If the coaching tapes exist ,the defamation lawyers may be needed by players current or ex

There's tapes??!?!

Well, either the tapes will conclusively prove that Bailey, and the club in turn, did tank... or it will provide semi-reasonable justifications for moves made, with no evidence of Bailey deliberately tanking, or giving instructions to, and it will provide a final nail in the AFL's case's coffin.

Still, the tapes won't help CS or CC much.

I get the impression the AFL has not yet heard these tapes.

How can that be possible??!

There's tapes??!?!

Well, either the tapes will conclusively prove that Bailey, and the club in turn, did tank... or it will provide semi-reasonable justifications for moves made, with no evidence of Bailey deliberately tanking, or giving instructions to, and it will provide a final nail in the AFL's case's coffin.

Still, the tapes won't help CS or CC much.

I get the impression the AFL has not yet heard these tapes.

How can that be possible??!

If they haven't yet heard the tapes, do you think we'll be in for another six months of investigation before a result is reached? I can't wait for this saga to be over.

And if you don't understand the vernacular, it's not my problem.

But it doesn't necessarily mean what you may think it does.

Despite your back pedalling I made no interpretation of what was irrelevant in a puerile name calling exercise on a journalist.

Why cant you address what he wrote? Your attempted denigration of the journalist as a person adds nothing.

If the coaching tapes exist ,the defamation lawyers may be needed by players current or ex

You would have thought any relevant evidence would have been tabled on which the AFL has based its volumous assessment.

The AFL have already provided the MFC with their findings.

In the end both parties would want this saga over.

It would need to be pretty explosive to alter where the AFL investigation is at now.

If there is further incriminating evidence (whatever format) it begs a question as to the motive of disclosure now and what it was not uncovered in the seemingly laborious investigation.

I get the impression the AFL has not yet heard these tapes.

How can that be possible??!

Probably because they contain a couple of Barry Manilow numbers.

We cant even tank properly...

If your dumb enough to record yourself cheating for god sake dont let anyone find it

i noticed the hun reported the tankgate tapes existence from the ubiquitous "source close to the club"

anyhows 6 months should have been long enough to reverse engineer a set of acceptable tapes LOL

There's tapes??!?!

Well, either the tapes will conclusively prove that Bailey, and the club in turn, did tank... or it will provide semi-reasonable justifications for moves made, with no evidence of Bailey deliberately tanking, or giving instructions to, and it will provide a final nail in the AFL's case's coffin.

Still, the tapes won't help CS or CC much.

I get the impression the AFL has not yet heard these tapes.

How can that be possible??!

My guess is that if these tapes exist then there is sure to be an 18 minute gap in them.

My guess is that if these tapes exist then there is sure to be an 18 minute gap in them.

Lol , the last quarter?

Its entirely possible that these tapes are the anti-thesis of the 'smoking gun' ie they might just vindicate what the club has maintained all along, that there were justifiable reasons and a plan of attack. Just because that plan doesnt sit nicely with some of the media and anyone else lining up to smack us around the head , well bad luck

"it is believed Bailey's legal team remains hopeful the audio has not been destroyed and it is trying to track down the necessary files."

Would you want them found if incriminating ?? I wouldnt think so

What might just happen is that the witch-hunt come Inquisition in their zeal to hang , draw and quarter us might just end up offering up the very thing we need to put it to bed. All the 'nasty parties' seemed to be circling around the Richmond-Melb game as proof -positive of shenanigans ( bizarre for so many reasons ) that they seem to have left little else to show.

They want to crucify us for a game we had all but won, and use the coach's audio to hang himself. This is very likely to blow up in the accuser's faces and then they are left with nowhere to go.

GOOD !!

Lol , the last quarter?

why...we fought back... we all but came from behind to win. One kick sank us (or did it...lol )

One minute the HS is suggesting that MFC tanking is an open and shut case, the next some audio tape "may unlock" whether this is so. With potentially mountains of out-takes to get through better get Phil Spector on the job.

Yes I covered that in the word fixture, with its myriad of advantages and disadvantages.

I think the word fixture is meant to mean " arranging a list of games " not " assisting with the fixing of them".

Redleg it goes to motive. If the objective of any decision is to gain access to a better draft pick it's tampering. If a club rests players before finals to give them a better chance of winning a GF then it clearly isn't.

Redleg it goes to motive. If the objective of any decision is to gain access to a better draft pick it's tampering. If a club rests players before finals to give them a better chance of winning a GF then it clearly isn't.

We were trying to gain a better chance of winning a GF. Just not the 2009 GF...

Redleg it goes to motive. If the objective of any decision is to gain access to a better draft pick it's tampering. If a club rests players before finals to give them a better chance of winning a GF then it clearly isn't.

True, it isn't 'draft tampering', it is some other sort of tampering which should also cause bookies grief and thus worry the AFL.

But for some reason, the most recent blatant example of that was ignored by the AFL.

It also means that 'tanking' is never the appropriate word to mean throwing a game if in one case throwing a game is draft tampering, in another good policy to win a GF.

Though as GTG says, it depends which GF

HMMMM!

Redleg it goes to motive. If the objective of any decision is to gain access to a better draft pick it's tampering. If a club rests players before finals to give them a better chance of winning a GF then it clearly isn't.

Not really. Whatever the motive, the process & the end result are the same.

In our case winning was less important than development.

In the Freo case winning was less important than the next game.

But for some reason, the most recent blatant example of that was ignored by the AFL.

One of the better views I've heard is that "tanking" can only occur on the field. When GWS made 8 changes against GCS in the Whitfield Cup and Hawthorn left 10 or so players out of their team punters knew what was happening and could adjust their betting accordingly. Personally, if you believed we tanked which I do, it wasn't hard to judge MFC's from going into games in the last half of 2009 so I reckon the punter was in a much better position than usual in our games.

IMO tanking initially related to players not trying to win but the confusion now lies over its possible extension to list management and selection decisions. And what of training? [censored] the players on the track during the week so they can hardly run on the weekend? I wonder if that got examined.

What people are concerned about is the motive. If the motive was to list manage and lose in order to gain PP then it's draft tampering. To me that is the issue. I can't imagine any sensible person thinks the players didn't try.

he end result are the same.

Which is exactly why it goes to motive.

If I was Bailey's lawyer, I would only be asking for the tape if I knew it didn't exist....

I can't believe that Bailey or the club's lawyers would feel the need to respond to such ridiculous questions surrounding coaching moves.

It is the prerogative of any club's administration and/or coaching staff to implement any tactics they see fit within the rules of the competition in order to do what they feel is the best way for the club to achieve success.

The above explanation should be all that is needed to constitute their response. If the AFL want to risk charging us after that, good luck to them (in court).

Its quite bizarre all of this really. Ask any Horse trainer about the methods and journey to get a horse INTO A POSITION to contest for a win. Point being you wont win every race, in face you not only dont you expect to you often arent trying to. Youre conditioning the horse to the level of competition and the environment its conducted in.

if youre setting about winning the M Cup you wont necessarily expect to win the Mckinnon or the Caulfield . You might but its not always advantageous to do so. That ol' handicapper will be after you. So you 'might' just want a good run, to see where youre at and revise from there. ( all this from someone who struggles with one end of a horse from another....though dear ol dad used to have them )

My Beef with much of this is on whos bloody say so must every game be won, if thats not the intention of the time. Even without throwing in the bugger of draft picks etc there are many legitimate reasons for not necessarily going out to win per se ( but put in a spirited and learning effort ). There are times yo might have available youre supposed best 22 but some might have niggles, some might have disciplinary issues hanging over them. others on the list might be vying for a game and need the chance to show. Why is picking them any less right ?

Who in their right mind would seek to then burn whatever candles are left at the both ends.

If for no other reason than the right to maintain sovereignty over the clubs destiny and the manner thats done then this club must fight tooth and nail and smite those little bastards back into their press boxes and at the same time reminding the AFL , this is Melbourne, its our club, not yours , .You dont TELL us what to do.

If I was Bailey's lawyer, I would only be asking for the tape if I knew it didn't exist....

or if you knew what was on it

One of the better views I've heard is that "tanking" can only occur on the field. When GWS made 8 changes against GCS in the Whitfield Cup and Hawthorn left 10 or so players out of their team punters knew what was happening and could adjust their betting accordingly. Personally, if you believed we tanked which I do, it wasn't hard to judge MFC's from going into games in the last half of 2009 so I reckon the punter was in a much better position than usual in our games.

IMO tanking initially related to players not trying to win but the confusion now lies over its possible extension to list management and selection decisions. And what of training? [censored] the players on the track during the week so they can hardly run on the weekend? I wonder if that got examined.

What people are concerned about is the motive. If the motive was to list manage and lose in order to gain PP then it's draft tampering. To me that is the issue. I can't imagine any sensible person thinks the players didn't try.

I agree that gamblers should be expected to take into factors other than general form of the team v opponent. I have (somewhat tongue in cheek) suggested before that they can take into account a team's motives, including getting better draft positioning for the future good. So from the gambling viewpoint, why should the AFL worry about any form of tanking other than outright bribery.

Yes it does come down to motives. But other than the fact that there may be an explicit rule against draft tampering, why is the motive of team building for the future more reprehensible than positioning to win a GF?

I can see why some may think so, but I'm not sure it is logical rather than emotional.