Well you'll note the charges reported ...

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dees-charges-revealed-20130107-2ccw7.html#ixzz2HQGcX2wP

Only Bailey is alleged to be charged under that rule.

Good point.

But it also makes for an interesting defence in that if Bailey states that he wasn't leaned on by Schwab, or Connolly then it becomes mighty hard to prove. And Bailey denies the allegations.

I like this quote: "Lawyers for Melbourne argue there is no clear definition of tanking, and believe the club would win any court case if the league confirms charges against former coach Dean Bailey, now an assistant coach at Adelaide, former football manager Chris Connolly and chief executive Cameron Schwab."

Edited January 8, 201312 yr by Ben-Hur

Well, we weren't exactly killing off the competition with 100 rotations, so why not experiment with 40 to see if that made a difference?

If you believe that our rotations being down wasn't an attempt to reduce our chances of winning then I suspect you're deluding yourself.

If you're merely "playing" Barrister and trying to offer up a plausible defence then I understand.

Well, getting back to the Neil Craig press conference, MelbourneFC are tweeting live from 9:30.

Dammit, if we can't defend these latest allegations, then we deserve to go down!

They're as incisive as something you'd read on bigfooty.

'Lumbering' ruckman Paul Johnson hey Pierek? Obviously he never saw him play, lumbering being a word you could not possibly associate with him. A more mobile, athletic and flexible tall I have hardly seen. A flanker trapped in a big man's body.

The same "lumbering" Paul Johnson that ran down Justin Sherman?

Dont know if this has been put up yet but just incase

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/the-3-minutes-that-mattered-20130108-2cev1.html

Well to be honest Im still trying to process all of this. its a bit like a kid who's had 6 months to do his Science project and turns up with a cornflake packet and some toilet rolls barely held together with some tape and trying to pass it off as Robbie the robot !!

Are they serious

Has Finks stopped laughing yet ?

The Hun article talks of a 1000 page dossier (c.f. 800). This will be a big case indeeed particularly if it expands to include all the other Clubs which have manipulated their final ladder position since 1999.

1000 pages? Almost as long as this thread! LOL

If you believe that our rotations being down wasn't an attempt to reduce our chances of winning then I suspect you're deluding yourself.

If you're merely "playing" Barrister and trying to offer up a plausible defence then I understand.

BH, how about playing defense lawyer yourself rather than throwing in the towel.

What about the lack of players on the bench.

If you only have 1 player on the bench for the entire game, you'd expect your rotations to be down by a factor of 4 to say 25 for the game and so on. Of course 3 didn't get injured in the first minute of the game, so the reasonable (not-experimenting or tanking) number of rotations to have had will be a time weighted average of the number available on the bench through the game.

I personally have no idea of the numbers. It would be interesting to see the calculation done.

Well to be honest Im still trying to process all of this. its a bit like a kid who's had 6 months to do his Science project and turns up with a cornflake packet and some toilet rolls barely held together with some tape and trying to pass it off as Robbie the robot !!

Are they serious

Has Finks stopped laughing yet ?

that's what i cannot work out.

Are they serious?

The AFL must have more if this is to proceed.

Are they serious?

I wonder if the MFC will help Dean with his costs. We need him on side all through this.

I should think out of decency we should help Dean in some manner, to some extent.

I should think out of decency we should help Dean in some manner, to some extent.

I agree BB59, not only out of decency, but surely it strengthens any case that the club AND Bailey has in defending themselves.

Whilst I understand the reasoning behind it, Bailey having his own council concerns me slightly if things turned for the worse, then their focus could change from defending the charges laid to laying the blame at the MFC's feet and saying he was forced into things.

Don't think it will come to that, but still...

I am comforted by the fact that MFC have fumbled the ball for decades and this match would not have been different.

I should think out of decency we should help Dean in some manner, to some extent.

We should wish him ....by phone like we dud when we terminated his services. We can't afford our expensive legal fees let alone anyone elses.'

The same "lumbering" Paul Johnson that ran down Justin Sherman?

He was sure no ruckman!

BH, how about playing defense lawyer yourself rather than throwing in the towel.

What about the lack of players on the bench.

If you only have 1 player on the bench for the entire game, you'd expect your rotations to be down by a factor of 4 to say 25 for the game and so on. Of course 3 didn't get injured in the first minute of the game, so the reasonable (not-experimenting or tanking) number of rotations to have had will be a time weighted average of the number available on the bench through the game.

I personally have no idea of the numbers. It would be interesting to see the calculation done.

It'd be interesting to know what Richmond's rotations were like during the course of the game.

Anyone know? (I've not read any of the commentary yet.)

We should wish him ....by phone like we dud when we terminated his services. We can't afford our expensive legal fees let alone anyone elses.'

freudian slip rhino?

I am comforted by the fact that MFC have fumbled the ball for decades and this match would not have been different.

We should wish him ....by phone like we dud when we terminated his services. We can't afford our expensive legal fees let alone anyone elses.'

He was sure no ruckman!

Actually, what we cant afford is to have a disparate or splintered front in this matter. He was after all a Melbourne employee at teh time. I would have thought we had some sense of duty , if only minor.

You want to take the scumbag approach, well.

BH, how about playing defense lawyer yourself rather than throwing in the towel.

What about the lack of players on the bench.

If you only have 1 player on the bench for the entire game, you'd expect your rotations to be down by a factor of 4 to say 25 for the game and so on. Of course 3 didn't get injured in the first minute of the game, so the reasonable (not-experimenting or tanking) number of rotations to have had will be a time weighted average of the number available on the bench through the game.

I personally have no idea of the numbers. It would be interesting to see the calculation done.

What ? Throwing in the towel ? I wanted the club to tank at the time and that's what they did. I recognise that and so do most. I'm not delusional and it has nothing to do with throwing in the towel.

I've previously stated that I want the club to go to court to defend the matter if need be, as it's terribly difficult to prove. So don't talk to me about throwing in the towel. But I also don't kid myself about what went on.

You'll need to improve your output for me to respond further.

BH, how about playing defense lawyer yourself rather than throwing in the towel.

What about the lack of players on the bench.

If you only have 1 player on the bench for the entire game, you'd expect your rotations to be down by a factor of 4 to say 25 for the game and so on. Of course 3 didn't get injured in the first minute of the game, so the reasonable (not-experimenting or tanking) number of rotations to have had will be a time weighted average of the number available on the bench through the game.

I personally have no idea of the numbers. It would be interesting to see the calculation done.

Sue (and others) - I keep reading about how we only had one player, etc, which would automatically ensure our rotations are down, however, can I ask if you, or anyone else on here for that matter, has seen the club's medical report from that game?

I am of the view that clubs need to submit medical reports at the conclusion of each game. I would imagine these records would need to be kept on file, and would take an educated guess that these reports, from this particular game, would be among the 800-1000 pages presented to the MFC.

If it's true that we had 3 "genuine" injuries that day, then we should have sufficient evidence to close the case on this game. I don't see how any of us can be so sure that we do though, given that we have no idea what the AFL has presented us, and prior to that, what we presented to the AFL.

If you believe that our rotations being down wasn't an attempt to reduce our chances of winning then I suspect you're deluding yourself.

If you're merely "playing" Barrister and trying to offer up a plausible defence then I understand.

There were numerous injuries compounding the whole issue, as others have pointed out. And as far as I am aware there is no rule stating how many rotations are required in a match, so no rule to breach.

IMO excessive rotations sometimes confuse players and may even tire some more - is it not worthwhile to see what is the result of reversing this trend?

Dammit, if we can't defend these latest allegations, then we deserve to go down!

They're as incisive as something you'd read on bigfooty.

Does one have to defend an allegation, or only defend a charge?

There were numerous injuries compounding the whole issue, as others have pointed out. And as far as I am aware there is no rule stating how many rotations are required in a match, so no rule to breach.

IMO excessive rotations sometimes confuse players and may even tire some more - is it not worthwhile to see what is the result of reversing this trend?

OK. Delusional it is.

Or not that smart.

Sue (and others) - I keep reading about how we only had one player, etc, which would automatically ensure our rotations are down, however, can I ask if you, or anyone else on here for that matter, has seen the club's medical report from that game?

I am of the view that clubs need to submit medical reports at the conclusion of each game. I would imagine these records would need to be kept on file, and would take an educated guess that these reports, from this particular game, would be among the 800-1000 pages presented to the MFC.

If it's true that we had 3 "genuine" injuries that day, then we should have sufficient evidence to close the case on this game. I don't see how any of us can be so sure that we do though, given that we have no idea what the AFL has presented us, and prior to that, what we presented to the AFL.

billy there are injuries and there are injuries

there are also injuries they don't want to advertise

how often do we find out only after the season that player x played all year with an injury

how often do we hear of injured players 'managed' during the season

bottom line is injury reports do not always tell the full story

of course if these ones do happen to back up the rotations then well and good

Much of this seems to rest upon who actually has the final call as to whether a player takes to the ground for any reason. Are the AFL seriously trying to usurp the right of the individual club to its ability to play its game as IT sees fit ? is their some golden formula that every team must adopt at ALL times. What rubbish.

How often do we see players rested after 3/4 time if a coach warrants what they could do 'next' as not as valuable as what they will need to do in the upcoming game . I could spell out the underlying logic but am sure most will get the gist.

I have just read The Age link - "deliberately fumbling"!!

What a scurrilous accusation against each and every player involved. Will every player who may have fumbled in that game be also water boarded into an admission of guilt?

Will we now have to keep a quarter by quarter "fumble count"? The Carltank fumble count in the Kruzer Cup game would be very interesting to see.

I've said all along that the AFL will reverse engineer this and that it is in everyone's best interest for this to just go away. We've been investigated for months now so nobody could say the AFL has ignored the issue. But the "evidence" or "accusations" are so weak as to be meaningless. I think that just about everyone knows the AFL couldn't prove tanking on a rotations basis, positional move basis, selection policy basis or, for heavens sakes, fumbles. How many similar circumstances could MFC come up with to show they were "normal".

My view is this is the first step in showing the footy world that the MFC didn't tank. It's carefully planned and will probably coincide with a "no case to answer" finding on the Friday before the Aussi Tennis Open finals.

But I do have one major concern. In one article I read it said that the AFL was closed until Monday so you'd think that this leak comes from our side in which case it would be selectively positive towards our cause. These articles make no mention of the "vault" meeting or the alleged meeting between Schwab and Bailey and seem to good to be true. If it walk and talks like a duck....

billy there are injuries and there are injuries

there are also injuries they don't want to advertise

how often do we find out only after the season that player x played all year with an injury

how often do we hear of injured players 'managed' during the season

bottom line is injury reports do not always tell the full story

of course if these ones do happen to back up the rotations then well and good

Totally agree DC. Soft tissue injuries are the best ones to report as there are a number that can go undetected in medical tests - just ask any Work Cover doctor!

I wouldn't think the medical records provided to the AFL are made public, and I wouldn't think we would risk doing the wrong thing when submitting them. We have seen ex-players try and get compo from clubs for ongoing issues with concussion, etc. The clubs would need to be 100% confident that what they are submitting won't bite them in the future.

As I said, if the reason for our rotations being down is due to injury, we should have sufficient evidence to close the case on this example. The fact that the AFL would have access to our medical records, and for the matter, are still pressing our buttons regarding it, is going to make it a bit harder in court for us to stand up and say "yeah, that player only played 30 mins because he had hamstring tightness".

I'm all for taking it to court, but I'm just concerned that the so called "evidence" that the AFL has, will mean that any charges laid will be based on that, therefore will make it bloody hard for us to fight and win the charges.

The fact that the potential charges appear to be "game in to disrepute", they (the AFL) can mould this charge to whatever they see fit (which will be based on evidence they have), therefore, it will take a good legal team from our side to win. But, as always, I have faith in the club and will support them til their end or mine.