Vincehotboy look at the later part of the 2009 season objectively, we went out of our way not to win.

Leave your MFC blindness aside.

Others did it during that period and it could be said that the league rules encourage it.

However 90% of the Football community ( including me ) believes we tanked.

Don't be blinded by your passion for the Dees.

Perhaps Gary believes it too!

I don't think anybody can realistically say that we didn't "tank" as people are calling it. The question is whether we broke any rules doing it. The AFL can't retroactively declare that playing a substandard side is illegal and stick charges on us. For a start, this is something that has been done by teams repeatedly and for various reasons, such as Fremantle resting their best players on a road trip to Tassie at the end of the season. Clear tanking by the definitions given, and not a word said.

We have to be judged on the standards that were set out for us at the time. We named a side that may have been weaker than we could have fielded (I note Sheedy's comments on doing this winning him a flag). We listed that side at the appointed time, so there can be no outcry from betting agencies that they have been misled. The side on the park was clearly trying to win the games, as is clearly shown by the Richmond loss. We can even use Vlad's words that as long as the team on the park is trying to win it's fine. Indeed, we could use the words of Paul Roos as well, to paraphrase, "Go forward, but for God's sake don't kick a goal." In all of these areas we have behaved in accordance with the rules and guidelines set out for us by the AFL AT THAT TIME.

Anyway, enough about tanking, we're in this thread to celebrate the net gain of Anderson leaving.

I don't think anybody can realistically say that we didn't "tank" as people are calling it. The question is whether we broke any rules doing it. The AFL can't retroactively declare that playing a substandard side is illegal and stick charges on us. For a start, this is something that has been done by teams repeatedly and for various reasons, such as Fremantle resting their best players on a road trip to Tassie at the end of the season. Clear tanking by the definitions given, and not a word said.

We have to be judged on the standards that were set out for us at the time. We named a side that may have been weaker than we could have fielded (I note Sheedy's comments on doing this winning him a flag). We listed that side at the appointed time, so there can be no outcry from betting agencies that they have been misled. The side on the park was clearly trying to win the games, as is clearly shown by the Richmond loss. We can even use Vlad's words that as long as the team on the park is trying to win it's fine. Indeed, we could use the words of Paul Roos as well, to paraphrase, "Go forward, but for God's sake don't kick a goal." In all of these areas we have behaved in accordance with the rules and guidelines set out for us by the AFL AT THAT TIME.

Anyway, enough about tanking, we're in this thread to celebrate the net gain of Anderson leaving.

You are of course quite correct.

Do those posters who maintain that we did tank ( like the old guy and shoonie the loonie) actually think we broke a rule and deserve punishment - or do they think ( as I do) that we worked within the framework established by the AFL just as other clubs had done before us ?

The ambiguous term "tank" describes Carlton's legal actions in 2007. If that is what they mean , then we don't have an issue.

( As for Anderson - yes I have no doubt that we wouldn't be where we are now - and the AFL wouldn't have dug themselves into this hole - if he hadn't been holding the reins during Demetriou's mid season holiday)

You are of course quite correct.Do those posters who maintain that we did tank ( like the old guy and shoonie the loonie) actually think we broke a rule and deserve punishment - or do they think ( as I do) that we worked within the framework established by the AFL just as other clubs had done before us ?The ambiguous term "tank" describes Carlton's legal actions in 2007. If that is what they mean , then we don't have an issue.( As for Anderson - yes I have no doubt that we wouldn't be where we are now - and the AFL wouldn't have dug themselves into this hole - if he hadn't been holding the reins during Demetriou's mid season holiday)

i agree, just say0he AFL say yes you tanked. Because u droped big names, put player early for ops,you did not use your bench enough, just a side note the afl want to reduce bench rotation. You played players out of position, if thats tanking then neeld tanked, he dône most of those things in 2012.

The fact people are still trying to define tanking is proof enough that it doesn't exist.

You are of course quite correct.

Do those posters who maintain that we did tank ( like the old guy and shoonie the loonie) actually think we broke a rule and deserve punishment - or do they think ( as I do) that we worked within the framework established by the AFL just as other clubs had done before us ?

The ambiguous term "tank" describes Carlton's legal actions in 2007. If that is what they mean , then we don't have an issue.

( As for Anderson - yes I have no doubt that we wouldn't be where we are now - and the AFL wouldn't have dug themselves into this hole - if he hadn't been holding the reins during Demetriou's mid season holiday)

At the risk of offending you hoopla

Have you read any of my posts over the last 6 months?

I have never said the following

- That any player was told not to try

- That we should be punished

- That we did any more or less than Carlton or a number of other clubs.

However what I have said and will continue to say is that the FD in 2009 and particularly the Richmond game made every effort to not win that day.

Now you can give it any name you like but that is the situation IMO.

What annoys me is the number of Dees supporters that are in denial on this subject.

Oh and just a parting shot hoopla Youth does not necessarily make you a genius any more than the ageing process make you a fool.

You are of course quite correct.

Do those posters who maintain that we did tank ( like the old guy and shoonie the loonie) actually think we broke a rule and deserve punishment - or do they think ( as I do) that we worked within the framework established by the AFL just as other clubs had done before us ?

The ambiguous term "tank" describes Carlton's legal actions in 2007. If that is what they mean , then we don't have an issue.

( As for Anderson - yes I have no doubt that we wouldn't be where we are now - and the AFL wouldn't have dug themselves into this hole - if he hadn't been holding the reins during Demetriou's mid season holiday)

No, me and the "old guy" know that we didn't break any rules.

We are as enlightened as you are on the whole topic, but the old guy and I are a little less preachy and arrogant when we discuss it.

You are all talking past each other: OD is talking about 'tanking' in the broad sense of the word, and most of the rest of you have made the leap that I have outlined ad nauseum: that unless we have told players to not put in 100% - no-one can dictate, retroactively, how many manage (or mismanage) our own affairs.

In summary, we all think Wilson CGAF and Clothier won't find a thing.

At the risk of offending you hoopla

Have you read any of my posts over the last 6 months?

I have never said the following

- That any player was told not to try

- That we should be punished

- That we did any more or less than Carlton or a number of other clubs.

However what I have said and will continue to say is that the FD in 2009 and particularly the Richmond game made every effort to not win that day.

Now you can give it any name you like but that is the situation IMO.

What annoys me is the number of Dees supporters that are in denial on this subject.

Oh and just a parting shot hoopla Youth does not necessarily make you a genius any more than the ageing process make you a fool.

I don't disagree with any of that Old Dee ..... and I am pleased to hear you confirm that you don't think we should be punished.For that matter you might be pleased to know that I was not blind to the extraordinary inconsistencies that took place on McMahon day

I only referred to you as the "old guy" because that is the way you describe yourself ( and I certainly don't see an inverse correlation between age and wisdom!)

No, me and the "old guy" know that we didn't break any rules.

We are as enlightened as you are on the whole topic, but the old guy and I are a little less preachy and arrogant when we discuss it.

Thankyou Sloonie ............ I'll try to sound less less preachy and arrogant next time !

You are all talking past each other: OD is talking about 'tanking' in the broad sense of the word, and most of the rest of you have made the leap that I have outlined ad nauseum: that unless we have told players to not put in 100% - no-one can dictate, retroactively, how many manage (or mismanage) our own affairs.

In summary, we all think Wilson CGAF and Clothier won't find a thing.

That's fair enough by me - just wish the AFL would forget the niceties of Anderson's farewell - and hurry up and clear our name!!

I don't disagree with any of that Old Dee ..... and I am pleased to hear you confirm that you don't think we should be punished.For that matter you might be pleased to know that I was not blind to the extraordinary inconsistencies that took place on McMahon day

I only referred to you as the "old guy" because that is the way you describe yourself ( and I certainly don't see an inverse correlation between age and wisdom!)

Thankyou Sloonie ............ I'll try to sound less less preachy and arrogant next time !

That's fair enough by me - just wish the AFL would forget the niceties of Anderson's farewell - and hurry up and clear our name!!

On that mate we are in 100% agreement.

Oh and probably most of the rest as well hoopla.

Go dees

On that mate we are in 100% agreement.

Oh and probably most of the rest as well hoopla.

Go dees

Good stuff Old Dee. I just think of you as Long-time Dee - which makes you a gun!

(Just quietly I haven't been described as a spring chicken for a while !!)

Go Dees

Good stuff Old Dee. I just think of you as Long-time Dee - which makes you a gun!

(Just quietly I haven't been described as a spring chicken for a while !!)

Go Dees

Good things come to those who wait!

I have deen hanging on that for a long time.

God i hope the start is 2013.

Spent Saturday evening with a hord of Tigers.

I am so over losing to them.

Then I am over losing to every one

WARNING!!! WARNING!!!!

OUTBREAK OF PEACE AND LOVE ON SITE!

Seriously tho

Great to see that agreement can be negotiated with open and frank discussion

Its often easy with the written word to lose sight of intention.

More so as appropriate punctuation is usually avoided.

And sometimes acknowledgment of failings and apology can go a long way to healing wounds.

We often need to reflect that we are on the same side.

I also like to think of the old customer service adage Treat others as you would like to be treated.

Although I was taught that by a Hawks supporter so I suppose theres even plenty of room for misunderstanding.

On topic of Anderson it will be interesting to see if his career path is up down or sideways.

Adrian Anderson will leave the building next Friday, with an acting GM of footy operations to be appointed.

I understood that originally he was leaving in March but I guess now somebody else is going to have to write the tanking report.

Adrian Anderson will leave the building next Friday, with an acting GM of footy operations to be appointed. I understood that originally he was leaving in March but I guess now somebody else is going to have to write the tanking report.

That absolutely smells of being pushed to me. Bet you he has been given a massive golden handshake.

i will defend my club against anyone who rubbish my club, a true supporter would never rubbish l their club. Its us against them , if u think that we tanked then u should stop supporting the dees, how can u attack the dees, if agree with caro, she never says a bad word against richmond no matter what the facts are. Thats a true supporter.

What a ridiculous thing to say. This is the sort of attitude which, in other times, causes soldiers to do horrific unspeakable things on the orders of the sociopaths directing them.

It doesn't matter where your allegiances lie, a strong person will make their own judgements based on their own moral code...

"no matter what the facts are"?? Far out mate! What's wrong with you!?

Personally, I'm absolutely sure that Melbourne tanked (if that word means "structure the second half of the season to make a fifth win improbable). However, I also don't think we broke any rules that were in place at the time. I thought the behaviour of the club was disgusting, and I think the epic clear-out that has occurred since is absolutely brilliant as a result.

You can't call me a "non-supporter" for feeling that way. Not a chance.

Regards Anderson, I think it's pretty clear Demetriou has given him only one option. Resign, and get out of the building right now.

Edited December 14, 201212 yr by autocol

What a ridiculous thing to say. This is the sort of attitude which, in other times, causes soldiers to do horrific unspeakable things on the orders of the sociopaths directing them.

It doesn't matter where your allegiances lie, a strong person will make their own judgements based on their own moral code...

"no matter what the facts are"?? Far out mate! What's wrong with you!?

Personally, I'm absolutely sure that Melbourne tanked (if that word means "structure the second half of the season to make a fifth win improbable). However, I also don't think we broke any rules that were in place at the time. I thought the behaviour of the club was disgusting, and I think the epic clear-out that has occurred since is absolutely brilliant as a result.

You can't call me a "non-supporter" for feeling that way. Not a chance.

Regards Anderson, I think it's pretty clear Demetriou has given him only one option. Resign, and get out of the building right now.

You have my vote autocol.

And welcome aboard

Well, Angry set out to make a name for himself come hell or high water

He achieved that by becoming another scalp for Vlad the Impaler

The succession must be looking good now for the faithful lap-dog Lachlan

Well, Angry set out to make a name for himself come hell or high water

He achieved that by becoming another scalp for Vlad the Impaler

The succession must be looking good now for the faithful lap-dog Lachlan

Very cynical DC.

Adrian was obviously responding to other people who were beating down the door for his services.

It's not like he left the AFL because he had become a stupid joke and the coffee [censored] or anything like that.

Well, Angry set out to make a name for himself come hell or high water

He achieved that by becoming another scalp for Vlad the Impaler

The succession must be looking good now for the faithful lap-dog Lachlan

Well I think he got down into Hell with the rest of us, but then stopped the music before the last chair was taken, without briefing us on his rules, leaving us 'out' like a teste in an oxford st parade...

Well OK, but then you've made your bed, not allowing for us to fight back!

We have,, & AA is over his head & out of his depth, & the AFL... boom boom.

Edited December 14, 201212 yr by dee-luded

I was interested in this paragraph from the AFL website "Anderson's pre-Christmas departure confirms he won't see the controversial Melbourne tanking investigation through to its conclusion.'"

Seems it is no longer a "cut and dried'' event. Are some elements of the media seeing this as a witch hunt too?

Bound for Glory...

Good riddance.

Well, Angry set out to make a name for himself come hell or high water

He achieved that by becoming another scalp for Vlad the Impaler

The succession must be looking good now for the faithful lap-dog Lachlan

Touche. Gillon McLachlan earns promotion to AFL deputy CEO (newly created position!)

...................

Regards Anderson, I think it's pretty clear Demetriou has given him only one option. Resign, and get out of the building right now.

Sounds about right. F&ck the boss over while he's away, you get his job or you're out the door.

MNM, AA's decision to go after MFC for tanking cost him his job and any future at AFL house. On the Couch should be wiping any tears away for him.

Touche. Gillon McLachlan earns promotion to AFL deputy CEO (newly created position!)

Sounds about right. F&ck the boss over while he's away, you get his job or you're out the door.

MNM, AA's decision to go after MFC for tanking cost him his job and any future at AFL house.

I reckon you are right on the money Mono.

He tried to embarrass his boss - and left the Commission in a hole.It was very clear that he didn't have the judgment for a senior executive role. Why would anyone with half a brain launch an all-out attack on anyone or anything on the basis of the huffing and puffing of a weasil like McLean ? Gillon McLachlan's promotion is like Steve Bradbury's gold medal

I reckon you are right on the money Mono.

He tried to embarrass his boss - and left the Commission in a hole.It was very clear that he didn't have the judgment for a senior executive role. Why would anyone with half a brain launch an all-out attack on anyone or anything on the basis of the huffing and puffing of a weasil like McLean ? Gillon McLachlan's promotion is like Steve Bradbury's gold medal

Makes sense.