for those of you who were wondering why the MFC website is not always up-to-date maybe it has something to do with the AFL not returning all the club's computers they confiscated ?

What - no Mitch ?

Still out injured gsmith.

Had a relapse in February when he tried to step up his training level.

After assessment by the medicos it was decided to rest him for the 2013 season.

However it made little difference with the Dees winning 6 of their first eleven games at the half way mark.

Still out injured gsmith.

Had a relapse in February when he tried to step up his training level.

After assessment by the medicos it was decided to rest him for the 2013 season.

However it made little difference with the Dees winning 6 of their first eleven games at the half way mark.

Seven out of eleven actually. They ended up beating Collingwood on QB with a goal after the siren kicked by Jimmy T.

Incidentally, the word after the game was that Collingwood weren't really trying to win the game at all.

Seven out of eleven actually. They ended up beating Collingwood on QB with a goal after the siren kicked by Jimmy T.

Incidentally, the word after the game was that Collingwood weren't really trying to win the game at all.

I also heard CW has a story that she is releasing on the Wednesday that pies tanked on the understanding that the Dees encourage Sylvia to move to them in 2014.

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.

Exactly, but this very action of favouring the strong clubs of that time, to underpin the rest of the competition, (from the early 70's) only undermines the weakest clubs, down at their inopportune time...

This has gone on for decades.... and the favoured teams flourished, & the weaker teams lost support by attrition & hope, & lack of growth, & finally became a perennial financial burden.

The accessing of prime TV slots, or grounds, or big match scheduling for the strong clubs, has undermined the whole competition.

AFL commission,,, Stop manipulating & start sharing the best of everything equally to all Clubs.

Stakeholders can bugger off.

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.

... spots, or stripes? same suit, different integral designer.

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?

I don't see how they can possibly sustain a charge of "bringing the game into disrepute". "Bottoming out" was normal behaviour consistent with the AFL's own incentives. Nothing remotely disreputable about moving players around - even if you are motivated by a desire to expose your weaknesses. The fans see an exciting game decided by a kick after the siren. Where is the "disrepute"?

The AFL's best chance of pinging us may for breaching Regulation 19 .For this purpose it is beside the point whether you win or lose. The key question may revolve around Connolly's job description.On the face of it , his reported comments in the "vault" fall outside Reg 19 - because he was not a coach. However if his role included "mentoring or guiding coaches" - or lending "coaching assistance from time to time" - the AFL may try to argue that Reg 19 applies..... enter our lawyers! As noted above, I'm not sure that the word "tanking" is relevant to any of the AFL's options

If the AFL's image has suffered through all this - then it has only been because of the ham-fisted way it has handled the situation.

I reckon its simple. Someone has spoken to Caro (my bet is one of the disgruntled ex-medical staff from the Richmond game where we had 3 'injured' players) and said 'this is what went on'. Caro has presented this to AA after the McLean 'revelation' and said 'what are you going to do about this' leaving the AFL with no option but to investigate it (as it would appear to be new 'evidence').

The AFL do not want this investigation but have to be seen to be doing something about it. Once our club responds I think the AFL will kill the whole thing. Nothing to see here. Some dodgy comments but no 'hard' evidence. No one will be able to say the AFL weren't thorough or serious.

How will sports journalism handle the blatant actions of the revered Australian cricket Board and its emphasis on "player management" as the side for the forthcoming Ashes series is developed. Will there be cries to crucify the selectors as the Aussies wallow in the rankings preparing for the ultimate challenge.

If ever there is a cogent corollary for "Tanking" it has to be "Player Management"

What a defence!

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?

I don't think the AFL can get us under any of the known offences so they'll have to make something up or pressure us into submission on spme pretence whilst, at the same time, buryingtheir heads in the sand about ten years of clubs trying hard not to win enough games to give up the priority pick.

As my daughter says, "the AFL sux"

.

As my daughter says, "the AFL sux"

Sums it up nicely.

Last day of a shiite year. Our annus horribilis. Let's hope nothing else happens and bring on 2013!!!!!!

Go Dees

Last day of a shiite year. Our annus horribilis. Let's hope nothing else happens and bring on 2013!!!!!!

Go Dees

Yes. Let's hope 2013 is more sunni and less shiite

Yes. Let's hope 2013 is more sunni and less shiite

Less of both would be good.....

Last day of a shiite year. Our annus horribilis.

Yet we may look back and consider it the greatest drafting year in our history - Hogan, Viney, Toumpas, Barry, Kent, Terlich.

We need it to be.

Edited December 31, 201212 yr by Ben-Hur

Yet we make look back and consider it the greatest drafting year in our history - Hogan, Viney, Toumpas, Barry, Kent, Terlich.

We need it to be.

With a stand in Recruiting Manager as well.

With a stand in Recruiting Manager as well.

we might well look back one day and consider him (TV) one of the greatest recruitments of our history B)

Edit: TV

we might well look back one day and consider him ( TD ) one of the greatest recruitments of our history B)

You mean TV.

You mean TV.

yes I do..lol

Yet we make look back and consider it the greatest drafting year in our history - Hogan, Viney, Toumpas, Barry, Kent, Terlich.

We need it to be.

You can add all the rest of the draftees inc rookies and trades and it does look ok on paper. I suppose the sheer volume of changes gives hope. Then again we have drafted who we thought were good players before and been disappointed. Hopefully this batch give us something and blend well with and add improvement to the current list.

You can add all the rest of the draftees inc rookies and trades and it does look ok on paper. I suppose the sheer volume of changes gives hope. Then again we have drafted who we thought were good players before and been disappointed. Hopefully this batch give us something and blend well with and add improvement to the current list.

I have my fingers and toes crossed.

It had better work this time because I fear there will not be another chance for the MFC.

Swim time guys

I don't see how they can possibly sustain a charge of "bringing the game into disrepute". "Bottoming out" was normal behaviour consistent with the AFL's own incentives. Nothing remotely disreputable about moving players around - even if you are motivated by a desire to expose your weaknesses. The fans see an exciting game decided by a kick after the siren. Where is the "disrepute"?

The AFL's best chance of pinging us may for breaching Regulation 19 .For this purpose it is beside the point whether you win or lose. The key question may revolve around Connolly's job description.On the face of it , his reported comments in the "vault" fall outside Reg 19 - because he was not a coach. However if his role included "mentoring or guiding coaches" - or lending "coaching assistance from time to time" - the AFL may try to argue that Reg 19 applies..... enter our lawyers! As noted above, I'm not sure that the word "tanking" is relevant to any of the AFL's options

If the AFL's image has suffered through all this - then it has only been because of the ham-fisted way it has handled the situation.

Totally agree.

If the Demons are guilty of bringing the game into 'disrepute', it wasn't the Richmond game. It would've been the game that took place in round 19, 30 July 2011, at Skilled Stadium.

Totally agree.

If the Demons are guilty of bringing the game into 'disrepute', it wasn't the Richmond game. It would've been the game that took place in round 19, 30 July 2011, at Skilled Stadium.

That is an interesting point you make. I agree, which game was more shameful, the one in which the players tried their guts out and a kick after the siren beat them or the one in which they lay down and let an opposition run riot. I know which i find more disreputable and a blight on the game.

Perhaps we should have a 5 month Inquisition into 186.

It beggars belief to think that the AFL wants to stick the boots into a club who clearly has not benefited from any alleged tanking of games.

What a waste of resources that could have been put to much better use.

It's little wonder Anderson has been moved on.

That is an interesting point you make. I agree, which game was more shameful, the one in which the players tried their guts out and a kick after the siren beat them or the one in which they lay down and let an opposition run riot. I know which i find more disreputable and a blight on the game.

Perhaps we should have a 5 month Inquisition into 186.

Maybe THIS is the catalyst of the AFL's Fear!

Maybe the players association is playing a big role behind the scenes since that fateful day, & the list management days...

We've had a lot of AFL fallout during 2012, since that day of players rebelling, the Baily sacking, etc. & now the current witchhunt.