AFL investigation

[Guest José Mourinho]

Not that I've been a paragon of virtue, but standards are definitely slipping...

[daisycutter 29,343]

I just learned this afternoon that the AFL was sent a letter from the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR) - http://www.vcglr.vic.gov.au/utility/home/ - basically saying that if the Demons were found to be 'tanking' then their own integrity rules would 'kick in' and they would act by taking away the clubs liquor and gambling licences for the Oakleigh and Bentleigh establishments.

I know this will be alarming to read but the person who told me this believes that it is the reason behind the AFL going after individuals, as seems to be the case from reports, rather than the club itself.

Losing those licences would be catastrophic for the short term viability of the club and a massive burden on the AFL.

The way I read this - the club will NEVER take a plea bargain that BBP and a few others have mooted. A plea would admit guilt and that will set off a devastating chain of events outlined by the expert who told me this (this person aided in writing the letter).

The possible scenarios are dwindling (assuming the AFL has control of this situation):

1. Individuals sanctioned, club absolved of guilt.

2. Zero sanctions, club answers queries satisfactorily for AFL Commission.

3. AFL mea culpa, all clubs absolved, tightening/narrowing of integrity rules.

3 should happen, 2 is a massive chance to happen (IMO) and 1 is what the AFL thinks is the best way out for them (IMO).

I know you are just the mesenger rpfc but it seems very strange (to me) that a government appointed body would intervene in such a matter before any charges have been laid let alone found to be proven. Unless of course the AFL had specifically asked them what would be their action if any charges were laid and found to be proven.

I have reservations on the veracity of this

[beelzebub 23,200]

I notice in this mornings article in he Hun that that ignoramus Clark opulent help but mention Melbourne, bailey, cuddle and Schwabby in an article about changing the draft . There was no need to. Thearticlewould have told on its own ine but the fool just couldn't resist.

Such trashy reporting from a real hack.

[Guest José Mourinho]

...

Not saying it happened that way in the case of the leaks to which Connolly is apparently referring but rather that there are many ways that disaffected people, formerly associated with a club can "leak" information to the media and often, these people get passed off in stories as "sources close to the club" when in reality, they are nothing of the sort.

To be honest, the alleged CC comments made in jest at the infamous meeting in the vault, seems absurd and inoccuous to hear it now...

But try if you might, to imagine certain people at that meeting in the shadows... those with an axe to grind... and their ears pricking up at these comments, knowingly misinterpreted for an agenda, but comments made nonetheless... and the thought crossing through minds "I'm gonna hang him with this."

Blind desperation to see CC burn sees this agenda pushed until we get to this point and in the cold light of day it suddenly seems petty and mischievous, but a large part of the damage is already done.

Not too implausible, is it?

[rpfc 28,052]

I know you are just the mesenger rpfc but it seems very strange (to me) that a government appointed body would intervene in such a matter before any charges have been laid let alone found to be proven. Unless of course the AFL had specifically asked them what would be their action if any charges were laid and found to be proven.

I have reservations on the veracity of this

I don't.

It's what happened. The VCGLR is very outspoken and its leadership thought it necessary for the AFL to know the ramifications of the investigation.

[daisycutter 29,343]

I don't.

It's what happened. The VCGLR is very outspoken and its leadership thought it necessary for the AFL to know the ramifications of the investigation.

its almost like saying "warning. don't go down this path"

why would they do this now (unless prompted) when some sort of decision is imminent?

it smacks of unnecessary intervention and grand-standing

JMO

[Flying Cloud 152]

I just learned this afternoon that the AFL was sent a letter from the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR) - http://www.vcglr.vic.gov.au/utility/home/ - basically saying that if the Demons were found to be 'tanking' then their own integrity rules would 'kick in' and they would act by taking away the clubs liquor and gambling licences for the Oakleigh and Bentleigh establishments.

I know this will be alarming to read but the person who told me this believes that it is the reason behind the AFL going after individuals, as seems to be the case from reports, rather than the club itself.

Losing those licences would be catastrophic for the short term viability of the club and a massive burden on the AFL.

The way I read this - the club will NEVER take a plea bargain that BBP and a few others have mooted. A plea would admit guilt and that will set off a devastating chain of events outlined by the expert who told me this (this person aided in writing the letter).

The possible scenarios are dwindling (assuming the AFL has control of this situation):

1. Individuals sanctioned, club absolved of guilt.

2. Zero sanctions, club answers queries satisfactorily for AFL Commission.

3. AFL mea culpa, all clubs absolved, tightening/narrowing of integrity rules.

3 should happen, 2 is a massive chance to happen (IMO) and 1 is what the AFL thinks is the best way out for them (IMO).

I wonder if the Melbournefc were also sent the same letter.

For the licence to be removed, it would need to be based on a conviction against a specific charge.

It couldn't be DB not tring hard enough. If they only gave licences to people who tried their best all the time then there wouldn't be many licences.

I wonder about bringing the game into disrepute. Been a heap of these charges in the past, and I struggle to see the link between this and a licence.

If it is the draft tampering, then I wonder if the same thing has happended to Adelaide (although would be a different State's authority).

Also, surely there would need to be a law broken, not just a an AFL Rule. Also, this all happened more than 3 years ago. Wondering how this affects it all.

[Guest José Mourinho]

I know you are just the mesenger rpfc but it seems very strange (to me) that a government appointed body would intervene in such a matter before any charges have been laid let alone found to be proven. Unless of course the AFL had specifically asked them what would be their action if any charges were laid and found to be proven.

I have reservations on the veracity of this

Really?

I'd expect a government authority to be intefering unsolicited and applying pressure to achieve what they perceive as the best outcome for them from a political standpoint.

[beelzebub 23,200]

the thing is though even if we are completely exonerated tomorrow, we've already copped a huge blow to our brand and we did not deserve it.. and we would be in the top 3 clubs who LEAST needs such problems. Brock McLean should be strung up.

you know what, and it goes to glasses half filled etc.

After this dies it's inevitable death and we're still here, we will be stronger for it. Some will no doubt suggest we'll be the walking tarnished . I'm going to suggest that though there will be many battle scars from this stoush that we will emerge with a new arrow to our quiver. Why? We fought, we didn't cave, we havent gone grovelling. We uttered the words , bring it.....at your peril. (Actually it was see you in court, but same diff )

Quite a few of my mates are somewhat impressed , if surprised , that we have rode this out. " good for you"

It's cost us money, time and resources. There's no doubt about that but we may have grown a few in the interim and you don't get to play he big game, the real game without them .

[Whispering_Jack 29,246]

Not that I've been a paragon of virtue, but standards are definitely slipping...

Yes ... and hopefully I've managed to wipe off the recently posted rubbish on this thread that's been off topic as well as childish and vulgar. The participants will be closely watched and if necessary, banned in future if it's repeated.

Please adhere to the code of conduct and stick to the topic folks.

[Jarka 767]

I just learned this afternoon that the AFL was sent a letter from the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR) - http://www.vcglr.vic.gov.au/utility/home/ - basically saying that if the Demons were found to be 'tanking' then their own integrity rules would 'kick in' and they would act by taking away the clubs liquor and gambling licences for the Oakleigh and Bentleigh establishments.

I know this will be alarming to read but the person who told me this believes that it is the reason behind the AFL going after individuals, as seems to be the case from reports, rather than the club itself.

Losing those licences would be catastrophic for the short term viability of the club and a massive burden on the AFL.

The way I read this - the club will NEVER take a plea bargain that BBP and a few others have mooted. A plea would admit guilt and that will set off a devastating chain of events outlined by the expert who told me this (this person aided in writing the letter).

The possible scenarios are dwindling (assuming the AFL has control of this situation):

1. Individuals sanctioned, club absolved of guilt.

2. Zero sanctions, club answers queries satisfactorily for AFL Commission.

3. AFL mea culpa, all clubs absolved, tightening/narrowing of integrity rules.

3 should happen, 2 is a massive chance to happen (IMO) and 1 is what the AFL thinks is the best way out for them (IMO).

What are the chances that this info will appear in one of the papers over the next 24 hours as an exclusive?

[Jarka 767]

I wonder if the Melbournefc were also sent the same letter.

For the licence to be removed, it would need to be based on a conviction against a specific charge.

It couldn't be DB not tring hard enough. If they only gave licences to people who tried their best all the time then there wouldn't be many licences.

I wonder about bringing the game into disrepute. Been a heap of these charges in the past, and I struggle to see the link between this and a licence.

If it is the draft tampering, then I wonder if the same thing has happended to Adelaide (although would be a different State's authority).

Also, surely there would need to be a law broken, not just a an AFL Rule. Also, this all happened more than 3 years ago. Wondering how this affects it all.

Good post Flying Cloud, that's some great questions.

[beelzebub 23,200]

I just learned this afternoon that the AFL was sent a letter

Losing those licences would be catastrophic for the short term viability of the club and a massive burden on the AFL.

The possible scenarios are dwindling (assuming the AFL has control of this situation):

1. Individuals sanctioned, club absolved of guilt.

2. Zero sanctions, club answers queries satisfactorily for AFL Commission.

3. AFL mea culpa, all clubs absolved, tightening/narrowing of integrity rules.

3 should happen, 2 is a massive chance to happen (IMO) and 1 is what the AFL thinks is the best way out for them (IMO).

Above edited for brevity only.

Good game of cards this !!

That's a nice trump ...... Wonder who organised that one lol

More than one way to play hard ball.

Interesting

[daisycutter 29,343]

Really?

I'd expect a government authority to be intefering unsolicited and applying pressure to achieve what they perceive as the best outcome for them from a political standpoint.

and from that letter what do you think the best outcome for them is?

are they saying better for everyone if you find the club not guilty, or we would like the opportunity to make a big example of someone?

just asking because i still find the timing odd

[hardtack 10,423]

Shocked , no age exclusive today .....yet

Probably haven't had a chance to read these forums yet.

[nutbean 8,838]

its almost like saying "warning. don't go down this path"

why would they do this now (unless prompted) when some sort of decision is imminent?

it smacks of unnecessary intervention and grand-standing

JMO

I reckon there are now two organisations who dont want this to go any further.

I have already given my belief that the AFL wants this mess to go away.

However the VCGLR must be getting stomach cramps as well - if Melbourne is found guilty of tanking then they have a problem with the punters who placed bets, and it goes further by setting up a "tanking standard" and implicates, for example, Carlton and bets placed on them during their "tanking".

I am reading between the lines and the statements about removal of licences is more about giving the AFL a message - and the message i am hearing is "make this go away"

(wow - I have become a "read between the lines" person - whodda thunk ?)

[Redleg 40,228]

This is rather ironic really. Sue suggesting the article be read carefully and then talking about 60 witnesses at a meeting attended by 12.

If you read it carefully it says "60 witness statements". A witness can of course make more than one statement.

Correct and from a legal viewpoint only , any discrepancy can be attacked by a competent Counsel. Generally making more than one statement is extremely dangerous in legal proceedings if there is the slightest deviation.

[mauriesy 7,160]

I would want to know more about the gambling regulator's powers, in particular whether they can just remove a liquor licence as the result of an internal investigation by a non-Government body.

I'd also want to know about the business structures of the Leighoak and Bentleigh clubs vis-a-vis the Melbournefc football department, and how a liquor licence with one can just be arbitrarily linked to a gambling integrity issue with the other.

[beelzebub 23,200]

and from that letter what do you think the best outcome for them is?

are they saying better for everyone if you find the club not guilty, or we would like the opportunity to make a big example of someone?

just asking because i still find the timing odd

In military speak this is a shot across the bow, not ours, the Leagues'.

Nice flanking manoeuvre

[Redleg 40,228]

Have you noticed that anyone who hold a view that is contrary to the general is usually abused?

.

Unfortunately that does happen too often.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,653]

I reckon there are now two organisations who dont want this to go any further.

I have already given my belief that the AFL wants this mess to go away.

However the VCGLR must be getting stomach cramps as well - if Melbourne is found guilty of tanking then they have a problem with the punters who placed bets, and it goes further by setting up a "tanking standard" and implicates, for example, Carlton and bets placed on them during their "tanking".

I am reading between the lines and the statements about removal of licences is more about giving the AFL a message - and the message i am hearing is "make this go away"

(wow - I have become a "read between the lines" person - whodda thunk ?)

I think there are two separate issues.

The issue raised above about betting is covered by sports betting rules which, in essence, state that bets are finalised when the result of the game is confirmed by the AFL. So all results in the past are now concluded and the betting results stand.

The issue raised in rfpc's initial post is, I think, about licences for poker machine venues run by the MFC. The VCGLR has to be satisfied that an operator of a gaming venue is suitable to hold a licence.

[Redleg 40,228]

how about we call it a nil all draw ! and for good measures we give up the player that we got with that priority pick to the AFL love child

Good idea.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,653]

I would want to know more about the gambling regulator's powers, in particular whether they can just remove a liquor licence as the result of an internal investigation by a non-Government body.

I'd also want to know about the business structures of the Leighoak and Bentleigh clubs vis-a-vis the Melbournefc football department, and how a liquor licence with one can just be arbitrarily linked to a gambling integrity issue with the other.

The Melbourne FC is the licensed operator of both venues. Both have liquor licences and both have poker machines. In fact, you can only have poker machines in venues licensed to serve liquor. Look here at the VCGLR website.

[Redleg 40,228]

I just learned this afternoon that the AFL was sent a letter from the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR) - http://www.vcglr.vic.gov.au/utility/home/ - basically saying that if the Demons were found to be 'tanking' then their own integrity rules would 'kick in' and they would act by taking away the clubs liquor and gambling licences for the Oakleigh and Bentleigh establishments.

I know this will be alarming to read but the person who told me this believes that it is the reason behind the AFL going after individuals, as seems to be the case from reports, rather than the club itself.

Losing those licences would be catastrophic for the short term viability of the club and a massive burden on the AFL.

The way I read this - the club will NEVER take a plea bargain that BBP and a few others have mooted. A plea would admit guilt and that will set off a devastating chain of events outlined by the expert who told me this (this person aided in writing the letter).

The possible scenarios are dwindling (assuming the AFL has control of this situation):

1. Individuals sanctioned, club absolved of guilt.

2. Zero sanctions, club answers queries satisfactorily for AFL Commission.

3. AFL mea culpa, all clubs absolved, tightening/narrowing of integrity rules.

3 should happen, 2 is a massive chance to happen (IMO) and 1 is what the AFL thinks is the best way out for them (IMO).

That is one aspect I never thought of. If true this is huge and would cause the AFL tremendous heartburn. Getting more confident by the minute this will go away.

[rjay 24,616]

What are the chances that this info will appear in one of the papers over the next 24 hours as an exclusive?

I think the betting has been closed on this, the only questions are what time today, who and what paper.

Edited January 15, 2013 by rjay