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..

Could he have? It could be possible that what he said was all he could say.

But, I tend to share the same opinion as you! I have no doubt the club, or individuals within, did the wrong thing (as have clubs before us). I just hope we weren't THAT stupid and left a paper trail.

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..

that's just silly wyl

anything more db could have said would only in fact hurt himself - he was the coach remember and now he's fighting for his very future

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.

totally agree, If Bailey goes down we all go down

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.

I'm currently sitting on my old vinyl, "Teaser and the Firecat", so I am perfectly qualified to say I am 'on the record' as saying that 'as I've stated on many occasions'... etc...Fair dinkum i am totally sick of this grandstanding. why not go on an afl website and spout your line there because it's not needed here. The club is totally stretched at present yet has to keep up an on-message message and so for holiday relief we get to read this back-stabbing, keeping it real nonsense.

that's just silly wyl

anything more db could have said would only in fact hurt himself - he was the coach remember and now he's fighting for his very future

Why is it so silly? At that precise moment Dean probably thought his AFL career was looking fairly thin...That he was diplomatic i applaud.

But if Schwab & Mclardy had flanked him one of them could have fielded the question & i doubt this looming court case would be happening.

Yes you do not burn your bridges when leaving, But the MFC abandoned him at that point.

Not the way i would do my business.

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.

I see we are still talking at cross-purposes to some extent. I'm sorry I have not read your numerous posts over the years on this topic, and therefore did not realise it was futile to ask you to suggest non-tanking rationales for a low rate of rotations.

Once again, my reference to throwing in the towel was solely to your dismissive response to a rationale proffered on that particular issue. I was asking if you could suggest possible rationales for low rotations rate since people tell me you have a deep knowledge of football. I was not asking you to change your view. Nor to imply you were prone to throwing in the towel generally.

Getting back to the rationale I did proffer (which you did not address - yes, I know it is not compulsory for you to do so):

I think an analysis of rotation rates by many clubs in matches where there are injuries or notoriously ill-conditioned players (like Jurrah) might be interesting in the defence of our low rate in that match. It may turn out 40 is not outrageously low, Even if we did it in order to 'tank' as you believe, a low rate in itself may not then be evidence that we did. Then again, maybe 40 is off any scale.

Why is it so silly? At that precise moment Dean probably thought his AFL career was looking fairly thin...That he was diplomatic i applaud.

But if Schwab & Mclardy had flanked him one of them could have fielded the question & i doubt this looming court case would be happening.

Yes you do not burn your bridges when leaving, But the MFC abandoned him at that point.

Not the way i would do my business.

the fact the mfc handled the exit poorly is a different issue

your assertion he could have said more is silly because it is self damaging and i'm sure he did not think his future in football was ended

Why is it so silly? At that precise moment Dean probably thought his AFL career was looking fairly thin...That he was diplomatic i applaud.

But if Schwab & Mclardy had flanked him one of them could have fielded the question & i doubt this looming court case would be happening.

Yes you do not burn your bridges when leaving, But the MFC abandoned him at that point.

Not the way i would do my business.

& to sack him with about 3 games to go was ridiculous considering the 'youth pathway' the club had setout on.

# this IS What has caused these problems, along with potential "186" ramifications, the sour players & the players association.

some bad decisions from people under pressure at that time,, has brought all this on.

& to sack him with about 3 games to go was ridiculous considering the 'youth pathway' the club had setout on.

After 186, how could he possibly stay? How could any coach stay?

Modern football teams do not get beaten by 30 goals.

I think an analysis of rotation rates by many clubs in matches where there are injuries or notoriously ill-conditioned players (like Jurrah) might be interesting in the defence of our low rate in that match. It may turn out 40 is not outrageously low, Even if we did it in order to 'tank' as you believe, a low rate in itself may not then be evidence that we did. Then again, maybe 40 is off any scale.

I have no interest in this topic as I've stated my views. The low rotation policy was clearly an effort to reduce our chances of winning the match.

I'll let you and others rack your brain and come up with other worthy explanations. I have no interest.

the fact the mfc handled the exit poorly is a different issue

It should have been a different issue, but we left ourselves wide open DC

We were lucky it could have been a lot worse.

& to sack him with about 3 games to go was ridiculous considering the 'youth pathway' the club had setout on.

# this IS What has caused these problems, along with potential "186" ramifications, the sour players & the players association.

some bad decisions from people under pressure at that time,, has brought all this on.

No DL after 186 it was all over for Dean Bailey as Head Coach.

He would have known that at half time.

Bailey was a crappy coach, Melbourne were a crappy team. I'd say that he coached to his utmost, it's just that his utmost wasn't very good.

No DL after 186 it was all over for Dean Bailey as Head Coach.

He would have known that at half time.

Not if he was under explicit instructions from CS & CC to lose by 30 goals :-)))

As far as the Paul Johnson at FB "evidence" is concerned - is it any worse than Stan Alves leaving Jamie Shanahan one on one with Darren Jarman for most of a quarter while he carved them up with a handful of goals? Imagine, tanking in a grand final. Clearly needs investigation for bringing the game into disrepute.

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....

'Fan', I've thought the AFL would either use this issue to disrupt another major event like grabbing attention from the tennis or they would put it to bed during the holiday period when the major media are on holidays. It looks like they will make a grab for some of the tennis space, it will make a good lead in to the NAB cup.

If it goes on longer than this then we will have a fight on our hands.

After 186, how could he possibly stay? How could any coach stay?

Modern football teams do not get beaten by 30 goals.

because he did the unenviable job asked of.

simple to tell him we'll be advertising the position of coach, at seasons end.

the problem imo is that ego's had gotten into the fray for a while & things were festering.

the result was a really toxic situation, badly handled period by all.

Not if he was under explicit instructions from CS & CC to lose by 30 goals :-)))

As far as the Paul Johnson at FB "evidence" is concerned - is it any worse than Stan Alves leaving Jamie Shanahan one on one with Darren Jarman for most of a quarter while he carved them up with a handful of goals? Imagine, tanking in a grand final. Clearly needs investigation for bringing the game into disrepute.

Yes the Saints could Tank a GF..out of any of the original Clubs the Saints could do that!!

What about the watering of Moorabbin on friday nights?? Saw that happen..

The Saints have always been B Grade.

No DL after 186 it was all over for Dean Bailey as Head Coach.

He would have known that at half time.

I sense deja vu.

then we'd have the same outcome again.

Not if he was under explicit instructions from CS & CC to lose by 30 goals :-)))

As far as the Paul Johnson at FB "evidence" is concerned - is it any worse than Stan Alves leaving Jamie Shanahan one on one with Darren Jarman for most of a quarter while he carved them up with a handful of goals? Imagine, tanking in a grand final. Clearly needs investigation for bringing the game into disrepute.

Leaving Scott Turner on Jason Dunstall....17 goals (17.5), poor bugger.

because he did the unenviable job asked of.

simple to tell him we'll be advertising the position of coach, at seasons end.

the problem imo is that ego's had gotten into the fray for a while & things were festering.

the result was a really toxic situation, badly handled period by all.

And that is exactly why it was best that Dean left when he did.

A festering problem only gets worse 3 weeks later.

But the scoreboard at Kardinia Park was the final Judge.

Yes the Saints could Tank a GF..out of any of the original Clubs the Saints could do that!!

What about the watering of Moorabbin on friday nights?? Saw that happen..

The Saints have always been B Grade.

I've met & spoken to one of the people who would sneek in and turn the valves on late at night.

because he did the unenviable job asked of.

That was two years after the "tanking". The draft picks were secured, and used, long since.

In 2011 his job was to win games.

the problem imo is that ego's had gotten into the fray for a while & things were festering.

the result was a really toxic situation, badly handled period by all.

Maybe so. But modern teams do not get beaten by 30 goals.

And that is exactly why it was best that Dean left when he did.

A festering problem only gets worse 3 weeks later.

But the scoreboard at Kardinia Park was the final Judge.

It mattered not, there was no point. I don't think the players were upset with Bailey.

the situation should have been handled better for the Coach & the Club.

The washup should have been left to the end of season.

It mattered not, there was no point. I don't think the players were upset with Bailey.

the situation should have been handled better for the Coach & the Club.

The washup should have been left to the end of season.

let us just disagree...Bailey was finished after 186.

He will be an excellent assistant for many more years i hope.

That was two years after the "tanking". The draft picks were secured, and used, long since.

In 2011 his job was to win games.

Maybe so. But modern teams do not get beaten by 30 goals.

The fallout happens after the bomb has blown. not before.

the players were unhappy about something obviously for a while, & finally '186'. People would have been aware of the festering for some time, but who took charge to dissolve it?

An undistinguished handling of the situation, followed by the media event, isn't the way to end a partnership. the rest as they say is now history, past & current....

* 30? it did.