On 09/01/2013 at 00:49, José Mourinho said:

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.

It was that very style of play that won him the Liston Trophy when at Sandringham.

The idea of their case being based on the players fumbling is absolutely laughable.

And it also points to the AFL not having any evidence of a direct instruction to the players to not try, and to fumble.

Because if they did have that, they wouldn't base it on any specific act that may be construed as tanking - they'd base their evidence of the explicit instruction itself.

It is laughable and embarrassing for the AFL, and I think they know it, but have little choice after Adrian Anderson painted them into a corner.

The AFL, to my eyes, have decided to cop their whack in the form of public ridicule over an embarrassingly weak case against MFC, will duly have it easily refuted by the Fink et al, and then we all get on with life.

Nothing to see here, and there never will be.

For everyone's sake.

  On 09/01/2013 at 00:54, stingrays said:

It was that very style of play that won him the Liston Trophy when at Sandringham.

Another one of those players good enough to dominate VFL footy, but incapable of making an impression at AFL level, while still showing just enough to give supporters and the club false hope.

  belzebub59 said:

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.

You still dont comprehend. Once again do I have to repeat what I said or are you that slow in the take up. No one is aborgating there responsibility. No one is hanging him out to dry. Its recognition of the true situation. We should do everything to protect the position of MFC in the process. We will incur fees in respect of Bailey as an officer of the MFC. If Bailey chooses to appoint in addition his own counsel, he should pay for that counsel. I have already acknowledged that MFCs and Baileys interests are prima facie the same. Why do you persist trying to imply otherwise?

  belzebub59 said:

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

Forget it. There is no moral issue here. We should do all we can such that MFC and its officers are protected. Where appropriate that will include Bailey. But you can skip the buy off charity for his counsel which he chose to appoint himself.

Bailey is smart enough to realise that its no good for him to bury MFC on this matter as it is no good for MFC to do likewise to him at this time. Even if some posters cant understand it.

  On 09/01/2013 at 00:39, mjt said:

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

At our own peril...We left Dean to fight his own battle at his last press conference if you remember.

  On 09/01/2013 at 01:10, why you little said:

At our own peril...We left Dean to fight his own battle at his last press conference if you remember.

Deans made his statement, it hasnt incriminated the club, he feels he has nothing to hide, hes not employed BY us anymore, thats why hes hired his own lawyer.

  On 08/01/2013 at 21:53, Ben-Hur said:

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."

Also interesting, since they are not representing him.

I also think its dangerous for us, because if Bailey gives evidence that he was leaned on by CS &/or CC, it will dramatically impact their defenses.

Fortunately DB has obviously already testified to the exact opposite, and to change his tune now would adversely impact on his credibility in any new witness statements.

I imagine there has been some collusion between the 2 legal parties in some way.

Not being involved in the legal profession, I'm sure this sort of thing is probably against a code of ethics, but I'm sure it also happens in practice on the odd occasion.

  On 09/01/2013 at 01:12, mjt said:

Deans made his statement, it hasnt incriminated the club, he feels he has nothing to hide, hes not employed BY us anymore, thats why hes hired his own lawyer.

Dean's statement at his last press conference is the catalyst for this whole affair, so even though i consider it diplomatic it certainly has incriminated the club to a degree..How much we will know soon.

  On 09/01/2013 at 01:02, José Mourinho said:

The idea of their case being based on the players fumbling is absolutely laughable.

And it also points to the AFL not having any evidence of a direct instruction to the players to not try, and to fumble.

Because if they did have that, they wouldn't base it on any specific act that may be construed as tanking - they'd base their evidence of the explicit instruction itself.

It is laughable and embarrassing for the AFL, and I think they know it, but have little choice after Adrian Anderson painted them into a corner.

The AFL, to my eyes, have decided to cop their whack in the form of public ridicule over an embarrassingly weak case against MFC, will duly have it easily refuted by the Fink et al, and then we all get on with life.

Nothing to see here, and there never will be.

For everyone's sake.

Agree wholeheartedly.

The AFL has nothing.

  On 09/01/2013 at 01:15, McQueen said:

Not sure if this has been posted before and maybe one of the legal types can answer this for me, but why has Dean Bailey engaged his own lawyer (Chris Pollard) to act in his defence, and the MFC have Finklestein in their corner. They were all in it together and even though Dean is across town now would it not be fair to assume the one Lawyer would be a better option?

Would the two be working together and sharing detail?

"Too many cooks..."

Not at all. Being separate parties, it's proper to have separate representation. It's more efficient and allows the defences to be run in the best way for each party. I want the lawyers for the MFC to do the best job by the MFC.

Perhaps the AFL should investigate the missed opportunities in front of goal during the 1987 Preliminary Final too....or our massive fall from grace in 2007 which remains the start of this horrible period. And that awful year back in 2003 under ND which netted two early picks. It could go on and on..

The AFL Rules committee (KB) have been looking at ways for 5-6 years at ways to reduce the amount of rotations. Our club under Bailey scientifically looks at ways to determine recovery methods to be on the cutting edge of research in a developing year in '09 and has 45-odd rotations over a period of two weeks....yet it raises eyebrows at the AFL in this inquisition into our performances in '09. (t-i-cheek)

It didn't work out, so we went back to more rotations for the next 4 years and what do you know, that hasn't seemed to work either.....anyone know how many rotations we had during 186? I'm tipping it was around the average despite Moloney sitting out the second half...and that didn't work. Maybe we should have had 40? We may have been in front at the final siren like against Richmond...

I've said all along it's an absolute joke this whole inquisition. And it comes at a huge cost for the club- not just legal fees, it's tainted our club for life, which is most unfortunate.

FGS, bring on the footy.

  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.

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....

thats been obvious most of the way along, as there is no happy ending in this for the AFL.

But to say we all should drop this pressure we hold aloft, is to say we should all just trust in the AFL to not behead anyone as a ritual sacrifice to the footy gods whop must be as mad as Hell.

NO, we are learning we have some power thru the social media, & using keeps the bastards more honest, & hopefully less Wool to Pull.

  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.

You'll have to improve your output too because you as usual miss my point.

I wasn't referring to whether your supported tanking. Nor was I saying you don't want the club to go to court if need be.

My reference to throwing in the towel was referring to your recent post where you knocked on the head any defense of the rotations rather than think of some points in our defense.

Now you may think there are none. Fair enough. Being so sure I am an idiot, you misinterpret what I wrote so you can get on your high horse. Please dismount.

  On 09/01/2013 at 01:17, why you little said:

Dean's statement at his last press conference is the catalyst for this whole affair, so even though i consider it diplomatic it certainly has incriminated the club to a degree..How much we will know soon.

I might be wrong, but I think MJT isn't referring to the press conference where it was announced Dean was not going to Coach the MFC anymore.

Dean ... or his lawyer made comments about him being innocent of all charges etc just recently didn't he/they?

  On 09/01/2013 at 00:08, Choko said:

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?!

simple, the AFL has to resist making the Strong clubs stronger.

When the struggling clubs further struggle.

Equity is all things being equal. fixtures, timeslots, friday night games, gate distribution, home state games, etc.

  On 09/01/2013 at 01:02, José Mourinho said:

The idea of their case being based on the players fumbling is absolutely laughable.

And it also points to the AFL not having any evidence of a direct instruction to the players to not try, and to fumble.

Because if they did have that, they wouldn't base it on any specific act that may be construed as tanking - they'd base their evidence of the explicit instruction itself.

It is laughable and embarrassing for the AFL, and I think they know it, but have little choice after Adrian Anderson painted them into a corner.

The AFL, to my eyes, have decided to cop their whack in the form of public ridicule over an embarrassingly weak case against MFC, will duly have it easily refuted by the Fink et al, and then we all get on with life.

Nothing to see here, and there never will be.

For everyone's sake.

Jose, I'm not saying you are wrong, as I really have no idea, but how can you be so sure? It has to be wishful thinking to some degree as you have no idea what evidence the AFL may or may not have, you are basing it on what the media is feeding us.

I for one am glad that the media continually report stuff that they have been reporting since it all started. The last thing this Club would need is for the AFL to start releasing transcripts of conversations they had with officials from the club, especially if some of those are still at the club, and in fact, were part of the whistle-blowing brigade.

While we have been fed a story from the media, and based on what they are telling us, it appears that the evidence the AFL has got is very thin, I'm still not going to get too excited until this is finished. I just can't see the AFL going through all this and the MFC, whether as a club or individuals, will come out of this with no charges that will stick.

  On 09/01/2013 at 01:29, dee-luded said:

simple, the AFL has to resist making the Strong clubs stronger.

When the struggling clubs further struggle.

Equity is all things being equal. fixtures, timeslots, friday night games, gate distribution, home state games, etc.

Will never happen DL,not while there is lots of money to be made from blockbuster games....Sometimes you have to earn the right....We get money from the AFL because we are not strong enough yet to demand Fri night games ect.....

  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

This is right on the mark.

To say we will eventually be cleared is beside the point- the direct and indirect costs of this ill-conceived fiasco have already been substantial.Put 4-5 senior lawyers in room for a day - and you won't get much change out $10K. But that's only the tip of the iceberg.Let's summarise to date

1. Direct legal costs of $200k plus

2. Opportunity cost of distraction to Community Relations Manager. How much goodwill ( and potential monies)will CC have been able to generate in the last 5 months?

3. Opportunity cost of distraction to CEO . How much has this distraction affected Casey negotiations, the development of strategic alliances etc?

4. Loss of Members Fees including interest for delays while concern over draft picks etc

5. Potential loss of sponsorship through doubts on club integrity etc

The AFL has adversely affected our ability to compete in the ruthless financial and PR market that it has created.

If it finds us not guilty then it is morally obliged to compensate us.

The club is not in a position to say this - but someone with clout has to if any justice is to be served.

  On 09/01/2013 at 01:27, Oucher said:

I might be wrong, but I think MJT isn't referring to the press conference where it was announced Dean was not going to Coach the MFC anymore.

Dean ... or his lawyer made comments about him being innocent of all charges etc just recently didn't he/they?

That would be correct.

  why you little said:

At our own peril...We left Dean to fight his own battle at his last press conference if you remember.

I seem to recall you were in full support the way MFC handled the sacking at the time. I trust time has made you a tad wiser.

  why you little said:

Dean's statement at his last press conference is the catalyst for this whole affair, .....

I dont recall Dean being with Brock McLean during the OTC segment but you think up some conspiracy.

  dee-luded said:

But to say we all should drop this pressure we hold aloft, is to say we should all just trust in the AFL to not behead anyone as a ritual sacrifice to the footy gods whop must be as mad as Hell.

He isnt saying that at all dee-luded

  dee-luded said:

NO, we are learning we have some power thru the social media, & using keeps the bastards more honest, & hopefully less Wool to Pull.

???? If you mean the mindless bleating that has done on DLand you could not be more wrong. If not what other social media campaign are you referring to?

  On 09/01/2013 at 01:32, Bossdog said:

Will never happen DL,not while there is lots of money to be made from blockbuster games....Sometimes you have to earn the right....We get money from the AFL because we are not strong enough yet to demand Fri night games ect.....

I understand that, but that is also what is the original causation of the problem of the afl clubs struggles.

  hoopla said:

This is right on the mark.

To say we will eventually be cleared is beside the point- the direct and indirect costs of this ill-conceived fiasco have already been substantial.Put 4-5 senior lawyers in room for a day - and you won't get much change out $10K. But that's only the tip of the iceberg.

4-5 lawyers in a room for a day and you wont have much change out of $30k. You are right about the iceberg.

  hoopla said:

The AFL has adversely affected our ability to compete in the ruthless financial and PR market that it has created.

If it finds us not guilty then it is morally obliged to compensate us.

The club is not in a position to say this - but someone with clout has to if any justice is to be served.

I agree the Club is not in the position to say this because the AFL would counter that it was your teams actions and public statement made by officers of your club that brought about this investigation that the AFL had to engineer a satisfactory outcome. MFC dont realise how much time effort and money that have put on the AFL having to managed this investigation and the adverse media on the game.

The AFL already subsidise our operations heavily why do we needs a free handout for the cost of an investigation we caused.

If anything that does come out of this whole investigation, guilty or not guilty will be that MFC's relationship with the AFL would be adversely damaged. The cost and impact on future arrangements with the AFL will be interesting to follow.

  On 09/01/2013 at 01:50, Rhino Richards said:

I seem to recall you were in full support the way MFC handled the sacking at the time. I trust time has made you a tad wiser.

Don't change history Rhino...

I was content enough that Jimmy spoke to Dean via a telephone rather than face to face because of a certain illness.

i was never comfortable with Dean sitting by himself with no sponsor logo's representing the club for the final time....That was inviting trouble..Dean to his credit could have gone much harder but did not.

  On 09/01/2013 at 02:02, why you little said:

Don't change history Rhino...

I was content enough that Jimmy spoke to Dean via a telephone rather than face to face because of a certain illness.

i was never comfortable with Dean sitting by himself with no sponsor logo's representing the club for the final time....That was inviting trouble..Dean to his credit could have gone much harder but did not.

Hey WYL, I'm normally on your side, but I think this point could be challenged.

The investigators will have statements from DB as to the events "that" year of 2009. Depending on what he told them, which you would imagine being the truth, he may or may not have been able to go much harder during that last press conference.

We are all guessing!

  On 09/01/2013 at 01:27, sue said:

You'll have to improve your output too because you as usual miss my point.

I wasn't referring to whether your supported tanking. Nor was I saying you don't want the club to go to court if need be.

My reference to throwing in the towel was referring to your recent post where you knocked on the head any defense of the rotations rather than think of some points in our defense.

Now you may think there are none. Fair enough. Being so sure I am an idiot, you misinterpret what I wrote so you can get on your high horse. Please dismount.

I've stated on numerous occasions over the years that I believed we tanked in that game and that the rotations were part of it.

Why would I change my tune now ? I believed it before any investigation was instigated and I believed it subsequent to the investigation. I don't change my view when the wind shifts; and I don't do it out of convenience. I call it as I see it. And I don't throw in the towel.

Now, I still may be misinterpreting you. Apologies in advance.

  On 09/01/2013 at 02:11, billy2803 said:

Hey WYL, I'm normally on your side, but I think this point could be challenged.

The investigators will have statements from DB as to the events "that" year of 2009. Depending on what he told them, which you would imagine being the truth, he may or may not have been able to go much harder during that last press conference.

We are all guessing!

I am talking about his press coference answer to that Mark Robinson Creature, that started this whole sordid affair off....DB could have said a lot more...The club had walked away..