope no one notices.

They can't blame the clubs cos the clubs will come back at them, and likely to do so in a court of law, not the AFL tribunal.

But I think more importantly, I don't actually think they can come out and say MFC did nothing wrong and THEN do nothing themselves.

[robbiefrom13 887]

One other possibility is that the AFL will ultimately make its decision not so much in terms of what MFC did that brought the game into disrepute (clearly there was no rule that the MFC broke), but rather in terms of what McLean and Wilson were able to do bringing the game into disrepute.

Thorny problem, but now is when the AFL needs to have some response to THAT, in defence of the AFL brand.

However one views the behaviour of MFC several years ago, the behaviour of McLean and Wilson and other bandwaggoners in the past six months has been genuinely damaging to the AFL as well as to one of its licence-holders, and it is currently a very live issue. It has become a major news item about the AFL's competition and its integrity, and the AFL brand has surely been hurt. When the AFL determines that the tanking allegations were without substance, the AFL may want to address its vulnerability to what has actually been extended and destructive collateral damage sustained while individuals associated with the AFL pursued in public their own agendas.

Edited December 9, 2012 by robbiefrom13

[mauriesy 7,261]

I don't see what's that difficult, if the report says that Melbourne just 'list managed' rather than tanked, for the AFL to say 'well anyway, we've removed the incentive to tank by removing priority picks'.

[hoopla 418]

Perhaps, but this really is the only way I can see the AFL managing to save face. They have to take responsibility and sort things out properly, which actually gives them the most control on how to get things right.

They cannot sweep things under the carpet and hope no one notices.

They can't blame the clubs cos the clubs will come back at them, and likely to do so in a court of law, not the AFL tribunal.

But I think more importantly, I don't actually think they can come out and say MFC did nothing wrong and THEN do nothing themselves.

There is a lot of merit in what you say - I just hope the AFL is "big" enough to see it that way!

One other possibility is that the AFL will ultimately make its decision not so much in terms of what MFC did that brought the game into disrepute (clearly there was no rule that the MFC broke), but rather in terms of what McLean and Wilson were able to do bringing the game into disrepute.

Thorny problem, but now is when the AFL needs to have some response to THAT, in defence of the AFL brand.

However one views the behaviour of MFC several years ago, the behaviour of McLean and Wilson and other bandwaggoners in the past six months has been genuinely damaging to the AFL as well as to one of its licence-holders, and it is currently a very live issue. It has become a major news item about the AFL's competition and its integrity, and the AFL brand has surely been hurt. When the AFL determines that the tanking allegations were without substance, the AFL may want to address its vulnerability to what has actually been extended and destructive collateral damage sustained while individuals associated with the AFL pursued in public their own agendas.

As McLean is still under an AFL contract, they do have an opportunity to sanction him for "bringing the game into "disrepute" - but to dothat they may run into the AFLPA which will rattle on about rights of free speech etc,

They cannot get stuck into Wilson and Co - without first blowing her out of the water on the facts - and then they have to factor in the importance of media support to promoting its brand.

Whatever happens you'd have to think that the AFL has every reason to release its finding during the holiday period. New Years Day sounds good.

I don't see what's that difficult, if the report says that Melbourne just 'list managed' rather than tanked, for the AFL to say 'well anyway, we've removed the incentive to tank by removing priority picks'.

They could - and should - have done that months ( and months) ago. The problem with that now is that they will have to explain why it took all this time and all those resources to work out the "bleedin' obvious"

Edited December 10, 2012 by hoopla

[old55 23,415]

Just really want to make sure this article is preserved for posterity - will Caro be genius or chump, time will tell ...

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/demons-shock--awful-20121102-28ppz.html

Demons: shock & awful

Date November 3, 2012

MELBOURNE president Don McLardy smarted for much of his club's abysmal 2012 football season over a tabloid headline trumpeted early in the year describing the Demons as ''pathetic and disgusting''.

Privately shattered at the awful truth that Melbourne was being forced to rebuild its list from scratch - again, punch-drunk from the misfortune that seemed to be hitting the club at every turn and lamenting the dreadful lack of fight onfield; McLardy still believed those words ''pathetic and disgusting'' were unforgivable.

If only his football life and its associated problems were so simple now. Melbourne in 2012 played some dreadfully uncompetitive football and in those first weeks, which stretched to months, was generally thrashed week in and week out. Still ''pathetic and disgusting'' did seem slightly harsh at the time.

Not any more. In the context of what has emerged in recent weeks in the form of evidence being put forward and corroborated by a number of witnesses, ''pathetic and disgusting'' sums it up pretty well.

Advertisement McLardy issued a plea on his club's website on Friday for ''natural justice'' as the mounting weight of damning evidence that the club fixed matches continued to emerge in all its shocking detail. A picture is being painted for the AFL's investigative team of dark threats, amateurish tactics and blatant match manipulation. The indication is still that Melbourne will fight this, but it looks shocking for all concerned.

The AFL is praying that Jim Stynes - and McLardy and the board it strangely continues to extol - can be kept at a decent arm's length from the fall-out. But even if Stynes' legacy is spared because we might never truly know how much he knew, the game must cast aside concerns about legacies and images and football myths and concentrate on repairing the collateral damage.

Melbourne will be harshly punished. Cameron Schwab and Chris Connolly will be finished at the club. But football lives, young men who played no real active part in the treacherous football facade which took place at the club in 2009 were ruined or at the very least tarnished by their association with it.

It is nonsense to suggest the AFL must carry the can for Melbourne because it created a system which encouraged tanking. That is rot. The AFL was not complicit in this. At best it was naive and at worst the commission and its chief executive incompetent in failing to see what was being unveiled in front of them.

The AFL introduced the priority pick to help improve struggling clubs. Like the four-man interchange, it was well-intended but created issues it did not foresee. Finally it removed it because football boss Adrian Anderson and a team of academics demonstrated to the commission the advantage was generally too great for those teams that earned one, with some obvious exceptions: when clubs were too hopeless to pick the right players or develop them professionally or create an environment that retained them.

The commission agreed the day it scrapped the pick that it also created a bad perception that teams were tanking. This column's view is that the chairman, Mike Fitzpatrick, did not believe clubs plotted to lose. He seems to have been proven wrong. As we said, the AFL was probably incompetent but that should not save Melbourne.

Like Ross Oakley and his team when Nicky Winmar lifted his St Kilda jumper and two years later Michael Long spoke up about being racially taunted on Anzac Day, the current administration was far too slow to act on what it is now acting upon. But it never encouraged it and truly seems shocked at what it has learnt in recent times.

What the AFL, in fact, should feel sick about now is those players who aspired to its code, who walked into a football club believing in sportsmanship and playing to win and giving their all for victory. It is not surprising in hindsight that it has been a player who has lifted the lid on a secret Melbourne believed it could keep in the vault.

The Demons and their more rabid supporters keep banging on about the fact that everyone was doing it. No other club seems to have done it quite like this, though, and if Carlton is guilty then the current mood of the AFL indicates that club, too, will be forensically examined and punished.

Putting players in for surgery once a season is lost is not match-fixing because everyone associated with the game knows the playing field they are watching, backing or barracking upon. Even losing heart in one final game for an earlier pick seems more forgivable than systematic planning, career-ending threats and a plan which seems to have dragged on for weeks leading into months. To think that a player having on-field success was prevented from having more. No wonder Melbourne's misery continued to curse the club.

What Melbourne did in manipulating results was disgusting. The result of the fix was pathetic. To think that so many reputations could be destroyed and so many playing careers hurt all for one ambitious young footballer who began looking for a way out of the place after only one year.

If what some former players and coaches say is true, then the tanking was only the half of it. But to put in the fix for Tom Scully and not to create a training and development laboratory for all similarly-talented young men to improve and retain them is just so glaringly short-sighted. All those early draft picks gone. All those disillusioned once-proud Demons. What a sorry story.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/demons-shock--awful-20121102-28ppz.html#ixzz2EbUS5BuC

[binman 42,691]

Whatever happens you'd have to think that the AFL has every reason to release its finding during the holiday period. New Years Day sounds good.

They could - and should - have done that months ( and months) ago. The problem with that now is that they will have to explain why it took all this time and all those resources to work out the "bleedin' obvious"

Well now with Anderson going they have exactly that opportunity. A new person will come in and be able to say something along the lines of

"i fully respect the work and approach the AFL has done on this issue in the past but we have reached an impasse of sorts. Integrity is paramount and there cannot be any suggestion of impropriety. The exhaustive inquiry has not been able to find conclusive proof of wrongdoing however there is no question there is a perception that clubs may have looked to take advantage of the rules that were put in place to ensure clubs would be able to improve and be competitive. In my role a first action of business will be to examine how we can keep the spirit of those rules but remove any incentive for clubs to not go 100% to win every game. But let me be clear the integrity of the game is paramount and so we will also be looking to put in place rules and removing any grey areas that ensure this is upheld"

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,778]

Geez you guys are getting ahead of yourselves.

Until the afl come out and clear us, I'm still concerned we face loss of draft picks for the next 3-4 years.

[jnrmac 20,055]

Geez you guys are getting ahead of yourselves.

Until the afl come out and clear us, I'm still concerned we face loss of draft picks for the next 3-4 years.

What for? We haven't done anything and there is no evidence of any wrongdoing.

Do you sleep with the lights on?

[old dee 23,782]

What for? We haven't done anything and there is no evidence of any wrongdoing.

Do you sleep with the lights on?

Careful of denial Jnr!