AFL investigation

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,602]

word on the street. We are in the clear to a large extent. make of it what you will.

[CBDees 3,167]

OK so another 'no news' article in the small paper by that doyen of footy writers Jay Clark says that the rule we would be likely to have transgressed is the following:

"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 alone particular when he has not been with the MFC since mid 2011 and we actually sacked him for losing which is the very thing that he is alleged to have been guilty of!

I don't think that anybody presently at Melbourne has any case to answer under the above rule unless they want to make Josh Mahoney (Football Manager) a scapegoat on the basis that he had a coaching role back then.

[nutbean 8,838]

I will not count chickens before they have hatched nor am I the sort of person who would gloat or throw back opinions and statements into someones face who got it wrong but if we are cleared of any wrongdoing I hereby promise to be very vindictive and send an email to Caroline Wilson and Greg Denham.

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,602]

I like your style nutbean.

[ILLDieADemon 804]

This deffentlly makes the off season more interesting.

[jackaub 1,402]

I just really want the club to stand up and say NO to anything the AFL tries to throw at them over this. There can't be more damning evidence than that which has been discarded previously when this issue has been raised in relation to other clubs. If the AFL try to have a quiet chat about what we'd be willing to give up to make it go away, the response should be "Not a damn thing." Everything that we have seen in the media has been said previously about other clubs and nothing was ever done. This is nothing more than a witch hunt for a perceived easy target, and we need to stand up and comprehensively disabuse the AFL of that notion.

Im with you Ralphie the club should treat it all with distain It is so obvious they dont have any real eveidence other than heresay and words without meaning from people disaffected with the club. Wait keep the powder dry, read what is written in the evidence briefs and POW hit them with everything!! Make a real statement that you dont F*&k around with the Melbourne Football club!!

[Redleg 41,467]

word on the street. We are in the clear to a large extent. make of it what you will.

Which street?

[hoopla 418]

Connolly cant be charged under this rule - he is not a player, coach or assistant coach.

Not if you take a literal approach to the rules. But as I have said the AFL might argue that in a substantive sense the Football Department head as "manager/boss of the coaches" is effectively a coach. As I recall Connolly sat on the bench sometimes presumably to "coach" the players on the interchange.

It is definitely something we should use to defend him - but some judges are known to look more at the "substance" of the law than at the precise form / wording of the law. I suspect the rule was intended to zero in on "encouragement" from those with direct on field influence - why else would they confine it to particular roles? The way organisations play with job titles nowadays, I think a lot of judges will look beyond the name on the business card. Would Neil Craig fall outside the regulation because the word "coach" doesn't appear in his job title.

Again I'm not saying that the AFL could sustain the charges - merely that they could make them if they wished to.Imagine Wilson's attack on the AFL if they don't charge Connolly under this regulation?

[beelzebub 23,383]

This simply cant go near a court. The AFL loses even in the very unlikely event it wins ( which it wouldnt i feel)

The trigger is the levelling of charges against the MFC.

The AFL actually control the outcome currently and dont dare for its own sake lose that ( control) .

ergo

there will be no charges.

irrespective of whatever has actually transpired; good , bad or indifferent you have to start at the desired outcome and work back to see how this will pan out not attempt to speculate on where we are now and work forward.

[hoopla 418]

This simply cant go near a court. The AFL loses even in the very unlikely event it wins ( which it wouldnt i feel)

The trigger is the levelling of charges against the MFC.

The AFL actually control the outcome currently and dont dare for its own sake lose that ( control) .

ergo

there will be no charges.

irrespective of whatever has actually transpired; good , bad or indifferent you have to start at the desired outcome and work back to see how this will pan out not attempt to speculate on where we are now and work forward.

Good one bb. As much as I find the AFL difficult to read at the best of times - you've probably hit right on the bottom line.

McLardy has been smart to leak our determination to fight this

[Toast 77]

??? rubbish or distrust as to the agenda of the postor, who could be a board member or the like, who doesn't want top fight it out thru the courts. Maybe trying to sell the idea to supporters thru the forums.

Maybe the insider has already agreed with the "powers that be" to accept the prescribed penalty & go quietly. with only a small pantomime to play out for the footy supporter?

Mate 'those in the know' on Demonology know that Deegirl is usually on the money, or to remove the cliche, she has in the past, actually passed FACTS about our footy club.

Your post above is pure paranoia based on the drivel you've read in the media and crackpot 'I post therefore I am' Demonland philosophy. Deegirl logs on to pass on information about the world as it actually exists.

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,602]

A street in the far eastern suburbs There is most definately no smoking gun and its a case of when you said it did you mean it?

[PJ_12345 1,098]

PJ, at this stage, and obviously not knowing what evidence the AFL has found, I am expecting we will be cleared of tanking. CC may get done for the game into disrepute rule for the remarks about staff geting sacked if we win games. Which could lead to CS getting a slap over the wrists, which could lead to the Club facing "something" under this category where we allowed prominent figures within the Club to act in such a fashion.

Even from what we've been fed from the media, I don't think the AFL can afford to let all off. Equally, I don't think they can afford to get us for tanking mainly becasue of the clarity of the definition of the tanking rule, but also the fact the Dimwit won't eat humble pie, and the domino effect it will have on income streams such as sports betting. It also appears that while the "he said she said" rubbish talked about tanking, at the end of the day, Dean Bailey or any of his assistants never instructed the players to lose, and the players never played to lose.

I don't think it's looking flash for CC. Regardless of if it was meant to be a joke, the AFL won't appreciate higher management at a club coming out on an alledged number of occasions, talking about processes being in place to ensure we secure priority draft picks. With all this talk of us taking them to court, if the AFL have got witnesses that are echoing the same story, and willing to do so in a court of law, I'm not sure how that will go.

Just my opinion, hope I'm wrong and that we do get off. Time will tell.

Very well put billy.

For CC's sake I hope your wrong, but I have to be realistic here: the AFL have spent a long, public time investigating this issue and they will have to charge someone - poor mentality but one which I hope they don't hold, particularly because of AD's comments/opinion on us tanking.

Also re the evidence is seems that some of it might be questionable with their start stop recording and duress tactics - wouldn't hold up in the supreme court.

My opinion, but as you said - time will tell!

Either way I'm not nervous - I've got confidence in the club, the fink and weirdly the AFL for a good outcome.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Reminds me of a photo of Caro, [censored] Barrett, Denham, and other media "personalities" waiting out the front of AFL house...

Lets hope they start to eat one another, tail first. A congoline of slithering serpents all into one another.

???? Is that why the papers are going down?

[dee-luded 2,959]

Mate 'those in the know' on Demonology know that Deegirl is usually on the money, or to remove the cliche, she has in the past, actually passed FACTS about our footy club.

Your post above is pure paranoia based on the drivel you've read in the media and crackpot 'I post therefore I am' Demonland philosophy. Deegirl logs on to pass on information about the world as it actually exists.

HaHaHa, I wasn't posting about deegirl.

[Redleg 41,467]

A street in the far eastern suburbs There is most definately no smoking gun and its a case of when you said it did you mean it?

If you are right, we can relax.

[mauriesy 7,357]

Which street?

Theysay Street or Iheard Street.

[deegirl 1,578]

A bit more detail - the damning testimony, the stuff that's given the AFL its strongest "evidence", came from two former employees who had left the club on bad terms. Not players.

[rjay 25,093]

A bit more detail - the damning testimony, the stuff that's given the AFL its strongest "evidence", came from two former employees who had left the club on bad terms. Not players.

Hardly good witnesses then you would think but interesting to know.

Now for the guessing game.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

A bit more detail - the damning testimony, the stuff that's given the AFL its strongest "evidence", came from two former employees who had left the club on bad terms. Not players.

Are the club concerned about this?

[dee-luded 2,959]

A bit more detail - the damning testimony, the stuff that's given the AFL its strongest "evidence", came from two former employees who had left the club on bad terms. Not players.

Thats what I expected, very disappointing...

[Jarka 767]

Goes to show the pack mentality around here. Unless you have a couple of thousand posts to your name, everything you say is rubbish!

Pack mentality because I pointed out the the poster had created four posts and all of them were very negative about the club?

Go [censored] yourself

[rumpole 522]

Thats what I expected, very disappointing...

... but basically what we've all assumed to be the case from the time the information was first leaked to Caroline Wilson.

The question is what weight one puts on the word of disgruntled ex-employees who left the club on bad terms.

If one of them is who I think he is, then he was involved in plenty of spats even before he left and his credibility will be in tatters before the Fink finishes up with him.

[Jarka 767]

Mate 'those in the know' on Demonology know that Deegirl is usually on the money, or to remove the cliche, she has in the past, actually passed FACTS about our footy club.

Your post above is pure paranoia based on the drivel you've read in the media and crackpot 'I post therefore I am' Demonland philosophy. Deegirl logs on to pass on information about the world as it actually exists.

Well, that's just [censored] great, another [censored] leak. Who else does she leak info to?

This place exists for fans to discuss our team and everyone should be encouraged to participate but I've looked back at her posts and they are negative towards the club. I question her motivation and the reasons for her actions. I'd like to know who she hates at the club to put her posts into perspective

[GM11 782]

Win , lose or draw I hope all these names surface in the end.

I want to be sure I am despising all the right people.