On 20/12/2012 at 23:54, S_T said:

I addressed the likely outcome if things were as leaked/reported in my post. If what we think we know already is all there is, then this will flitter away early next year with no charges to answer.

I was highlighting the folly of saying right now that we must fight all possible charges at all costs given we don't know 100% what evidence there may be. There is a possible outcome where the evidence is beyond doubt and that a court battle will do us no good at all.

The whole situation has been a mess and if this does all turn to nothing I hope a journalist has the balls and nouce to find out why it leaked so badly.

S_T, what you are posting is exactly how it stands. Where you are fighting a losing battle on here is because a number of posters don't want to think about what could be, they would rather draw their own conclusions based on what the media are telling them. I'm not criticising anyone for this BTW.

As it stands, we don't know if the AFL have evidence, and this is based on the fact that the media haven't told us that they do. With what has been reported, we should be fine. But in this case, we simply have no idea if the media are on the mark or not. The fact that they keep digging and digging suggests to me that they are getting bugger all from the AFL, so their guess is as good as ours.

I still don't understand the need for people to continually say "if CC's tounge-in-cheek comment is all that the AFL has got, then we're fine". I don't know anyone on here that is saying differently. There is a small group that are saying "if that is all that they have got, then yes, we are fine, but if they have more that we don't know about, then...".

It really isn't that difficult. But one thing is for sure, if I'm relying on what Caro and [censored] Barrett are reporting to make my mind up, I'm not in a great place. I'd prefer to hear what Deegirl has got more than Dumb and Dumber.

  On 21/12/2012 at 00:04, rpfc said:

So unless our happy band of idiots .....

This made me laugh - RPFC, am I free to plagarise this phrase and use it continuously at my workplace ?

  On 20/12/2012 at 23:33, nutbean said:

... therefore you would argue on the AFL's ability to retrospectively change a standard and furthermore retrospectively change a standard and yet only charge one club.

Do you think the AFL would hesitate to change their standards, or single out one club, if it suits their purposes on any given day? That's how we got "probed" in the first place.

If you are expecting some kind of fairness or consistency from the AFL, then you are destined for disappointment.

But we're arguing in circles. The above is the very reason why we have to fight this.

Im still thinking if i was to lay any money on anything to do with all of this is that what we are seeing is the strategy of the AFL to exit from this tar like mess . Of its own creation I might add as not only were the circumstances under which teams existed and effectively competed for draft picks but the recent inquisition is of its own doing.

Someone get them some crutches as surely they've shot themselves in both feet now.!!

Im sure Vlad doesnt expect to come out smelling of roses from all of this but if they can avoid reeking of a water treatment plant they will consider it a success i reckon.

What I think many are missing in all of this is the required posturing of both parties in order for a "believable" outcome of non action to work.

if Melbourne said, oh me, oh my, bring on the punishments , please please be kind etc Then all the world will expect a punishment to be given as we've literally asked for one, as well as admitting guilt .

If however we get our backs up and say" bring it on , at your peril, we aint taking no [censored] from no one !!" it sets the perception in the publics eye that 1) we dont consider ourselves guilty of anything and 2) the AFl had better be able to prove beyond all reasonable applications that the MFC did anything that warrants a charge.

If then the AFL trumpets ot the line that theres no real case to answer etc etc etc, this can hold water. The AFL gets to hold its head up and say rightly all avenues of inquiry are exhausted, no chargable foul committed, lets move on.

  On 21/12/2012 at 00:10, billy2803 said:

S_T, what you are posting is exactly how it stands. Where you are fighting a losing battle on here is because a number of posters don't want to think about what could be, they would rather draw their own conclusions based on what the media are telling them. I'm not criticising anyone for this BTW.

As it stands, we don't know if the AFL have evidence, and this is based on the fact that the media haven't told us that they do. With what has been reported, we should be fine. But in this case, we simply have no idea if the media are on the mark or not. The fact that they keep digging and digging suggests to me that they are getting bugger all from the AFL, so their guess is as good as ours.

I still don't understand the need for people to continually say "if CC's tounge-in-cheek comment is all that the AFL has got, then we're fine". I don't know anyone on here that is saying differently. There is a small group that are saying "if that is all that they have got, then yes, we are fine, but if they have more that we don't know about, then...".

It really isn't that difficult. But one thing is for sure, if I'm relying on what Caro and [censored] Barrett are reporting to make my mind up, I'm not in a great place. I'd prefer to hear what Deegirl has got more than Dumb and Dumber.

I think 90% of the posters are saying exactly what you are saying and keep putting in the disclaimer that we basing our opinions on what we believe to be the evidence against us ( as reported by journo's - which is a major worry in itself). I am drawing my conclusions from what I have read and nothing more. My opinion will change in a flash if there is damning evidence uncovered.

It is for the reason I continually harp on two points - under no circumstance wave the white flag and plead guilty until we see the evidence/charges and under no circumstance slag off the AFL on what can be considered a "farcical witch-hunt" until we see the evidence/charges. Until all the evidence is tendered we have no idea which end of the spectrum is correct.

Interesting thread to read all the comments, but i believe, they've got sfa on us and we'll be ok. At least we no the boys are concentrating on footy and not this [censored].

  On 21/12/2012 at 00:14, Ted Fidge said:

Do you think the AFL would hesitate to change their standards, or single out one club, if it suits their purposes on any given day? That's how we got "probed" in the first place.

If you are expecting some kind of fairness or consistency from the AFL, then you are destined for disappointment.

But we're arguing in circles. The above is the very reason why we have to fight this.

We got probed because the allegations against us were the "noisiest"

I look at history - besides the MRP which is full of inconsistencies - point me to where the AFL has ever laid serious charges that applied to only one club that could be applied to numerous others ? We are not talking about why Trengove got 3 weeks for a sling tackle - we are talking about integrity, reputation, dollars and possible draft picks. This is high stakes stuff and I dont beleive the AFL will be bring down a guilty against us and yet completely ignore every other club.

  On 21/12/2012 at 00:18, nutbean said:

I think 90% of the posters are saying exactly what you are saying and keep putting in the disclaimer that we basing our opinions on what we believe to be the evidence against us ( as reported by journo's - which is a major worry in itself). I am drawing my conclusions from what I have read and nothing more. My opinion will change in a flash if there is damning evidence uncovered.

It is for the reason I continually harp on two points - under no circumstance wave the white flag and plead guilty until we see the evidence/charges and under no circumstance slag off the AFL on what can be considered a "farcical witch-hunt" until we see the evidence/charges. Until all the evidence is tendered we have no idea which end of the spectrum is correct.

I don't think anyone is saying we wave the white flag Nut. The posters that are suggesting this are doing so under the impression that the AFL does in fact have evidence.

There are 2 sides of this argument on here;

1. If they AFL only have the evidence we have been privvy to through media outlets, then we can sleep easy.

or

2. If the AFL have solid evidence, we're in strife.

A number of posters have put their eggs in basket 1, and are promoting it with such cinfidence. I will continue to question how this can be, but at the same time, admire them for being so hopeful. Reality is, regardless of the side you are on, it's pure guess work, but that won't stop the masses from the standard "I told you so" should things go our way!

  On 20/12/2012 at 23:33, nutbean said:

Everyone keeps missing the point - we are not on our own here.

To sanction us there must be a clear definition of tanking and what actions/circumstances must occur to be able charge us with tanking. If this is taken to court they will not let a charge stand if it is airy fairy non defined.The court will examine - what rule was breached, and how it was breached.

If one of the standards we have breached is playing players out of position then you would argue that this practice has been going on for generations (Carlton, WCE etc) and no charges were ever laid - in fact Vlad examined these incidents and said all clear - therefore you would argue on the AFL's ability to retrospectively change a standard and furthermore retrospectively change a standard and yet only charge one club.

The only way we can get pinged for tanking is by doing something over and above any other club has previously done - the only thing I have heard reported is Connolly's comments and some interchange rotations - you would hang your hat on these as strong evidence ?

Again - I will put in the disclaimer - I havent seen the evidence and am working on what has been reported and it has been reported that there is no smoking gun - only Connolly's comments, dubious player positions, Baileys comments, miffed players and limited rotations.

Until there is a clear definition of what tanking involves, the other clubs cannot be dragged into this. If they do in fact charge MFC with tanking, then it has been defined and surely other clubs must then be brought to the same justice dished out to MFC.

If you're found guilty of a crime now and evidence shows that the same crime was committed 5 years ago by someone else then they will be brought to justice as well. If not, the court and justice system is a sham.

The AFL will not want to go down that road unless they absolutely want to cripple their own competition.

Ed: grammar

  On 21/12/2012 at 00:26, billy2803 said:

I don't think anyone is saying we wave the white flag Nut. The posters that are suggesting this are doing so under the impression that the AFL does in fact have evidence.

There are 2 sides of this argument on here;

1. If they AFL only have the evidence we have been privvy to through media outlets, then we can sleep easy.

or

2. If the AFL have solid evidence, we're in strife.

A number of posters have put their eggs in basket 1, and are promoting it with such cinfidence. I will continue to question how this can be, but at the same time, admire them for being so hopeful. Reality is, regardless of the side you are on, it's pure guess work, but that won't stop the masses from the standard "I told you so" should things go our way!

I am so hopeful because Wilson thought she had us in a noose with the info we now know is Sweet F___ All.

Unfortunately the greater public don't know that The Secret Tanking Meeting was a simple MC meeting, they don't know that the Code-Named Meeting of The Vault was actually the name of the shack the meeting took place in, and they don't know that the 'threat of people losing their jobs' was far more likely to be CC's idea of dark joke told to at least one person who evidently does not have the best interests of the club or CC's friendship/future in mind.

And because of these misconceptions that have not been adequately - in my mind - apologised for or repudiated by Fairfax/Wilson, the wider footy public see these Smoking Guns of Lies and think we're 'humped.'

Until I hear/read, and hasn't Wilson been quiet of late, something more I am going to assume that all they have is CC's aside/joke/'threat' and nothing more.

  On 21/12/2012 at 00:36, McQueen said:

Until there is a clear definition of what tanking involves, the other clubs cannot be dragged into this. If they do in fact charge MFC with tanking, then it has been defined and surely other clubs must then be brought to the same justice dished out to MFC.

If you're found guilty of a crime now and evidence shows that the same crime was committed 5 years ago by someone else then they will be brought to justice as well. If not, the court and justice system is a sham.

The AFL will not want to go down that road unless they absolutely want to cripple their own competition.

Ed: grammar

Good post McQueen (I know that it has been mentioned before by other posters).

The interesting part will be, if there are charges, is what those charges are actually for. I'm more inclined to think that the likes of CC will be done for bringing the game into disrepute.

The club should back CC and CS to the hilt

"Tis better to die on your feet than to live on your knees"

  On 21/12/2012 at 00:42, rpfc said:

I am so hopeful because Wilson thought she had us in a noose with the info we now know is Sweet F___ All.

Unfortunately the greater public don't know that The Secret Tanking Meeting was a simple MC meeting, they don't know that the Code-Named Meeting of The Vault was actually the name of the shack the meeting took place in, and they don't know that the 'threat of people losing their jobs' was far more likely to be CC's idea of dark joke told to at least one person who evidently does not have the best interests of the club or CC's friendship/future in mind.

And because of these misconceptions that have not been adequately - in my mind - apologised for or repudiated by Fairfax/Wilson, the wider footy public see these Smoking Guns of Lies and think we're 'humped.'

Until I hear/read, and hasn't Wilson been quiet of late, something more I am going to assume that all they have is CC's aside/joke/'threat' and nothing more.

RP, stop worrying about what the greater public know, and starting wondering what the AFL know. Still be confident that we are fine, but just be prepared.

Why would Wilson apologise for something that she is yet to be proven wrong about? Yuck, I feel so dirty for even potentially sticking up for the drag(on) queen. If she is proved wrong, I'll happily waltz in to The Age offices with you with my pitchfork and demand she resigns.

I don't trust the AFL, and I don't trust the media. I also don't have great confidence that some in our happy band of idiots (<---brilliant!) haven't slipped up.

  On 21/12/2012 at 00:43, billy2803 said:

Good post McQueen (I know that it has been mentioned before by other posters).

The interesting part will be, if there are charges, is what those charges are actually for. I'm more inclined to think that the likes of CC will be done for bringing the game into disrepute.

Well, if that's all they're able to manage after 5 months of hard toil, the AFL will have egg on it's face.

  On 21/12/2012 at 00:50, billy2803 said:

RP, stop worrying about what the greater public know, and starting wondering what the AFL know. Still be confident that we are fine, but just be prepared.

Why would Wilson apologise for something that she is yet to be proven wrong about? Yuck, I feel so dirty for even potentially sticking up for the drag(on) queen. If she is proved wrong, I'll happily waltz in to The Age offices with you with my pitchfork and demand she resigns.

I don't trust the AFL, and I don't trust the media. I also don't have great confidence that some in our happy band of idiots (<---brilliant!) haven't slipped up.

Wilson has been proven wrong already.

I can't believe I had to write that.

Her 'news' story before her ferocious editorial was full of falsehoods that I have already mentioned. They have cleaned up the copy on the internet (to the point her original article is very disjointed - sub-eds can't write).

And, of course, they might have effed up and had something in writing but we haven't heard anything about that and I will borrow a line from Mal Reynolds (of Firefly, the bloke in an earlier post that confused a few): "We got to deal with what's in front of us."

I am a Melbourne supporter - I have enough to worry about without thinking about the evils that 'could' be.

Can't believe all the people on here who just want the club to just drop the pants, roll over & cop whatever we get and be almost thankful.

The Club must fight this as hard and clever as possible.

This is line in the sand, last man standing stuff.

I want the AFL to re write the rules on "list management"

Whether there are emails or not the definition is still grey and a court of law will show this up.

I recieved a warning point because i advocated that someome iron out Brock Mclean on the field afte his comments that got us into this mess.

Ill always defend our club against anyone trying to drag us down.

  On 21/12/2012 at 00:59, rpfc said:

Wilson has been proven wrong already.

I can't believe I had to write that.

Her 'news' story before her ferocious editorial was full of falsehoods that I have already mentioned. They have cleaned up the copy on the internet (to the point her original article is very disjointed - sub-eds can't write).

And, of course, they might have effed up and had something in writing but we haven't heard anything about that and I will borrow a line from Mal Reynolds (of Firefly, the bloke in an earlier post that confused a few): "We got to deal with what's in front of us."

I am a Melbourne supporter - I have enough to worry about without thinking about the evils that 'could' be.

We do "got to deal with what's in front of us". From the supporters point of view, there is nothing in front of us that has me concerned. It's what's about to be dropped off at the MFC office from sender AFL that I'm cautious of.

  On 21/12/2012 at 00:53, McQueen said:

Well, if that's all they're able to manage after 5 months of hard toil, the AFL will have egg on it's face.

This would be a better outcome for the AFL, and a lot easier to prove, than laying chrages for tanking wouldn't it? You know, the thing that Vlad said doesn't happen in the AFL?

I think I know what egg he'd prefer of his face.

  On 21/12/2012 at 01:17, DeeZee said:

I recieved a warning point because i advocated that someome iron out Brock Mclean on the field afte his comments that got us into this mess.

Ill always defend our club against anyone trying to drag us down.

bah , i did just that and got a 2 week holiday , ? go figure

  On 21/12/2012 at 00:42, rpfc said:

I am so hopeful because Wilson thought she had us in a noose with the info we now know is Sweet F___ All.

Unfortunately the greater public don't know that The Secret Tanking Meeting was a simple MC meeting, they don't know that the Code-Named Meeting of The Vault was actually the name of the shack the meeting took place in, and they don't know that the 'threat of people losing their jobs' was far more likely to be CC's idea of dark joke told to at least one person who evidently does not have the best interests of the club or CC's friendship/future in mind.

And because of these misconceptions that have not been adequately - in my mind - apologised for or repudiated by Fairfax/Wilson, the wider footy public see these Smoking Guns of Lies and think we're 'humped.'

Until I hear/read, and hasn't Wilson been quiet of late, something more I am going to assume that all they have is CC's aside/joke/'threat' and nothing more.

don't forget CS's "ashen face". Very damning that!

Better to live on your feet than die with them in your mouth.

  On 19/12/2012 at 01:17, Pennant St Dee said:

Here we go again, more paranoia.

Move along Deelanders nothing to see here!

  On 19/12/2012 at 01:58, mjt said:

Im pretty sure that if the club was about to be charged along with Larry Curly and Moe that Caroline would break the story before you.

  On 19/12/2012 at 02:02, Left Field said:

Any chance you could publish facts instead of speculation? Who are your sources?

  On 19/12/2012 at 02:27, vincehotboy said:

Deeg is a troll, if she was not talking bs she would stay and reply to other post, and if it is so, then carlton is next, also anderson would still be there to take the gory to tell the world he was right to start the investgatiaon.d

  On 19/12/2012 at 03:30, Bossdog said:

So.....It takes only one poster to cause panic and hand wringers to abound.......The Prez has stated that we will fight for the integrity of the club to the hilt......I belive him....

  On 19/12/2012 at 03:41, Totally MAD said:

It is interesting that on the 'ology site this is all she posted. "Just posted this on Demonland - looks like the AFL will officially charge MFC, Connolly, Bailey & Schwab with tanking."

Nothing else and no replies at all !!!!!!!

  On 19/12/2012 at 07:03, Bitter but optimistic said:

Let me get my head around this. An anonymous poster (as are we all) claims to have “sources” that have given her an exclusive bombshell concerning the MFC. This source is apparently superior to any that the mainstream media have since they have made no comment. It also apparent that Caro, who would give her left [censored] for this exclusive, has been scooped.

Remarkably this rumour draws around 100 responses many of which give it credence.

If that isn't silly enough, some are discussing what penalty we will get.

You have got to be kidding me!

  On 19/12/2012 at 07:09, Jarka said:

Really, someone who created a profile in August with just 4 posts to their name and all four posts have been extremely negative to the MFC.

My spidery senses are tingling!

I'll belive it when I see it

Goes to show the pack mentality around here. Unless you have a couple of thousand posts to your name, everything you say is rubbish!

  On 21/12/2012 at 01:40, daisycutter said:

don't forget CS's "ashen face". Very damning that!

crucial to the whole investigation that "look"...

  On 20/12/2012 at 22:35, S_T said:

Our decision whether we head to court should depend on what evidence the AFL have and what they intend to do with it.

IF solid evidence exists that show beyond doubt that we "list managed" with the main purpose of losing games for better draft picks, then no court in the land will help us. IMO the "new, tough" Melbourne that I hope we now have would be far better served taking their medicine, putting their heads down and working through it. The is no use pointing the finger at other clubs about it like little kids either.

The Ox sums up my thoughts exactly

Schwarz, who played 173 games with the Dees, fears a heavy sanction could pose a serious threat to the club's future.

"I, like anyone, hope it goes away, but something might come of it," Schwarz said.

"Whatever it is, you just hope it doesn't hurt or cripple the club. That said, if individuals have done the wrong thing, then they have got to be held accountable."

On the other hand IF the leaks so far is all there is (tongue in cheek comments etc etc) then I doubt the AFL will try to pursue it too far any way. There will be a bit of to and fro about it to ensure the case is seen to have run its course then it will be over.

FYI - the rule in question is.

"A person, being a player, coach or assistant coach, must at all times perform on their merits and must not induce, or encourage, any player, coach or assistant coach not to perform on their merits in any match - or in relation to any aspect of the match, for any reason whatsoever.'' - AFL Regulations 19(A5)

Crossing the road incorrectly is Illegal.

Driving with your elbow on the window ledge, poking out is illegal.

The point is consistency of the policing of this law & an even hand in administering justice, Or there is none...

it's not good enough getting tacit approval from high in the AFL, then they turn around and change they're minds after the event.

This bust & boom mentality of list rebuilds is the fault of decades of uneven handed decisions re scheduling & game receipt divisions is the birth child of decades of VFL-AFL management.

So now, clubs want to become a 'Power', just like the long time 'favoured power clubs', as the clubs educated supporters say "enough",,, and we want our share...

The clubs go down the bottom, according to the unwritten rules of the Day, to dip into the same trough that other Powerful clubs before them, only to have the AFL change the said ground rules as a hand over of AFL Leadership is apparent.... & they want a scapegoat to sooth the naysayers & appear with integrity.

And now it looks like they want to meter out a prescribed penalty, surely already discussed, & it almost looks like some insiders want to accept the penalty & move on. Wearing the injustice.