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

Robbie, im not advocating giving him a blank cheque or even close to but if theres some manner of diffraying some of his costs as well as at least intel sharing also then why wouldnt you.

Some seem content to cast him adrift. I see that as foolhardy as well as plain bastradry. He did effectively carry out the clubs wishes in some respects; i.e list managing to our best reward ( within the spirit of the then law) . He just failed as a winning coach when that was the direction warranted.

I suppose there are differing ways of doing business .

But as you allude if the League smell they can get him away from the pack then hes more vulnerable than close by. i dont even understand how theres a choice in this.....alas....

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.

not so much when they went off but when the first got the injury - harder to prove of course

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)

one folder with possible charges

other one with suggested answers?

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.

Hard to know -

Whelan had 2 kicks 10 handballs so may have been later in the game

Martin had 1 & 3 so probably early

Bennell had 2 & 5 so probably early

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.

Well done.

Rush that info to the club asap.

To the best of my detective work , neither Martin nor Bennell took to the field after half time.

I have a hazy memory of Whelan coming off early -ish in the last quarter ( or it might have been 10-15 mins in, its a bit fuzzy ) Matty's game wasnt as good after half time either, so its just possible he did have niggles to that foot before he came off.

Whelan was on Nahas who was kept to a so-so game for the first half. Seems the injury impacted after half time as Nahas cut loose. That wouldnt be anything the Wrecker would ever stand for if able. This is where so much becomes laughable. Asking Whelan to go soft would just about get you a free trip in an ambo !!

Well done.

Rush that info to the club asap.

BH your constant negativity and insults of other posters is beyond tedious. And before you fire off an insulting reply suggesting i don't have to read your posts i'll add you to my exclusive list (4, including you) of posters i have used the ignore function on. By the by i apply a pretty high threshold (or low depending on how you define it) on who i ignore so given you seem to to revel in being boorish and rude i guess you'll be quite pleased that you have met, nay exceeded, the criteria.

Bye Bye

Edited January 9, 201312 yr by binman

Well done.

Rush that info to the club asap.

Ha.

I hope they have more detail than that.

By the way, I wasn't intending to have a dip at you.

Just some info that I had looked up previously that I thought might be of interest.

Edited January 9, 201312 yr by GM11

"Sources close to the AFL confirm that they are investigating the coin toss before the Round 18 game against Richmond in 2009. According to statements made by people interviewed for the investigation, captain James McDonald was told to pick heads instead of his usual tails. Also according to the testimony, McDonald was under pressure to switch to heads after heated discussions held in the room called 'The Vault' by Chris Connolly who reminded everyone in the room of the importance in picking heads for the coin toss, thus limiting Melbourne's chances to kick with the breeze in the 1st quarter and create a lead that would be sustained to win the game"

Seriously what else are the AFL going to accuse us of next?

The trumpeter being off key which annoyed the players so much they weren't thinking straight thus fumbling the ball more than usual?

Ronald Dee Barassi playing in the ruck instead of Paul Johnson?

Well done.

Rush that info to the club asap.

BH, if 4 players were injured in the first 30 seconds of a game, what would the rotation rate be? If they were all injured in the last 30 seconds, the rate would be 'normal' or even high. Somewhere in between will be the rate if players were injured at other stages.

I suspect we don't need to sarcastically 'rush this to the club'. I expect they would have done the analysis, and if it looked useful will highlight it, otherwise they will bin it.

BH your constant negativity and insults of other posters is beyond tedious. And before you fire off an insulting reply suggesting i don't have to read your posts i'll add you to my exclusive list (4, including you) of posters i have used the ignore function on. By the by i apply a pretty high threshold (or low depending on how you define it) on who i ignore so given you seem to to revel in being boorish and rude i guess you'll be quite pleased that you have met, nay exceeded, the criteria.

Bye Bye

And not before time.

You'll sneak a peak though : )

No i won't

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.

In the law (and in some other disciplines too), when you are lacking substance, you often resort to hitting the other side over the head with reams and reams of material to slow them down and/or appear more powerful than you actually are.

No doubt in my mind the AFL is trying to look tough and supreme by hitting us with pages and pages of substance-less drivel.

There is still, to date, absolutely nothing that could or should result in punishment. Yet they've supposedly got tonnes of material. I'm sure it's a quantity over quality thing.

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?!

Brilliant thats exactly how it will play out

can we move onto 2013 football season now after 50 pages all done all finished Bang!!!!

With ref to chokos post 1166 I'd say you most likely have something close to what their (afl) presser might likely be. I do however think like Fan ( an unusual occurrence I know lol ) that its a reverse type thing. This doesn't necessarily go against your tenet of the League knowing the outcome, in fact it requires it.

Any which way it's all akin to theatrics, but I'm sure we can all do without the bill !!!

Edited January 9, 201312 yr by belzebub59

This suggestion of intentional 'fumbles' is really quite embarrassing for the AFL . The 3 minutes that mattered ... The players association could step in here and it casts a huge slur on any player involved in the now infamous 'Fumbling fiasco' or 'Fumble-gate'.

The accusation is so ludicrous that it's quite amusing . Is there a fumble count ? Is the opposition team allowed to fumble in the same 'said' 3 minutes . Can we pluck other 3 minute periods of games where there were more fumbles? It's so stupid it's laughable . Who were the chief perpetrators of these 'fumbles' ? Did the Tigers have a bigger fumble 'count' in other 3 minute periods' ?

AFL investigators have focused on the final three minutes of Melbourne's after-the-siren loss to Richmond in 2009 and have even questioned whether players deliberately fumbled the ball as part of an explosive probe into tanking.

It is understood those interviewed have denied claims the players fumbled on purpose in the final minutes.

Edited January 9, 201312 yr by Macca

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!

We are fighting for the integrity of the club and that should include the integrity and defence of someone that was acting on behalf of the club at the time; I would be disappointed if they cut him lose.

We are fighting for the integrity of the club and that should include the integrity and defence of someone that was acting on behalf of the club at the time; I would be disappointed if they cut him lose.

We aren't all cut from the same cloth

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?

what, thats not what i'm saying at all.

I'm saying that bailey was hired into the job of rebuilding the list thru a youth pathway.

he had his papers marked as soon as he tookon this job.

sheedy would not have sacrificed himself that way.

we owed it to Bailey to see out the season, even if we told him that we'll be looking for a new coach. he may have stepped down himself after that news. He may have resigned straight away?

the point is, he was treated very badly for probably the whole season from behind the scenes. this may have had something to do with the players unrest? & by extension 186.

our poor decision making at that time, has left this door completely off its hinges...

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.

I'm not sure what he'd do, but if so, it would have been his decision to exit, & a proper exit could have happened.

dignity & respect would have been front & centre.

what, thats not what i'm saying at all.

I'm saying that bailey was hired into the job of rebuilding the list thru a youth pathway.

he had his papers marked as soon as he tookon this job.

Disagree.

The youth policy was his own. Didn't he say "shoot me if I recruit anyone over 25" ?

In 2010 we were on the right path and pulled off some nice victories.

At the start of the 2011 season, his cards were by no means marked. The world was his oyster.

Who was it that treated him very badly for the whole of that season, and by extension, caused his downfall?

Deluded I sort of agree in principle but the club got itself into a pickle. Fighting fires on many fronts it wasn't likely a "pleases all" answer was going to be available.

This is combined with the situation of garnering the coach of choice. Here we're damned if we do or don't . Always was to be ugly as a chapter in our history I can only take from this that actions were taken in the best interest of he club.

We can't change what was, we can only seek to learn and act better.

As such casting a life buoy Deanos way isn't without merit, or logic.

Disagree.

The youth policy w his ownas. Didn't he say "shoot me if I recruit anyone over 25" ?

In 2010 we were on the right path and pulled off some nice victories.

At the start of the 2011 season, his cards were by no means marked. The world was his oyster.

Who was it that treated him very badly for the whole of that season, and by extension, caused his downfall?

we'll disagree on that.

Deluded I sort of agree in principle but the club got itself into a pickle. Fighting fires on many fronts it wasn't likely a "pleases all" answer was going to be available. This is combined with the situation of garnering the coach of choice. Here we're damned if we do or don't . Always was to be ugly as a chapter in our history I can only take from this that actions were taken in the best interest of he club. We can't change what was, we can only seek to learn and act better. As such casting a life buoy Deanos way isn't without merit, or logic.

I'm suggesting that we dropped the ball months earlier when the unhappiness of the players would have been well felt & probably well known. the knives were out and about for Baileys blood from the start of the season including on this forum.

a mature head would have been needed to sort the peoples issues out.

it seems that some factions grew, & that doesn't happen quietly in a footy club. This IMO, is the catalyst of '186', & the end of Bailey, & the beginning embers of this investigation.

It wasn't pretty was it