First witness for the MFC, call MR. A. Demetriou to the stand.

First question, after thorough investigations 3 years ago, you stated and have continued to do so, that there was no tanking by the MFC, only list management and experimentation, which is an accepted part of AFL football, is that correct sir?

Second question, you regard tanking as players throwing a game, is that correct?

Third question, do you have any evidence of any player being told to throw a game?

My recollection of the time (2009) was that there was alot of talk about whether MFC would or would not try and to get that extra pick. It was in open discussion on radio, print media, amoung members and workmates. The Ox was a very strong advocate not to win games and there were many discussions by listeners both for and against the idea.

My point here is that (provided my dodgy memory is holding up) it was something in the public domain and as such the AFL must have heard all this chatter,

If we are charged and I say IF, then AD should be a witness for us. He should be asked why did the AFL not stop this chatter like it did when Geelong and MFC talked about third part deals to keep Abblett and Scully? If it was illegal in 2009 then why did the AFL not say something to MFC prior to these last few games to ensure it did not happen?

Those with better memories than I will, I am sure, come forth.

I wonder what CW thoughts were on this in 2009? I don't remember any tirade from her or the Age after we lost "that" game.

How do you punish individuals? Dean Bailey is working at Port Adelaide isnt he? If they ban him for 12 months thats going to affect Port and its got nothing to do with them.

Bailey is with the Crows.

One things for sure...we ain't takin any carp from anyone.

Are you for real, were have you been for the last 5 months.

Deegirl was right.

Deegirl what will happen next? you seem to no what is going on in the inside.

I would love to believe we will take this to court but knowing our past we will most probably end up just bowing out and letting the AFL [censored] up in the ass.

Are you for real, were have you been for the last 5 months.

Can't stop Wilson and Barrett giving us crap.

I assume DZ is intimating that we won't be the AFL's patsy to assuage a pointlessly angry and incredibly stupid football media.

My point here is that (provided my dodgy memory is holding up) it was something in the public domain and as such the AFL must have heard all this chatter,

Of course they knew. Kevin Bartlett is the only person in Australia who didn't know.

Yet Vlad has been talking it down for years, probably to protect the AFL's image in other areas (eg, gambling/corruption).

Then he goes on hols, Anderson launches an investigation, and suddenly, Anderson is not there any more. Not a coincidence, IMO.

I don't think the AFL want this to go anywhere, but they're such arbitray and vindictive pr*cks, anything could happen.

Are you for real, were have you been for the last 5 months.

I guess your view of the MFC appointing Finklestein is laying down?

I wonder what CW thoughts were on this in 2009? I don't remember any tirade from her or the Age after we lost "that" game.

Most journos are opportunists who will drop any principles they have in a jiffy, if there's a scoop in it.

Deegirl was right.

Deegirl what will happen next? you seem to no what is going on in the inside.

I would love to believe we will take this to court but knowing our past we will most probably end up just bowing out and letting the AFL [censored] up in the ass.

I don't know why you think deegirl is in the no(sic)

she broke a story by a few hours before the press. there could be a lot of reasons for this other than being in the know

and she only got it partly right as there were no "charges" laid against the people she named

her heads up is appreciated but it doesn't mean she is in the know, she even said after that she hoped it wasn't accurate

if she does know more she has the opportunity to share it here

bottom line is we don't really know what "evidence" the afl have. from what has leaked it seems not much and very circumstantial

but, there may or may not be more

Our decision whether we head to court should depend on what evidence the AFL have and what they intend to do with it.

IF solid evidence exists that show beyond doubt that we "list managed" with the main purpose of losing games for better draft picks, then no court in the land will help us. IMO the "new, tough" Melbourne that I hope we now have would be far better served taking their medicine, putting their heads down and working through it. The is no use pointing the finger at other clubs about it like little kids either.

The Ox sums up my thoughts exactly

Schwarz, who played 173 games with the Dees, fears a heavy sanction could pose a serious threat to the club's future.

"I, like anyone, hope it goes away, but something might come of it," Schwarz said.

"Whatever it is, you just hope it doesn't hurt or cripple the club. That said, if individuals have done the wrong thing, then they have got to be held accountable."

On the other hand IF the leaks so far is all there is (tongue in cheek comments etc etc) then I doubt the AFL will try to pursue it too far any way. There will be a bit of to and fro about it to ensure the case is seen to have run its course then it will be over.

FYI - the rule in question is.

"A person, being a player, coach or assistant coach, must at all times perform on their merits and must not induce, or encourage, any player, coach or assistant coach not to perform on their merits in any match - or in relation to any aspect of the match, for any reason whatsoever.'' - AFL Regulations 19(A5)

My recollection of the time (2009) was that there was alot of talk about whether MFC would or would not try and to get that extra pick. It was in open discussion on radio, print media, amoung members and workmates. The Ox was a very strong advocate not to win games and there were many discussions by listeners both for and against the idea.

My point here is that (provided my dodgy memory is holding up) it was something in the public domain and as such the AFL must have heard all this chatter,

If we are charged and I say IF, then AD should be a witness for us. He should be asked why did the AFL not stop this chatter like it did when Geelong and MFC talked about third part deals to keep Abblett and Scully? If it was illegal in 2009 then why did the AFL not say something to MFC prior to these last few games to ensure it did not happen?

Those with better memories than I will, I am sure, come forth.

I wonder what CW thoughts were on this in 2009? I don't remember any tirade from her or the Age after we lost "that" game.

I seem to remember Carlton & the Kreuzer Cup, in the lead up week or weeks to the last game,,, a list of former Car'ton greats, come out in the paper saying the team should not win the game, as Kreuzer was to good to lose.

I don't know if anyone can find the paper & news story. I think in the HUN, but not certain...

Our decision whether we head to court should depend on what evidence the AFL have and what they intend to do with it.

IF solid evidence exists that show beyond doubt that we "list managed" with the main purpose of losing games for better draft picks, then no court in the land will help us. IMO the "new, tough" Melbourne that I hope we now have would be far better served taking their medicine, putting their heads down and working through it. The is no use pointing the finger at other clubs about it like little kids either.

The Ox sums up my thoughts exactly

Schwarz, who played 173 games with the Dees, fears a heavy sanction could pose a serious threat to the club's future.

"I, like anyone, hope it goes away, but something might come of it," Schwarz said.

"Whatever it is, you just hope it doesn't hurt or cripple the club. That said, if individuals have done the wrong thing, then they have got to be held accountable."

On the other hand IF the leaks so far is all there is (tongue in cheek comments etc etc) then I doubt the AFL will try to pursue it too far any way. There will be a bit of to and fro about it to ensure the case is seen to have run its course then it will be over.

FYI - the rule in question is.

"A person, being a player, coach or assistant coach, must at all times perform on their merits and must not induce, or encourage, any player, coach or assistant coach not to perform on their merits in any match - or in relation to any aspect of the match, for any reason whatsoever.'' - AFL Regulations 19(A5)

This is what makes me think they are pursuing individuals. In fact the club may be unscathed in this. Whatever, if there no evidence of a clear directive from 'someone to someone' then I say fight it.

Our decision whether we head to court should depend on what evidence the AFL have and what they intend to do with it.

IF solid evidence exists that show beyond doubt that we "list managed" with the main purpose of losing games for better draft picks, then no court in the land will help us. IMO the "new, tough" Melbourne that I hope we now have would be far better served taking their medicine, putting their heads down and working through it. The is no use pointing the finger at other clubs about it like little kids either.

Two points why I vehemently disagree with what you have posted

1/ Everything we have heard to date in my opinion is subjective so if the AFL wants to sanction us on this evidence then you would absolutely take it to court because you would argue ( and in my opinion successfully) that there is doubt. So if there is doubt that can be proven then every court in the land will help us. You are under the illusion that the AFL's idea of solid evidence and a courts idea of solid evidence will be the same.

2/ Unless the AFL comes out and sanctions us and then states clearly that the same standard will be applied against other clubs then there is every use pointing the finger at other clubs. This is not little kid stuff - it is called questioning why accepted practices(accepted in countless statements by Vlad himself) have overnight become unacceptable and are being selectively applied ( note if the AFL decides to sanction us but also decides it will go the likes of Carlton and Fremantle in particular then whilst it hurts - I cant argue because the standard applied to tanking is applied to ALL clubs)

FYI - the rule in question is.

"A person, being a player, coach or assistant coach, must at all times perform on their merits and must not induce, or encourage, any player, coach or assistant coach not to perform on their merits in any match - or in relation to any aspect of the match, for any reason whatsoever.'' - AFL Regulations 19(A5)

trouble is S_T this rule is just so incredibly general and open-ended with respect to interpretation

by this rule there one could interpret multiple breaches by multiple clubs every year

i won't go through the examples as everyone is familiar with them

to my way of thinking this rule as it is framed is just too non-specific

perhaps it is intentionally vague so the AFL can intimidate and exercise power when it deems it is politically expedient?

/sigh

I made the IF bold, italic AND underlined it and you still missed it. Only so much I can do.

So "solid evidence that shows something beyond doubt" is not enough proof for a court....

2/ Unless the AFL comes out and sanctions us and then states clearly that the same standard will be applied against other clubs ...

We're on our own here.

We can't say "but Carlton did it too!" That does not absolve us of anything.

What's more, every other club is right now shredding documents and sending computers to the bottom of the harbour. Not to mention "'aving a word in your shell-like" of their Brock McLeans.

We're the only ones who will get done over by this (if anyone is), and can expect no help or support from any other parties.

FYI - the rule in question is.

"A person, being a player, coach or assistant coach, must at all times perform on their merits and must not induce, or encourage, any player, coach or assistant coach not to perform on their merits in any match - or in relation to any aspect of the match, for any reason whatsoever.'' - AFL Regulations 19(A5)

If you look at the rule above and also the list of the persons under scrutiny you will not that neither Connolly of Schwab fall within the definition of the rule. If neither Schwab nor Connolly are in breach of the rules, I suggest that the AFL would be hard-pressed to mount a successful case against Bailey!

/sigh

I made the IF bold, italic AND underlined it and you still missed it. Only so much I can do.

So "solid evidence that shows something beyond doubt" is not enough proof for a court....

I didnt miss it - of course if there is evidence that a court would find beyond doubt then ummm a sanction wouldnt be overturned.

But we are all working at this point from the same stuff printed ( rumoured) in the papers. The evidence that has been reported (rumoured) from what has been printed is subjective at best and yet there is still talk of being charges. If this is the case then in my opinion there is a difference between what the AFL considers actionable and what a court would uphold.

For what it is worth - I would think that AFL would have advice that if they charged a club under the rule you have quoted with the evidence they have that there would be strong possibility of it being overturned if challenged in court. ( unless as you say the evidence is that strong and we have not heard that this is the case)

Our decision whether we head to court should depend on what evidence the AFL have and what they intend to do with it.

IF solid evidence exists that show beyond doubt that we "list managed" with the main purpose of losing games for better draft picks, then no court in the land will help us. IMO the "new, tough" Melbourne that I hope we now have would be far better served taking their medicine, putting their heads down and working through it. The is no use pointing the finger at other clubs about it like little kids either.

List managed? Like rd 23 2010 when Freo rested 10 players on a trip to Tassie against Hawthorn because they were trying to manipulate the final 8 result? They effectively conceded the game against Hawthorn. That kind of list management? Or is there another kind?

Or Carlton's when the booked their senior players in for surgery in 2007 and lost the last 11 games so they could get Kruezer AND Judd?

Just want to be sure which list management ideas have been 'sanctioned' by the AFL and which haven't...

Cos its all about the Vibe you know. Just ask Numbnuts McLean.

We're on our own here.

We can't say "but Carlton did it too!" That does not absolve us of anything.

What's more, every other club is right now shredding documents and sending computers to the bottom of the harbour. Not to mention "'aving a word in your shell-like" of their Brock McLeans.

We're the only ones who will get done over by this (if anyone is), and can expect no help or support from any other parties.

Everyone keeps missing the point - we are not on our own here.

To sanction us there must be a clear definition of tanking and what actions/circumstances must occur to be able charge us with tanking. If this is taken to court they will not let a charge stand if it is airy fairy non defined.The court will examine - what rule was breached, and how it was breached.

If one of the standards we have breached is playing players out of position then you would argue that this practice has been going on for generations (Carlton, WCE etc) and no charges were ever laid - in fact Vlad examined these incidents and said all clear - therefore you would argue on the AFL's ability to retrospectively change a standard and furthermore retrospectively change a standard and yet only charge one club.

The only way we can get pinged for tanking is by doing something over and above any other club has previously done - the only thing I have heard reported is Connolly's comments and some interchange rotations - you would hang your hat on these as strong evidence ?

Again - I will put in the disclaimer - I havent seen the evidence and am working on what has been reported and it has been reported that there is no smoking gun - only Connolly's comments, dubious player positions, Baileys comments, miffed players and limited rotations.

Two types of list management.

One where it is done not caring if you win or lose as a result.

The other is where it is done deliberatly to make losing the most likely outcome.

In the end it all comes down to what motives can be proven, which is what the investigation has been all about.

Everyone could see the list management that we undertook. The investigation is to find out what our motivation was and then the outcome will be based on what motivation can be proved.

List managed? Like rd 23 2010 when Freo rested 10 players on a trip to Tassie against Hawthorn because they were trying to manipulate the final 8 result? They effectively conceded the game against Hawthorn. That kind of list management? Or is there another kind?

Or Carlton's when the booked their senior players in for surgery in 2007 and lost the last 11 games so they could get Kruezer AND Judd?

Just want to be sure which list management ideas have been 'sanctioned' by the AFL and which haven't...

Cos its all about the Vibe you know. Just ask Numbnuts McLean.

And therein lies the AFL's problem - they just cant come out and say you tanked so here is a penalty. There has to be the rule the breached and how they breached it.

The AFL has to define what constitutes tanking and what constitutes list management.

They cannot just stop with us - so my thinking is that the AFL will either have to go everyone or no-one

Two types of list management.

One where it is done not caring if you win or lose as a result.

The other is where it is done deliberatly to make losing the most likely outcome.

In the end it all comes down to what motives can be proven, which is what the investigation has been all about.

Everyone could see the list management that we undertook. The investigation is to find out what our motivation was and then the outcome will be based on what motivation can be proved.

100% agree and good luck trying to prove that. To my mind the only thing ( that we know about) that has a whiff of stink is numbnuts Connolly's sacking comment. But Bailey has said he thought it was tongue in cheek and as football operations manager if you wanted to ensure the outcome you would have threatened sacking people who could actually ensure a loss - the players - and apparently that didnt happen

I didnt miss it - of course if there is evidence that a court would find beyond doubt then ummm a sanction wouldnt be overturned.

But we are all working at this point from the same stuff printed ( rumoured) in the papers. The evidence that has been reported (rumoured) from what has been printed is subjective at best and yet there is still talk of being charges. If this is the case then in my opinion there is a difference between what the AFL considers actionable and what a court would uphold.

For what it is worth - I would think that AFL would have advice that if they charged a club under the rule you have quoted with the evidence they have that there would be strong possibility of it being overturned if challenged in court. ( unless as you say the evidence is that strong and we have not heard that this is the case)

I addressed the likely outcome if things were as leaked/reported in my post. If what we think we know already is all there is, then this will flitter away early next year with no charges to answer.

I was highlighting the folly of saying right now that we must fight all possible charges at all costs given we don't know 100% what evidence there may be. There is a possible outcome where the evidence is beyond doubt and that a court battle will do us no good at all.

The whole situation has been a mess and if this does all turn to nothing I hope a journalist has the balls and nouce to find out why it leaked so badly.

'List management' is never against the rules or 'match forfeiting' - it is done before the season starts and all the relevant players (read Bookmakers) have all the information.

If you are talking about early surgeries you are on shaky ground and if you are talking about players playing where you don't think they should then you are on quicksand.

Tanking is telling players to lose because that is the only thing that can be legislated solely as trying to lose - the intent is the key here.

So unless our happy band of idiots explicitly said their intent was to lose, then they have nothing and we should fight any sanction or 'adverse finding.'