AFL investigation

[Hannibal 5,814]

The following is an opposition supporters view that I thought was worth sharing. I reckon that in the main it's an excellent post.

"Any Barrister worth his salt should be able to get up in court and demonstrate that tanking is not only rife in the AFL but is an accepted and condoned practice by all clubs and the AFL governing body. The NAB pre-season cup is an officially sanctioned AFL competition. Therefore, every club (ie all) that has ever rested a senior player even though fit to play, and played some inexperienced rookie in his place in a NAB cup game, has not played that game to the best capability of the club - ie has tanked.

Melbourne, and certainly other clubs before it, has merely manipulated the rules set by the AFL to gain some longer term gain. If the AFL doesn't like it, it has the power to change the rules to dissuade this. In the case of draft tampering, all it has to do is do away with the reverse-ladder draft priorities and introduce a draft lottery for the teams finishing out of the final eight. I can't see some team deliberately trying to finish ninth instead of eighth (and missing out on playing finals) in order to maybe get a slightly higher draft pick.

The AFL has made this situation with a set of conflicting and confusing rules. It is in its power to clear up the mess without resorting to the cowardly bullying of a select few club employees instead of even having the guts to take on the responsible club."

[Ouch! 2,262]

So just as a point of comparison, here is the herald sun article, and as you can see, it doesn't have some of the factual inaccuracies that The Age has regarding Brock's comments OTC and about "The Vault"

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/teams/tanking-charges-against-the-melbourne-football-club-out-in-the-open/story-e6frf9mf-1226549291328

The other thing that is noticeable at the moment is the absence of the senior AFL writers in regards to these articles. Caro has gone to ground, Robo, Mark Stevens etc... they all seem to be avoiding it, the Herald article has been crafted by "Staff writer".

Either they are afraid to touch it until the AFL plays it's hand with regards to charges, or they have been warned/scared off by potential legal action. With the MFC potentially going to court, is there a risk that the loose standards they they have been able to adhere to under AFL protection could be also exposed?

Edited January 7, 2013 by Oucher

[Hannibal 5,814]

The other thing that is noticeable at the moment is the absence of the senior AFL writers in regards to these articles. Caro has gone to ground, Robo, Mark Stevens etc... they all seem to be avoiding it, the Herald article has been crafted by "Staff writer".

Either they are afraid to touch it until the AFL plays it's hand with regards to charges, or they have been warned/scared off by potential legal action. With the MFC potentially going to court, is there a risk that the loose standards they they have been able to adhere to under AFL protection could be also exposed?

They're on holidays. It's as simple as that.

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

There is one part of all this that is ringing very large alarm bells in my head and that is the Bailey part. If Bailey is found guilty I think there is a fair chance he will turn around and sue the club for not allowing him to coach on his merits. If that happens and Bailey starts talking about the pressure applied to him etc I think it could get very ugly. We need to keep Bailey on our side.

vert important that Dean & the MFC work very closely on this one.

I hope all personal differences if they exist are put to rest for the good of all.

I was always worried at Deans last presser that he was left at that table by himself for the vultures to feed on.

He should have been flanked by Mclardy & Schwab with the sponsors logos behind him.

He may have been sacked as coach but until the end of that interview he was still representing the MFC.

We all know what happened in reality. Iff this does drag on and get dirty the MFC must back Dean & vice versa. If there is conflicting stories the AFL will get the upper hand very swiftly.

[pitchfork 181]

Given the reaction of the club, Bailey, and most significantly the media I'd take the odds on more likely an AFL employee loses his job than Bailey, Connolly, and Schwabb.

Regardless of what is in the report - and the little that is in the Age and the HUN would point to: not much - the fact that the AFL requires the parties to 'show reason by the end of the month to interim AFL football operations manager Gillon McLachlan as to why they should not be charged' just seems to be a process wrought with inequity.

It seems that the biggest mistake anybody made was calling it "The Vault" rather than "The Meeting Room"

[Barney Rubble 1,576]

I heard Jon Pierik on SEN this morning.

he believes that if things go smoothly it will end about mid year.

If there is a court challenge, then more likely end of 2014.

So now it's time to just enjoy football

GO DEES

Edited January 7, 2013 by Chippy

[Ouch! 2,262]

They're on holidays. It's as simple as that.

even before they went on Holidays Caro was *very* quiet... and she was still pumping out articles about Adelaide etc.

[daisycutter 29,613]

I heard Jon Pierik on SEN this morning.

he believes that if things go smoothly it will end about mid year.

If there is a court challenge, then more likely end of 2014.

So now it's time to just enjoy football

GO DEES

it's a bit hard to really enjoy the footy with this hanging over our heads

and much as everyone will be trying it's bound to have some negative effect on the players they don't need

this could be two seasons soured by idiots in the afl over something they were instrumental in encouraging in the first place

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

The following is an opposition supporters view that I thought was worth sharing. I reckon that in the main it's an excellent post.

"Any Barrister worth his salt should be able to get up in court and demonstrate that tanking is not only rife in the AFL but is an accepted and condoned practice by all clubs and the AFL governing body. etc etc

Translation: "Yes, we tanked."

I think not.

[Bossdog 2,002]

it's a bit hard to really enjoy the footy with this hanging over our heads

and much as everyone will be trying it's bound to have some negative effect on the players they don't need

this could be two seasons soured by idiots in the afl over something they were instrumental in encouraging in the first place

I don't think the coaching staff or the players would care about what happened in 2009.....Hopefully they are all concentrating on 2013....I think players are so far removed from admin of the club...Just my opinion....

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

it's a bit hard to really enjoy the footy with this hanging over our heads

and much as everyone will be trying it's bound to have some negative effect on the players they don't need

this could be two seasons soured by idiots in the afl over something they were instrumental in encouraging in the first place

hey DC once the ball is bounced and Dawesy kicks his first goal all this court case procedure will be moved to the background.

The longer it goes on the more exposed the AFL will become.

It could easily go on for at least 2 years as each party is shown evidence and given time to respond.

Relax brother. The Beaks now begin their trade.

[daisycutter 29,613]

I don't think the coaching staff or the players would care about what happened in 2009.....Hopefully they are all concentrating on 2013....I think players are so far removed from admin of the club...Just my opinion....

i really hope you are right bossdog, but everyone is human and it will be very hard to totally separate yourself from all the public speculation

[sue 9,102]

They're on holidays. It's as simple as that.

Very likely. I'd probably put money on it. But unless you actually know, it would be better to make it clear that you are speculating. Do you know?

[Tony Tea 2,809]

What a tediously repetitive article.

[nutbean 8,838]

I'll summarise the age article for anyone who hasnt read it.

Headline

- the age has presented their wad of evidence with potential rules breached

- the MFC has vowed to fight it.

The end.

Referring to my earlier posts - this is still being played by the numbers. I still believe this is all nicely set up for an AFL presser at some stage - "after presenting 800 pages of research to the MFC and receiving back information and clarity around this information there is insufficient evidence for any charges to be laid"

[Hannibal 5,814]

Translation: "Yes, we tanked."

I think not.

You're missing the point. The barristers will argue much of their case around the definition of tanking. They'll be able to give examples of tanking that are considered to be acceptable within the guidelines. They'll be able to correctly ask where does tanking start and stop ? What constitutes list management ? They'll easily be able to blur the lines.

They won't say, "yes Melbourne tanked". They'll asking "what is tanking ?". And "how did Melbourne contravene any rules when players were never asked to perform beneath their capabilities ?".

[PJ_12345 1,098]

You're missing the point. The barristers will argue much of their case around the definition of tanking. They'll be able to give examples of tanking that are considered to be acceptable within the guidelines. They'll be able to correctly ask where does tanking start and stop ? What constitutes list management ? They'll easily be able to blur the lines.

They won't say, "yes Melbourne tanked". They'll asking "what is tanking ?". And "how did Melbourne contravene any rules when players were never asked to perform beneath their capabilities ?".

Yes the definition of tanking will be a large part of any argument your all forgetting the most important defence will come from looking at the evidence (ie credibility of the witnesses, quality of the evidence, and conduct of the investigation).

This period of the investigation is where we respond to the AFL about the evidence, merely arguing the definition of tanking would look weak, and present a feeble defence.

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

The Defininition of "List Management/Tanking" 2009...Let us remember to always put that date with either of those 2 words...very important.

Will be the Numero uno issue for our lawyers at this stage...the recanting or back Tracking of B. Mclean should be a close second...on this point i applaud him, he may now realize just how serious those "off the cuff" remarks became.

However frustrated he may have been the club played within the 2009 rules unless the AFL can prove otherwise, and it was the MFC who paid Mclean's wages at that time.

Edited January 8, 2013 by why you little

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

You're missing the point. The barristers will argue much of their case around the definition of tanking. They'll be able to give examples of tanking that are considered to be acceptable within the guidelines. They'll be able to correctly ask where does tanking start and stop ? What constitutes list management ? They'll easily be able to blur the lines.

They won't say, "yes Melbourne tanked". They'll asking "what is tanking ?". And "how did Melbourne contravene any rules when players were never asked to perform beneath their capabilities ?".

Then we're in agreement.

But that's not what the bigfooty poster was saying.

[Harcourt 146]

The Defininition of "List Management/Tanking" 2009...Let us remember to always put that date with either of those 2 words...very important.

Will be the Numero uno issue for our lawyers at this stage...the recanting or back Tracking of B. Mclean should be a close second...on this point i applaud him, he may now realize just how serious those "off the cuff" remarks became.

However frustrated he may have been the club played within the 2009 rules unless the AFL can prove otherwise, and it was the MFC who paid Mclean's wages at that time.

Maybe the chiefs at Carlton had a little word in Brock's ear before he went back to be interviewed. I doubt Carlton would want the MFC raising their name in any response we put together to the AFL's supposed evidence.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Yes the definition of tanking will be a large part of any argument your all forgetting the most important defence will come from looking at the evidence (ie credibility of the witnesses, quality of the evidence, and conduct of the investigation).

This period of the investigation is where we respond to the AFL about the evidence, merely arguing the definition of tanking would look weak, and present a feeble defence.

As I said, no player has been asked to perform beneath their capability. The evidence doesn't get much stronger than that.

And yes, then testimony, etc. will be dissected. A given I would have thought.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Then we're in agreement.

But that's not what the bigfooty poster was saying.

I think that it's pretty clear that was what he was getting at. That's what I took out of it anyway.

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

Maybe the chiefs at Carlton had a little word in Brock's ear before he went back to be interviewed. I doubt Carlton would want the MFC raising their name in any response we put together to the AFL's supposed evidence.

distinct possibility...But by recanting he may become a key witness down the track.

[titan_uranus 25,014]

This ridiculous charge of 'not coaching to one's utmost' laid against Bailey is a load of crap.

If Bailey did anything in 2009, he coached to his utmost. He knew that the best thing for the club in that year was to make us more competitive in the long run, so he played kids and developed strategies and tactics that he believed would be the best thing to make us better from 2010 onwards. Bailey's goal was to make the MFC a stronger club. That, with no doubt, is coaching to one's utmost.

The AFL should be embarrassed to have even come up with such a ridiculous charge.

[Bossdog 2,002]

I don't believe any body wants this to go to court.....The AFL don't want a test case against their rules(which could cause a precedent) and the MFC don't want a civil case where it would be decided on the 'Balance of probabilities' and not 'Beyond resonable doubt' as per criminal cases.....

If it goes to court, it will drag on for a couple of years,it will take that long just to get a court date in the Supreme court......

Lets all hope that common sense prevails and this farce will end before the season starts....