AFL investigation

[dee-luded 2,959]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/demons-recorded-dean-bailey-in-coaches-box-during-tanking-year/story-e6frf9jf-1226551547888

That says Bailey is looking for the tapes to help the defence against charges. Sounds like they'll never be found to me "but if only they were then we'd be in the clear". I'd be looking behind the ice-cream in CC's freezer.

hmmn, & I wonder how many recordings exist from other clubs coaches boxes,,, since this inquisition has been occurring?

[daisycutter 29,616]

hmmn, & I wonder how many recordings exist from other clubs coaches boxes,,, since this inquisition has been occurring?

hard to believe you'd keep tapes from games over 3 years ago when the coach is not even here now

surely there would be no intention/interest in listening to them (apart from the inquisition aspect)

[Sir Why You Little 37,036]

If Angry Anderson had asked for those match day tapes when he spoke to DB after his presser then this whole farce would have been sorted within a day. A week at most.

6 months of this. The AFL have got more to answer than the MFC.

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

Actually this whole thing revolves around one word : "Merits"

Nor is it just one set of 'merits', whatever they might be, but the person also has to induce or encourage someone else not to perform on his merits, whatever they might be.

Good luck with that one, AFL.

[Sir Why You Little 37,036]

hmmn, & I wonder how many recordings exist from other clubs coaches boxes,,, since this inquisition has been occurring?

You can bet they are all wiped or deleted now.

"Do you have any Matchday recordings from 2007 Mr. Kernahan?"

"Sorry Sir the cats eaten it"

Farce inc.

[BarnDee 287]

You can bet they are all wiped or deleted now.

"Do you have any Matchday recordings from 2007 Mr. Kernahan?"

"Sorry Sir the cats eaten it"

Farce inc.

is that how cats get tape worm , ?

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

Wholeheartedly agree BB. The bookmakers rarely get it wrong and in that year, generally without exception, we were long odds to win any games of footy. As you put it, for whatever reason, we were "rubbish". In that situation, I would contend that is was incumbent on any coach to test the waters with any player on the list and challenge players to attempt to go beyond their perceived limitations, in terms of ability, just to see if it were possible to "pinch hit" with some players, even if that meant playing them out of their usual positions.

The reality at that time was that we had very little else to hang our hats on. It is for the reason of a considerable dearth of talent that Neeld was left with no alternative but to turnover the list and formulate his own list, for which he will ultimately be happy to take responsibility.

Simply put, in 2009, tanking or otherwise, we were bereft of any serious talent. No surprise, therefore, that we lost games and were often belted.

[Longsufferingnomore 1,631]

And this from Rob Chapman Chairman of Crows:

"I know and understand Dean's version of events and I don't think he has a case as an individual to answer to".

I hope I am not reading too much into this.

[The Chazz 4,077]

Because Bailey was always a laughing clown ? , jumping up and down ?? he was the king of Stoney faces. Hardly proof of anything. It was a tense part of the game, finger biting stuff. No one was going to celebrate too prematurely I would think.

B59 - you talk about this sponsorship stuff, and how Webjet/Opel would be loving hte exposure, etc. The amount of times the media (print or tv) have reported on this investigation, there is minimal times that they are using current day footage. Most photos I have seen attached to articles have Bailey's face, CC's face or footage from the 2009 season. The amount of times the Webjet or Opel logo would have appeared would be 1 in every 10, if not 20. You and I have had heated conversations about sponsorship in the past, and I think this is another example that it is a topic you may not know that much about.

Back on topic, isn't it clear to everyone that we will not be charged with tanking? It's already been reported to the media that the charges will be draft tampering, bringing the game in to disrepute, and for Bailey, not coaching to his best (or whatever the wording is). There is no mention that we will be charged with tanking, as, what a majority on here are saying, it is too hard to prove, and there are no clear rules that define tanking.

Bringing the game in to disrepute is the killer for us, as the AFL will define that in a way that will be backed by the evidence that they have. It would have to be one of the hardest charges to fight, as it is basically the AFL saying "this person did this, we don't like it and think it's not a good look for OUR game, therefore, we will charge them". That's why I will continue to believe that CC will be made the scapegoat out of all this, as it will show that the AFL have not failed in their investigations. It will show that tanking, in terms of teams losing on purpose, does not exist, and that if any club offical even jokingly tries to suggest that their team considers it, that this will not be tolerated, and will cost jobs.

The CC case - if the AFL have spoken to so many witnesses who attended the meetings held at "The Vault", and if those witnesses are all saying the same thing (in regards to CC's comments), and if they are willing to sign a stat dec and/or tell that story in a courtroom, then it will be near impossible for the MFC to convince the judge that they were tonuge-in-cheek comments.

The whole thing is simple, we tanked. I know it, Ben Hur knows it (should be enough for everyone?!), the media know it, the AFL know it. It should never be proved, and from what we have learnt from the media, the AFL are struggling to do so. But, if you think that's the only thing the AFL are going to throw at us, you truly are living in fantasyland.

Tanking; Not Guilty.

Bringing the game in to disrepute; Guilty.

Individual/s will be punished. It will happen.

[beelzebub 23,376]

Billy, we'll just have to disagree.

[Bossdog 2,002]

Do the AFL have the right to sack any of our personell....I would have thought that any club can hire or fire whoever they like,without the afl's permission.......CC is now out of the football dept.and now working with sponcers and community affairs........Responsible only to the board....Not the AFL???? I could be completely wrong about this.....

[Sir Why You Little 37,036]

Billy. You are rolling over. Stop it now.

This sham must be hard fought by the MFC Dean Bailey and the legal Teams.

The AFL have bought themselves into disrepute thus far...

And you are holding a white flag??

FIGHT THE POWER.

[The Chazz 4,077]

Billy, well just have to disagree.

What is there to disagree on? How many times have you seen 2012/2013 footage proudly showing the Opel/Webjet logos, especially compared to the amount of times you have seen Dean Bailey's picture, or footage of the 2009 Richmond game? The exposure those 2 companies have had during this investigation is minimal, that's fact, not sure what there is to disagree on?

Billy. You are rolling over. Stop it now.

This sham must be hard fought by the MFC Dean Bailey and the legal Teams.

The AFL have bought themselves into disrepute thus far...

And you are holding a white flag??

FIGHT THE POWER.

Not rolling over at all WYL, just being realistic. I'm not saying we shouldn't fight, I'm saying that if the AFL go down the "game in to disrepute" track, it makes a fight bloody hard. If they charge us with tanking, I would be a lot more confident that we will win.

As I said, I'm not saying don't fight, and I'm certainly not rolling over.

[Sir Why You Little 37,036]

What is there to disagree on? How many times have you seen 2012/2013 footage proudly showing the Opel/Webjet logos, especially compared to the amount of times you have seen Dean Bailey's picture, or footage of the 2009 Richmond game? The exposure those 2 companies have had during this investigation is minimal, that's fact, not sure what there is to disagree on?

Not rolling over at all WYL, just being realistic. I'm not saying we shouldn't fight, I'm saying that if the AFL go down the "game in to disrepute" track, it makes a fight bloody hard. If they charge us with tanking, I would be a lot more confident that we will win.

As I said, I'm not saying don't fight, and I'm certainly not rolling over.

and i have never said it shall be an easy fight.

I am not kidding when i say IF the MFC roll over and let the AFL smack its bottom 2013 will be the LAST membership i ever buy.

This Billy is line in the sand stuff.

You do not hire legal representation at $1,000 a hour-+ to give in to this sham.

I do not care what the AFL say thus far.

If the audio in the coach's box does exist and is damming we are f@&$d, but as it is Bailey who wants to use it i think it will be an assett (if found)

[sue 9,106]

The CC case - if the AFL have spoken to so many witnesses who attended the meetings held at "The Vault", and if those witnesses are all saying the same thing (in regards to CC's comments), and if they are willing to sign a stat dec and/or tell that story in a courtroom, then it will be near impossible for the MFC to convince the judge that they were tonuge-in-cheek comments.

While I agree 'disrepute' is a lot easier to argue since it is so hard to defend and is so subjective, I'm not so sure that a pile of stat decs saying CC said it seriously would make it impossible for MFC to argue they were tongue-in-cheek comments. What if there is also a pile saying he was just kidding? Then the legal argument comes down to who has a sense of humour and who hasn't.

So the AFL has to argue CC brought footy into disrepute by making jokes liable to misinterpretation. God help us if we can't have a laugh without looking over our shoulder.

[dee-luded 2,959]

hard to believe you'd keep tapes from games over 3 years ago when the coach is not even here now

surely there would be no intention/interest in listening to them (apart from the inquisition aspect)

history is important in an honest world, to learn from.

& get direction from.

the tapes aren't the problem.

[The Chazz 4,077]

While I agree 'disrepute' is a lot easier to argue since it is so hard to defend and is so subjective, I'm not so sure that a pile of stat decs saying CC said it seriously would make it impossible for MFC to argue they were tongue-in-cheek comments. What if there is also a pile saying he was just kidding? Then the legal argument comes down to who has a sense of humour and who hasn't.

So the AFL has to argue CC brought footy into disrepute by making jokes liable to misinterpretation. God help us if we can't have a laugh without looking over our shoulder.

The funniest jokes are those that aren't repeated over and over again. I believe members of DL have witnessed this same "joke" that CC used in The Vault.

But sadly, we do need God's help with this sort of stuff these days. Something that one person can take the wrong way can be taken quite highly, regardless of it being humour or not.

I personally wish we could go back to the days when "harass" was 2 words. Such is the society we now reside.

[dee-luded 2,959]

What is there to disagree on? How many times have you seen 2012/2013 footage proudly showing the Opel/Webjet logos, especially compared to the amount of times you have seen Dean Bailey's picture, or footage of the 2009 Richmond game? The exposure those 2 companies have had during this investigation is minimal, that's fact, not sure what there is to disagree on?

Not rolling over at all WYL, just being realistic. I'm not saying we shouldn't fight, I'm saying that if the AFL go down the "game in to disrepute" track, it makes a fight bloody hard. If they charge us with tanking, I would be a lot more confident that we will win.

As I said, I'm not saying don't fight, and I'm certainly not rolling over.

whilst a win is important in all this, to show we'll fight is much moreso, & that we'll take our pound of flesh, if the AFL want to tread that step.

then there will be no winners.

imo, the afl will engineer an outcome where no one is sacked & charges will be either not layed & dismissed.

People will leave, I feel Sure. some from the afl & some from us.'

[rumpole 515]

Tanking; Not Guilty.

Bringing the game in to disrepute; Guilty.

Individual/s will be punished. It will happen.

To bring the game into disrepute means there has to be a very public act committed by people that damages the game's reputation. If people have private discussions within club which aren't acted upon then it can hardly be said that the game has been brought into disrepute. If Bailey is not guilty of anything (and I don't believe that he is) them the disrepute claim must fail as must the draft tampering claim.

If the case against Bailey rises or falls because of three minutes at the end of the Jordan McMahon, then where would the case be had McMahon missed the shot after the siren?

The AFL has no case. This farce needs to be put to an end ASAP.

[beelzebub 23,376]

Which way do you want it then Billy..So then kasperky and Hankook ought to be miffed ??

All stock old footage will of course show these companies. Theres a lot of attention on Melbourne currently, so when theres a presser, or pix of training or the extra interest the Dees website gets it will all be at the benefit of current sponsors.

Again I note both current sponsors extended their time/money subsequent to the tanking fiasco /circus starting. They obviously arent of the opinion you are.

Both are sizable well organised and run companies with a close eye to the public and its perceptions of things.

Again ..we'll just disagree.

[The Chazz 4,077]

and i have never said it shall be an easy fight.

I am not kidding when i say IF the MFC roll over and let the AFL smack its bottom 2013 will be the LAST membership i ever buy.

This Billy is line in the sand stuff.

You do not hire legal representation at $1,000 a hour-+ to give in to this sham.

I do not care what the AFL say thus far.

If the audio in the coach's box does exist and is damming we are f@&$d, but as it is Bailey who wants to use it i think it will be an assett (if found)

As much as we need to look out for DB in this, DB is in it to cover his own arse.

Again, this is trying to clear our tanking name, which I expect to happen. But I do expect CC to lose his job over his continual comments about staying the course.

I'll throw one blokes name out there that seems to be very quiet in all this, and isn't mentioned on here at all (individually that is). Josh Mahoney. A copy of his transcript you would think, would be an interesting read.

[Longsufferingnomore 1,631]

whilst a win is important in all this, to show we'll fight is much moreso, & that we'll take our pound of flesh, if the AFL want to tread that step.

then there will be no winners.

imo, the afl will engineer an outcome where no one is sacked & charges will be either not layed & dismissed.

People will leave, I feel Sure. some from the afl & some from us.'

Or already gone.

[daisycutter 29,616]

I personally wish we could go back to the days when "harass" was 2 words. Such is the society we now reside.

did i miss something billy?

[French harasser, possibly from Old French harer, to set a dog on, from hare, interj. used to set a dog on, of Germanic origin.]

[The Chazz 4,077]

Which way do you want it then Billy..So then kasperky and Hankook ought to be miffed ??

All stock old footage will of course show these companies. Theres a lot of attention on Melbourne currently, so when theres a presser, or pix of training or the extra interest the Dees website gets it will all be at the benefit of current sponsors.

Again I note both current sponsors extended their time/money subsequent to the tanking fiasco /circus starting. They obviously arent of the opinion you are.

Both are sizable well organised and run companies with a close eye to the public and its perceptions of things.

Again ..we'll just disagree.

So do you think the MFC website would have an increase in unique visitors due to a 6 month tanking investigation? C'mon now B59.

How many press conferences have we had recently? There was one a couple of days ago, when was the one before that? In particular, when was the last one shown/reported in the media? The media aren't going down to the club, because the club are giving them nothing. They (the media) are "getting better information" from "a source close to the MFC". That's it.

Of course they were happy to extend their contracts. They aren't paying huge dollars as it is, so why not get another 12 months of cheap sponsorship? Hopefully our onfield performances are better in 2013, and generate more exposure than our performances of 2009, so that we can offer them an extension at the end of this season, with a fairly significant increase to what they are currently paying. But, no doubt you will over-inflate what they are paying now.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

It has all been said before, I know, but if we are guilty of "bringing the game into disrepute", based on the performance on 2009, a year in which we were quite simply poor and not good enough, what then does the AFL make of other clubs before and since that time.

There are numerous and more blatant "tanking" scenarios which can be levelled at other clubs, with far more veracity than what has been levelled at us. If the AFL continue to go down this path with us, then they will open the proverbial Pandoras can of worms.

The AFL do not want to go there.