And we'd have behind the 8 ball in the chase for a replacement coach.

St Kilda, Adelaide and the Bulldogs all ended up needing new coaches, as looked likely at the time, and it was imperative that we didn't get our 4th choice.

As it is, we got the right coach, the man I wanted from the outset, and we limited the potential damage.

Holding onto Bailey until the end would have achieved no good.

The writing was carved into the wall.

And we'd have behind the 8 ball in the chase for a replacement coach.

St Kilda, Adelaide and the Bulldogs all ended up needing new coaches, as looked likely at the time, and it was imperative that we didn't get our 4th choice.

As it is, we got the right coach, the man I wanted from the outset, and we limited the potential damage.

Holding onto Bailey until the end would have achieved no good.

The writing was carved into the wall.

you don't wait til the end of season when sounding out new coaches, when you decided the current coach will finish up in 3 weeks.

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?

The inmates do not run the asylum, and modern teams don't get beaten by 30 goals.

You seem to be shifting the goal posts. Is your case that Bailey was following orders to get done by 186, or it that he was harshly done by after it?

And we'd have behind the 8 ball in the chase for a replacement coach.

St Kilda, Adelaide and the Bulldogs all ended up needing new coaches, as looked likely at the time, and it was imperative that we didn't get our 4th choice.

As it is, we got the right coach, the man I wanted from the outset, and we limited the potential damage.

Holding onto Bailey until the end would have achieved no good.

The writing was carved into the wall.

Indeed.

The handling of the matter may not have contributed to DB's comments. But I have no doubt the disunity that went on from poor management and neglectfulness as far back as the elongated time it took to replace Leoncelli, contributed. Job sharing by trying to fill gaps, Jim's health, and failing to adhere to instruction all contributed to disunity and it was left to fester. Jim admitted as much.

Indeed.

The handling of the matter may not have contributed to DB's comments. But I have no doubt the disunity that went on from poor management and neglectfulness as far back as the elongated time it took to replace Leoncelli, contributed. Job sharing by trying to fill gaps, Jim's health, and failing to adhere to instruction all contributed to disunity and it was left to fester. Jim admitted as much.

Every club has its dirty linen. Ours may have been dirtier than most - but we have worked hard to clean it up .......... and now we are digging it up all over again.

Its in our interests to put Bailey and events of the Bailey era behind us. We need him exonerated from these charges full stop.

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.

Do you honestly think DB would've stayed if he had been told his papers were stamped and after 3 rounds he would be without a job. I don't think so.

Brett Ratten aside.

Every club has its dirty linen. Ours may have been dirtier than most - but we have worked hard to clean it up .......... and now we are digging it up all over again.

Its in our interests to put Bailey and events of the Bailey era behind us. We need him exonerated from these charges full stop.

I don't dispute any of that, hoopla. I commented on what I feel contributed to Baileys contribution at the presser. That's all.

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

Dean Bailey will definately look after his own interests and whilst there is alignment with our interests I would suggest he may be a little less narrow in his approach if we look after him as well ?

Do you honestly think DB would've stayed if he had been told his papers were stamped and after 3 rounds he would be without a job. I don't think so.

Brett Ratten aside.

Thats the crux isnt it. His papers were stamped as of that game. No ones going to hang around. As to how well it was handled, its history.

Hindsight may suggest perfect scenarios but the reality is they can seldom play out as its all happening in the moment. There are elements that might have been done in an other manner perhaps. Tis all moot however.

Dean is pivotal to this as I see it. He goes down we all go down. If hes exonerated then i cant really see how anything more could be pursued.

Its fraudelent to me for the AFL to attempt to apply a black/white filter to occurrences that were every shade of grey and Im sure thats where any healthy defence starts.

Its ridiculous for the League to suggest that had not this or that been done then the outcomes MUST have been X. So many variables to a game, so many permutations to what may or might happen . By way of inference its laughable to suggest that it was intentional fumbling or poor play to conspire that McMahon got his kick. who could guarantee he split the sticks ?? You couldnt organise it to happen even if you wanted to.

In the end it all boils down to that old chestnut. That we were so damned good we could orchestrate results one way or the other !!

I reckon that year we'd probably have gone wanting for a drink at CUB !!

Edited January 9, 201312 yr by belzebub59

Since this investigation prompted all this to come to light, if we are found not guilty, can we charge the AFL for bringing the game into disrepute?

One could argue that even the investigation itself has done more harm than those it has been targeting.

(clearly sarcasm, just wanted to indicate that the whole 'bringing the game into disrepute' charge is extremely subjective and could be more damaging in of itself)

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.

No need to rack anyones brains.

Martin - (off with a corky) - played the next week - feasible for a corky.

Whelan - (off with a foot injury) - missed the next two games.

Bennell - off with a knee injury - missed the next three games.

Quite a worthy explanation.

By way of inference its laughable to suggest that it was intentional fumbling or poor play to conspire that McMahon got his kick. who could guarantee he split the sticks ?? You couldnt organise it to happen even if you wanted to.

Yes you could. Give away a 50m penalty by 'accident'. Strangely that didn't happen.

Fumbling or anything else the players themselves are alleged to have done is clearly rubbish.

Yes you could. Give away a 50m penalty by 'accident'. Strangely that didn't happen.

Fumbling or anything else the players themselves are alleged to have done is clearly rubbish.

can't understand no-one ran over the mark

Yes you could. Give away a 50m penalty by 'accident'. Strangely that didn't happen.

Fumbling or anything else the players themselves are alleged to have done is clearly rubbish.

nuff said

No need to rack anyones brains.

Martin - (off with a corky) - played the next week - feasible for a corky.

Whelan - (off with a foot injury) - missed the next two games.

Bennell - off with a knee injury - missed the next three games.

Quite a worthy explanation.

GM11, do you know when in the match they went off? If it was early on, a very low rate of rotations is to be expected. Less so if they went off in Q4.

Fumbling? If that is a punishable crime the dees have been guilty of it for the last decade or so. What's next - kicks form the back line missing targets on the way resulting in turnover goals? Geez we be stripped of our draft picks for the next 20 years!

Fumbling? If that is a punishable crime the dees have been guilty of it for the last decade or so. What's next - kicks form the back line missing targets on the way resulting in turnover goals? Geez we be stripped of our draft picks for the next 20 years!

So then the argument taking to its end would suppose that any action or play must be done 100% effectively in order for it to be deemed OK, anything less can be construed as intentionally losing ?

Fumbling? If that is a punishable crime the dees have been guilty of it for the last decade or so. What's next - kicks form the back line missing targets on the way resulting in turnover goals? Geez we be stripped of our draft picks for the next 20 years!

Matthew Warnock "tanked" from the moment he came to the club to the moment he left.

Once the ball hit the ground Bate was a notorious "tanker".

Darren Bennett - OMG - I have never encountered a footballer who could get clearly in front on a lead so often- have the ball delivered lace out and then "tank" the mark.

I thought Frawley had a bad case of the "tanks" all least year.

I'll be here all week - thank you and good night

On another note at least this whole episode has highlighted how far the standard of journalism has slipped (across the board). Each artilcle i've read inthe Hun and age about this topic has had several absolute laughable howlers. My favorites from today's 3 minutes that matter classic are:

1. 'The report, which fills two folders' - this has been noted several times; what possible relevance or meaning does the fact that report fills two folders have or for that matter the number of pages? Perhaps they are really small folders or super big font.

2. 'It is understood those interviewed have denied claims the players fumbled on purpose in the final minutes.' - What the? Who are making those claims? Can't be those interviewed as they apparently have denied it. Surely it can't be the investigators as their role is to investigate not 'make claims' ("I put it to you Dean that the usually super clean Warnock deliberately fumbled the ball as can be seen in this slo mo video clip"). Who does that leave?

We should collect our favorite lines form this circus for posterity and for future humor (the secret vault meeting being the original classic, or perhaps the ashen face of CS, or the repeated use of the word forfeiting - comedy gold all of them)

Edited January 9, 201312 yr by binman

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

At all costs we should stick tightly together. "Divide and conquer" may be a faint hope still held out by the mighty Vlad.

It looks to me like many in the media have "forfeited" their journalistic integrity on this very topic...

Matthew Warnock "tanked" from the moment he came to the club to the moment he left.

Once the ball hit the ground Bate was a notorious "tanker".

Darren Bennett - OMG - I have never encountered a footballer who could get clearly in front on a lead so often- have the ball delivered lace out and then "tank" the mark.

I thought Frawley had a bad case of the "tanks" all least year.

I'll be here all week - thank you and good night

West Coast must be tanking by recruiting Moreton then?

And by extension, by offloading him, we are showing that we're serious about trying to win games?

Can't possibly be tanking if we got rid of him!

It looks to me like many in the media have "forfeited" their journalistic integrity on this very topic...

The Bloodlust got them early..

Very similar to the First Gulf War in '91...Journalists in Newsrooms all over Australia got very excited at the prospect of the coming war i assure you

It was quite scary to see humans like that....

The Bloodlust got them early..

Very similar to the First Gulf War in '91...Journalists in Newsrooms all over Australia got very excited at the prospect of the coming war i assure you

It was quite scary to see humans like that....

You gotta put down that crack pipe, WYL.