On 22/12/2012 at 07:52, Macca said:

For years I've advocated teams needing to win to get a better placed draft pick - it's not a perfect system but it all but eliminates 'tanking' . Give the no.1 pick to the team that finishes 9th and no.2 to the 10th team and so on and so forth . Teams that are genuine 'basket cases' can be helped out arbitrarily by the Commission .

A team could (in theory) give up a chance to play finals in order to finish 9th but that's the only flaw . It rewards teams who are just short of finals capabilities but so what ? Any sort of system where losing becomes a reward is fraught with danger (as we can well attest) . There has been a lottery system in the NBA since the 80's and it doesn't stop teams from tanking .

Really? I thought that the tanking had been reined in....there you go.

Pick #1 to 9th? Fmd, the Tiges would have won three flags by now...

It is not appropriate to be indiscreet or flippant in whatever your pursuit.

  On 22/12/2012 at 07:52, Macca said:

For years I've advocated teams needing to win to get a better placed draft pick - it's not a perfect system but it all but eliminates 'tanking' . Give the no.1 pick to the team that finishes 9th and no.2 to the 10th team and so on and so forth . Teams that are genuine 'basket cases' can be helped out arbitrarily by the Commission .

A team could (in theory) give up a chance to play finals in order to finish 9th but that's the only flaw . It rewards teams who are just short of finals capabilities but so what ? Any sort of system where losing becomes a reward is fraught with danger (as we can well attest) . There has been a lottery system in the NBA since the 80's and it doesn't stop teams from tanking .........

Because that lottery is heavily weighted in favour of lower clubs. Why not picks 1 to 5 an unweighted lottery for teams 14-18; picks 6 to 10 for teams 9-13.

If you give pick 1 to team 9, teams will target position 9, rather than 8 where they will get flogged in an early final. Or are you a closet tiges fan and want them to get pick 1 for ever more?...LOL

Ed: or picks 1 to 10 an unweighted lottery for teams 9 to 18.

  On 22/12/2012 at 08:04, jumbo returns said:

Really? I thought that the tanking had been reined in....there you go.

Pick #1 to 9th? Fmd, the Tiges would have won three flags by now...

We chatted about it on the NFL thread in the 'Other sports' section of 'land . I could dig out a couple of links that will back it up but people who follow the NBA closely would support my comment . Yeah, the Tiges would have a few no.1 picks

I'm quite happy to entertain a system where 'winning' is always the primary aim for any club . Losing to get a reward is always going to end up being a seriously flawed system .

As I said, my idea is by no means perfect but it does to a large extent eliminate the 'losing' mentality . It's probably too 'left field' for many but if we never had a draft none of this tanking stuff would exist . We're always going to have a draft so maybe a completely different way of structuring it is the answer .

Why does the Aged bother to publish todays article?

It says NOTHING that has not already been said, but continues to accuse people....

Do not forget MFC.

  On 22/12/2012 at 08:05, Dockett 32 said:

It is not appropriate to be indiscreet or flippant in whatever your pursuit.

Except perhaps stand-up comedy.

  On 21/12/2012 at 07:34, sue said:

If there is breaking news on a topic that inhabits an existing long thread I think there is value in it being posted in a new thread. Some readers may have given up following the often repetitive posts in the original thread and may miss the new development.

The trick is to avoid the 'breaking news' thread from becoming a new place to post on the topic (or even to stop it becoming a place to post opinions about thread management...)

exactly, who the hell cares if there are multiple threads

  On 23/12/2012 at 01:24, Curry & Beer said:

exactly, who the hell cares if there are multiple threads

We agree old foe.

We're not writing the great Australian novel here.

Well maybe WYL is.

  On 22/12/2012 at 06:37, RobbieF said:

If he was, supposedly, the one that was going to be sacked in the first place I hardly see how he would have had any say in it. If he was, then what power would he have been able to wield?

After 186, the scene changed and board jumped from issues with Schwab to the Coach. Its not a matter of powe but influence on the decisions that were made. Given it was known that Schwab and Connolly did not support Bailey when push came to shove it would be ambitious to presume Schwab as CEO would not have been a participant in the circus that followed. You are sharp enough to work through that.

All the in fighting and bitter battling between X board members and current board members, is a joke! It's why we are the joke of the AFL..... We are so easily divided.... It's embarrassing......

We have elite supporters of our club that would prefer we went down for tanking, than win a premiership..... All because of ego's and bitterness........ Attitudes like these are the reason we will probably never win another premiership...... It's the reason Norm Smith got the sack and its the reason this club will eventually die or be relocated......

  On 23/12/2012 at 01:24, Curry & Beer said:

exactly, who the hell cares if there are multiple threads

Thanks for agreeing but that's not quite what I meant. I like the idea of a new thread to draw our attention to breaking news, but I'd prefer that thread to be closed or merged as soon as it starts to duplicate the original one on the topic. Alternatively I'm happy if the new thread takes over and people stop posting to the original one. That probably won't happen and the former suggestion is probably too much work for the mods. But I'd prefer not to follow the same theme in 2 threads.

  On 22/12/2012 at 04:52, Whispering_Jack said:

But the investigation into Bailey ended with no further action so it really started with McLean and the farcical way he was set up by On the Couch and my information is that it was exactly that - a set up.

One thing that really p--d me off was seeing Gerry Healy (hope he hates being called Gerry) at the B&F.

I just feel like this bloke has never given anything to this club.

In fact just the opposite.

The other thing that rarely rates a mention is the navy blue elephant in the AFL boardroom.

  On 22/12/2012 at 04:52, Whispering_Jack said:

But the investigation into Bailey ended with no further action so it really started with McLean and the farcical way he was set up by On the Couch and my information is that it was exactly that - a set up.

Probably, but just how how where the bullets loaded, (the AFL?), if so, by whom?

Were the couch team called upon to fire off the salvo's?

Was the AFL players assoc' involved in the plot?

  On 22/12/2012 at 07:26, Mono said:

This whole thing has always had a smell about it.....a set up. WJ has summarised nicely why

IMO, On the Couch would only have run the McLean interview if they knew that McLean's comments would have a flow on effect.

The only way they would have known this was if they had the thumbs up from someone at the AFL who had the power to start an investigation; in effect, looking for an excuse.

The whole story has a lot more to run.

Roos has setup a draft situation whereby recycled players with mature bodies & great workethic get a new chance.

Is this a part of the catalyst, & his views of our youth policies back then?

Was the players association into his concept as well, encouraging more mature players to be drafted,,, & were they worried about the growing list management going on within the competition, & the harm it was doing to mature age players careers?

  On 23/12/2012 at 01:52, GM11 said:

The other thing that rarely rates a mention is the navy blue elephant in the AFL boardroom.

You mean the one with so many conflicts, like the fact that he was captain of the worst tanking team which garnered 3 number 1 draft picks and that the AFL is not investigating his team despite admissions from players and coaches that they tanked, or the conflict of his financial involvement in grounds used by the AFL in preference to others, which he makes money out of.

The Rhodes Scholar.

  On 23/12/2012 at 02:05, why you little said:

The Rhodes Scholar.

Oxford Dollar$ ???

  On 23/12/2012 at 01:52, GM11 said:

The other thing that rarely rates a mention is the navy blue elephant in the AFL boardroom.

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.

  On 22/12/2012 at 08:11, Mono said:

Ed: or picks 1 to 10 an unweighted lottery for teams 9 to 18.

Like this idea ... it effectively gets rid of tanking altogether . You could hold the lottery immediately the season ends - this would allow the AFL to assess whether a team or 2 needed 'Special' assistance .

Back on thread topic ... hope our club has kept the communication lines fully open with Dean Bailey . It's vitally important that any information given in relation to the 'Reports' is consistent . Working separately for a common cause is tricky unless all parties are completely on the same page . Clothier and Haddad may well have used the old 'Divide and rule' angle to make their case . Or perhaps the divide was already there (Bailey and the club) and they've just taken advantage of the situation . Hard to get the stories straight if both parties major motive is to protect their own skin .

It's time to come together again with Dean . McLardy needs to be pro-active here without making it too obvious . If there is no smoking gun then we should be ok (surely after 5 and a half months they would have uncovered the smoking gun by now) . My gut feeling is that some of the stories might conflict a little - caused by the possible divide .

If this comes down to Connolly's comments then we need a few things to happen . Bailey needs to explain that he treated the comments as a joke . Connolly needs to explain the comments were intended as a joke and everyone else needs to follows suit .

Bailey was a so so coach, unfortunately he had a crap team that didnt perform, which resulted in more high draft picks to waste on skinny kids who were not ready to play with the big boys which perpetuated our crappyness.

Bailey still had to try to win games with the list he had, somewhere along the season it was evident that we were not going anywhere and he was given the freedom to play younger kids, i.e. his performance at the club was not going to be measured by wins in that year this is not taking this is what every club begins to do to some degree once it sees the season slipping away. He played kids to give them time with the big boys, he tried people out of position, etc.. to give them experience. Just because someone may have made jokes about tanking does not mean he endorsed it, followed their direction,or that the players ever did not try. The actions Bailey has taken have been taken by other teams over the years. If this goes to court Melbourne will be asking why Collingwood's resting players is ok but not for melbourne, etc.. This is a no win situation for the AFL, melbourne will not lie down and take this while other teams have prospered from similar actions.

I would be suprised if the MFC and Dean are not still talking.

Dean was at Jimma's Funeral and he also spoke of him in glowing terms in an i/v from adelaide last year.

If Dean is onside with us i am sure it will be recipricated.

  Quote

LAWYERS acting on behalf of the Melbourne Football Club have confirmed they have received evidence in the tanking claims lodged against the club.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/demons-to-set-battle-lines-20121222-2bsqk.html#ixzz2FqIhA8cv

Amazing that the evidence has't been leaked.

Things seemed to go very quiet after Mc:Lardy's statement in early November

  Quote

'The board of the MFC is concerned to ensure that the MFC is treated fairly and properly,'

'The board will fully co-operate with an independent, lawful and transparent process.

'The board has sought an assurance from the AFL that natural justice will be afforded to the MFC, its players, employees and staff through the investigation.

'The board is also concerned to ensure there is minimal impact on our current football department and playing group.

'Since the significant restructure by the board of our football department in 2011, we have had a clear plan and settled staff, and every effort will be made to ensure they can continue to focus on the upcoming season.'

  Fan said:

McLean's comments alone would have gone nowhere if Bailey hadn't said what he said. But we can differ on that.

Not quite right. McLean's comments would have gone nowhere if Adrian "Gotcha" Anderson hadn't seen the chance to take points off his boss while Demetriou was on leave. With Caro there to stir the pot - Anderson was going in anyway.

I am afraid your inference that the investigation was our fault because our termination procedures were less professional than other clubs doesn't wash. You can try to buy the goodwill of a sacked coach with a massive terminate payment - but he's never going to thank you for the public humiliation of a sacking mid- contract. As for McLean , his dissatisfaction stemmed directly from the fact that -correctly- Bailey took him out of our first choice midfield and let him know that - with Scully and Trengove in the pipeline -he couldn't count on getting a regular game.

You certainly can't say that we left a stronger trail to tanking than other clubs. For all we know Kernahan, Ratten and Co sent dozens of pro-tanking emails to each other in the lead up to the Kreuzer Cup. Clothier and Haddad ( and their racks , thumb screws etc) haven't even been asked to knock on the door.

Back on topic Bailey is now very much an ally. He and the MFC are fighting a common enemy - the AFL. 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.

  Fifty-5 said:

Amazing that the evidence has't been leaked.

Things seemed to go very quiet after Mc:Lardy's statement in early November

Very smart move by McLardy

As others have pointed out the bottom line in all this may be the AFL's fear of having its rules tested in the court.

The only downside is that even at mates rates, legal fees incurred over the next month could wipe out several years' profits.

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.