On 10/01/2013 at 01:55, GM11 said:

Accepting a token penalty means admitting guilt.

Are they then going to pursue the other tanking clubs? Unlikely in that scenario.

So their integrity remains intact while ours is in tatters.

I have real trouble accepting that as an outcome.

Not, if nothing 'goes' that far, but somethings walk the walk.

it seems both sides are threatening one another with black eyes & bustard beaks?

  On 10/01/2013 at 02:19, dee-luded said:

Not, if nothing 'goes' that far, but somethings walk the walk.

it seems both sides are threatening one another with black eyes & bustard beaks?

The wheels on the bus go round and round.

  On 10/01/2013 at 01:55, GM11 said:

Accepting a token penalty means admitting guilt.

Are they then going to pursue the other tanking clubs? Unlikely in that scenario.

So their integrity remains intact while ours is in tatters.

I have real trouble accepting that as an outcome.

I have real trouble accepting the fact that legal fees and potential harsh penalties will put this club back into debt and back onto it's knees.

A short settlement with a token penalty is the way to go.

We are not 100% innocent in this.

  On 10/01/2013 at 01:27, monoccular said:

Can anyone with greater technological savvy than I please post those "disgraceful three minutes" of the Richmond game.

I would love to make a fumble count, and see again just who kicked that 50+ meter after siren goal. My recollection was that is was a Tiger player, not one of ours, but apparently I could be wrong.

On the terrible fumbling issue. I just watched highlights of the 2012 GF: I ask when will the AFL integrity guys start investigating poor Young's critical game changing fumble towards the end of the game? Imagine tanking in a GF. Disreputable stuff that. The bookies must have cringed if they had their $$ on the Hawks.

  On 10/01/2013 at 02:12, daisycutter said:

tanking just can't be as simple as "not doing everything possible to win"

take Mike Hussey as an example.

he retires from the Test scene but not the one day series to be played this summer.

he is clearly in the best 11 for the one dayers and is avalable to play

CA drop him because they want to blood new players for the next world cup

Isn't this tanking? Isn't this similar to mfc trying to get games into the younger and future players when there is no chance of making the finals

Of course it's not tanking but it just goes to demonstrate how impossible it is to clearly define what actions constitute tanking

Yes- and what does this say about the NAB cup- where winning is nothing and experimenting and playing youth is everything. The NAB cup is built on "tanking"

  On 10/01/2013 at 02:21, Bring-Back-Powell said:

I have real trouble accepting the fact that legal fees and potential harsh penalties will put this club back into debt and back onto it's knees. A short settlement with a token penalty is the way to go. We are not 100% innocent in this.

the afl are not trying to bang us up.

they want the footy world to know that the list management era is passe'... not to be ventured again, but they'd like some pork on they're fork as well

they don't want to hurt the game or they would have widened the investigations.

they want an example to be made & some display on meat hooks...

And we are the sacrificial lambs. Lucky us.

  On 09/01/2013 at 23:35, Ben-Hur said:

So it's the journalists fault for being asked to cover the story ?

He may be a poor journalist, so ridicule him for the quality of his reporting, or lack thereof, but not for filing a report.

How about nit-picking these so-called journalists rather than nit-piking supporter's posts.

Clearly JB was rightly [censored] off by the quality of the 'report' and just expressed his anger in that way.

Any journo who ends a story with that quote from Jim about the agony the AFL's policy was causing, yet neglects to include the quote saying Bailey was not told to tank deserves no defence from MFC supporters.

Edit: grammar to avoid being nit-picked.

  On 10/01/2013 at 02:07, mjt said:

Didnt both companies only sign for the 2013 season?

yes. its a moot point really. They had only signed for one previously as well...but they DID re-sign. I take that as a positive.

  On 10/01/2013 at 02:19, dee-luded said:

Not, if nothing 'goes' that far, but somethings walk the walk.

it seems both sides are threatening one another with black eyes & bustard beaks?

If Connolly and Schwab are found guilty then so is the MFC by extension.

The MFC cant be " just a little bit pregnant". If the above two go down then the MFC are tankers.

And to clarify - both sides arent threatening - AD has made one statement saying anyone found guilty wont work in the industry again and he said that months ago. Thats it. The threatening about fines and loss of draft picks etc is coming from the media. It is really important you dont confuse the two because at this stage it is trial by media. Lets talk about punching on with the AFL if and if they bring down charges.

  On 10/01/2013 at 02:28, SloonieMcFloonieloone said:

And we are the sacrificial lambs. Lucky us.

If so Id like to refer to a particular tale of Black Sheep.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0779982/

No need to be a wolf in sheeps clothing here..lol

Those Baaaaaaaaaaaaa -stards better be careful

  On 10/01/2013 at 02:32, belzebub59 said:

yes. its a moot point really. They had only signed for one previously as well...but they DID re-sign. I take that as a positive.

Maybe if we WIN 10 games next season they will extend there contracts.

  Bring-Back-Powell said:

I have real trouble accepting the fact that legal fees and potential harsh penalties will put this club back into debt and back onto it's knees. A short settlement with a token penalty is the way to go. We are not 100% innocent in this.

BBP, your statement begs the question, if "we are not 100% innocent in this", then of what are we guilty? The AFL is simply tilting at windmills here. If the AFL is at all serious and in the interests of procedural fairness and equity, they would need to launch investigations into a number of other clubs, if they claim our supposed actions set the precedent.

The AFL simply do not want to go down this path. If the "system", as it was then, has been exploited, then it is the fault of the system, not the participants. Very simple premise really.

  On 10/01/2013 at 02:36, mjt said:

Maybe if we WIN 10 games next season they will extend there contracts.

Its entirely possible for sure. Getting sponsorship money is hard enough these days. Getting companies to look too far down the road is next to impossible. When it does occur the lucky recipients can only clap and rejoice. Its not a norm any more.

Ill play pretend here for a moment and cast the idea that this might actually work to our advantage. I'll leave aside the differing faction's take on all events other than so remind of what resulted. In a time of dire position the Club managed to actually sign good sponsors to good money. if we are to be brave and believe a dramatic on field improvement and generalised momentum of the club youd have to think we make a very good billboard for advertisers. we may see extensions or indeed competition.

in the meantime, Webjet, Opel....thankyou

  On 10/01/2013 at 02:21, Bring-Back-Powell said:

I have real trouble accepting the fact that legal fees and potential harsh penalties will put this club back into debt and back onto it's knees. A short settlement with a token penalty is the way to go. We are not 100% innocent in this.

Prove it!

  On 10/01/2013 at 02:26, dee-luded said:

the afl are not trying to bang us up.

they want the footy world to know that the list management era is passe'... not to be ventured again, but they'd like some pork on they're fork as well

they don't want to hurt the game or they would have widened the investigations.

they want an example to be made & some display on meat hooks...

you need to clarify.

Which is it ? do the AFL want some pork on the fork and some meat on a hook or do they not want to hurt the game and thats why they havent widened the investigation. I think the AFL can be dumb but i dont think they are dumb enough to think they can have both.

If they want to make an example of us then the fallout will be that when it goes to court other clubs will be dragged into this and it will hurt the game.

Thats why I bang on ad nauseum about my belief that AFL will not make an example of us and continue this charade to bring down an insufficient/inconclusive evidence finding - Grant Thomas got it right - the AFL cant afford to do anything else.

  On 10/01/2013 at 02:43, rjay said:

Prove it!

indeed.. Simply lacking total innocence is no positive proof of guilt. And guilty, as proved, of what. Thats the eternal merry go round

  On 10/01/2013 at 02:43, nutbean said:

....

Thats why I bang on ad nauseum about my belief that AFL will not make an example of us and continue this charade to bring down an insufficient/inconclusive evidence finding - Grant Thomas got it right - the AFL cant afford to do anything else.

I agree except they may feel forced to do something because of all the sticky-mud that the media have thrown. If they can think of a penalty that doesn't tempt us to go to court, I fear they will impose it. Though what specific charge it could apply to or what it could be I have no idea.

  On 10/01/2013 at 02:43, rjay said:

Prove it!

Good luck with that - BBP has been asked on numerous times to back up his " plead guilty and take a lesser penalty" line with the rules that have been broken and the inequivocal evidence to support the breaking of the rules. Every bit of damning evidence to date we have heard (albeit from the media) is subjective and in the main has been cleared previously by the AFL. BPP has enormous problems differentiating what he believes happened ( and in fact what most of us believe happened) as opposed to what can be proven. There needs to be more concrete evidence than what we have heard to PROVE that we have broken any rule.

So again BPP I will ask you - what rule has been broken, who broke it and what evidence that is currently in the media backs up your assertion that we are not innocent.

  On 10/01/2013 at 02:35, nutbean said:

If Connolly and Schwab are found guilty then so is the MFC by extension.

The MFC cant be " just a little bit pregnant". If the above two go down then the MFC are tankers.

And to clarify - both sides arent threatening - AD has made one statement saying anyone found guilty wont work in the industry again and he said that months ago. Thats it. The threatening about fines and loss of draft picks etc is coming from the media. It is really important you dont confuse the two because at this stage it is trial by media. Lets talk about punching on with the AFL if and if they bring down charges.

I never said found guilty at all.

you've perceived that into it, & its not my perception of the outcome at all...

  On 10/01/2013 at 02:43, nutbean said:

you need to clarify.

Which is it ? do the AFL want some pork on the fork and some meat on a hook or do they not want to hurt the game and thats why they havent widened the investigation. I think the AFL can be dumb but i dont think they are dumb enough to think they can have both.

If they want to make an example of us then the fallout will be that when it goes to court other clubs will be dragged into this and it will hurt the game.

Thats why I bang on ad nauseum about my belief that AFL will not make an example of us and continue this charade to bring down an insufficient/inconclusive evidence finding - Grant Thomas got it right - the AFL cant afford to do anything else.

clarify, no.

I think, you know what I'm alluding to.

they setout to make a quiet subtle example of all this, & some people, yet.

  On 10/01/2013 at 02:48, sue said:

I agree except they may feel forced to do something because of all the sticky-mud that the media have thrown. If they can think of a penalty that doesn't tempt us to go to court, I fear they will impose it. Though what specific charge it could apply to or what it could be I have no idea.

I'm not so sure - nearly any penalty we accept is tantamount to an admission of tanking and i dont think we will let that happen to our brand.

If the AFL comes out and charges Connolly for making statements in his position as an administrator for an AFL club that were ill concieved and open to misinterpretation so that the integrity of the game could be threatened - then I could live with that. If they fine Connolly for threatening staff to underperform and not win games then noooooooooo...If Bailey and Schwab are charged with making injudicious statements that led others to believe that they being asked to not carry out their duties to the best of their abilities - then again maybe i can live with that. If they charged with bringing the game into disrepute by telling staff /players to throw games then noooooo. It subtle but all we are being charged with is poor choice of words.

Then these three can make statements after simply saying - "if we had our time again we would have been much clearer in what we said or chosen different words because at no time did we ask anyone to underperform"

.

Any charges laid due to positional changes, rotations, etc and its off to court we go.

  On 10/01/2013 at 02:58, dee-luded said:

they setout to make a quiet subtle example of all this, & some people, yet.

Then the AFL are stupidier than I have given them credit for - we may have rolled over in the past - but no club in my opinion would allow themselves to be charged with tanking without concrete proof - subtle example was never ever going to happen

  On 10/01/2013 at 02:54, nutbean said:

Good luck with that - BBP has been asked on numerous times to back up his " plead guilty and take a lesser penalty" line with the rules that have been broken and the inequivocal evidence to support the breaking of the rules. Every bit of damning evidence to date we have heard (albeit from the media) is subjective and in the main has been cleared previously by the AFL. BPP has enormous problems differentiating what he believes happened ( and in fact what most of us believe happened) as opposed to what can be proven. There needs to be more concrete evidence than what we have heard to PROVE that we have broken any rule.

So again BPP I will ask you - what rule has been broken, who broke it and what evidence that is currently in the media backs up your assertion that we are not innocent.

Do you honestly think we've done nothing wrong?

Do you think we did everything in our power to win our 5th game that year?

It was so damn obvious that we were not, as we were all demanding it at the time.

Would you rather this go to the courts to mid 2014, only to risk losing the case (because we're the MFC and we stink at everything)?

  On 10/01/2013 at 03:11, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Do you honestly think we've done nothing wrong?

Do you think we did everything in our power to win our 5th game that year?

It was so damn obvious that we were not, as we were all demanding it at the time.

That's not the point. Can you prove it.

the HUN at it again;

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/watch-the-key-moments-from-the-match-at-the-centre-of-melbourne-tanking-allegations/story-e6frf9jf-1226550586110http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/watch-the-key-moments-from-the-match-at-the-centre-of-melbourne-tanking-allegations/story-e6frf9jf-1226550586110

They seem to have picked up the ball and are now running with it now full time.