Dean Bailey speaks out about tanking

[Sir Why You Little 37,134]

Exactly. There maybe a pile of evidence. But will any of it stick when the AFL rules are applied.

I doubt it still.

[daisycutter 29,743]

If Dean is asked to explain how Jordan MacMahon jagged that out-of-his-bum goal as the final siren blew and is unable to come up with a good answer then we are in strife. (Insert sarcasm emoticon)

Dead set, if we had have won that game we would not be in this situation.

After everything that has been said and all of the alledged variables bandied about the media, it really comes down to this and the fact that we secured a priority pick from a system not of our making.

For me, it all hinges on literally a second and an arsey goal.

funny how Jordan MacMahon jagged that out-of-his-bum goal and Broke UnClean jagged that out-of-his-bum goal both of which led to the Inquisition

in future i will be very wary of players who jag out-of-their-bum goals

this could become another "confucius says man who jags goal out of bum..............." quote.

[s-t-i-n-g-a 439]

Dead set, if we had have won that game we would not be in this situation.

l.

I wouldn't be so sure. It would have just meant that we would have had to pull out all stops and been a lot more obvious to lose against freo.

[Hulett Packard III 166]

It can only help us if he swears that he didn't tell the players to tank - and , more importantly - accuses the interrogators of unfair tactics.

Bailey will tell the truth. There are no ifs, buts or maybes about it. He did not direct any members of his team to lose games and that it clear and unequivocal.

The rest of the evidence as presented in the media from time to time appears to be verbal evidence on a he said, she said basis with what appears to be the most common thread to come from disgruntled ex-employees. How much weight to be placed on such evidence? A difficult question but its 3½ year old recollections of conversations. There will be variations and differences of opinion on what was said and in what context. Was it a joke, sarcasm or meant to be taken seriously?

Oh dear. The case is falling apart.

[Whispering_Jack 30,674]

I wouldn't be so sure. It would have just meant that we would have had to pull out all stops and been a lot more obvious to lose against freo.

In that event the tanking case against the Melbourne Football Club depends on how it went against Fremantle in late 2009.

Remind me again of the result of that game? I'm sure it's an important piece of evidence in the tanking case.

[gsmith12 491]

In that event the tanking case against the Melbourne Football Club depends on how it went against Fremantle in late 2009. Remind me again of the result of that game? I'm sure it's an important piece of evidence in the tanking case.

Freo were terrible in '09 finishing with 6 wins and a % only marginally better than ours and given their history at the MCG I doubt the game would be considered relevant.

[MO FINE 171]

I think that's exactly the point being made.

[Whispering_Jack 30,674]

Freo were terrible in '09 finishing with 6 wins and a % only marginally better than ours and given their history at the MCG I doubt the game would be considered relevant.

The point is that whatever Melbourne might have done in the game against Freo is irrelevant to the investigation because Melbourne won comfortably so it can't support the case that we tanked that year.

The three games we're under suspicion for are our best performance against the Swans at Manuka when we kicked badly, the Tigers game when we led at the siren and the round 22 game when the Saints beat us by 47 points, a game we were expected to lose by 80. Eyebrows were raised after we took off Liam Jurrah who is well known for not having a tank (and yet we tanked by taking him off ?)

Go figure this all out?

[old dee 23,872]

Bailey will tell the truth. There are no ifs, buts or maybes about it. He did not direct any members of his team to lose games and that it clear and unequivocal.

The rest of the evidence as presented in the media from time to time appears to be verbal evidence on a he said, she said basis with what appears to be the most common thread to come from disgruntled ex-employees. How much weight to be placed on such evidence? A difficult question but its 3½ year old recollections of conversations. There will be variations and differences of opinion on what was said and in what context. Was it a joke, sarcasm or meant to be taken seriously?

Oh dear. The case is falling apart.

MN have you considered that DB may in fact as you suggest tell the truth

and say x and y person tried to get me to throw the game but I resisted and "did not direct any members of his team to lose games"

Case looks a little steady under those conditions don't you think?

[dee-luded 2,959]

Would probably have a fair amount to do with why they're avoiding what we're being dragged through.

Hope he sleeps well at night. Hypocrite.

Maybe a lot to do with the cleaning up of the AFL's, & Vlads "list management mess",,, hoping to give the footy public & the AFL,, closure at our expence.

The Silence on this matter from the tough clubs, is well,,, deafening.

Just as the superficiality of the Press, & electro' media in Not calling to broaden the inquisition, is just gutless... they don't deserve being sports reporters.

[Hulett Packard III 166]

MN have you considered that DB may in fact as you suggest tell the truth

and say x and y person tried to get me to throw the game but I resisted and "did not direct any members of his team to lose games"

Case looks a little steady under those conditions don't you think?

In that event the case collapses because there's no tanking.

[old dee 23,872]

In that event the case collapses because there's no tanking.

Not necessarily then you might have two high up officials guilty of trying to fix a game with the club penalised.

[Hulett Packard III 166]

Pretty hard to prove that one.

[old dee 23,872]

Pretty hard to prove that one.

Just do not get too far ahead of things mate.

The fat lady has not sung yet.

Have a good Christmas.

[Whispering_Jack 30,674]

Just do not get too far ahead of things mate.

The fat lady has not sung yet.

Have a good Christmas.

This is Dean Baileys' version as reported in the Herald Sun on 7 November, 2012 -

"Some, including Bailey, believe the Connolly statement urging the coaching staff not to maximise their high draft picks was a 30-second aside in a lengthy match committee meeting."

Sorry to disappoint but a 30 second aside at a lengthy match committe meeting won't sustain a bringing the game into disrepute charge and, if Bailey is believed then there's not enough evidence to sustain a tanking charge.

Compliments of the season.

[s-t-i-n-g-a 439]

The point is that whatever Melbourne might have done in the game against Freo is irrelevant to the investigation because Melbourne won comfortably so it can't support the case that we tanked that year.

I was only saying that had we won the game against the tigers...if our priority really was to win a PP (i think it was) then we would have needed to lose the freo game. And given how bad they were at the G, we would have had to pull out all stops to do so....but I agree it's irrelevant to the current investigation.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Just do not get too far ahead of things mate.

The fat lady has not sung yet.

Have a good Christmas.

Well, there it is, it aint over til its over the fat ladies barrel chest ...

& here tis, the investigation team & their conclusions ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIVfbylUU-M

[hoopla 418]

MN have you considered that DB may in fact as you suggest tell the truth

and say x and y person tried to get me to throw the game but I resisted and "did not direct any members of his team to lose games"

Case looks a little steady under those conditions don't you think?

So after all this time, Bailey admits that he withheld damning evidence against the club for over 3 years. - and expects them to believe that he has finally decided to tell the truth?

Won't happen.

[old dee 23,872]

This is Dean Baileys' version as reported in the Herald Sun on 7 November, 2012 -

"Some, including Bailey, believe the Connolly statement urging the coaching staff not to maximise their high draft picks was a 30-second aside in a lengthy match committee meeting."

Sorry to disappoint but a 30 second aside at a lengthy match committe meeting won't sustain a bringing the game into disrepute charge and, if Bailey is believed then there's not enough evidence to sustain a tanking charge.

Compliments of the season.

WJ I have no desire to see the MFC penalised I just get worried that we all are hoping that there is no case to answer and we then go forward by justifying our position.

On this subject I have an uneasy feeling.

When the AFL announce we have no case to answer I will be delighted.

End of story.