AFL investigation

[Slartibartfast 15,761]

Also it's a bit much to suggest Lyon and be critical of our process to appoint Neeld not being rigorous enough because if we had of gone with Lyon it would not have been though a competitive process, rather it would have been a direct appointment like Freo had done.

No it wouldn't because under a though methodology he would have been interviewed along with others. If he chose not to be part of that process then I'd not have blamed the club, but we should have asked him (and others). It was lazy and poor management that we didn't.

[mjt 640]

No it wouldn't because under a though methodology he would have been interviewed along with others. If he chose not to be part of that process then I'd not have blamed the club, but we should have asked him (and others). It was lazy and poor management that we didn't.

Freo poached lyon long before we were looking for a coach.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

My comment to you weeks ago was that I thought you were a good supporter because of your passion and generosity. That I disagree with your views is of no concern. It's a shame you can't do the same because when you disagreed with mine you suggest the club would be better off without me. That is actually not supporting the club but you don't get that.

I'm glad you agree that Stynes reappointed Bailey therefore endorsing Gardner's decision. As it turns out it was another of their poor decisions but I'll not blame them for it as I agreed at the time as well.

You can't play that game with me Fan, I don’t fall for your condescending crap, I prefer answers and a bit of substance. Your subtle attempt to denigrate whilst looking all nice and sweet is obvious.

Why wouldn't I agree that Stynes re appointed Bailey, that's what happened, strange comment indeed.

I guess you don't want to embarrass yourself so, you won't elaborate on the good work Wilson has done for OUR club.

if we lose 1,000 members and they are all those trying to bring the club down and holding grudges we are better off; if you happen to be one then so be it, if not glad to see you aboard.

[Lost Highway 31]

The MFC did not place an absolute priority on winning games; they had one eye cocked on the Priority Pick from some point in the first half of the season. Like so many teams since 1999. Call it what you like, they did it. It's pointless to argue the finer points, except to demonstrate the absurdity of some of the 'finer points' (fumbling, Watts) being aired against the club.

But the implied conclusion of this position, my position - that the MFC did 'tank' - taken by some, even if they won't say it, is that we should be punished and cop it - Individual responsibility rules, and we can't hide behind 'just following orders', or 'others were doing it'. This kind of thinking is wrong and could be fateful and fatal for the club.

We are not talking Nuremberg principles here. If we were, the other 'criminals' would be assiduously and relentlessly tracked down and placed on trial - Eichmann was not brought to justice until 1961, but his case and others show that no one individual was made a scapegoat. Melbourne IS being made a scapegoat in a ridiculous trial by media and witch-hunt by the AFL.

The real issue is not whether the MFC 'tanked' or whatever it may be called, nor is it bringing the game into disrepute. The AFL itself has done sufficient of that by creating an ethical/moral vacuum in which cynical actions are rewarded. Further, it has failed to oversee a fair and just competition, with its endless fiddling of the fixed-ure, its drafting and salary cap imbalances, its allowing TV stations to dictate where and when matches will be played and therefore which clubs will reap the largest financial benefits. The AFL is not an area of life in which concepts of individual responsibility and ethics are paramount, or even relevant.

No, the real issue is that of the victimisation of the MFC, seemingly based on the malicious motives of a few individuals with an axe to grind, a prejudice to be satisfied, a personal vendetta, a vengeance to exact. Let there be a full inquiry into 'tanking' by all means, but it cannot begin and end with the MFC or any one other club. What is happening now is so astounding that one wonders how it all arose - was it really because of the words of a numbskull footballer on a couch in a TV studio, talking to other numbskulls who love the sound of their own voices? Who knows? But here it is, a full-blown public kicking of the victim while it is down in the gutter.

Let those who moan about our 'tanking', and stand in judgment, lash the club, criticise its ethics, abandon it if they wish; it is their right to do so. But for heaven's sake stop harping on it and implying that the MFC should accept its punishment meted out by some externality of AFL combined with mainstream moronic media on the basis that the MFC is 'guilty' of something. This will play into the hands of the club's antagonists. Make no mistake, this is a very public and very large kicking we are getting, while we're down. It's an Australian blood sport.

The irony is that Demetriou himself has averred that there was no 'tanking'. Of course, he had to say that in order to absolve himself and the AFL of their maladministration at the time. I don't believe him. But perhaps he will be called as the first (maybe only) witness for the Defence, if it should come - bizarrely - to that.

That the wrongs of others should not justify one's own wrongs is something I agree with; but in this instance I challenge the notion that what was done was 'wrong'. Perhaps it was damaging to the club's ethos, culture, reputation, a huge internal error of judgment (and I agree with that) but this kind of judgment is mostly a hindsight one (for me, too) stemming from an apparent failure of the actions to improve on-field performance, and it is supporters and members who should be excoriating the administration rather than the AFL or the MSM. But it was not 'wrong' in the context of a skewed competition in which there was a tacit agreement that 'tanking' was an obvious thing to do, an obligation, almost. That is how silly the AFL football competition has become.

How to stop the club's being 'punished' is another matter; I don't know which course of action is best but I have no objection ethically to any course which will stop this absurd juggernaut in its tracks. Let the legal team work that out and execute it with more finesse and skill than has been shown in the past by the MFC itself. I suspect the AFL will want to keep a lid on the pandora's box of worms and the matter will not find its way into a court. Nor should it.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Just a quick one - that one year extension after 2009 was brilliant.

It gave Bailey an extra year to show what he could do after jumping on the 'bottoming out' grenade and if he was OOC after 2010 he would have got another 3 years.

He'd still be coach.

Yes it was as it turned out.

(P.S I don't think Bailey would still be coach, just between you and me, but keep that to yourself, it might upset Fan.)

[Dee Fan 3,247]

My comment to you weeks ago was that I thought you were a good supporter because of your passion and generosity. That I disagree with your views is of no concern. It's a shame you can't do the same because when you disagreed with mine you suggest the club would be better off without me. That is actually not supporting the club but you don't get that.

I'm glad you agree that Stynes reappointed Bailey therefore endorsing Gardner's decision. As it turns out it was another of their poor decisions but I'll not blame them for it as I agreed at the time as well.

Just as a matter of interest and in hindsight, do you think it was a poor decision by the Gardner Board to appoint Bailey in the first place?

[timD 994]

Just as a matter of interest and in hindsight, do you think it was a poor decision by the Gardner Board to appoint Bailey in the first place?

Robbie, try actually reading what he said. Fan has already answered that and you've outed yourself as arguing with him and not reading what he is writing at the same time. This is starting to make you look a bit more than 'silly'. So obsessed are you at trying to counter and denounce Fan that you aren't even reading what he is saying - just yelling "he's wrong" with little regard for what he is actually trying to argue.

[binman 38,035]

No it wouldn't because under a though methodology he would have been interviewed along with others. If he chose not to be part of that process then I'd not have blamed the club, but we should have asked him (and others). It was lazy and poor management that we didn't.

Your argument about the process of getting Neeld has merit, though as both you and i are (conditional) fans of Neeld we could agree that there are indications that despite the process they may have got this call right. (Interestingly the club seems to have put a big priority on getting a coach who would hold the line and directly - and robustly - address the culture issues in the playing group that some posters blame the current board for - so far so good in that regard).

But leaving aside the process to appoint Neeld what is your view on how the board has gone about building the supports around him? In particular i'd be interested on your views on the the appointments of Craig, Misson, Leigh Brown, the other assistant coaches and the sideways move of CC out of the FD ?

[Whispering_Jack 27,971]

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.

Me too. It's obvious that the AFL is totally incapable of thinking at all and needs Caro around to make all of the important decisions for it in this case

[rjay 23,910]

Well, whatever we did at the time, whether we want to call it tanking, list management or whatever we want to call it, it was accepted practice at the time. All under the watchful eye of the AFL. Why, if it was such a heinous crime, didn't the AFL do something about it then? The fact that the AFL are acting now doesn't change the fact that they turned a blind eye back in '09. And that's where we will eventually end up. The retrospective nature of this inquiry is it's own achilles' heal.

Many clubs had embarked on this 'accepted practice' before our team did and in fact, last year the very same 'accepted practice' was undertaken by GWS. The AFL's own love child. Will the AFL turn the blowtorch on Allan, Williams, Sheedy and GWS?

We are meandering through a lot of unmarked roads and in the end we will reach a dead end. At some stage an impasse will be reached and it will fall into the 'Too hard basket' .

...and that's about it 'Macca', whatever it's called that's what we did.

[H_T 2,941]

Is it true the AFL had given Caro a two month trip to the Maldives for Christmas?

If true, EQ deserves 6 months for her work.

[Slartibartfast 15,761]

Your argument about the process of getting Neeld has merit, though as both you and i are (conditional) fans of Neeld we could agree that there are indications that despite the process they may have got this call right. (Interestingly the club seems to have put a big priority on getting a coach who would hold the line and directly - and robustly - address the culture issues in the playing group that some posters blame the current board for - so far so good in that regard).

But leaving aside the process to appoint Neeld what is your view on how the board has gone about building the supports around him? In particular i'd be interested on your views on the the appointments of Craig, Misson, Leigh Brown, the other assistant coaches and the sideways move of CC out of the FD ?

Is it the Board who has gone about the process of building support around him? Regardless of who it is I think the addition of Misson is excellent, he has a proven track record and we can be confident that what he does is AFL standard and probably at an elite level. His success at Sydney and Saints places him in the top group in a very important role.

I've always liked Neil Craig and the way he handled the presser last week just reinforced my view. But nobody has really been able to tell me what he does and it's impossible to judge whether the high salary we are paying him is value for money. Despite him being there we stumbled from one footy disaster to another last year.

I couldn't comment on Leigh Brown or the other assistant coaches because from a supporters view I don't think we can tell whether they are doing a good job. I was of the view last year and continue to hold the view that the coaching panel was very inexperienced which didn't complement a first year coach.

BTW, Neeld may turn out to be good but there is a saying along the lines that their is nothing more dangerous than getting the right answer for the wrong reasons.

[H_T 2,941]

But nobody has really been able to tell me what he does and it's impossible to judge whether the high salary we are paying him is value for money.

We've discussed this on 'ology and I thought I made it pretty clear what his defined role was when the club signed him up.

Link: http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2011-09-29/craig-joins-melbourne.default?

You brushed it off as propaganda/fluff.

I agree that currently it's impossible to judge the value at the moment. But some of the feedback (player feedback) is positive. Early days, hopefully we'll see some visual progress, now that he has 12 months under the belt.

[Macca 16,173]

...and that's about it 'Macca', whatever it's called that's what we did.

Yes rjay, I don't reckon too many of us are in denial about what actually transpired back then. We were all witnesses. It's the connotations that are connected to 'what we did' that is the problem.

There is no clearly defined definition of 'tanking,' so many of us have our own versions. And because there is no clear definition of tanking it means that conflicting views could all be close to the mark. Confusing isn't it?

What could be really important is Vlad's definition of tanking. If, by Vlad saying 'There is no such thing as tanking' he meant 'There is no match fixing going on' then his version of tanking could be clearly defined and that in turn, could help our cause.

Of course, if that was how Vlad viewed tanking back then, would he be prepared to admit as such now? This whole thing is just so murky that they're going to find it hard to find us guilty of anything.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Macca

[rjay 23,910]

Is it the Board who has gone about the process of building support around him? Regardless of who it is I think the addition of Misson is excellent, he has a proven track record and we can be confident that what he does is AFL standard and probably at an elite level. His success at Sydney and Saints places him in the top group in a very important role.

I've always liked Neil Craig and the way he handled the presser last week just reinforced my view. But nobody has really been able to tell me what he does and it's impossible to judge whether the high salary we are paying him is value for money. Despite him being there we stumbled from one footy disaster to another last year.

I couldn't comment on Leigh Brown or the other assistant coaches because from a supporters view I don't think we can tell whether they are doing a good job. I was of the view last year and continue to hold the view that the coaching panel was very inexperienced which didn't complement a first year coach.

BTW, Neeld may turn out to be good but there is a saying along the lines that their is nothing more dangerous than getting the right answer for the wrong reasons.

We certainly went from disaster to disaster but it was pretty much off field stuff. We didn't have a great on field year (understatement) but I think part of that was Neeld wanting to assess each player on the list before making wholesale changes.

Whilst I agree that we have a group of inexperienced coaches we do have Craig and Rawlings who both have senior experience in the mix. The year we had would have given the coaching group a lot of challenges that would have fast tracked their education I would think.

[binman 38,035]

Is it the Board who has gone about the process of building support around him? Regardless of who it is I think the addition of Misson is excellent, he has a proven track record and we can be confident that what he does is AFL standard and probably at an elite level. His success at Sydney and Saints places him in the top group in a very important role.

I've always liked Neil Craig and the way he handled the presser last week just reinforced my view. But nobody has really been able to tell me what he does and it's impossible to judge whether the high salary we are paying him is value for money. Despite him being there we stumbled from one footy disaster to another last year.

I couldn't comment on Leigh Brown or the other assistant coaches because from a supporters view I don't think we can tell whether they are doing a good job. I was of the view last year and continue to hold the view that the coaching panel was very inexperienced which didn't complement a first year coach.

BTW, Neeld may turn out to be good but there is a saying along the lines that their is nothing more dangerous than getting the right answer for the wrong reasons.

Points well made, particularly in terms of the assistant coaches. I assume though that the board could be credited with getting Misson and Craig on board, even if CS and Neeld probably did the grunt work in terms of convincing them why they would want to come to a struggling club. At the least they would have had to authorize the increase in FD spend that made it possible If they are going to get brickbats they should get bouquets.

One thing though i would say is that whilst we had off field dramas year i don't reckon we "stumbled" from one t'other. This implies the dramas were not well handled, a suggestion i disagree with. I think Neeld was a little unpolished early doors but after that the club handled some difficult things very professionally i reckon.

Edited January 14, 2013 by binman

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Robbie, try actually reading what he said. Fan has already answered that and you've outed yourself as arguing with him and not reading what he is writing at the same time. This is starting to make you look a bit more than 'silly'. So obsessed are you at trying to counter and denounce Fan that you aren't even reading what he is saying - just yelling "he's wrong" with little regard for what he is actually trying to argue.

Tim in the first place means that, not 3 years down the track but in the first place when he was appointed, was Fan happy with the appointment and in turn the process that lead to the appointment. Can you direct me to where he has given an opinion on that?

[nutbean 8,837]

I think that there is general agreement on what we did back in 2009. The muddying of the waters is because there is no definition of the dreaded "t" word and there are actions we took which were accepted practice at the time that had been done by at least 5 other clubs previously and condoned by the AFL.

I am not going to get caught up in the semantics of tanking.

- Do I believe that players were told not to perform ? no.

- Without concrete evidence ( in writing or an unambiguous conversation verbally transmitted to reliable witness) that a coach acted in a way that was not allowing the team to perform to its fullest then we shouldnt be charged with anything

- If the AFL wishes to charge us with a "crime" based on their interpretation of positional changes, changes or ommissions at the selection table or rotations without concrete evidence that links this to directly to the coach acting in a way that was not allowing the team to perform to its fullest then due to this being a retrospective investigation, the same retrospective standard must be applied to other clubs who have done similar

- investigations into fumbling and Jack Watts should be treated with the contempt they deserve.

Tanking, schmanking - i dont give a rats - the above is all that matters.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Robbie, try actually reading what he said. Fan has already answered that and you've outed yourself as arguing with him and not reading what he is writing at the same time. This is starting to make you look a bit more than 'silly'. So obsessed are you at trying to counter and denounce Fan that you aren't even reading what he is saying - just yelling "he's wrong" with little regard for what he is actually trying to argue.

BTW are you RR and DEE TOX his unofficial cheer squad; you'll probably notice I don't need anyone to reply on my behalf but you appear to think he does.

[Left Field 313]

My perfect result on all of this would be:

1. No charges laid - insufficient evidence (even anecdotal evidence)

2. Rules clarified and all previous suspicious actions exonerated

3. We start the climb up the ladder and enter a period of sustained on field success and

4. America De Cali and others like him cover themselves in sticks and leaves for another 20 years waiting for the next opportunity to pot the club.

[Lost Highway 31]

- If the AFL wishes to charge us with a "crime" based on their interpretation of positional changes, changes or ommissions at the selection table or rotations without concrete evidence that links this to directly to the coach acting in a way that was not allowing the team to perform to its fullest then due to this being a retrospective investigation, the same retrospective standard must be applied to other clubs who have done similar

That is the absolute crux of the matter; everything else is irrelevant. And yet this remains virtually unsaid in the mainstream media, almost as if it were a strange kind of taboo to those who are kicking us while we are down. Since it's entirely retrospective it MUST, by logic, be applied wherever there has been rumour, innuendo, suspicion. On the basis of the kind of rubbish being put forward to convict the MFC in the media courtroom, a mere losing streak of 12 games - the last 12 of the season - in itself, ipso facto if you prefer, should be sufficient to bring on such an investigation. After all, the MFC witch-hunt is the result of nebulous developments which began with innocuous enough rumours and jokes, exactly like those which everyone, EVERYONE, was making - nudge, nudge, wink, wink - about Carlton's performance in 2007. I say we did pull our punches in 09, but we cannot be made a scapegoat, 'inept' or not.

[Slartibartfast 15,761]

I assume though that the board could be credited with getting Misson and Craig on board,

One thing though i would say is that whilst we had off field dramas year i don't reckon we "stumbled" from one t'other.

I'll give credit to whoever got Craig and Misson. They were excellent gets and I suspect Neeld was pretty central to their decisions as they would have had to buy into his philosophy.

I do think we stumbled. Had Ian Flack been at the club I doubt Liam would have gone to Alice by himself if at all. Other things were handled poorly not least the Misfud accusations. I don't want to go into more as it will seem like I'm pushing an agenda but I do think we are much better now than we were. If MN can coach then we've got an excellent result because he's learning quickly. Having said that I'm interested that descriptions of training don't seem to indicate we are using the whole field and I don't think we can compete until we do.

The year we had would have given the coaching group a lot of challenges that would have fast tracked their education I would think.

Couldn't agree more. I think that one of the main areas of improvement will be the improvement in the coaching group. I'm a great believer that coaches take time to learn their trade and improve significantly in their first few years. It's why I wanted an experienced coach when we appointed Neeld because with such a young group I didn't want an inexperienced coach.

[beelzebub 22,225]

You know what...i'll just be glad when this whole f'n thing is over and we can all get on with actually BARRACKING for Melbourne instead of dissecting its personnel and their intents.

Honeslty , some of you, at a game cheering on i'd buy you a beer, Here I just want to take some quietly out the back and "reason " with you !!

But as they say, at the end of the day we're all ( well about 98% by my calcs ) going in the same direction.

Go Dees and honestly, f*#k the media and its cohorts , the snouts, the sabatouers and those that dont have the best interests of the MFC at heart.

What this has done is actually show that in the main we are , as the club is, stronger than this bullsh!t...as thats all this is S...H...I..T !!!!

Bring on the footy !!

[dee-tox 4,807]

BTW are you RR and DEE TOX his unofficial cheer squad; you'll probably notice I don't need anyone to reply on my behalf but you appear to think he does.

.

I find it amusing RobbieF how quickly you resort to name calling and insulting people when someone has an opinion other than your own. There are no right or wrong opinions in this world. Just opinions. The point Tim was trying to make is such actions only reflect on you.

Sloonie has been big enough to apologise. You might want to consider it as well.

[Wells 11 4,706]

That is the absolute crux of the matter; everything else is irrelevant. And yet this remains virtually unsaid in the mainstream media, almost as if it were a strange kind of taboo to those who are kicking us while we are down.

My take on this is its only a juicy media STORY if its specific.... if the crime has a perpetrator everyone can scapegoat . I think the press know if it gets generalised then it will all dissapate into thin air . Whoever gets to land the "guilty" scoop could win a journalism award at the end of the year. CW already has the rights to it. So...keep the attack focused on one club and there could be a real storm to cover...complete with sackings and moral outrage.

What Im hoping for is that it blows up in all of there faces. That CW is left looking like the fool she was with this and that the others are left running for cover. Can only hope we've got the ammunition to shoot when it counts.

Golden rule re failure. Stay weak for TOO long and packs of wolves will pick up your scent and start eyeing you off as their next meal. We've gotta back up the top...