I think everyone needs to remind themselves that the AFL , whilst not only the designers and instigators of this mess, are so because they simply arent quite as clever as many would make them out to be ( especially themselves..lol )

A lot of good things are done by the league. A lot of seemingly idiotic things are also managed by same said people. Often i feel its a case if you stand in one spot and throw enough seed far and wide eventually something will take and grow. When this happens they trumpet it for all to see. When the rest amounts to little it simple is forgotten/disregarded/ or re-invented as something else entirely.

The AFL have all but painted themselves into a corner. There's very little manoeuvrability left now. All roads (bar one ) lead to the abyss. Only common sense will avert this happening. I think even they ( AFL ) are fully recognizant of this now. It took them a while and only after their preferred avenues of reaction were well and truly slammed in their face.

if we were to draw this out as a flowchart ( too lazy to .lol ) you would find each and every occasion of choice would eventually lead back to a no-foul decision (after exhaustive investigation )

Its actually the only one whereby the AFL can put tanking to bed and close the door on it. Whilst the media is an interested onlooker its not actually party to the inquisition. It may not like a not guilty finding but it can go jump.

The AFL wasnt very clever in allowing this to unfold. This is entirely their mess. Had they had clearer and more comprehensive thinkers they could have forseen such things occurring and tightened up the loose ends before it unravelled. They didnt. Vlad is not so silly to allow any reproach to this subject once finalised. His cohorts will not want this to arise again either lest their "interests' come under focus.

Contrary to some media pundits i cant see this going beyond the next AFL meeting. the NAB season looms and Vlad and his imperial army will want THAT , and that alone as the shining beacon for all to see.

To summise:

This will finish soon - The AFL can not afford this to go to court , they lose control.

The AFL will rule No foul / no penalty

The AFL will tidy up any remaining abiguities.

Tanking will be officially dead.

No nitpicking at all, Sue. I just disagree that the journalist has some kind of vendetta, which was the accusation. Or what did you think the inference was when a poster questions a journalists motivation ?

We tanked. Plain and simple. Will it be easy to prove ? No. Should we fight it all the way ? Yes. Was Stynes pro tanking ? Of course.

You can try and come up with all the cute defences you like, but anyone with half a clue knows we tanked, but the good news is we'll vehemently defend the charges and the clubs honour. As we should.

Back to your persecution complexes...

  On 10/01/2013 at 03:08, nutbean said:

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

it's already happened, you just lived, or slept thru it.

# any charges & we should challenge them in court. I don't think that will eventuate.

  On 10/01/2013 at 03:13, rjay said:

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

No I can't prove it.

But it's my opinion that we should settle this before it goes to court, and I think we'll end up doing this.

I'm entitled to this opinion I would've thought?

I know I'm repeating so many other posts here but the incentive was the priority pick - it's been removed. The AFL have only themselves to blame for the farcical nature of some of these games that several clubs have been involved in. Why they want to punish clubs who have exploited their flawed system is still beyond me. These clubs are only trying to improve themselves so that one day they can have a shot at winning a flag.

The PP is no longer available.

Move on.

  On 10/01/2013 at 03:17, Deemand said:

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.

Some of the most inventive ( and inaccurate ) commentary ever.

just glosses over the notion we actually fought our way back and into the lead. I mean, obviously only incidental and of no importance

  On 10/01/2013 at 03:32, Bring-Back-Powell said:

No I can't prove it. But it's my opinion that we should settle this before it goes to court, and I think we'll end up doing this. I'm entitled to this opinion I would've thought?

Yep..thats your opinion ( as entitled )

Its not the Clubs. I'm with the club.

  On 10/01/2013 at 03:37, belzebub59 said:

Some of the most inventive ( and inaccurate ) commentary ever.

just glosses over the notion we actually fought our way back and into the lead. I mean, obviously only incidental and of no importance

True, but that vision of the FD not celebrating our comeback goals does kinda suck...

  On 10/01/2013 at 03:34, McQueen said:

I know I'm repeating so many other posts here but the incentive was the priority pick - it's been removed. The AFL have only themselves to blame for the farcical nature of some of these games that several clubs have been involved in. Why they want to punish clubs who have exploited their flawed system is still beyond me. These clubs are only trying to improve themselves so that one day they can have a shot at winning a flag.

The PP is no longer available.

Move on.

I partly agree, MQ, but I think this is only halfway re the draft.

I expect that sometime soon after this is put to bed, Vlad will handover to Gill,,, & Gill will announce that the draft order will be drawn from a hat, (a white witches hat), & there will be no way of knowing the drafting order until drawn.

I reckon Vlad will want to go out on a happier note and a more convivial juncture. Either late in season 13 or prior to 14. Just a guess ( obviously )

You may well be on the money DeeLuded that after this is put to bed a different 'system' may be announced. It would put the 'old ' issue further into the soil.

  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.

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)?

As Rjay has said above and the point that again and again you keep missing.To quote Tom Cruise from A few good men - it doesnt matter what we believe - it only matters what can be proven. From the evidence we have heard of from the media - it is all highly subjective and speculative.

I will continue to put in the big disclaimer that we are relying on information about "evidence" from the media - there may be something concrete that has been presented back to the club that can sink us but for everything that has been reported the reason that the club keeps saying it will fight is in because in my opinion the evidence they know exists can only lead people to believe and not lead to a charge being proven.

  On 10/01/2013 at 03:39, McQueen said:

True, but that vision of the FD not celebrating our comeback goals does kinda suck...

Because Bailey was always a laughing clown ? , jumping up and down ?? he was the king of Stoney faces. Hardly proof of anything. It was a tense part of the game, finger biting stuff. No one was going to celebrate too prematurely I would think.

  On 10/01/2013 at 03:06, nutbean said:

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.

You've explored the sorts of odd charges they might get away with us agreeing to accept. But they are pretty ropey really. When I said "I have no idea' what they could be, I really meant it is hard to think of anything plausible. But if such a charge/penalty can be found, it's the next best thing to total exoneration.

I agree with what you wrote, except with the last sentence. It might be that it's not worth going to court if findings under these headings are worded very weakly and the penalties are small or suspended.

  On 10/01/2013 at 03:32, Bring-Back-Powell said:

No I can't prove it. But it's my opinion that we should settle this before it goes to court, and I think we'll end up doing this. I'm entitled to this opinion I would've thought?

Yes you are entitled to your opinion and I understand where you are coming from in trying to lesson the impact on the club, but I don't think it is so easy to prove that we have done anything wrong or anything more than could be construed as list management which was condoned by the head of the AFL at the time.

My opinion on the evidence to date is that we don't have a case to answer as there is no proof so why admit we have done something wrong when it was a part of AFL culture at the time and still is judging by some of the selection and coaching manoeuvres last season.

This of course all changes if there is the so called "smoking gun", if that's the case then the club would be wise to take your preferred course of action. I do think however if this evidence did exist we would have heard about it by now.

  On 10/01/2013 at 01:08, titan_uranus said:

So I picked up the paper today, read Jon Pierik's latest piece of drivel, and I actually stopped and re-read one sentence again. And again. And again. And even now, I'm lost for words:

"As revealed by Fairfax Media on Tuesday, the round-21 loss to Carlton has also emerged as a focus of investigators, plus losses against Richmond, Sydney and St Kilda and a win over Port Adelaide.

It's understood questions have been asked over why they fielded three ruckmen, with Mark Jamar, Paul Johnson and Jake Spencer all playing. Jamar and Spencer were two of four inclusions."

Yes, that's right. The AFL is now questioning us for winning.

What are they going to say? Why did you make 4 changes to this side? Maybe because we thought it would help us win. Which it did!

Seriously. This is a joke.

Exactly.

If anything, if they question out moves and associated motives in a WIN, surely it actually proves that those actions in another match are largely inconsequential in determining the result?

They are "forfeiting" the case against, in the best interests of everyone involved.

  On 10/01/2013 at 03:45, belzebub59 said:

Because Bailey was always a laughing clown ? , jumping up and down ?? he was the king of Stoney faces. Hardly proof of anything. It was a tense part of the game, finger biting stuff. No one was going to celebrate too prematurely I would think.

I'm on your team here BB59 but he looked genuinely dejected in that footage. It was probably edited from the first 30 seconds of the game.

  On 10/01/2013 at 03:39, dee-luded said:

I expect that sometime soon after this is put to bed, Vlad will handover to Gill,,, & Gill will announce that the draft order will be drawn from a hat, (a white witches hat), & there will be no way of knowing the drafting order until drawn.

Can't see this happening. It would place a whole lot of extra work on already stressed under resourced recruiting departments if they don't know where their pick will be. Also, at the end of the day, who cares what the order is for the bottom 4 or so teams.

  On 10/01/2013 at 03:37, belzebub59 said:

Some of the most inventive ( and inaccurate ) commentary ever.

just glosses over the notion we actually fought our way back and into the lead. I mean, obviously only incidental and of no importance

Actually it was very funny commentary when they talked about the mismatch with Brown. Johnson read the ball better, was in better position and over ran it. Brown kicked the goal. It was a simple ground ball that sometimes Johnson got, sometimes he didn't and that's why he's not playing at AFL level anymore.

  On 10/01/2013 at 03:32, Bring-Back-Powell said:

No I can't prove it. But it's my opinion that we should settle this before it goes to court, and I think we'll end up doing this. I'm entitled to this opinion I would've thought?

I've gone one further - I dont think it will need to be settled before it goes to court becase i dont think we will even be charged.

  On 10/01/2013 at 03:43, belzebub59 said:

I reckon Vlad will want to go out on a happier note and a more convivial juncture. Either late in season 13 or prior to 14. Just a guess ( obviously )

You may well be on the money DeeLuded that after this is put to bed a different 'system' may be announced. It would put the 'old ' issue further into the soil.

I think it will be sometime this season (prior to 2014 season) the handover, & maybe around october?

But if they want to change the draft mechanisms, to end the 'end of season swill', for prime draft positions, they may want to do it in the next 5 months?

  On 10/01/2013 at 03:52, Fan said:

Can't see this happening. It would place a whole lot of extra work on already stressed under resourced recruiting departments if they don't know where their pick will be. Also, at the end of the day, who cares what the order is for the bottom 4 or so teams.

bottom 10... imo.

  On 10/01/2013 at 03:51, McQueen said:

I'm on your team here BB59 but he looked genuinely dejected in that footage. It was probably edited from the first 30 seconds of the game.

Many of the great unwashed that will devour that vision wont stop to consider the editing or the very subjective , if not inflammatory, commentary.

and thats exactly what the Hun etc want.

  On 10/01/2013 at 03:37, belzebub59 said:

Some of the most inventive ( and inaccurate ) commentary ever.

just glosses over the notion we actually fought our way back and into the lead. I mean, obviously only incidental and of no importance

yikes i think that vision IS the smoking gun - I think the person to left of Bails is coaching the team not Bails at all.

The commentary and VoiceOver on the HUN's website re the last quarter is ridiculously biased...hilighting the Melbourne coaching staff's reaction to hitting the lead! Come on...it's a bit early for celebrating, don't you think? That's TENTION fella's, nerves, whatever...and Nathan Browns only goal of the quarter on Paul Johnson - not only was it a fluke, but Paul beat him clearly to ball, only to have it bounce off his legs towards Nathan...

  On 10/01/2013 at 03:58, nutbean said:

yikes i think that vision IS the smoking gun - I think the person to left of Bails is coaching the team not Bails at all.

so there's the culprit,

the advisors were the problem?