AFL investigation

[The Song Formerly Known As 6,479]

This whole thing is just so unbelievably stupid, and actually becoming embarrassing for the AFL.

[greenmachine 21]

will be all good dont stress

[Guest]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="stranga" data-cid="684654"><p>Not sure if this has been mentioned but I heard an 'amusing' comment from Rohan Connely, speaking on SEN yesterday afternoon, regarding the tanking. While he admits there isn't much concrete evidence against us he thinks some proof that we tanked is the fact that 'we were able to belt Fremantle in round 20' but lose every other game. I'm just finding it very strange how you can now be accused of tanking because you win a game! I'm sorry Rohan that we didn't do as good a job of it as Carlton and Collingwood did a few years earlier and lose the last 10 games of the season.</p></blockquote><br />Connolly was also challenged on talkback on SEN, by a Dees supporter, regarding the reporting of so-called evidence of tanking in the media. in particular, the Dee's supporter rightly pointed out the absurd allegation that the we did not play Jack Watts enough that year. In response, Connolly told the supporter to not "shoot the messenger" and that the reporter concerned was only reporting the facts.<br /><br />Unfortunately, all too often these days, journalists rely on the shoot the messenger retort, to justify shoddy reporting. I long for the days of a more prolific investigative media, which does not simply take as read, media releases or quotes from protagonists as being fact. In this case, the Dee's supporter concerned was right. Don't take as Gospel, what is trotted out by the AFL minions. Sure, Rohan, you may see it as preserving your meal ticket, by kowtowing to the AFL, but such conduct undermines the integrity of every journalist that engages in such activity. This is no more ample evidence of this than your colleague, Ms. Wilson.

I don't mind them reporting that the AFL are going to go in that direction (questioning why Jack Watts wasn't played). I do have a problem in them not turning around and saying how ridiculous that line of investigation is. I'm sorry but anyone could look at that assertion and dismiss it as absolute BS and there is no pro MFC bias clouding my vision. Just watch Queen's Birthday 2009!

It's like the White House Press Corp in the U.S. Rather than critically analyze what they are receiving, they just trot out whatever press release the government gives them as these journos are doing with whatever info they get from the AFL. The reason why? Access. You don't want to trod on the wrong person's toes and lose your plum interview. Just ask Grant Thomas.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,909]

Hmmm. I heard some of Rohan Connolly on SEN yesterday and I interpreted what he said about the Fremantle game quite differently. I thought he was arguing that if Melbourne was so keen on tanking why would they have done so well against Fremantle when losing (if tanking was occurring) would be the 'better' option. In other words, I thought he was supporting the argument that Melbourne wasn't tanking. Certainly, everything else he said seemed to suggest he supported the argument that tanking wasn't happening. For example, in the Richmond game he pointed out that (1) Melbourne kicked 2 goals in the last minute or so - surely if they were tanking they would have missed (2) Melbourne were ahead on the final siren and (3) the suggestion that the Melbourne coach's box was unhappy after those goals were kicked (because they weren't overtly ecstatic when the TV cameras went on them) is nonsense because he doesn't recall seeing John Longmire being ecstatic after Malceski kicked the final goal in the 2012 grand final.

[Slartibartfast 17,631]

I'm actually looking forward to her return now...

If this is the case Fan, (and it makes sense to me too), all submitted suggested charges that need to be answered would have to be dropped if there is a "no case to answer" I would assume. And those singled out would likely be in the clear. Would you agree?

Be careful what you say about Caro, you'll get hate PM's and if people know where you live..........

I think that either there is a smoking gun that the AFL/MFC have negotiated out of the equation or their isn't one. I can't imagine the MFC leaking all this stupid stuff only to be hit between the eye's with the gun when the AFL pull the trigger. FWIW I do believe there is a smoking gun (and please everyone, don't aske me to prove it)

If there is a no case to answer all involved would be cleared by definition but it will be interesting to see who has a job in 12 months time. I think Bailey is safe because he will plead the Nuremberg defence.

If Vlad and Gill find there is "no case to answer" does the matter get referred to the Commission? Or is it the Commission who find "no case to answer". If it's Andy who decides the announcement will be made late Friday before the Tennis finals.

[Sir Why You Little 37,134]

It's why I can't wait for Caro to get back because she will at least give us some insight into what the AFL is thinking on this issue. The factual accounts in the press tell us what's in the report but little else.

interesting use of the word Factual there Fan.

But you are allowed an opinion.

Your girl will be back soon, i understand you must be getting a little toey.

Cold spoon does wonders.

[daisycutter 29,743]

I reckon you are 3/4 of the way of where you need to be DeeTox. I dead set agree with you about what 'list management' did to the club (though you do have some of your dates mixed up). I have said it before and will say it again now. Getting those picks was viewed as not a mean but an end. We got these poor kids into the club, put no work into them and expected them to become Gary Ablett/Kevin Bartlett/Wayne Carey. It also allowed people to rest on their laurels as the club, the media and all the hangers on reassured them that they would be the next big thing. Not to mention that it seems morally repugnant to put a cap on how well you can play in order to get some reward at the end of the day. You get rewarded for winning, not failing. At least that's what I was always taught.

....................

you'r right CBF, bad recruiting and poor development

this sheets home to the FD and thankfully it has been (virtually) completely changed and expanded with personnel who'll take no shyte (it seems)

DB might have been a nice bloke but he didn't have the experience or temperament to stand up and grab the FD by its balls

2013 will be a real make or break year for many. i'm quietly hopeful but keeping my powder dry

[nutbean 8,838]

It's a good point you raise. All i can say is the club's you mentioned at least seemed to have a better culture under Malthouse, Clarkson, Worsfold etc than we did with Schwab/Bailey. Those club's at least didn't exit the majority of their senior players, ones like Junior, Bruce etc that had played finals. Such a lack of leadership led to results like 186.

You are having 50 cents each way with your line of thought.

So you first commented that sportsclubs that dont try and win end up with calamatous results down the track - in short, it would affect their ability to have a winning culture. After pointing out how it affected other clubs ( finals and premierships after tanking) you suggest that they had a better culture when they did exactly the same as us so maybe you are trying to say that those teams could withstand a touch of "tanking" ?..

So following your reasoning I would suggest that we didnt get a bad culture because we tanked, we had a bad culture of close enugh good enough and players just happy to be on an AFL list to start with !

The reason we got rid of Johnstone, Bruce and others is exactly because of the above culture and lack of leadership . ( Junior is a different argument - age and injury was the reason for his departure - whether you agree with his actual "retirement" is another issue again). That you believe we tanked has nothing to do with the removal of these players.

(as to players that play finals - meh - Mario Bortolotto played finals - Steven Armstrong has a premiership medallion - I rate finals experience but I dont rate players simply because the have played a final)

[rjay 25,093]

Hmmm. I heard some of Rohan Connolly on SEN yesterday and I interpreted what he said about the Fremantle game quite differently. I thought he was arguing that if Melbourne was so keen on tanking why would they have done so well against Fremantle when losing (if tanking was occurring) would be the 'better' option. In other words, I thought he was supporting the argument that Melbourne wasn't tanking. Certainly, everything else he said seemed to suggest he supported the argument that tanking wasn't happening. For example, in the Richmond game he pointed out that (1) Melbourne kicked 2 goals in the last minute or so - surely if they were tanking they would have missed (2) Melbourne were ahead on the final siren and (3) the suggestion that the Melbourne coach's box was unhappy after those goals were kicked (because they weren't overtly ecstatic when the TV cameras went on them) is nonsense because he doesn't recall seeing John Longmire being ecstatic after Malceski kicked the final goal in the 2012 grand final.

Yeah I think on the whole Rohan has been supportive of Melbourne although I'm not sure what point he was trying to make with the Freo game, pro or negative, I'm not sure he knew. I think he feels this whole inquiry is a bit of a mess and hard to fathom, he seems bemused by the whole thing.

He is the only journo I know of who thinks our recruiting approach was on the mark and that we will surprise a few people this year and improve a fair bit.

[daisycutter 29,743]

I................... I think Bailey is safe because he will plead the Nuremberg defence.

Why? Didn't work for Eichmann when he tried it. nor most others at Nuremberg

[dee-luded 2,959]

From this article 'dl'. It's from late October 2012 ...3 months after the investigation started ...

Collingwood president Eddie McGuire doesn't believe Melbourne should be punished for tanking

wow.

thanks Macca... & dare I say thanks eddie. even if its to ease both our situations.

...... I found this very interesting, It almost sits hand in glove with a handful of posters here on this site who seem to be pursuing an agenda to have CS & CC charged & removed.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/collingwood-president-eddie-mcguire-doesnt-believe-melbourne-should-be-punished-for-tanking/story-e6frf3e3-1226507611327#.UPNLgfKf1f9

Gardner, replaced as president by Jim Stynes partway through 2008, said there was no suggestion of tanking when he was at the club.

But if it was found to have occurred in 2009, Gardner's view is that it would be counterproductive to punish the entire club.

"I don't see why the club should be fined for what individuals have committed,'' Gardner said.

"I can't see the Tour de France throwing out the US Postal team.

"If people have chosen to go down a certain path, if people in a position of power have chosen that path, I would have thought they're the ones that need to be brought to account.''

Gardner referred to a comment made last year by AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou that if a coach admitted to manipulating the result of a match "He would never work in football again.''

"I suspect, as a man of his word, that's the kind of thing he'd be looking at,'' Gardner said.

# whats next, another challenge to the board, & a reinstatement of past presidents???

[hoopla 418]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="stranga" data-cid="684654"><p>Not sure if this has been mentioned but I heard an 'amusing' comment from Rohan Connely, speaking on SEN yesterday afternoon, regarding the tanking. While he admits there isn't much concrete evidence against us he thinks some proof that we tanked is the fact that 'we were able to belt Fremantle in round 20' but lose every other game. I'm just finding it very strange how you can now be accused of tanking because you win a game! I'm sorry Rohan that we didn't do as good a job of it as Carlton and Collingwood did a few years earlier and lose the last 10 games of the season.</p></blockquote><br />Connolly was also challenged on talkback on SEN, by a Dees supporter, regarding the reporting of so-called evidence of tanking in the media. in particular, the Dee's supporter rightly pointed out the absurd allegation that the we did not play Jack Watts enough that year. In response, Connolly told the supporter to not "shoot the messenger" and that the reporter concerned was only reporting the facts.<br /><br />Unfortunately, all too often these days, journalists rely on the shoot the messenger retort, to justify shoddy reporting. I long for the days of a more prolific investigative media, which does not simply take as read, media releases or quotes from protagonists as being fact. In this case, the Dee's supporter concerned was right. Don't take as Gospel, what is trotted out by the AFL minions. Sure, Rohan, you may see it as preserving your meal ticket, by kowtowing to the AFL, but such conduct undermines the integrity of every journalist that engages in such activity. This is no more ample evidence of this than your colleague, Ms. Wilson.

"Don't shoot the messenger" says Rohan " He was only reporting the facts"

But Rohan, that is not the Age's way. The Age's way - perfected by its Chief Football Writer - is to grab a single isolated fact and extrapolate from there. Why not point out that it seems like a strange question? Why not say that if it is representative then the AFL investigation has been "pathetic and disgusting". Why not a headline like " AFL Investigators show their Ignorance" ?

Consistency please!

[beelzebub 23,383]

Baileys ultimate defense must surely utilise the idea that the players never really did anything that he instructed do how could he possibly orchestrate a result !!

[dee-luded 2,959]

Passionate Melb supporter Angry. Member since mid 80s. Been to over 450 games. Just think we need some perspective. I don't blindly follow what the club tells me. We made poor decisions that impacted on the culture of the club. In 2009 we were so excited about the possibility of getting a priority pick. FFS, our fans cheered when McMahon kicked that winning goal! We celebrated on Demonland! I find it weird that now we get all defensive when the AFL has a crack at us. We all knew what we doing was against the spirit of the game. It doesn't matter whether other clubs did it also. Perhaps they had a better culture in place? My point is by doing this, it gave the players an 'out'. A reason not to go 100 percent. Combine that with exiting leaders such as McDonald, Bruce etc and we become rudderless. The people who put that plan in place need to be held accountable for it. And in a perverse sort of way I hope they are booted out of football for ever. In Schwab's case it should have been when he got done for breaching the salary cap when Gutnick was president.

You and your cohorts seem to want to destroy peoples careers?

For doing what the club wanted done. To rebuild the list thru list management & youth.

and it almost looks like the ones pushing this barrow on demonland, are somehow linked to the ones who brought the clubs list & culture to its knees.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Just got this in an email from a mate of mine.

I happened to speak with some one inside the club on Friday about the tanking situation. This is how he perceives the situation;

• The focus will be on match day moves rather than the meetings or any of the comments or directions the club allegedly delivered.

• They are looking at player commitment which I find just incredible

• Because of this the club feels that the advantage has swung our way in the past week

• Meetings were called without notice and often involved table thumping and stand over tactics.

• Bailey was interviewed 5 times just to try and find an inconsistency

• There is no way information was leaked from inside the club to Caro.

• AFL commission want this over and done with and out of the papers asap.

Anyway the sender is not one to talk crap so this sounds encouraging.

[Sir Why You Little 37,134]

Yes. The supporter Factions are going to get stronger & stronger now.

The smell of blood in the air has the shark & vultures circling.

Edited January 14, 2013 by why you little

[Sir Why You Little 37,134]

Just got this in an email from a mate of mine.

I happened to speak with some one inside the club on Friday about the tanking situation. This is how he perceives the situation;

• The focus will be on match day moves rather than the meetings or any of the comments or directions the club allegedly delivered.

• They are looking at player commitment which I find just incredible

• Because of this the club feels that the advantage has swung our way in the past week

• Meetings were called without notice and often involved table thumping and stand over tactics.

• Bailey was interviewed 5 times just to try and find an inconsistency

• There is no way information was leaked from inside the club to Caro.

• AFL commission want this over and done with and out of the papers asap.

Anyway the sender is not one to talk crap so this sounds encouraging.

If this is found to be correct then all of Wilson's articles can be looked at as no more than opinion pieces.

That would really put her credibility down the S Bend wouldn't it.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Yes. The supporter Factions are going to stronger & stronger now.

The smell of blood in the air has the shark & vultures circling.

...and how do we know that this festering faction thats emerging amongst our ranks here, isn't related to 'the Couch' expose, & the Caro tilt?

They are all after the same quarry. removing some people, & upending the club for their own ends.

[Guest]

Can anyone tell me anything about the background of Cameron Schwab/Caroline Wilson? I know she gets on her high horse when it comes to certain people and it makes absolutely no sense why (i.e. James Brayshaw) but she and CS have a shared background at Richmond. I have read somewhere there that CS didn't particularly appreciate the implications that were made in one of Caro's articles when his father passed on in Sydney. Is there any truth in that rumor? Is there also anything else that has happened that has strained their relationship?

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Good stuff, Robbie.

If true, I agree that things have swing our way if they are focusing on the games instead of meetings. The games are meaningless if there is no context or clear motive.

[Jesse Christ 2,884]

I apologize for the name calling last night. Bad day, we all have them. Still no excuse.

And thanks for the input mjt, it was really good.

[nutbean 8,838]

Just got this in an email from a mate of mine.

I happened to speak with some one inside the club on Friday about the tanking situation. This is how he perceives the situation;

• The focus will be on match day moves rather than the meetings or any of the comments or directions the club allegedly delivered.

• They are looking at player commitment which I find just incredible

• Because of this the club feels that the advantage has swung our way in the past week

• Meetings were called without notice and often involved table thumping and stand over tactics.

• Bailey was interviewed 5 times just to try and find an inconsistency

• There is no way information was leaked from inside the club to Caro.

• AFL commission want this over and done with and out of the papers asap.

Anyway the sender is not one to talk crap so this sounds encouraging.

if it is about match day moves rather than meetings or comments then in my mind we have gone from 99% nothing to worry about to the full 100%

[rpfc 28,779]

Be careful what you say about Caro, you'll get hate PM's and if people know where you live..........

I think that either there is a smoking gun that the AFL/MFC have negotiated out of the equation or their isn't one. I can't imagine the MFC leaking all this stupid stuff only to be hit between the eye's with the gun when the AFL pull the trigger. FWIW I do believe there is a smoking gun (and please everyone, don't aske me to prove it)

If there is a no case to answer all involved would be cleared by definition but it will be interesting to see who has a job in 12 months time. I think Bailey is safe because he will plead the Nuremberg defence.

If Vlad and Gill find there is "no case to answer" does the matter get referred to the Commission? Or is it the Commission who find "no case to answer". If it's Andy who decides the announcement will be made late Friday before the Tennis finals.

Ah, the desperate pleadings of an extremist as his quest looks over...

A smoking gun would mean they would neve have bothered looking at 'fumbling' and Watts and PJ on Brown and every other embarrassing 'revelation.'

And I don't quite know what you are implying with the last two lines - that the only way we would 'have no case to answer' is roll over on CS and CC?

Eloquent trolling is still trolling.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

Not sure if this has been mentioned but I heard an 'amusing' comment from Rohan Connely, speaking on SEN yesterday afternoon, regarding the tanking. While he admits there isn't much concrete evidence against us he thinks some proof that we tanked is the fact that 'we were able to belt Fremantle in round 20' but lose every other game. I'm just finding it very strange how you can now be accused of tanking because you win a game! I'm sorry Rohan that we didn't do as good a job of it as Carlton and Collingwood did a few years earlier and lose the last 10 games of the season.

Connolly was also challenged on talkback on SEN, by a Dees supporter, regarding the reporting of so-called evidence of tanking in the media. in particular, the Dee's supporter rightly pointed out the absurd allegation that the we did not play Jack Watts enough that year. In response, Connolly told the supporter to not "shoot the messenger" and that the reporter concerned was only reporting the facts. Unfortunately, all too often these days, journalists rely on the shoot the messenger retort, to justify shoddy reporting. I long for the days of a more prolific investigative media, which does not simply take as read, media releases or quotes from protagonists as being fact. In this case, the Dee's supporter concerned was right. Don't take as Gospel, what is trotted out by the AFL minions. Sure, Rohan, you may see it as preserving your meal ticket, by kowtowing to the AFL, but such conduct undermines the integrity of every journalist that engages in such activity. There is no more ample evidence of this than your colleague, Ms. Wilson.

Edited January 14, 2013 by iv'a worn smith

[Hannibal 5,814]

I thought about starting a new thread, but for now I'll put it here. It's point 2. which was going to be the topic.

#1. I'm bemused that some don't think we tanked. While I agree that it's not easy to prove I'm wondering whether the "no we didn't" brigade really believe the club didn't try to manipulate the results of certain matches, or whether they're putting everything under the umbrella of "list management" and "experimentation". Maybe they privately acknowledge the club's aims in 2009 and are merely toeing the company line and arguing definitions.

The MFC in 2009 deliberately tried to lose matches. They did this under the guise of "experimentation", but it's clear to most that through drastically reduced interchange rotations, unusual match-ups, players put in foreign positions, and the extended "benching" of certain players, that their aim was to lose select matches. Dean Bailey admitted as much during his departing press conference - I had no hesitation at all in the first two years of ensuring this club was well placed for draft picks, Bailey said. I was asked to do the best thing by the Melbourne Football Club, and I did it. Yes, it's hard to prove and yes, you may have a different definition, but this club tried to deliberately lose matches. Under my definition that's "tanking".

#2. I was a vociferous advocate of tanking. What was the point of winning 5 matches ? Why win one more pointless match and miss out on a potential gun running around the G for 10 years (or more) all for the sake of one extra meaningless win ? It didn't make sense. And we needed the help anyway. The PP system was designed to help clubs like us that were chained to the bottom of the ladder. In fact, if we had won that extra game and missed out on the PP we would have been the AFL's laughing stock. These were some of my beliefs and arguments. Many posters have only joined this forum since 2010 and may not be privy to some of the robust debate at the time. I posted under a different username then.

I needed to explain my previous position in order to clarify it now. I was wrong. And while there are no absolutes in life and as I've often said, "there are degrees of everything", I believe that our systematic and calculated decision early in the year to ensure the PP was majorly detrimental to the club and its culture. Some will argue that the culture was no good anyway, which is true, but our obvious attempts to lose didn't escape the playing group and set the club on a path of destruction.

My eldest Brother was on Hawthorn's senior list for 3 years in the late 1970's when they were winning flags. He played footy with Matthews, Knights, Martello, Scott, etc. so I take on board his opinion. I discussed Melbourne's tanking situation and he confirmed my growing beliefs. His opinion was that the environment the players were subjected to, and players are a perceptive lot and do talk amongst themselves, would have been terribly detrimental to the culture and fabric of the club. The game is hard enough to play and successful cultures hard enough to build without the erosion of group fundamentals. The intense focus that groups need to ensure they have ingrained behaviours and cornerstones that become their very footballing existence will have also been eroded. Once a playing group starts questioning a club's direction and purpose it will have dire consequences on their mindset, output, and team dynamics. While I think the new playing group has a fresh start and is now setting their own course, the quicker this investigation is completed the better it will be for all parties.

Some will point to Collingwood, etc, as other clubs that took advantage of a flawed system with seemingly little impact on the club's culture, but as stated, there are no absolutes and we also don't know the environment at the time for the players. There wasn't as much exposure to "tanking" and the decision to send players off for surgery may have had no palpable effect on the playing group. If their perceptions weren't effected then the likelihood of a negative impact would have been minimal, if at all, especially if all other aspects of the club and coaching were identical. Collingwood made decisions later in the year when their season was shot. One couldn't have said the same about Melbourne in 2009. Btw, I'm not talking about degrees of guilt or innocence when it comes to Collingwood versus Melbourne and tanking, I'm talking about the impact of the group's psyche. I doubt there was any negative impact at Collingwood in that one year.

That said, I agree that the club needs to bunker down and fight the good fight. And I support them in doing that, as my many robust posts on another site attests. But I think it's unfair to abuse posters that may have a different take on all of this. This is one issue that isn't cut and dried. Even those questioning what the club did fully support them in this fight.