AFL investigation

[daisycutter 29,586]

Barrett is a [censored] that is reporting on nothing new. At least Deegirl's OP yesterday was actually current information, which was backed up by the fact that the AFL made an announcement yesterday afternoon.

which made no mention of charging the club, CS, DB and CC, so in that respect deegirl was not quite "on the money"

[nutbean 8,838]

On the otherhand, this bit I have bolded is just speculation on your behalf. I hope you're right, I hope to hell that it is subjective evidence that the AFL has in their hands. But, as Loges highlighted above, even the journo's no nothing. Is this because that's the point, that there is nothing? Or is it becasue the AFL has managed to keep a tight hold of what they have and are giving the journo's nothing?

Let's face it, the people Caro contacted to fuel her argument are most likely punters that the AFL wouldn't even bother interviewing.

I do admire the confidence that some have regarding the fact that the evidence is weak and that we will be fine. At this stage, I haven't seen anything, so I'd love to know what they have, or more to the point, what they don't have. Until then, I await the MFC's response to the recent statement made by the people that know, the AFL.

whoooa nelly... I have put this disclaimer in lots of post - The evidence that has been reported (Brock, CC's comments, a board member before the Canberra game, positional moves) to my mind is subjective. I have no idea what the AFL has and if the AFL indeed have a book authored by Bails " how we will tank and get priority picks" then I will change my opinion in a flash - I repeat again - I am on working from the evidence that has been reported - I know no more than that . Thats why I have repeated repeatedly that the MFC should not run up the white flag and plead guilty now- the MFC should only consider its course of action after the AFL has presented its evidence to them .

[G&D 8]

Apart from the statements gathered which will be subject to the usual questioning, the AFL investigators are trying to point to the data on our rotation numbers in the last part of that 2009 season as supporting a "vibe" of tanking. Whilst we were around average per game over the whole season, they dropped off significantly in the last few rounds.

Season Avg 85

Round 17: 67

Round 18: 47

Round 19: 49

Round 20: 99 (win against Freo)

Round 21: 56

Round 22: 73

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,588]

Supreme court???

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,588]

Damian Barrett's tweet:

Damian Barrett‏@barrettdamian

Dees go to Supreme Court if @AFL hits hard re tanking. AFL aware of this, still doesn’t know exactly what to do with Connolly-Schwab-BaileyDamian Barrett‏@barrettdamian

[rjay 24,778]

Apart from the statements gathered which will be subject to the usual questioning, the AFL investigators are trying to point to the data on our rotation numbers in the last part of that 2009 season as supporting a "vibe" of tanking. Whilst we were around average per game over the whole season, they dropped off significantly in the last few rounds.

Season Avg 85

Round 17: 67

Round 18: 47

Round 19: 49

Round 20: 99 (win against Freo)

Round 21: 56

Round 22: 73

The good old 'VIBE', yep now that's solid evidence.

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,588]

Oh right - barrett got that from the afl article...

[beelzebub 23,304]

VIBE

Voracious Indictment Beyond Equivocation

potent stuff for sure......... FFA !!!

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Rotations are dictated by the players choosing to come off, therefore the players should take the blame for low rotation numbers.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Apart from the statements gathered which will be subject to the usual questioning, the AFL investigators are trying to point to the data on our rotation numbers in the last part of that 2009 season as supporting a "vibe" of tanking. Whilst we were around average per game over the whole season, they dropped off significantly in the last few rounds.

Season Avg 85

Round 17: 67

Round 18: 47

Round 19: 49

Round 20: 99 (win against Freo)

Round 21: 56

Round 22: 73

I don't think that a Supreme Court Judge would give a great deal of credence to a "Vibe" and if that's the best they can come up with they should keep their powder dry and let it go.

You can think whatever you like but that doesn't equate to proof.

[dee-luded 2,959]

good.

Let's sort this shite out once and for all.

We will have enough pro bono beaks to rip this apart.

HaHaHa,,, ssshhh!

The feathers will Fly, & they'll bring back the Hawks theme....

[dee-luded 2,959]

Damian Barrett's tweet:

Damian Barrett‏@barrettdamian

Dees go to Supreme Court if @AFL hits hard re tanking. AFL aware of this, still doesn’t know exactly what to do with Connolly-Schwab-BaileyDamian Barrett‏@barrettdamian

We look after our own, no ones left behind !!!

If we start sacrificing our own to the Mama Monster, we may as well fold the club right now... because we truly won't stand for anything at all.. old Aussie standards should be our ways, & not leave an injured soldier behind.

Look after our own & take no prisoners.

[Biffen 12,940]

The good old 'VIBE', yep now that's solid evidence.

It's Mabo ,It's the vibe of the thing .

It's the constitution .it's the vibe .

Good luck to the Dark empire .

I hope they hit us hard .

We need the money .

[hoopla 418]

I think her silence may say it all WYL, she would have penned a massive article on this if she had further info.

No mate ...... she wants to use up every second of her annual leave picking the wings off flies or whatever she does for relaxation.

Damian Barrett's tweet:

Damian Barrett‏@barrettdamian

Dees go to Supreme Court if @AFL hits hard re tanking. AFL aware of this, still doesn’t know exactly what to do with Connolly-Schwab-BaileyDamian Barrett‏@barrettdamian

Over a period of time Barrett has struggled to understand the difference between old news and new news - let alone the difference between fact and fiction.

If we have to go to the Supreme Court then so be it ................. as long as the judge has the power to decree that the AFL must never discriminate against us again.

Edited December 20, 2012 by hoopla

[The Little Devils 10]

It will be interesting to see our response to the 'evidence' presented. This could be the making of this administration and of the Melbourne Football Club.

I note that they have not sent letters to the other clubs involved in tanking or list management - Carlton, Hawthorn, Richmond, Collingwood, etc. Obviously they were unable to locate their addresses.

Barrett is the new Robert Walls - repeat what you hear from other commentators or those prepared to put their jatz crackers on the line!!

[Ouch! 2,258]

The bit that doesn't make sense with Barretts tweet is that we have got the information and three weeks to respond before discovering whether the AFL 'WILL' lay any form of charges.

Why would we say we are taking it to the supreme court until we respond and THEN find out what the AFL's next move is.

Barrett = Muppett

[Sir Why You Little 36,858]

The bit that doesn't make sense with Barretts tweet is that we have got the information and three weeks to respond before discovering whether the AFL 'WILL' lay any form of charges.

Why would we say we are taking it to the supreme court until we respond and THEN find out what the AFL's next move is.

Barrett = Muppett

barrett like many other modern journalists is taking a punt on what happens.

It is a very bad modern trend.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Come on Rob.........Never cracked a joke at works expence at work......

I do it all the time, I work for myself.

It's just that there has been a couple of stupid things said that have set this whole thing off, first Bailey with his parting comment, then McLean with his bagging and now the flippant remark that CC made that's turned out to be the key piece of evidence against the club. Remember the old saying"loose lips, sink ships".

[beelzebub 23,304]

Kinda funny, you'd think the vultures ( read usual suspects) would have been all over this like a rash !!!

Strange silence. What little is lip service really.

Perhaps some already sense the non event and wish not to be having to eat crow !

Edited December 20, 2012 by belzebub59

[Biffen 12,940]

Supreme court???

Maybe this is due to the fact that the word "tanking" does not appear in the the AFl rules ,laws and by-laws.

[Bitter but optimistic 22,215]

Maybe this is due to the fact that the word "tanking" does not appear in the the AFl rules ,laws and by-laws.

Given what we know - or more accurately don't know - I think the issue among some posters is more Ravi Shanking than tanking.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

I have no info on what the AFL intends to do but I am aware that the club will fight hard if it is charged. Very good source.

It struck me that the club was preparing for the possibility of being charged, maybe even the likelihood of it.

Barrett has got his info via the club and it appears to me to have been supplied strategically.

Edited December 20, 2012 by dandeeman

[monoccular 17,400]

Just heard on sen that Barrett has tweeted that the MFC will go to the supreme court....Any one heard anything.......

FCS they haven't been charged, found guilty or penalised so why would they go to any court??

Sounds more like attempts at headline grabbing to me.

Edited December 20, 2012 by monoccular

[monoccular 17,400]

Given what we know - or more accurately don't know - I think the issue among some posters is more Ravi Shanking than tanking.

Ravi Shanker died last week - did the "evidence" do the same?

[Biffen 12,940]

Ravi Shanker died last week - did the "evidence" do the same?

Freaky