AFL investigation

[monoccular 17,432]

I may write back look at the players on the ground after we lose. McDonald and Johnson arent exactly celebrating. Does everyone realise we were winning until the last 2nd. A melbourne player didnt give McMahon the ball.

That footage that the sun have on there site is stupid. The commentary is funny form the guy I mean. Is this the evidence. Paul Johnson gets to the ball 1st but it bounces the wrong way and brown waits behind it kicks a goal. Are they serious. Well now ive seen it all. Because Dean Bailey obviously instructed the ball to bounce the wrong way.

Why dont they put on there website brett ratten not manning up Travis johnstone.

Not only a lucky bounce for Brown to get the ball, but a very lucky break in the goal square to make it a goal.

And how dare PJ, as a defender, play in front of his opponent and beat him to the ball. Shameful behaviour.

I don't recall seeing, on their very selective clips, the reaction of our coaching panel in the box when Brown goaled - presumably they punched that air, cracked huge grins and back slapped!!!

Clearly Bailey, Connolly and Schwab are capable of miracles: pity they didn't couldn't use their mystical powers to win us a few more games. :-(((

Edited January 10, 2013 by monoccular

[titan_uranus 25,020]

Do you honestly think we've done nothing wrong?

Do you think we did everything in our power to win our 5th game that year?

It was so damn obvious that we were not, as we were all demanding it at the time.

Would you rather this go to the courts to mid 2014, only to risk losing the case (because we're the MFC and we stink at everything)?

We've done nothing wrong. Nothing at all.

I'd much rather this go to the courts, for that very reason. There is no evidence of us having done anything wrong, nothing at all, and for that reason, I want our names to be cleared and for there to not be any mud stuck to us afterwards.

What about reducing our chances of winning using list management, selection and positional methodologies that were done with the motive of obtaining a PP?

Do you think we did that and is that tanking?

Do you think we compromised the draft?

1) Prove it. Oh, that's right, you can't.

2) Did we compromise the draft? No. If by losing, we compromise, then by extension, by winning we also compromise it. I mean, geez, every time we win we move up in the list and we potentially change the order of the draft. It's a ridiculous argument. The draft order changes every single week with every single result.

We didn't pay other clubs to avoid players, we didn't feed information into the industry to spread untruths. Those would be draft tampering, or compromising.

Edited January 10, 2013 by titan_uranus

[mjt 640]

Jay Clark is attention seeking, weak-willed and prepared to engage in dirty tactics.

Has been from a young age when I used to beat up on him in footy & basketball.

His character hasn't changed.

I highly doubt that.

[hoopla 418]

Cant help myself - Jay Clark just tweeted the same piece of HS footage on twitter with the following message

"Watch the faces of the Melbourne coaching staff when Ricky Petterd almost pinches the Dees the win over Richmond"

I tweeted back at him "by Jove - your right ! The smoking gun ! you've found it ! Go and collect your Walkley right now."

Good one Nut

That's disgraceful pot stirring by Clark. Did you ask about his mind reading qualifications?

Anyway , as Jimmy wrote in his book - the AFL rules themselves created a conflict of emotions

[Whispering_Jack 30,193]

From Tuesday afternoon until early afternoon today I've been at sea and out of range of Demonland and the football media. After reading the hundreds of messages that have been posted on this and other threads, I'm staggered about two things:-

1. There is still total confusion as to the appropriate definition of "tanking". My understanding of the word is that it was defined on numerous occasions by the AFL's CEO and on his definition, neither Melbourne nor several other AFL clubs "tanked". However, if you want to apply the wider definition of "tanking", its clear that a number of AFL clubs "tanked" between the late 1990's right through to mid 2012 when Sheedy rang in the changes to ensure GWS won the Whitfield Cup. I believe the MFC submission will concentrate heavily on the fact that the MFC conducted itself in accordance with what Demetriou himself, laid out as being acceptable. Therefore, most of the speculation and brouhaha in the media and some of it here is utter bullsh1t.

2. There is on that basis, enough evidence available to charge large segments of the media with tanking.

[Slartibartfast 17,307]

1) Prove it. Oh, that's right, you can't.

2) Did we compromise the draft? No. If by losing, we compromise, then by extension, by winning we also compromise it. I mean, geez, every time we win we move up in the list and we potentially change the order of the draft. It's a ridiculous argument. The draft order changes every single week with every single result.

Titan there are question marks after each of my statement. I was asking H_T questions.

I can't prove we tanked (subject to the definition) but you can't prove we didn't. That's why there is discussion. My views are in my penultimate post. That's my view.

[mjt 640]

Titan there are question marks after each of my statement. I was asking H_T questions.

I can't prove we tanked (subject to the definition) but you can't prove we didn't. That's why there is discussion. My views are in my penultimate post. That's my view.

Are you Baghdad Bob?

[Deecisive 1,709]

I guess someone will take the last 30seconds apart frame by frame to see the siren sounded before the mark was completed, hence the field umpire probably took the game away from melbourne. The dropping of players is a joke, there are few players in the melbourne side that you would have said at that time had a mortgage on their position so anyone could have been dropped. I have done a number of investigations in the past and I find it remarkable that all of the facts do not appear to have been gathered, or maybe not reported. A fair investigation would look at who was left in and out of the side and investigate why, i.e. suspension, etc.. they would look at the rotations and who was rotated and not and reasons why rotations did not occur. They would have looked at the moves made to ensure they made sense given that Dean Bailey was criticized for bringing the game into disrepute by his coaching moves, moves like paul johnson, etc which resulted in us fighting back and taking the lead until the siren sounded, it was only after the siren that we lost the game. i just cannot understand any investor worth his salt not following every lead. If playing players out of position is an offense then they will be after Neeld soon for his moves playing backs forward, of course the win over Essendon could be seen as a result of Essendon tanking rather than a great move.

I truely believe every mfc player was out there playing their best football, they were not interested in draft picks, i think most of them would have been trying to impress to ensure they got their contract renewed for the following year.

As for fumbling, this could be the scourge of the new millennium, I suggest the AFL rules committee immediately take action any player found to be fumbling should be given a free kick this will stop the pretend fumble turnovers. Quite frankly the assertion being made that players deliberately fumbled is insulting in the extreme. Lastly I see the Hun has an article talking about Jpod playing in defence, I guess Geelong is signallying their intent to tank.

[Guest José Mourinho]

We also had Brock McLean in the forward pocket too. Now that is funny. Jay Clark used to engage in dirty tactics but you used to beat up on him in footy and basketball. You are special. LOL

Why is that?

It just means we comprehensively beat his teams when we played them.

We embarrassed them.

Maybe you've interpreted it a different way, but I didn't say I beat him up, or bullied him, or used dirty tactics against him.

So many people with comprehension issues these days...

Anyway, the guy was a flopper, consistently tried to milk frees, ducked his head, took short steps and was a smart arse to boot.

So that's what I think of him.

[mjt 640]

I need to go to Masters in the morning, what size shovel would you like.

[Redleg 40,940]

Jay Clark hosted MFC game day lunches this year. Nice that he is biting one of the hands that feeds him. I would imagine he will lose those gigs this year.

[Guest José Mourinho]

The very concept of "draft tampering" or "compromising the draft" is fatally flawed.

All clubs, by their actions, whatever they may be, win lose or draw, are influencing the draft order, whether that is their intent or not.

A poor decision by an administrator may have a domino effect that can lead to a loss, or even have an adverse effect leading to a lower percentage, indirectly influencing the draft order.

The key in all of this must be intent, and unless evidence can be presented of a direct instruction, there is no way of proving it existed.

And let's not forget that the AFL itself saw fit to tamper with the draft in a dramatic manner for years on end.

The new teams could've been given extra draft picks at the end of the draft to make up their numbers, without drastically changing the natural order early in the draft.

But instead it made unnecessary grand allowances, all in the name of ensuring the future success of it's new franchise love-children.

It seems draft tampering is ok when it is aligned with the AFL's agenda.

Anyway, this is all moot, since the AFL knows and understands this, and are obviously "match fixing" this investigation.

[DemonWA 3,934]

Wish a Kerry Packer type was out there to start a rebel league to give the AFL a wake up call ala World Series Cricket!

[s-t-i-n-g-a 439]

60 pages now......

This thread is bigger than Ben Hur!

[mjt 640]

The very concept of "draft tampering" or "compromising the draft" is fatally flawed.

All clubs, by their actions, whatever they may be, win lose or draw, are influencing the draft order, whether that is their intent or not.

A poor decision by an administrator may have a domino effect that can lead to a loss, or even have an adverse effect leading to a lower percentage, indirectly influencing the draft order.

The key in all of this must be intent, and unless evidence can be presented of a direct instruction, there is no way of proving it existed.

And let's not forget that the AFL itself saw fit to tamper with the draft in a dramatic manner for years on end.

The new teams could've been given extra draft picks at the end of the draft to make up their numbers, without drastically changing the natural order early in the draft.

But instead it made unnecessary grand allowances, all in the name of ensuring the future success of it's new franchise love-children.

It seems draft tampering is ok when it is aligned with the AFL's agenda.

Anyway, this is all moot, since the AFL knows and understands this, and are obviously "match fixing" this investigation.

How would you know the AFL are match fixing the investigation, just another figment of your imagination.

[DemonWA 3,934]

How would you know the AFL are match fixing the investigation, just another figment of your imagination.

whats with taking Jose to trial over every one of his posts?

[sue 9,107]

How would you know the AFL are match fixing the investigation, just another figment of your imagination.

Well obviously he couldn't know that unless he was within the AFL. But If the only evidence that exists is that which has been made public to date and after 6 months of investigation, it is not beyond belief that the AFL will now have to 'fix' the investigation in some sense.

[mjt 640]

whats with taking Jose to trial over every one of his posts?

Hes the king of bagging people down, he dominated Jay Clarke, he knows what the AFL thinks, maybe he should have a seat on the AFL board.

[Guest José Mourinho]

Hes the king of bagging people down, he dominated Jay Clarke, he knows what the AFL thinks, maybe he should have a seat on the AFL board.

Maybe the intelligent thing to do would be to come up with a half-decent rebuttal..?

Or you can keep being a child and see how far it gets you.

[DemonWA 3,934]

Hes the king of bagging people down, he dominated Jay Clarke, he knows what the AFL thinks, maybe he should have a seat on the AFL board.

If you let the occasional harsh post get under your skin i'd suggest putting him on ignore. But if i was you i'd chill out and take the good with the bad. Jose, Ben Hur, and a few of the other guys can get heated over differing opinions, but generally their veiws on the club and footy in general are pretty well informed, worth a read anyway

[mjt 640]

If you let the occasional harsh post get under your skin i'd suggest putting him on ignore. But if i was you i'd chill out and take the good with the bad. Jose, Ben Hur, and a few of the other guys can get heated over differing opinions, but generally their veiws on the club and footy in general are pretty well informed, worth a read anyway

Each to there own mate, point taken.

[Apocalypse XXXI 243]

Jay Clark hosted MFC game day lunches this year. Nice that he is biting one of the hands that feeds him. I would imagine he will lose those gigs this year.

I can imagine him being introduced as host and the type of reception he gets from the fans.

[Redleg 40,940]

Well obviously he couldn't know that unless he was within the AFL. But If the only evidence that exists is that which has been made public to date and after 6 months of investigation, it is not beyond belief that the AFL will now have to 'fix' the investigation in some sense.

Is there any evidence, we just don,t know?

The very concept of "draft tampering" or "compromising the draft" is fatally flawed.

All clubs, by their actions, whatever they may be, win lose or draw, are influencing the draft order, whether that is their intent or not.

A poor decision by an administrator may have a domino effect that can lead to a loss, or even have an adverse effect leading to a lower percentage, indirectly influencing the draft order.

The key in all of this must be intent, and unless evidence can be presented of a direct instruction, there is no way of proving it existed.

And let's not forget that the AFL itself saw fit to tamper with the draft in a dramatic manner for years on end.

The new teams could've been given extra draft picks at the end of the draft to make up their numbers, without drastically changing the natural order early in the draft.

But instead it made unnecessary grand allowances, all in the name of ensuring the future success of it's new franchise love-children.

It seems draft tampering is ok when it is aligned with the AFL's agenda.

Anyway, this is all moot, since the AFL knows and understands this, and are obviously "match fixing" this investigation.

Interesting point on draft tampering. You are right, the AFL draft tampers with its fixture, allowances,extra large lists for some, etc.

Also resting players affects matches and is draft tampering as well. Taking players off late in a game is also affecting results and would be draft tampering.

The rules and definitions are basically flawed and the AFL wouldn't, want them exposed.

[mjt 640]

Maybe the intelligent thing to do would be to come up with a half-decent rebuttal..?

Or you can keep being a child and see how far it gets you.

Back in your cage Big Boy, you dominated J Clark , who am i to argue.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Hes the king of bagging people down, he dominated Jay Clarke, he knows what the AFL thinks, maybe he should have a seat on the AFL board.

what a good idea, we need representation there.