On 08/01/2013 at 23:25, belzebub59 said:

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.

the afl will be very busy this next year writing up all the new rules that coaches and administrators must adhere to for their coaching practices

i expect clubs will now have to submit reports after every game to the integrity commission explaining all the moves they made during a game

LOL

P.S. i wonder if the stats men will now keep a fumble count?

Fan , I will agree with you on a point. That it all starts from the desired result and worked backwards. What I'm starting to concern myself over is that quite possibly they ( the AFL ) aren't as clever as they would have themselves be and might get stuck. Too clever by half ?

The AFL want , if fact NEED this dead and buried, permanently. Dilligence must be perceived to have occurred. It is after all theatre so its about appearances.

  On 08/01/2013 at 23:32, belzebub59 said:

Fan , I will agree with you on a point. That it all starts from the desired result and worked backwards. What I'm starting to concern myself over is that quite possibly they ( the AFL ) aren't as clever as they would have themselves be and might get stuck. Too clever by half ?

The AFL want , if fact NEED this dead and buried, permanently. Dilligence must be perceived to have occurred. It is after all theatre so its about appearances.

B59, the way I see it unfolding is that the AFL will come out and say "that after months of thorough investigations, it has been established that the MFC did NOT tank. However, the actions of senior members of the MFC administration have acted, at various times throughout 2009, in a manner that is against everything the AFL stand for, and as a result, CC and CS will be charged with bringing the game in to disrepute, based on our findings that they did/said x, y & z, and we have sufficent sources to prove this".

That's how I see it playing out, without knowing one word of the 800-odd pages of reports presented to the MFC.

I hope I'm incorrect, and as my opinion is in the minority, I expect a public flogging. Be careful though, that could excite...!

  On 08/01/2013 at 23:06, Ben-Hur said:

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.

No one has to improve output........Don't respond....easy.....No need to put other posters down because they don't agree with the all knowing BH.....

  On 08/01/2013 at 23:39, Bossdog said:

No one has to improve output........Don't respond....easy.....No need to put other posters down because they don't agree with the all knowing BH.....

So it's OK to accuse me of "throwing in the towel", which was a stupid assertion, but I can't ask someone to improve their level of output before I respond ?

You live in a strange world, pal.

I really hope it goes to the supreme court because the AFL would be laughed out of there!

Apologies if this appears elsewhere

  On 08/01/2013 at 23:39, billy2803 said:

B59, the way I see it unfolding is that the AFL will come out and say "that after months of thorough investigations, it has been established that the MFC did NOT tank. However, the actions of senior members of the MFC administration have acted, at various times throughout 2009, in a manner that is against everything the AFL stand for, and as a result, CC and CS will be charged with bringing the game in to disrepute, based on our findings that they did/said x, y & z, and we have sufficent sources to prove this".

That's how I see it playing out, without knowing one word of the 800-odd pages of reports presented to the MFC.

I hope I'm incorrect, and as my opinion is in the minority, I expect a public flogging. Be careful though, that could excite...!

I find it interesting to read the comments of Thomas in another 'Aged' article

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/call-for-tanking-amnesty-20130108-2ces3.html

He seems almost singular and alone in print at uttering the common sense response to all of this. That we know the AFL is often incapable of much sense then we can only cross our collected digits and hope that the outcome is exactly as you suggest Billy.

I'm a little worried that in their efforts to take a sledgehammer to a walnut that they might miss !!

  On 08/01/2013 at 23:22, daisycutter said:

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

I found this blog article to be a bit enlightening.

The author is a Melbourne supporter & it is certainly only from that perspective.

But it was written at the time of the game.

It does note 3 injured players & highlights the low rotations.

It also highlights some of the unusual moves & gives ( I think) plausible reasons & results for them.

http://www.contestedfooty.com/2009/08/melbourne-vs-richmond-round-18-match/

  daisycutter said:

freudian slip rhino?

No smartphone.

  belzebub59 said:

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.

I would have thought that attitude would be a little late in the piece considering what has gone before him. I would have thought any sense of duty would have been considered when he was a Melbourne employee.

Its clear that the interests of Bailey and MFC are joined in this matter but there may well be charges that are levied on Bailey individually. I note that Bailey has his own legal counsel working on this issue. If so he should pay for that.

MFC should only be responsible for its legal fees. Heavens knows having the Fink and a legal firm pouring over 800-1000 pages would be running the meter pretty hard.

  belzebub59 said:

You want to take the scumbag approach, well.

I'll leave that to you as you are more than qualified in that area. And you can take WYL for some extra firepower too.

That you consider Bailey to be outside our interests currently Rhino says it all really.

  On 08/01/2013 at 23:43, Philthy said:

I really hope it goes to the supreme court because the AFL would be laughed out of there!

I really hope it doesnt - I would like to see victory without humliation of the AFL. Whilst every fibre of me screams out to sue the bastards for muddying our name etc etc I think it would be more prudent to be humble victors as we should remember that this is the hand that feeds us and I would not like to see passive aggressiveness towards us from our lords and masters

(do not read this as backing away from fighting if charges are laid - I say go to the privvy council if necessary)

  On 08/01/2013 at 23:49, GM11 said:

I found this blog article to be a bit enlightening.

The author is a Melbourne supporter & it is certainly only from that perspective.

But it was written at the time of the game.

It does note 3 injured players & highlights the low rotations.

It also highlights some of the unusual moves & gives ( I think) plausible reasons & results for them.

http://www.contestedfooty.com/2009/08/melbourne-vs-richmond-round-18-match/

thanks for the link gm....good stuff

  On 08/01/2013 at 23:48, belzebub59 said:

Apologies if this appears elsewhere

I find it interesting to read the comments of Thomas in another 'Aged' article

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/call-for-tanking-amnesty-20130108-2ces3.html

He seems almost singular and alone in print at uttering the common sense response to all of this. That we know the AFL is often incapable of much sense then we can only cross our collected digits and hope that the outcome is exactly as you suggest Billy.

I'm a little worried that in their efforts to take a sledgehammer to a walnut that they might miss !!

I can't see it going any other way B59! The AFL don't want to find tanking exists/existed, so if they can say that, after extensive investigations, the MFC didn't tank, it will shut the tanking deabte for good, because let's face it, while other clubs have done it too, if the AFL "couldn't find" any evidence on us, the biggest and dumbest culprits, then why would they waste time looking at other clubs?

The CC alledged remarks are the ones that I can't see anything other than him losing his job, in my opinion. Even if we took it to court saying they were tounge-in-cheek remarks, I think the judge and jury will laugh us at of the courtroom, not the AFL. If an (ex)employee took the comments CC alledgedly made seriously, the courts will be all over that. The reports that mulitple witnesses have made the same accusation will only give them (the jury) more confidence in finding him guilty. Think about a sexual harrassment case, a boss said to his female employee, "you've got great boobs", she takes it personally, even though he was "only joking". These kind of comments generally don't work in the favour of the person saying them, our legal system favours those that are told, not the tellers!

There's intent and there's execution. I hope they get the theatrics right Billy

i get the feeling that if we are eventually cleared of any charges we will have been punished anyway

the cost of time, focus, bad publicity and legal fees will be substantial

the afl are also increasingly looking bad

db is likely to have a big hole in his pocket

looks like losers all round - thanks Angry, Kero et al

  On 08/01/2013 at 23:27, Fan said:

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.

Totally agree.

An experienced and sophisticated administrator (and the AFL has those) does not conduct an investigation such as this without first knowing the result.

The leaks are absolutely strategic and designed to give the micro-message that everything is being looked at (800 pages!!!!!!) and the macro-message that the AFL has integrity.

The fact is, the AFL has an integrity problem to fix. They tried the "head in the sand", they tried changing the system at times, but the issue would not go away. The next best option was an investigation.

Further, if what we read in the papers about the substance of the allegations in the report are true, it appears that the case is largely circumstantial. I have been involved in many investigations, and I suggest that the length of time taken and the number of people interviewed and re-interveiwed very much supports a circumstantial case. I have read the relevant rules, and I believe that they are shockingly drafted and ambiguous. That makes them hard to enforce. I further think that the rules have to be interpreted in such a way as to only allow a charge to stick if there is direct evidence, and I can't see how they would have enough direct evidence. If they do, then we are idiots and we deserve what we get.

My reading of how this will pan out is that there is too much at stake for tanking claims to be made out. The AFL is complicit, the persons involved would have no choice but to go to court, and the odds that one of Bailey, Connolly, Schwab or the MFC would challenge the process in the Supreme Court are too high for the AFL to gamble with. There is too big a chance that the AFL would lose in Court, and the consequences of that would be potentially catastrophic for the AFL from an interity, publicity and legal viewpoint.

Therefore, this is the AFL press conference:

"The AFL takes the integrity of the game extremely seriously and considers integrity of our sport to be the most important asset we have. As a result of various comments made by players and coaches, as you are aware, the AFL commenced an investigation into allegations that the Melbourne Football Club breached the AFL's integrity rules. We have thoroughly and painstakingly investigated this issue, and we make no apology for the amount of time that this investigation has taken, because it is fundamental that we get this right. The AFL, through its independent intergity officers Haddad and Clothier, who I congratulate for doing an outstanding job, presented the Melbourne Football Club conducted over X interviews with current and former players, coaches and administrators. As a result of this thorough and robust process, the AFL presented the Melbourne Football Club with a report that was over 1,000 pages long. The report contained circumstances arising from the investigation relating to the 2009 Toyota AFL Premiership season in particular. The Melbourne Football Club formally responded to the matters contained in the report. The AFL has taken the report, together with the response of the Melbourne Football Club, to our Commission for consideration. Following this comprehensive investigation, the AFL has found that the Melbourne Football Club did not breach the AFL integrity rules. I will say that the AFL was concerned that some of the conduct of Officers of the Melbourne Football Club skated very close to the edge, and the Melbourne Football Club should very seriously consider the type of culture it wishes to create in order to be successful on-field. The AFL further notes that we have made substantial changes to the draft system between 2009 and today, including most importantly to compensation picks to ensure that incentives align with the integrity of the same. I would like to again congratulate all parties, in particular Haddad and Clothier, for this exhaustive investigation. The integrity of the AFL draft and system is the single most important priority, and the AFL remains absolutely steadfast to ensure the continued protection of the integrity of the game."

There.... how did I go?!

  On 08/01/2013 at 22:20, belzebub59 said:

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 !!

Classic post mate, almost spat my coffee at my monitor!

Grant Thomas is growing on me!

  belzebub59 said:

That you consider Bailey to be outside our interests currently Rhino says it all really.

LOL. I said this.....

  Rhino Richards said:

Its clear that the interests of Bailey and MFC are joined in this matter but there may well be charges that are levied on Bailey individually. I note that Bailey has his own legal counsel working on this issue. If so he should pay for that.

Despite all the pretence you try Bub, you really do coming up embarrassing short in the basic comprehension stakes.

  On 09/01/2013 at 00:08, Choko said:

...

Choko - people have come forward and said that CC made remarks about people losing their job if we win more games than we are aiming to. I think the Club has responded somewhere (I think I remember reading it, could be wrong) that they were tounge-in-cheek comments from CC. Do you really think the AFL commission will accept that as part of our response?

Everything else though I think you're close. Not sure how CS will go in this, but I think enough people have come forward with a similar chain of events to see CC cop a big hit here.

  On 09/01/2013 at 00:23, billy2803 said:

Choko - people have come forward and said that CC made remarks about people losing their job if we win more games than we are aiming to. I think the Club has responded somewhere (I think I remember reading it, could be wrong) that they were tounge-in-cheek comments from CC. Do you really think the AFL commission will accept that as part of our response?

Everything else though I think you're close. Not sure how CS will go in this, but I think enough people have come forward with a similar chain of events to see CC cop a big hit here.

Yeh, and if he said those sorts of things, even though he is a joker and may well have been tongue in cheek, he honestly should be sacked well before the AFL have to move him on because it's amateur hour. But I think the "skating close to the edge" is what I was getting at there. It's all interpretation, but I don't reckon the AFL will want to lynch him for two reasons. Firstly, he is well connected and liked. Secondly, if they do, what choice does he have but to fight it... and then where does that all end....

  On 09/01/2013 at 00:08, daisycutter said:

i get the feeling that if we are eventually cleared of any charges we will have been punished anyway

the cost of time, focus, bad publicity and legal fees will be substantial

the afl are also increasingly looking bad

db is likely to have a big hole in his pocket

looks like losers all round - thanks Angry, Kero et al

As in many disputes, the only winners may turn out to be the lawyers.

  On 09/01/2013 at 00:21, Rhino Richards said:

LOL. I said this..... Despite all the pretence you try Bub, you really do coming up embarrassing short in the basic comprehension stakes.

I comprehend quite fine Rhino. You want one without the other, you want all the care without any responsibility. It just doesn't work like that.

Ony a fool would have him hung out to dry. We are stronger in defence acting in collusion than we are to attempt so as strangers.

i dont advocate wholly paying for him but some aid is certainly warranted if not morally then certainly as being astute.

Glad we have differing opinions.

  On 08/01/2013 at 21:59, s-t-i-n-g-a said:

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

Dont worry they will replay that highlight at the hearing, as for fumbling FMD if that rule was around when i played i wouldv been investigated every week.

  On 08/01/2013 at 22:59, belzebub59 said:

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.

Were not the Red Cross, DB pays his own legal fees.

  On 08/01/2013 at 21:00, Scoop Junior said:

'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.

PJ always tried to play like the world's tallest wingman.

I recall him running down "speedster" Justin Sherman in a game against the Lions.