AFL investigation

[Whispering_Jack 30,173]

It's been well known that the licensing authorities had an interest in this investigation and it's my understanding that this is the very reason why the AFL has treated the manner in the way it has - including the strong arm tactics used by the investigating team.

[Redleg 40,926]

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.

And a part time employee of the MFC.

[Nasher 33,616]

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

They probably can't keep up with the thread. Last time I opened it we were on page 64, now it's 94 95. I'm assuming nothing new came up in the 30 other pages.

[beelzebub 23,377]

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.

almost makes you believe we have influence in some curious places.

Anyone who thinks political clout isn't a tool of interested parties, well enjoy your blissfully unaware lives lol.

This is "game on" for big boys !!!

This has always been about one niggled group trying to nudge things their way through clandestine methods.

This is a "correction" aka a 'bigger nudge' back !!

Who's got the popcorn ?

[nutbean 8,838]

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.

Fair enough - re the first point - I guess what has transpired is no different to betting on cricket matches in the sub continent and South Africa only to learn some years later that they were fixed - there was no comeback on the cricket problems ( I am drawing the comparison rather than stating we "fixed" games).

As to the second point - it is a bad look for the AFL to have one of their children have a "unsuitable to hold a licence" tag associated with it.

In light of the above I have slightly changed my stance in that the VCGLR have no downside in slapping an "unsuitable to hold a licence on us" as there is no retrospective comeback on past bets. I still think this places more pressure on the AFL to bring in a nothing verdict.

Edited January 15, 2013 by nutbean

[hardtack 10,538]

They probably can't keep up with the thread. Last time I opened it we were on page 64, now it's 94 95. I'm assuming nothing new came up in the 30 other pages.

Just a lot of in-fighting, and that certainly isn't anything new on Demonland ;-)

[beelzebub 23,377]

The AFL has just been handed a note. It probably read like " you make rules, we make LAWS! Back in your box "

[Guest José Mourinho]

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

I think the message is:

MAKE THIS GO AWAY.

QUICKLY.

OR ELSE WE'LL BE LOOKING FOR SOMEONE TO PUNISH.

[nutbean 8,838]

I think the message is:

MAKE THIS GO AWAY.

QUICKLY.

OR ELSE WE'LL BE LOOKING FOR SOMEONE TO PUNISH.

I think we are playing in poker game and had a Ten Jack Queen King in our hand and called for one card and just got dealt an Ace.

[beelzebub 23,377]

And a part time employee of the MFC.

someone ought to have a quiet word with little boy Jay !!

[daisycutter 29,616]

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 ?)

hope you're right mr bean

[beelzebub 23,377]

I think we are playing in poker game and had a Ten Jack Queen King in our hand and called for one card and just got dealt an Ace.

As I've noted elsewhere it does impress me as well l as being some sort of card game. There's definitely a lot more going on than meets the eye, or for that matter makes it into nefarious columns by dubious authoring.

There's always been a back game to all of this. As we close in on the major pot the tactics lift.

There will be no guilty finding.

It'll be over soon.

Play on.

Edited January 15, 2013 by belzebub59

[beelzebub 23,377]

I think the message is:

MAKE THIS GO AWAY.

QUICKLY.

OR ELSE WE'LL BE LOOKING FOR SOMEONE TO PUNISH.

this reminds me of that Indy scene where the felon draws a knife.. Jones pulls a gun.

The club has played this well, very well.

[dee-luded 2,959]

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.

I always had a a liking for brock mclean & a respect.

No longer.

[dee-luded 2,959]

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.

I think I like the VCGLR.... much more than Vlad the imposition & Fitz the cap.

[dee-luded 2,959]

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 .

Yes Yes Yes, EXACTLY!

This is it,,,, we are still part way thru this, & some are up for a fight to defend our reputations & our rights.... & others just want to hide & IT to go away.

Our mission Jim, if you want to accept it, its to hush those hacks & power junkies, & see them off back into their holes.

Just as we should do a band of pies chortling before a Queens Birthday clash.

..... the proof of this will be in Our Defence strategies, yet to be witnessed by ourselves.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

I know you are just the mes

enger 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 reckon it's right, and it's exactly what the AFL want to avoid at all cost, and that is why Anderson is no longer there. Because he opened up a club, and therefore possibly other clubs, and therefore possibly the AFL itself, to integrity charges.

Oh the irony! Anderson, Mr Integrity, has risked the integrity of his own organisation.

[Guest José Mourinho]

I see a lot of people blaming Brock.

Brock is just a patsy.

The real person to blame for this, other than any conspirators, is Adrian Anderson.

It was his reaction to Brock's comments that painted the AFL into a corner.

He announced there would be an investigation.

His employment record since would indicate that the AFL agreed.

[dee-luded 2,959]

I reckon it's right, and it's exactly what the AFL want to avoid at all cost, and that is why Anderson is no longer there. Because he opened up a club, and therefore possibly other clubs, and therefore possibly the AFL itself, to integrity charges.

Oh the irony! Anderson, Mr Integrity, has risked the integrity of his own organisation.

Maybe he was given a box by the AFL & they told him happy xmas.

.... he opened the box, & all hell broke out.... maybe more than his honest but somewhat naive ways could cope with.... poison chalice anyone?

[beelzebub 23,377]

mcLean and Angry are both chumps. They werent the ones who got this off the starting blocks, that was instigated by the "niggled ones"

They thought (corectly) if they could just manoeuvre the focus onto a certain spot then it would take off because certain idiots wouldn't be able to help themselves.

They've been unwitting cannon fodder on behalf of the secret ones.

Edited January 16, 2013 by belzebub59

[nutbean 8,838]

I see a lot of people blaming Brock.

Brock is just a patsy.

The real person to blame for this, other than any conspirators, is Adrian Anderson.

It was his reaction to Brock's comments that painted the AFL into a corner.

He announced there would be an investigation.

His employment record since would indicate that the AFL agreed.

correct - there has been a raft of "tanking" issues that have bubbled away not only with us but other clubs and AD has deadbatted every one away. AD has investigated each one of these claims in his own style - " I hear what you say, no such thing as tanking, everyone move on" - now thats what i call an investigation ! (albeit a 5 second investigation)

I think Bailey's parting shot was far worse than what Brock had to say (" I did what was in the best interests of the club") - yet AD again deadbatted it away. If AD has a Voodoo doll he is sticking pins into something that looks like Adrian Anderson not Brock.

[dee-luded 2,959]

correct - there has been a raft of "tanking" issues that have bubbled away not only with us but other clubs and AD has deadbatted every one away. AD has investigated each one of these claims in his own style - " I hear what you say, no such thing as tanking, everyone move on" - now thats what i call an investigation ! (albeit a 5 second investigation)

I think Bailey's parting shot was far worse than what Brock had to say (" I did what was in the best interests of the club") - yet AD again deadbatted it away. If AD has a Voodoo doll he is sticking pins into something that looks like Adrian Anderson not Brock.

they sacrificed sargeant AA'.

'Field Marshal AD' just fronts the cameras & says no! what are you talking about! wrings his hands of it & back in the office, handballs the Coals to his onfield sargeant, who wears the battlefield scars...

...imo the Operative Generals & Lieutenant Colonel Gill, decided sargeant AA was too heavily scarred to carry on in the team of a new incoming Field Marshal.

[timD 994]

There were a few posters who "railed" against hazy and America et al for "showing dissent" but many others, myself included, "railed" against them because they were talking crap. Those who did so usually gave reasons for this belief, which was predominantly based on the fact that hazy and America's posts are often made up of agenda based ad hominem attacks without evidence or proof of their allegations.

Consequently, I think your post is way off the mark and gives them far more credibility than they deserve.

Jack, I think you are being generous to the majority. The majority railed because they did not like what they heard. They generally ignored the content - or just did not think about it beyond 'not liking' it. Few actually questioned it. PaulRB did and I PM'd him to tell him what a good post I thought he'd made and how weak it was that Hazy did not respond. Paul was an exception.

Fan gets dismissed not because of what he says but what people feel about what he says. Same with Hazy. What they are saying needs questioning but most don't even get that far. CC (or comments attributed to him) has questioned the club...and the board (who else would move him - not CS!). He therefore should be dealt with the same way as Fan and Hazy - belittled because of saying something the mob didn't like. Hell he displayed internal rifts to an outsider - BETRAYAL!!! BETRAYAL!!!

To then argue that Hazy's posts were "agenda based... without..proof" is flimsy. Having an agenda does nothing to undermine the point they make. You need to understand it to understand the point, but it does not invalidate it like you imply. Fan can be cheeky (and it strikes me as annoying but then I am an intolerant [censored] at times) but does that mean that his insights should be summarily dismissed? Fan argues for integrity and process. Yet he can be provocative and inconsistent. When do I dismiss? He's not backing up his insights because of an ethical decision. When do I discount and just take pot shots at him? Where is his proof?

As for ad hominem attacks...I'll raise you Ben Hur. Ben Hur regularly posts in an aggressive or demeaning way. Does that mean that his insights into footy are lessened? You are arguing that for Hazy but I bet you won't about B-H.

The mob reacts without logic or reason. They rationalise their spite and vitriol. You don't. Don't make the mistake of extending your grace to them. They have not earned, nor do they deserve, it.

[Hannibal 5,814]

...I'll raise you Ben Hur. Ben Hur regularly posts in an aggressive or demeaning way. Does that mean that his insights into footy are lessened? You are arguing that for Hazy but I bet you won't about B-H.

Yes, the fact that Hannabal was banned 2 years ago and is to this day surely indicates that I get an easy ride.

You seem to indirectly bring me up a lot. Send me a PM and I'll forward a signed photograph.

PS: I liked the "flimsy" bit when referencing Hazy and "proof". Was strong for you. : )

Edited January 16, 2013 by Ben-Hur

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

This is Angry Anderson's fault & to a lesser extent Vlad the fat controller.

Both Mclean & Bailey were asked direct questions on camera. Yes it would have been great if they weren't, but that's life in the spotlight.

If both had not answered or given dodgy answers this investigation would have happened anyway, & it may have been worse.

Can you imagine Wilson's slant if either of the above had ocurred??