AFL investigation

[Redleg 41,432]

Me represent the AFL?

I reckon I could handle the gig but then, there's a fair chance that I'd probably tank.

You wouldn't be the only one.

[hoopla 418]

If it goes to court it will be in "Civil", not "Criminal" court. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard required in criminal cases only. Civil cases are decided upon the "preponderance of evidence," meaning if it appears more than 50% likely we did what we're accused of, then we lose, otherwise we win. Creating "reasonable doubt" is not enough to save us there, we must appear "more likely" not to have done it than to have done it. ......hence definitions of "tanking" (whatever that exactly means) etc. should become relevant.

Depends how the AFL structures their case. If they take action under 19 (A5) the word "tanking" won't arise - "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.''

Under this reg., the question will be whether or not Connolly as Football Manager responsible for coaching can be deemed a "coach" for purposes of the regulation.

[Rob Mac...... 638]

Depends how the AFL structures their case. If they take action under 19 (A5) the word "tanking" won't arise - "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.''

Under this reg., the question will be whether or not Connolly as Football Manager responsible for coaching can be deemed a "coach" for purposes of the regulation.

Yes, absolutely Hoopla. Then definitions of "coach" would be argued. Surely a coach must instruct players whereas someone instructing coaches is in management, hence called Football Manager not Coaches Coach. ..but lawyers could charge a ton arguing it all.

I'll predict the team and club will be in the clear because no player was instructed to lose and 19 (A5) wasn't violated, but management got too close possibly/probably encouraging tanking, so at worst someone in management may have to go. Unlike Carlton, our team was so shite they didn't need to tank to lose. Hopefully it's sorted without litigation or too many enemies made at AFL.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Rob Mac......

[rumpole 522]

Depends how the AFL structures their case. If they take action under 19 (A5) the word "tanking" won't arise - "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.''Under this reg., the question will be whether or not Connolly as Football Manager responsible for coaching can be deemed a "coach" for purposes of the regulation.

That's the sort of interpretation that would make it a dead set certainty for the whole thing to end up in court. And you're assuming that Connolly said anything that could be taken to be a serious directive.

[Jarka 767]

The point that I struggle to understand is if in the scenario that none of our coaches or players are found guilty but Connolly is then how did we actually tank? Let's say that the comment he made was the evidence used to charge him, Connolly told everyone to tank, but if no one listened to him and the coaches just did what they had been doing all year then how did we physically tank?

I firmly believe that to get us they have to prove that Bailey was involved in the process for them to get us.

[Guest fitness]

I firmly believe that to get us they have to prove that Bailey was involved in the process for them to get us.

If they want to get us, they'll get us.

We did nothing against the rules and nothing different to what many clubs have done in the past and continue doing presently, but for reasons unknown they have targeted us.

The whole thing is a disgrace. In fact I'd go as far as saying that whatever the outcome, the MFC ought to sue the AFL for defamation based on the ongoing nature of their investigation.

[Redleg 41,432]

The point that I struggle to understand is if in the scenario that none of our coaches or players are found guilty but Connolly is then how did we actually tank? Let's say that the comment he made was the evidence used to charge him, Connolly told everyone to tank, but if no one listened to him and the coaches just did what they had been doing all year then how did we physically tank?

I firmly believe that to get us they have to prove that Bailey was involved in the process for them to get us.

You are correct as far as tanking goes if Bailey holds firm. Rule 19 will not have been proved to be broken.

What may be happening here is that the AFL have gathered evidence of Officials telling staff to lose. That is not a breach of Rule 19, but there may be a nice little alternative in, "bringing the game into disrepute". That charge again will have its own intricacies, for example, an argument would be mounted that MFC instructions were private and the AFL through their Inquisition will have made them public. Who then brought the game into disrepute, the maker of confidential private communications or the the publisher of them.

This case is so much more difficult than people think.

Let me throw up another scenario for consideration. staff of the MFC have to comply with AFL rules but also do what is best for the MFC. Is getting draft picks better than a loss? The football world says yes as is evidenced by the CEO's comments on List Management and Experimentation and corroborated by nearly every football person who has been quoted on the subject. Remember the ex Carlton greats in the media urging a Blues loss to get Kreuzer. Where was the outrage from the AFL at that time? Where was the quoting of the rule then? Remember the AFL's greatest player Leigh Matthews a few weeks ago urging Freo to lose, to get a better chance in the finals. Likewise no AFL outrage at the suggestion.

The AFL has countenanced our behaviour for as long as they have existed and in fact encouraged it.

No, I can't see this going to Court as the AFL will lose any integrity it thinks it possesses. Senior AFL staff will go and maybe even the Commission itself. Litigation from disgruntled bookies and punters will be the next chapter after many other clubs are forcibly dragged into it.

A half decent Counsel will destroy the AFL on this, let alone our eminent QC.

I am aware you don't want enemies at AFL house but most of them could lose their jobs over this and maybe the new boys in their place would be grateful for the new jobs ( only joking ).

Simple answer, simple solution, statement from the AFL something like this " after an extremely thorough investigation with no expense spared, there is insufficient evidence to lay any charges against the MFC or its officials, that would have a realistic possibility of being sustained by the Commission".

Result, some unhappy media types, general relief in the football world and unbridled enthusiasm for a great new season of footy in 2013, for the greatest game in the world.

[Redleg 41,432]

Depends how the AFL structures their case. If they take action under 19 (A5) the word "tanking" won't arise - "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.''

Under this reg., the question will be whether or not Connolly as Football Manager responsible for coaching can be deemed a "coach" for purposes of the regulation.

Don't think there is any way the Football Manager can be deemed a Coach. He is not the Coach or an Assistant Coach, end of story.

[Flying Cloud 152]

You are correct as far as tanking goes if Bailey holds firm. Rule 19 will not have been proved to be broken.

What may be happening here is that the AFL have gathered evidence of Officials telling staff to lose. That is not a breach of Rule 19, but there may be a nice little alternative in, "bringing the game into disrepute". That charge again will have its own intricacies, for example, an argument would be mounted that MFC instructions were private and the AFL through their Inquisition will have made them public. Who then brought the game into disrepute, the maker of confidential private communications or the the publisher of them.

This case is so much more difficult than people think.

Let me throw up another scenario for consideration. staff of the MFC have to comply with AFL rules but also do what is best for the MFC. Is getting draft picks better than a loss? The football world says yes as is evidenced by the CEO's comments on List Management and Experimentation and corroborated by nearly every football person who has been quoted on the subject. Remember the ex Carlton greats in the media urging a Blues loss to get Kreuzer. Where was the outrage from the AFL at that time? Where was the quoting of the rule then? Remember the AFL's greatest player Leigh Matthews a few weeks ago urging Freo to lose, to get a better chance in the finals. Likewise no AFL outrage at the suggestion.

The AFL has countenanced our behaviour for as long as they have existed and in fact encouraged it.

No, I can't see this going to Court as the AFL will lose any integrity it thinks it possesses. Senior AFL staff will go and maybe even the Commission itself. Litigation from disgruntled bookies and punters will be the next chapter after many other clubs are forcibly dragged into it.

A half decent Counsel will destroy the AFL on this, let alone our eminent QC.

I am aware you don't want enemies at AFL house but most of them could lose their jobs over this and maybe the new boys in their place would be grateful for the new jobs ( only joking ).

Simple answer, simple solution, statement from the AFL something like this " after an extremely thorough investigation with no expense spared, there is insufficient evidence to lay any charges against the MFC or its officials, that would have a realistic possibility of being sustained by the Commission".

Result, some unhappy media types, general relief in the football world and unbridled enthusiasm for a great new season of footy in 2013, for the greatest game in the world.

I think you are right, however I also believe the AFL may want to ensure that this type of situation does not happen again. A negotiated penalty for bringing the game into disrepute against CS and/or CC and/or the club of an amount that is enough to ensure others are more careful in the future, but not so much as to make it worth fighting in court Somehting like a $10K fine each and a 6 month suspended sentence, and if the club say$50K.

[daisycutter 29,738]

I think you are right, however I also believe the AFL may want to ensure that this type of situation does not happen again. A negotiated penalty for bringing the game into disrepute against CS and/or CC and/or the club of an amount that is enough to ensure others are more careful in the future, but not so much as to make it worth fighting in court Somehting like a $10K fine each and a 6 month suspended sentence, and if the club say$50K.

or....the AFL could fine themselves say 100k , change rule 19 to male it more specific and change the way the draft equalisation process works

i'd be happy with that

[Whispering_Jack 30,664]

I think you are right, however I also believe the AFL may want to ensure that this type of situation does not happen again. A negotiated penalty for bringing the game into disrepute against CS and/or CC and/or the club of an amount that is enough to ensure others are more careful in the future, but not so much as to make it worth fighting in court Somehting like a $10K fine each and a 6 month suspended sentence, and if the club say$50K.

That might be acceptable to some but a sanction against the MFC or any of its officials in the absence of similarly prolonged and through investigations of other clubs also suspected of tanking but not investigated would leave the AFL's integrity in tatters and the commission and its senior officials carrying the smell of corruption.

Redleg's solution is the cleanest and the best for all concerned.

[Redleg 41,432]

I think you are right, however I also believe the AFL may want to ensure that this type of situation does not happen again. A negotiated penalty for bringing the game into disrepute against CS and/or CC and/or the club of an amount that is enough to ensure others are more careful in the future, but not so much as to make it worth fighting in court Somehting like a $10K fine each and a 6 month suspended sentence, and if the club say$50K.

Drop the suspended sentence, findings that we didn't tank and that CC's joke was not funny to the AFL, an apology for the damage and disruption the Inquisition has caused the MFC, no fine to the club as CC's joke was his idea alone and then the AFL give us $250k more in grants next year. I could probably live with that.

Even simpler, my solution posted above, no charges, case closed.

[gsmith12 491]

Redleg's solution is the cleanest and the best for all concerned.

And we will all live happily ever after.

[Redleg 41,432]

And we will all live happily ever after.

Gawn to Rodan at the bounce, who receives a sensational shepherd from Viney, over to Toumpas, who kicks to Dawes, who handballs to Byrnes, who bombs to the goal square where Howe takes the mark of the year and coolly goals from a few metres.

The Dees are on fire.

Gee, Neeld has turned this team around say the media.

Go Dees say the fans.

[gsmith12 491]

Gawn to Rodan at the bounce, who receives a sensational shepherd from Viney, over to Toumpas, who kicks to Dawes, who handballs to Byrnes, who bombs to the goal square where Howe takes the mark of the year and coolly goals from a few metres.

The Dees are on fire.

Gee, Neeld has turned this team around say the media.

Go Dees say the fans.

What - no Mitch ?

[rjay 25,088]

Simple answer, simple solution, statement from the AFL something like this " after an extremely thorough investigation with no expense spared, there is insufficient evidence to lay any charges against the MFC or its officials, that would have a realistic possibility of being sustained by the Commission".

Result, some unhappy media types, general relief in the football world and unbridled enthusiasm for a great new season of footy in 2013, for the greatest game in the world.

This is how I've also seen it 'Redleg', but it does bother me that it has dragged on into the new year. Maybe the AFL asking for responses to their findings is part of the game but it would have been better to clean things up in the holiday period if that was the plan.

I'm not so sure it is going to go away now.

[sue 9,143]

I too would not like to see this go to court unless we are really screwed. We are always at the AFL's mercy. However, a threat to go to court can help.

Some people are saying it doesn't matter that other clubs may have infringed, if we are guilty, we are guilty. Just like if you get pinged for speeding but the car next to you does not.

However there is a fundamental difference between the AFL tanking enquiry and speeding fines. Basically, you are not in direct competition with the other car drivers. But the MFC is directly competing with 17 other clubs under the AFL's regime. This is a significant difference.

Therefore as a bush lawyer, I would have thought we'd have grounds for raising in court procedural fairness, pointing to the statements by LIb , Fev etc and the lack of resulting AFL action (plus all the other examples of AFL silence on tanking examples which posters have mentioned). The AFL's only response could be, 'Yes, we'll get on with those investigations as soon as this one is finished'. But they won't want to do that.

I think this holds even if we have been more negligent than others in hiding our tanking efforts or leaking (which has caused some anger against the club's admin on this forum). Maybe the other clubs have been more discreet. But the AFL would have to show that they have investigated the other cases closely and found them clean. But clearly they have not investigated them closely. They would be torn apart in court if they claimed they had done so. So their only response in court would again be that they'll investigate the other cases next.

So if I'm correct about the admissibility of the 'why pick only on us competitive fairness' argument, then the AFL can't allow this to go to court. Therefore they can't penalize us at a level which could tip us into pursuing litigation.

[hoopla 418]

That's the sort of interpretation that would make it a dead set certainty for the whole thing to end up in court. And you're assuming that Connolly said anything that could be taken to be a serious directive.

I agree - and it is reasonable to conclude the AFL won't want it to go to court.

I'm just pointing out that the AFL could take action without mentioning the word "tanking"

The point that I struggle to understand is if in the scenario that none of our coaches or players are found guilty but Connolly is then how did we actually tank? Let's say that the comment he made was the evidence used to charge him, Connolly told everyone to tank, but if no one listened to him and the coaches just did what they had been doing all year then how did we physically tank?

I firmly believe that to get us they have to prove that Bailey was involved in the process for them to get us.

As I noted above, under this Reg its not necessary to prove "tanking". Just need to prove that a person being a "coach" encouraged coaches or assistant coaches "not to perform to the merits". Whether or not the coaches listened - or passed it on to the players - is irrelevant - and it is not necessary that a game or games be lost. Encouragement of itself is enough.

As Connolly - as Craig does now - may have "coached" from time to time, the AFL may try to argue that his "encouragement" breaches Reg 19. But as others have said, this would draw our lawyers like bees to a honey pot!

The AFL's fear of being challenged in the courts is probably the bottom line. We'll get off - but Connolly will be given a fright.

Edited December 29, 2012 by hoopla

[Redleg 41,432]

What - no Mitch ?

And Mitch claps it through as it sails over his head, for another Dees goal.

[Whispering_Jack 30,664]

I too would not like to see this go to court unless we are really screwed. We are always at the AFL's mercy. However, a threat to go to court can help.

Some people are saying it doesn't matter that other clubs may have infringed, if we are guilty, we are guilty. Just like if you get pinged for speeding but the car next to you does not.

However there is a fundamental difference between the AFL tanking enquiry and speeding fines. Basically, you are not in direct competition with the other car drivers. But the MFC is directly competing with 17 other clubs under the AFL's regime. This is a significant difference.

Therefore as a bush lawyer, I would have thought we'd have grounds for raising in court procedural fairness, pointing to the statements by LIb , Fev etc and the lack of resulting AFL action (plus all the other examples of AFL silence on tanking examples which posters have mentioned). The AFL's only response could be, 'Yes, we'll get on with those investigations as soon as this one is finished'. But they won't want to do that.

I think this holds even if we have been more negligent than others in hiding our tanking efforts or leaking (which has caused some anger against the club's admin on this forum). Maybe the other clubs have been more discreet. But the AFL would have to show that they have investigated the other cases closely and found them clean. But clearly they have not investigated them closely. They would be torn apart in court if they claimed they had done so. So their only response in court would again be that they'll investigate the other cases next.

So if I'm correct about the admissibility of the 'why pick only on us competitive fairness' argument, then the AFL can't allow this to go to court. Therefore they can't penalize us at a level which could tip us into pursuing litigation.

Sue, it does matter that other clubs "may have infringed".

There were allegations of tanking afoot for a decade before 2009 and the AFL always gave tanking a narrow interpretation. If your season was shot they gave carte blanche to the clubs to list manage and experiment to their hearts content and the short term aim of winning matches was deemed less important to clubs in that situation to the longer term objective of developing your team for the future. Andrew Demetriou came out publicly approving Melbourne's tactics in the Jordan McMahon game. And as long as clubs kept their policies private and in house there was no damage to the reputation of the game.

By 2007 it was patently and plainly obvious to all and sundry what Carlton was trying to achieve and the AFL turned a blind eye. Moreover, you can bet in it that if there were any incriminating documents or emails around at Blues HQ they would now have been well and truly disposed of and yet not a single person from the AFL has deigned to explain why they have not been looked at thoroughly as we have over the past six months. As mentioned elsewhere, several others also went through the motions of not playing to win between 1999 and 2009.

That this sort of discrimination is occurring in what is supposedly a billion dollar industry is nothing short of scandalous and bodes poorly for the AFL and the administrators responsible for allowing this to happen

[sue 9,143]

Sue, it does matter that other clubs "may have infringed".

....

I agree. It very much matters that the other clubs with which we compete may have infringed AND the AFL has investigated only the MFC in depth. If my bush lawyer opinion is correct, then the MFC would be able to raise the issue in court of the unfair failure to investigate infringements by competing clubs - a box the AFL won't want opened. So the AFL can't afford to impose such tough penalties on the MFC that the MFC is tempted to go to court. On the other hand, because the MFC is dependent on the AFL in too many ways, we would also be reluctant to go to court. So the penalty would be some sort of compromise aimed at avoiding court. Hopefully this would be at a level which had no real impact on the club.

In any case, on the 'evidence' made public to date, we shouldn't be penalized at all.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Sue, it does matter that other clubs "may have infringed".

There were allegations of tanking afoot for a decade before 2009 and the AFL always gave tanking a narrow interpretation. If your season was shot they gave carte blanche to the clubs to list manage and experiment to their hearts content and the short term aim of winning matches was deemed less important to clubs in that situation to the longer term objective of developing your team for the future. Andrew Demetriou came out publicly approving Melbourne's tactics in the Jordan McMahon game. And as long as clubs kept their policies private and in house there was no damage to the reputation of the game.

By 2007 it was patently and plainly obvious to all and sundry what Carlton was trying to achieve and the AFL turned a blind eye. Moreover, you can bet in it that if there were any incriminating documents or emails around at Blues HQ they would now have been well and truly disposed of and yet not a single person from the AFL has deigned to explain why they have not been looked at thoroughly as we have over the past six months. As mentioned elsewhere, several others also went through the motions of not playing to win between 1999 and 2009.

That this sort of discrimination is occurring in what is supposedly a billion dollar industry is nothing short of scandalous and bodes poorly for the AFL and the administrators responsible for allowing this to happen

They may have changed computers but they would still have had ISP's,,, who may still have copies of they're emails?

[Demon Head 292]

I agree. It very much matters that the other clubs with which we compete may have infringed AND the AFL has investigated only the MFC in depth. If my bush lawyer opinion is correct, then the MFC would be able to raise the issue in court of the unfair failure to investigate infringements by competing clubs - a box the AFL won't want opened. So the AFL can't afford to impose such tough penalties on the MFC that the MFC is tempted to go to court. On the other hand, because the MFC is dependent on the AFL in too many ways, we would also be reluctant to go to court. So the penalty would be some sort of compromise aimed at avoiding court. Hopefully this would be at a level which had no real impact on the club.

In any case, on the 'evidence' made public to date, we shouldn't be penalized at all.

What you're saying is very disturbing for the competition. It means that the stronger and better supported clubs are receiving favourable treatment because of their strategic importance to the AFL and therefore are immune to the action taken against Melbourne - i.e. a disruptive 6 month investigation of the club. WJ is right. This stinks of corruption.

[sue 9,143]

What you're saying is very disturbing for the competition. It means that the stronger and better supported clubs are receiving favourable treatment because of their strategic importance to the AFL and therefore are immune to the action taken against Melbourne - i.e. a disruptive 6 month investigation of the club. WJ is right. This stinks of corruption.

Too right. And if those clubs were penalized by the AFL, they could readily go to court fearing fewer consequences than the MFC would. To avoid this sort of thing in future we have to get stronger; which means winning games and getting more members. I doubt the AFL would ever change its spots.

[robbiefrom13 892]

I can see that something Connolly - or anyone else - allegedly said could be relevant to a charge of tanking, but if he/they said it privately (e.g. "in a vault!") or even texted it privately, does it in itself constitute any attack on the reputation of the AFL? If the reply is, yes, because of what it caused, you have returned it to a charge of tanking...

I am wondering whether the disrepute issue has any independent substance without the tanking charge. Surely going through someone's rubbish bin, or eavesdropping on their private conversations, isn't going to provide acceptable evidence of the victims of these invasions of privacy having brought anyone into disrepute? We're not living in some third-world dictatorship, subject to mind-police, where thinking is an offence... Though, as to those burgling their bins and computers, and then publishing edited versions of small scraps they found, we presumably could well think they were maliciously damaging all sorts of reputations.

So, what I am asking is, are we as at risk of going down for bringing the game into disrepute if tanking is not a charge the AFL is going to be able to stick - can the evidence about disrepute stand a challenge if the tanking charge in the end has been abandoned?