On 21/12/2012 at 01:24, billy2803 said:

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.

Sorry, billy I should have finished that post.

I believe the best outcome is a "no finding." To highlight and charge someone with something as trivial as what was essentially a joke after 5 months work is more damaging to the AFL's image than handing out a no finding, and at the same time defining what tanking is and putting new and improved measures in place to avoid any possibility of future match fixing.

  On 21/12/2012 at 01:49, Toast said:

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

??? rubbish or distrust as to the agenda of the postor, who could be a board member or the like, who doesn't want top fight it out thru the courts. Maybe trying to sell the idea to supporters thru the forums.

Maybe the insider has already agreed with the "powers that be" to accept the prescribed penalty & go quietly. with only a small pantomime to play out for the footy supporter?

  Toast said:

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

What would you know Mr 46 posts!!!

OK so another 'no news' article in the small paper by that doyen of footy writers Jay Clark says that the rule we would be likely to have transgressed is the following:

"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)

We have the Captain and the COach as well as Brock McLean on the public record saying "we were never told to lose". Players might have been moved to different positions but not 'hey Johnno , go back and play on Nathan Brown but for God's sake don't go near the ball"

Unlike Mr Teflon Paul Roos who instructed McVeigh I think it was to "make sure we don't score a goal" in the final quarter of a NAB cup match. Oh yeah but he came out later and said he was joking. And CHris Connolly apparently made a joke but we are somehow different??

Case closed.

WHAT THE RULES SAY

"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)

It is hard to see how this rule can be held to account. The terminology of merits is so arbitrary.

  On 21/12/2012 at 02:13, ickey_11 said:

WHAT THE RULES SAY

"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)

It is hard to see how this rule can be held to account. The terminology of merits is so arbitrary.

Connolly is/was not a player, coach or assistant coach, nor Schwab for that matter. If they have evidence against him, he would likely be charged for a different offence.

The reports of Bailey and the players saying they did not set out to lose games will probably save the career of DB, as well as hopefully limit the penalty awrded to the MFC, if it gets to that stage.

For me this investigation goes beyond just the mere allegation of whether we tanked or not. To be honest I couldn't give a fats rats clacker if we did or didn't, at the end of the day it's all just semantics. The fact is the club is under siege and for once must stand resolute in it's defence of all and sundry. As I see it, this is the line in the sand that could define what the MFC actually stands for. This is our opportunity to make a statement to the football world. I know many of you will laugh at this but I see this as a positive opportunity for the club and not a negative. An opportunity that will allow us to redefine ourselves within the AFL landscape. An opportunity to show that we as a football club will no longer be the patsy of the AFL and will fight for whats right for the MFC FIRST AND FOREVER

  ickey_11 said:

WHAT THE RULES SAY

"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)

It is hard to see how this rule can be held to account. The terminology of merits is so arbitrary.

True. And if the players weren't told to deliberately lose ie the 22 on the field tried to win as evidenced by the Richmond game, then it is hard to see how we could be 'charged' with anything.

The argument I have heard for Freo resting 10 players in rd 23 2010 is that it doesn't constitute tanking because the 22 selected went out to try and win. If that is true (and there are too many examples of similar exploits for it not to be true) then we don't have a case to answer.

  On 21/12/2012 at 02:13, ickey_11 said:

WHAT THE RULES SAY

"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)

It is hard to see how this rule can be held to account. The terminology of merits is so arbitrary.

noting also the "or in relation to any aspect of the match, for any reason whatsoever."

that just about covers anything e.g. tagging/not tagging, interchanging frequency, decoy positioning, substitution etc etc

"merit" as defined seems to only apply to the individual and not to the team. i.e. a player tagging is not playing to his merit but could be playing to the team's merit

and conversely a player playing to his merit offensively may not be playing to the merit of the team by ignoring his defensive game

a can of worms methinks

  On 21/12/2012 at 02:26, jnrmac said:

True. And if the players weren't told to deliberately lose ie the 22 on the field tried to win as evidenced by the Richmond game, then it is hard to see how we could be 'charged' with anything.

The argument I have heard for Freo resting 10 players in rd 23 2010 is that it doesn't constitute tanking because the 22 selected went out to try and win. If that is true (and there are too many examples of similar exploits for it not to be true) then we don't have a case to answer.

Jnr, just because the AFL are investigating tanking allegations doesn't mean that if they uncover other wrongdoings that they will turn a blind eye. If they can't prove tanking, they will want to get something out of this ongoing investigation.

  On 21/12/2012 at 02:21, Outside fifty said:

For me this investigation goes beyond just the mere allegation of whether we tanked or not. To be honest I couldn't give a fats rats clacker if we did or didn't, at the end of the day it's all just semantics. The fact is the club is under siege and for once must stand resolute in it's defence of all and sundry. As I see it, this is the line in the sand that could define what the MFC actually stands for. This is our opportunity to make a statement to the football world. I know many of you will laugh at this but I see this as a positive opportunity for the club and not a negative. An opportunity that will allow us to redefine ourselves within the AFL landscape. An opportunity to show that we as a football club will no longer be the patsy of the AFL and will fight for whats right for the MFC FIRST AND FOREVER

Hopefully this will be the last I say on this topic (hold the applause!);

You are exactly right Outside Fifty. This could be a defining moment for the Club. IF the AFL have spent months investigating us, and all they've got to go us with is a "he said, she said" argument, then absolutely, we dig our heels in, we fight like possessed men, and women, and we take as many sculps as we can, inc Caro, [censored] Barrett, and anyone else you want to add to that list (they are the first 2 I will have in my sights!).

IF someone/s at the Club were stupid enough to put something on paper in the form on an email, or whatever other for of evidence that MAY be presented to the MFC from the AFL (As per this week's reports), then we may need to get on the front foot and try and control the damage.

  On 21/12/2012 at 02:31, daisycutter said:

noting also the "or in relation to any aspect of the match, for any reason whatsoever."

that just about covers anything e.g. tagging/not tagging, interchanging frequency, decoy positioning, substitution etc etc

"merit" as defined seems to only apply to the individual and not to the team. i.e. a player tagging is not playing to his merit but could be playing to the team's merit

and conversely a player playing to his merit offensively may not be playing to the merit of the team by ignoring his defensive game

a can of worms methinks

  On 21/12/2012 at 02:37, dee-luded said:

Reminds me of a photo of Caro, [censored] Barrett, Denham, and other media "personalities" waiting out the front of AFL house...

Hey Billy I don't buy into the "if we're caught talking about tanking we're in trouble" line, for the simple fact that the tanking issues is about whether we tanked in a manner that broke some AFL Law or not.

There are statistical ways to assess the extent and ways in which many clubs have "managed" their lists and performances to collect a Priority pick. Some have been explored on this site in the various threads on this topic. An exploration of Carltons season in 2007 would illuminate statistical evidence of "tanking" and the early surgery to Fev, etc... indicates an intent. However, they have not been forensically investigated for an additional "paper trail" that the AFL could hang their hats on... despite several on this site saying Carlton board members indicated this was their intent.

Akin to speeding in a car, the AFL could look at the game, injury, positional deviation and game results data and decide a club has "tanked", and to have a ruling in this area they would need to define the parameters of this assessment and assess all clubs in relation to these criteria. Relying on clubs "outing themselves" by using loose language about thier tactics is akin to the cops hanging out at the pub and arresting punters who boast about their speeding...

  On 21/12/2012 at 02:47, PaulRB said:

Hey Billy I don't buy into the "if we're caught talking about tanking we're in trouble" line, for the simple fact that the tanking issues is about whether we tanked in a manner that broke some AFL Law or not.

There are statistical ways to assess the extent and ways in which many clubs have "managed" their lists and performances to collect a Priority pick. Some have been explored on this site in the various threads on this topic. An exploration of Carltons season in 2007 would illuminate statistical evidence of "tanking" and the early surgery to Fev, etc... indicates an intent. However, they have not been forensically investigated for an additional "paper trail" that the AFL could hang their hats on... despite several on this site saying Carlton board members indicated this was their intent.

Akin to speeding in a car, the AFL could look at the game, injury, positional deviation and game results data and decide a club has "tanked", and to have a ruling in this area they would need to define the parameters of this assessment and assess all clubs in relation to these criteria. Relying on clubs "outing themselves" by using loose language about thier tactics is akin to the cops hanging out at the pub and arresting punters who boast about their speeding...

I'm not sure if I've said this Paul...?

The MFC certainly do need to get out of this mess, but it isn't necessarily terminal for the club whatever happens. If it doesn't just all blow over, in the worst case scenario there will be blame laid against certain culprits, and the MFC may perhaps for a year or two or three not be able to add more young players to their young list. Any identified culprits either already are or else very soon would be no longer employed at the MFC. I reckon we'd probably survive such a punishment, building a strong culture with our backs to the wall, out of our already talented list, and with excellent coaching/development staff; and if we did survive such punishment, at the end of the punishment the odium of having done wrong would be over. It's not as though we gained any advantage from our sins...

The AFL also needs to get out of this mess - but unlike the clearly known pain ahead for a punished MFC, there can be no measurement of the pain to come for the AFL: if they can't make it all blow over they will find extricating themselves to be far more complicated - and damaging - than it would be for the MFC.

In the worst case scenario the AFL would hand down an adverse finding against the MFC, only to immediately lose all further control of what could then become a very protracted and expanding nightmare. They have already been alerted to the likelihood of the MFC defending themselves in the Supreme Court, and once the matter moves into the Court it is out of the AFL's control. Both the Court and the media would then own what happens next. If the AFL were to win against the MFC in the Supreme Court, it is likely the win would be at the price of sections of the media demanding other clubs be also investigated and punished. Plus the Supreme Court would have given a clear statement about its reasoning, thus defining what constitutes transgression on the rule. The MFC would very likely be depicted in the media as a martyr to tyrannical and arbitrary league management that was firstly unable to frame its rules clearly enough and then for years brushed aside public discussion of the problems created by those rules, only to finally (in response to media pressure form clearly agenda-driven commentators) crash down punitively on one struggling easy-target club. This would inevitably be seen as a justice issue, and it goes to the heart of the governance of the AFL - it is a story that would be likely to gather a lot of support for the bullied underdog MFC. Could the AFL afford to brazen it out, "above the law" and suddenly impervious again to media pressure? - and retain "good repute"?

For as long as the AFL management issue continued in the public eye, "the integrity of the game" would continue to be eroded by issues such as

a) one team after another being identified as having not been trying,

B) poor administration and governance of the rules and the competition generally,

c) Demetriou's personal backflips and exposed inconsistencies;

and the back page leads would feast on muck-raking over the past alongside the ongoing critique of the AFL management generally and Demetriou in particular for carrying out their responsibility so poorly, bringing down the League's reputation. Fans would be seriously disillusioned, and you could imagine there would be some home truths spelled out from the bench.

In other words, the MFC may be in the mire at the moment, but nothing compared to where the AFL is. They are at risk of more damage than the MFC, all because - this must be the key point in the whole mess - under Anderson's leadership, Brock McLean and Caroline Wilson were allowed to set the AFL's agenda.

Anderson's gone, thank goodness. It now has to be damage control for the AFL. As a natter of urgency, the AFL must find a way to credibly cancel their endorsement of McLean's and Wilson's agendas. The AFL needs to clarify their rules, and close ranks with maximum gravitas.

Is there a way to sell the belief that no cat did get out of the bag? That's the AFL's real need now. They may have their faults, but everyone loses if the AFL loses control over its affairs.

  On 21/12/2012 at 02:35, billy2803 said:

IF someone/s at the Club were stupid enough to put something on paper in the form on an email, or whatever other for of evidence that MAY be presented to the MFC from the AFL (As per this week's reports), then we may need to get on the front foot and try and control the damage.

No biggie Billy I was extrapolating from this ^^^

  On 21/12/2012 at 02:16, billy2803 said:

Connolly is/was not a player, coach or assistant coach, nor Schwab for that matter. If they have evidence against him, he would likely be charged for a different offence.

Interesting, I never thought of that.

Adds to the ambiguity, adds to our case.

Seeing this type of stuff makes me feel that we wont be charged with anything. Sure the AFL could come up with some bs and yes could charge us, but they have to take into account that we have hired the fink and obviously intend to pursue this further - so unless this is water tight (and it's looking more and more like the titanic) they won't bother.

  On 21/12/2012 at 02:55, PJ_12345 said:

Interesting, I never thought of that.

Adds to the ambiguity, adds to our case.

Seeing this type of stuff makes me feel that we wont be charged with anything. Sure the AFL could come up with some bs and yes could charge us, but they have to take into account that we have hired the fink and obviously intend to pursue this further - so unless this is water tight (and it's looking more and more like the titanic) they won't bother.

PJ, at this stage, and obviously not knowing what evidence the AFL has found, I am expecting we will be cleared of tanking. CC may get done for the game into disrepute rule for the remarks about staff geting sacked if we win games. Which could lead to CS getting a slap over the wrists, which could lead to the Club facing "something" under this category where we allowed prominent figures within the Club to act in such a fashion.

Even from what we've been fed from the media, I don't think the AFL can afford to let all off. Equally, I don't think they can afford to get us for tanking mainly becasue of the clarity of the definition of the tanking rule, but also the fact the Dimwit won't eat humble pie, and the domino effect it will have on income streams such as sports betting. It also appears that while the "he said she said" rubbish talked about tanking, at the end of the day, Dean Bailey or any of his assistants never instructed the players to lose, and the players never played to lose.

I don't think it's looking flash for CC. Regardless of if it was meant to be a joke, the AFL won't appreciate higher management at a club coming out on an alledged number of occasions, talking about processes being in place to ensure we secure priority draft picks. With all this talk of us taking them to court, if the AFL have got witnesses that are echoing the same story, and willing to do so in a court of law, I'm not sure how that will go.

Just my opinion, hope I'm wrong and that we do get off. Time will tell.

  ickey_11 said:

WHAT THE RULES SAY

"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)

It is hard to see how this rule can be held to account. The terminology of merits is so arbitrary.

At the risk of getting my head blown off here, I find the wording of this rule a little worrying. Thanks for bringing it to my attention S_T, you send me off to Xmas worried !!

Surely the AFL does have a prima facie case against Connolly "for inducing or encouraging the coaches not to perform on their merits". Connolly has a defence - that his comment was "tongue in cheek". But can he prove that he did not intend his words to be taken at face value - and can he prove that everyone knew that he didn't mean what he said? If three people in the room claim that they believed that he expected the words to be taken seriously, then he's in big trouble.

The club could try to escape liability by argueing that the clause only applies to players , coaches and assistant coaches - but it would be open for the AFL to claim that as Football Manager at that time , Connolly was effectively director of the coaches and hence a "coach" in the broad sense the rule intended.

If this interpretation was to prevail,we would have trouble - for it is difficult to deny that a suggestion that we must lose constitutes an encouragement "not to perform on your merits". By narrowly focussing on this one clause, the AFL could argue that the relative performance of other clubs is beside the point.

Moving forward - is there anything linking Connolly's statement to Schwab? And then the big question - at what point do the actions of a senior official be deemed to be the actions of the club?

There is a lot here for the Finkster to work on - and we can realistically hope to mount an effective defence. But I think we are being unrealistic if we just say : "he was joking- no case"

The whole thing stinks - it is inconsistent and etc. But AFL Regulations 19(A5)is a worry.

Bottom line is we were a crap side in 2009 and couldn't win games IF we tried our hardest. IF we tanked in 2009 then you would have seen us win plenty of games in 2010 and 2011 which clearly we didn't.

We were still a crap side last year. The PP was there for exactly that reason.

If people are looking at the "other factors' they are so subjective it would be ridiculous. Interchange numbers?? c'mon. We have 3 injuries on the bench. Yeah but we faked those injuries. Really?

As for the positional moves it would be impossible to prove if the players weren't told directly to lose which no-one is saying.

If there was a smoking gun we would have heard about it. If there was an email discussing it the club would know about it (its their computers remember?). There is no 'evidence' that has been spoken of in any forum that would stack up to a direction to tank. So yeah its possible someone has talked about it but proving it is near on impossible in my view.

Happy Christmas.

  On 21/12/2012 at 03:31, hoopla said:

Surely the AFL does have a prima facie case against Connolly "for inducing or encouraging the coaches not to perform on their merits".

The whole thing stinks - it is inconsistent and etc. But AFL Regulations 19(A5)is a worry.

Connolly cant be charged under this rule - he is not a player, coach or assistant coach.

  hoopla said:

At the risk of getting my head blown off here, I find the wording of this rule a little worrying. Thanks for bringing it to my attention S_T, you send me off to Xmas worried !!

Surely the AFL does have a prima facie case against Connolly "for inducing or encouraging the coaches not to perform on their merits". Connolly has a defence - that his comment was "tongue in cheek". But can he prove that he did not intend his words to be taken at face value - and can he prove that everyone knew that he didn't mean what he said? If three people in the room claim that they believed that he expected the words to be taken seriously, then he's in big trouble.

Paul Roos laughed off exactly the same allegation when he told MVeigh not to go fwd and for the team not to kick a goal in the dying minutes of the NAB cup match. That was accepted by the AFL. Why wouldn't CCs poor humour??

Or Fevola's allegation in his book about the joke he had with Mal Michael walking off at half time with the Blues in front.

Really if CCs comments are all they have then there is simply no case to answer.

  On 21/12/2012 at 03:41, nutbean said:

Connolly cant be charged under this rule - he is not a player, coach or assistant coach.

Yep, it disqulaifies a few.

I think it has been mentioned in this post and several merged posts before.

CS & CC could only be charged if found guilty of "Bringing the game into disrepute"

  On 21/12/2012 at 02:10, jnrmac said:

"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)

I would have thought Wallace and the Tiges would be in trouble here. He has admitted to not performing on his merits and not allowing his side to perform on it's merits by saying he sat back and did nothing so that they could get Cotchin. It's out there in the public arena for all to see, no need for an investigation.