I've had this account for a while but now seems like an appropriate time to introduce myself...

Seriously if we get charged who else would we want backing us? Finkle-who?

S'all good man!

I think we'd do better with Walt in our corner just quietly.

I think we'd do better with Walt in our corner just quietly.

Aha no I like to believe CC is Walt and his brother in law is one of the investigators.

Have I become so involved in a TV series that I apply it to most situations I encounter...?

Maybe.

The probe, into practices employed during Dean Baileys tenure as coach, is believed to have found adversely against former football manager Chris Connolly.

The above comment by Damien Barrett if true, is the innocent finding against the club we have all waited for.

Remember the section allegedly breached, required a Coach or Player to breach it. If the above is true then obviously there is no evidence of said breach or we would be seeing headlines about Bailey. It would appear that Bailey has denied tanking and he was in charge. If there is no evidence that we did, end of story.

What are we then left with if Barrett is correct? An off the cuff comment by CC that Bailey has been reported as saying was a joke and that clearly he didn't act on. What then? The AFL charges CC for making an unfunny joke.

I don't see how a senior official can be "guilty" and the club " not guilty". If the Operations Manager has acted illegally ,then surely the Club has acted illegally- unless it can prove that the Operations Manager deliberately went against the wishes of the Board and the CEO.

On the one level I could live with Connolly being penalized if the club escapes sanction. But I don't think that would be a fair outcome ...... and I believe the Club should fight on Connolly's behalf if that is the way it is headed.

This is normal procedure. AFL has finalised its investigation and gathered its evidence. It presents that to Melbourne that has 3 weeks to respond.

IF, after that, they believe there is a case to answer they will charge the club with some rule infraction. We will then have several options available to us to fight any said charges.

Its time to chill and enjoy Xmas...

That is correct - but Melbourne wouldn't need three weeks if they weren't putting forward some pretty strong evidence against us and/or our officials. It is reasonable to conclude that the AFL believes there is a case to answer. This is not the end of the world - because we have an opportunity to answer it. But if the AFL were heading in the direction of clearing us altogether - they wouldn't be flagging a 3 week review period.

No need to panic - but brace for a fight.

The fact that at the very least the club is being made to fight to clear its name is a travesty of justice - when you consider what other clubs have done - with little more than a 'please explain' phone call.

We should all send Jnrmac's other post (quoting Fev and Libba) to all the AFL Commissioners and every media outlet !!

The clubs not guilty because Bailey hasnt followed through with CC flippant remark, Bailey hasnt told the assistants or players to lose, thats why the investigation revolves around CC, AD has told everyone what he regards as tanking and we didnt do that, there after an individual to save face, not the club.

The clubs not guilty because Bailey hasnt followed through with CC flippant remark, Bailey hasnt told the assistants or players to lose, thats why the investigation revolves around CC, AD has told everyone what he regards as tanking and we didnt do that, there after an individual to save face, not the club.

I think this may very well be the case. Though Im not even convinced they will even hang an individual out to dry but need to seem as though they intend to.

this strikes me as a controlled manouvre by the AFL as part of its "PUBLIC" presentation of its findings.. its effectively propaganda on behalf of the AFL. It as some suggest needs to show something for all the effort but its all SHOW. Melbourne will review the so called evidence and proffer its explanations( and most likely with e a veiled warning ) .

AFL will take this under advisement and then will probably drop the whole thing after deliberating and deciding that the Dees answers are/were plausible.

case closed...thats my take

I'm in the Insurance business and one of my mates in the industry is a Surveyor, it's his job to determine the suitability or otherwise of a risk and to recommend whether his company should accept or decline cover. He told me many years ago that if he looked at a risk, even if it was tip top, he would report some minor infringement of Fire regulations or Safety because if he didn't his employer would think he hadn't done his job.

These clowns have spent more than 6 months investigating this and I would imagine that they have determined that there must be a "sacrificial lamb" so they look like they've done their job.

I hope the club defend any employee of the club that's put under the pump, if we don't we will look like we are as weak as [censored] and as guilty as hell.

Thank you Brock McLean. Thank you Gerard Healy, Mike Sheahan and Paul Roos.

And thank you Caroline Wilson.

It's a real concern that, on the face of it, a nothing story can generate so much carp for a club now intent on getting its house in order.

And yet Carlton is not in the AFL's sights?! It's not only about consistency here, it's also about the integrity of the underlying journalism and the quality of the investigation that's on the line here.

Effectively they all seem to be extremely concerned about a gag made by CC. Are we in Kansas?

Adverse finding - what does that tell you we have witnesses who say Connolly said this

Connolly now has right of reply

1) I said that word for word and it was a joke, on other occassions I have also said these things did these witnesses also tell you this. and are you investigating all things I have said in jest, because they are clearly as ridiculous as these comments I said during this meeting your referring to. The only meaning they have is of a joke or comments made in jest

2) This has been taken totally out of context

You can not write off an inquiry till you first interview the person who is alleged to have said the comments in question.

FFS as others have said don't panic, the sky is falling.

I would really hate to be under the pump or in the trenches with a lot on this forum. And some of you have the cheek to question our players not responding well to pressure

CC absolutely should have an adverse finding against him for his comments and be asked to explain. CC should absolutely refute the adverse finding and as Dean Bailey pointed out make it clear that they were tongue in cheek, flippant remarks.

This is a process that is being followed and I expected nothing less. Nothing has changed. To all those who want to plead guilty and limit the damage I would refer them to Loges,RPFC, BB, the post above and others. Step one - weigh up the evidence - if it weak then respond to the AFL and let them know if there are any charges they will be vigourously defended. If it is strong ( and we have yet to hear of anything resembling "strong") and can be shown to actual break a rule then you work with the AFL to minimise the damage.

The only smoking gun we have heard about is injudicious comments by Chris Connelly that are more than open to intepretation as to their seriousness - is that all they have got ? if so....

AFL late January - "after presenting the evidence to the MFC and receiving back detailed responses we find the MFC has no case to answer. Chris Connelly, has been cautioned on remarks that were made that were open to misinterpretation and this is a good lesson for all administrators on the being careful with throw away lines. The situation that has predicated this "tanking" investigation has been somewhat been lessened by the granting of priority picks only at the AFL discretion. From the 2013 draft onwards we will have a lottery system in place so the circumstances arising to the suggestion that a team is playing for picks cannot arise again."

I still think there will be punishment for the club in some way shape or form.

The timing seems extraordinarily cynical but right in keeping with the AFL's modus operandi - it'll be designed to steal headlines from the tennis.

Wilson has been very quiet of late...

Look, the AFL want out of this and the want to win the news cycle, getting us to roll over on CC is what they want.

They can get stuffed.

If they didn't want this mess, then they shouldn't have left Dopey Andersen in charge when The Bloated One went the the Olympics.

No punishment. No firings. No 'adverse findings.'

If they want something, they can have a nuanced statement that we were flippant about it (CC's joke) and that is disappointing. But that is it.

apologies, I should have been clearer - my comment was based on the assumption that if they have indeed found us guilty than they presumably have the required evidence to do so.. let's not forget they are the investigator but also the judge and jury. If an announcement is made that we are being punished then i think it is fair to say the case is a fait accompli and we can't mount an argument from there

See I dont see it that way - the investigators are not the judge and jury - all they can do is present evidence - it is up to the commission to decide after we respond if charges are to be laid and I am thinking that commission has wider considerations than just the MFC.

To make this clear I have never advocated that we shouldnt get charged because others have done the same. However the commission realises that if they charge the MFC for a retrospective act of tanking, then this charge must set a benchmark/standard of what constitutes tanking and then the AFL must apply this same standard against other clubs.

So Ron Burgundy cant understand why Carlton arent in the crosshairs of the AFL - my thinking is that the commission is worried about an adverse finding against the MFC for the exact reason that the standard has to be applied to other clubs as well. I think that Carlton, WCE,Hawks Collingwood, Richmond, Stkilda and Freo are very much in the minds of the commissioners and the flow on affect of a guilty verdict - for this reason alone I think the AFL will apply the narrowest of narrow definitions to tanking and there will be no case to answer.

I do like the Nuts reasoning above, as surely must be the only reason it didn't broaden to other clubs. This is damage control and a planned egress from the calamity.

I don't see how a senior official can be "guilty" and the club " not guilty". If the Operations Manager has acted illegally ,then surely the Club has acted illegally- unless it can prove that the Operations Manager deliberately went against the wishes of the Board and the CEO.

On the one level I could live with Connolly being penalized if the club escapes sanction. But I don't think that would be a fair outcome ...... and I believe the Club should fight on Connolly's behalf if that is the way it is headed.

That is correct - but Melbourne wouldn't need three weeks if they weren't putting forward some pretty strong evidence against us and/or our officials. It is reasonable to conclude that the AFL believes there is a case to answer. This is not the end of the world - because we have an opportunity to answer it. But if the AFL were heading in the direction of clearing us altogether - they wouldn't be flagging a 3 week review period.

No need to panic - but brace for a fight.

The fact that at the very least the club is being made to fight to clear its name is a travesty of justice - when you consider what other clubs have done - with little more than a 'please explain' phone call.

We should all send Jnrmac's other post (quoting Fev and Libba) to all the AFL Commissioners and every media outlet !!

Are you serious? 21 days is a perfectly ordinary legislative/regulatory/conventional period in which to reply to lots of things, including allegations/findings.

I do like the Nuts reasoning above, as surely must be the only reason it didn't broaden to other clubs. This is damage control and a planned egress from the calamity.

guilty finding = broadening

not guilty = it all goes away

Are you serious? 21 days is a perfectly ordinary legislative/regulatory/conventional period in which to reply to lots of things, including allegations/findings.

the longer this goes the more credence it gives to the AFL when the say "this was lengthy, detailed, thorough process with no stone left unturned, we interviewed and reinterviewed and made sure nothing was missed"

Are you serious? 21 days is a perfectly ordinary legislative/regulatory/conventional period in which to reply to lots of things, including allegations/findings.

given that the 21 days looks likely to include the xmas/new year break period it is in fact a much shorter period of time

not sure i understand if there is any significance in this, but at least it will be most inconvenient for many

I hope we fight it tooth and nail.

For those who say we should bend over to the AFL for a lighter penalty - thats not an option.

I would bend over for a lighter penalty, in the interest of surviving as a football club.

What if we go to court, lose the case and subsequently get thrown out of the next 4 national drafts?

given that the 21 days looks likely to include the xmas/new year break period it is in fact a much shorter period of time

not sure i understand if there is any significance in this, but at least it will be most inconvenient for many

although usually a stipulated 21 day period wouldn't include public holidays, but what the AFL might do is another question altogether I suppose.

all this is doing my head in.

I really really hope McLean gets cleaned up this year, if not by a Dee then by anyone.

I would bend over for a lighter penalty, in the interest of surviving as a football club.

What if we go to court, lose the case and subsequently get thrown out of the next 4 national drafts?

there you go again with that "4 national drafts" claim again

just what is your basis (fascination) with 4 drafts? You've been asked before but not answered

although usually a stipulated 21 day period wouldn't include public holidays, but what the AFL might do is another question altogether I suppose.

maybe, but football clubs shutdown for more than the 3 public holidays at this time. More like 2 weeks, but it seems many will now be forced to work through their holidays.

See I dont see it that way - the investigators are not the judge and jury - all they can do is present evidence - it is up to the commission to decide after we respond if charges are to be laid and I am thinking that commission has wider considerations than just the MFC.

To make this clear I have never advocated that we shouldnt get charged because others have done the same. However the commission realises that if they charge the MFC for a retrospective act of tanking, then this charge must set a benchmark/standard of what constitutes tanking and then the AFL must apply this same standard against other clubs.

So Ron Burgundy cant understand why Carlton arent in the crosshairs of the AFL - my thinking is that the commission is worried about an adverse finding against the MFC for the exact reason that the standard has to be applied to other clubs as well. I think that Carlton, WCE,Hawks Collingwood, Richmond, Stkilda and Freo are very much in the minds of the commissioners and the flow on affect of a guilty verdict - for this reason alone I think the AFL will apply the narrowest of narrow definitions to tanking and there will be no case to answer.

More than that, it will apply to the future, and require, for example, investigations into clubs who list manage, blood new players, or play players in new positions in the NAB cup!

I've read this thread, and many other threads and articles regarding the tanking issue. One thing I have to say about what is posted about the topic on Demonland, I'm sick to death of the people who are in the "nothing to see, move along" corner. Can you please remind of a few things?

* This is a public forum, where everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Your opinion is that we will get off, some don't have that opinion. What's with the arrogant, smart-arse posting, having shots at people that don't think the same as you? The whole "the sky is falling" crap, FFS, grow up.

* How can you be so sure that we are going to get off? Unless you work for the AFL, you are basing this on nothing other than what the media (you know, those people that we all abuse about trying to bring us down) are reporting. Your evidence is no different to those that believe we are guilty, although it could be argued that some of our games in 2009 would allow us to think that something wasn't "quite right".

It's pretty ordinary that a number of you took pot shots at DeeGirl for raising the topic. She obviously had the word; no, it's not 100% accurate...yet. She did say that cetain bodies had been charged, which, according to media outlets, isn't quite accurate. People want her to name her source, why? What if she worked at the AFL? Do you think they would want one of their employees posting stuff on supporter forums? If she's got form, I am happy to take her word for it. You soon learn who does have the contacts, or when they get "the word", and it is often clear who has no bloody idea and are just making [censored] up. Deegirl is obviously one that does know her stuff.

So, let's try and make this thread a little bit more enjoyable. None of us know what the outcome will be, we all hope it won't be a guilty verdict, but who knows? Not I, or any of you.

I do find it funny how when the $cummy issue was around, that the all in the media were driving the "he's leaving", that they had seen "evidence" that he had signed, a majority on here believed it, and it turned out spot on. Yet this issue, the media are driving that "we're guilty" bus, they claim to have spoken to key figures, have knowledge of various incidients that took place in 2009, yet now, the majority are saying that they are out to get us?

Perhaps we could argue that CC was misquoted. Sort of like this:

From The Australian:

"Due to a production error, a quote attributed to Lieutenant Colonel Ghulam Jehlani Shafiq in a report in The Weekend Australian on Saturday (“Afghanistan battles scourge of corruption”, page 16) was altered to change its meaning. Colonel Jehlani did not say: “It’s not like 25 years ago. I was killing everybody.” In fact, he said: “It’s not like 25 years ago I was killing everybody. At that time too we tried not to have civilian casualties.” The Australian apologises for the error."

Or maybe there was a spelling error, like this (ouch!)

Seriously, we should stop looking for conspiracies at AFL House. If there is a case to answer, we answer it. If we did something that brought the game into disrepute, we face the consequences. But I can't see how we did. Or to put it another way, if we did, then the CEO of the AFL has a problem as he has already said we didn't when this issue was first raised a few years ago.

reason for edit: added link which refers to Demetriou's comments in 2009

Mark Fine was just sticking up for MFC on SEN just now.

Stating how ridiculous the whole thing is based on a few comments made by Brock Mclean.

Implored the AFL to get off Melbournes back, citing many other examples of clubs such as Carlton, Richmond,Freo,Collingwood,Hawthorn etc etc, doing exactly the same thing in certain games experimenting with players in different positions, not tagging, resting players, using less interchange etc.

He said it was akin to a school headmaster walking into a room full of misbehaving children and singling one out of the pack , grabbing them by the ear and marching them out for punishment.

It's a pity Caro isn't around to tell us what the AFL have. =)