First of all, they wouldn't have to emphasise Synes' role publicly.

Secondly, unlike you I do not claim to know what McLardy, Schwab and Connolly would or would not do or threaten to do in order to save their own arses.

Thirdly, if "Big Jim" was involved in the tanking debacle (as he almost certainly was) then he tarnished his own legacy. Jim being involved in tanking isn't even so bad unless you beatify him in the first place.

Finally, I remain loyal to the club, not a handful of incompetents who have put the club in this situation.

Hazy you strike me as someone who puts his own ego a long way ahead of any self deluded notion of loyalty to club

Its sad that you can't see this and continue your crusade of vindictiveness

Hazy you strike me as someone who puts his own ego a long way ahead of any self deluded notion of loyalty to club

Its sad that you can't see this and continue your crusade of vindictiveness

And you strike me as someone who would rather insult me than face facts.

You are adding nothing to this conversation.

Hazy....If you don't like the current President or board....Do something about it instead of boring us all to death with your little snipes.....

Your post is insulting, irrelevant and contributes nothing to this discussion.

Mods, if you are continually going to overlook posts like this when they are directed at me, you can hardly be surprised when the thread gets derailed as I exercise might right of reply and you can hardly complain if I occasionally sink to their levels.

edit: P.S. Mods, I only ask that you be consistent. I have no problem with you allowing people to derail threads with irrelevant posts that are written purely to have a go at me, provided that I am afforded the same opportunity to write such mindless, unprovoked, personally disparaging posts without risking censorship, a ban or the locking of a thread.

Nothing against Denis - who makes a fair point in this article but I find any suggestion that Jim was connected with the AFL's sick obsession with the events of 2009 quite obscene.

The AFL witch-hunt - for that is what it is - is a disgrace as it stands. How much lower can the media take it?

Why is it obscene?

If we were tanking it's only natural to look at who might have been involved, and Stynes was President at the time.

It is obscene because he specifically and categorically denied in his book (that was in essence a dying deposition) that the team were never ever asked to not win games.

He is dead, and cannot be cross examined. So those who implicate him are basically calling him, unable to defend himself, a liar. That is the obscenity here.

Could posters please stay on topic and refrain from abusing others.

Hazy is right - it does nothing to add to the topic.

Thanks

Edit: I forgot to mention that as much as is humanly possible, I will endeavour to remove posts that offend against the above until people get the message.

It is obscene because he specifically and categorically denied in his book (that was in essence a dying deposition) that the team were never ever asked to not win games.

He is dead, and cannot be cross examined. So those who implicate him are basically calling him, unable to defend himself, a liar. That is the obscenity here.

There is nothing obscene about questioning Jim. I think it is dangerous not to, truth be told.

Few seriously objected to the idea of tanking. We can be pretty confident that the board were aware of the rewards to tanking and the true state of the list. We can be sure that Jim stated that 'no-one told the players to lose'. The issue here is whether it was board directive to the FD to lose games to get picks and in what manner was this done? Few would have complained if it was either explicit policy or implicitly supported by the board. The issue is really whether it was done in a way that preserved plausible deniability. Were we smart enough to do that?

As for Jim and obscenity, I think that this topic is best left alone. As someone already said somewhere, no-one wants to degrade Jim's legacy (or words to that effect).

the board may well have said to the FD something along the lines that you have our approval to prioritise the development of the the team for the medium to long term at the expense of the short term.

now that would be reasonable and not uncommon in the afl or other professional sports

this could give the FD enough freedom to extend that to list management specifically to optimise the clubs drafting choices by bottoming out as others had done previously

So because the board may have sanctioned a re-building priority it doesn't mean it explicitly gave permission to what the proposed afl charges are alleging (notwithstanding the obscurity of such "laws").

Edited January 19, 201312 yr by daisycutter

We are MFC fans so we over-analyse every action and motive of said action.

The MFC did nothing more than jettison older players, play inexperienced players, protect players carrying injuries (both in game and out of game), and experiment with players in different positions.

The desired result was to minimise the chances of winning games of football by THESE LEGAL DECISIONS THAT ARE WELL WITHIN THE RULES.

As DC said above - the process is ubiquitous in professional sports.

If we had interfered with how those 18 players performed when sent out there then we will have an issue.

However, that is not the case and I have not heard any player, even a certain former number 5, say anything to dispute this.

Jim was in charge when this was reaching its crescendo and, like any rational Demon at the time, knew the bounty that would be there if we happened to effectively have development and experimentation as a higher priority than winning at the end of 09.

Just because we got the bounty this time (as opposed to 2007) does not mean that we did anything wrong.

We are MFC fans so we over-analyse every action and motive of said action.

The MFC did nothing more than jettison older players, play inexperienced players, protect players carrying injuries (both in game and out of game), and experiment with players in different positions.

The desired result was to minimise the chances of winning games of football by THESE LEGAL DECISIONS THAT ARE WELL WITHIN THE RULES.

As DC said above - the process is ubiquitous in professional sports.

If we had interfered with how those 18 players performed when sent out there then we will have an issue.

However, that is not the case and I have not heard any player, even a certain former number 5, say anything to dispute this.

Jim was in charge when this was reaching its crescendo and, like any rational Demon at the time, knew the bounty that would be there if we happened to effectively have development and experimentation as a higher priority than winning at the end of 09.

Just because we got the bounty this time (as opposed to 2007) does not mean that we did anything wrong.

Why the Investigation then ?

Why the Investigation then ?

why indeed. The evidence so far has hardly been earth shattering even after Wilson tried so hard to tart it up.

Why the Investigation then ?

Because Adrian Andersen doesn't know how to handle a job he doesn't have to worry about anymore.

Edited January 19, 201312 yr by rpfc

Because Adrian Andersen doesn't know how to handle a job he doesn't have to worry about anymore.

or you could say he doesn't know his elbow from his @rsehole

Because Adrian Andersen doesn't know how to handle a job he doesn't have to worry about anymore.

Exactly. Who actually believes his decision to 'quit' was not related to the disaster that the investigation has been .

IMO we will not be charged with anything, This will mean that despite whatever spin is put on it by the AFL, the media or anyone with an axe to grind against CS or DM (eg 'no charges can be laid but.....") it will amount to an exoneration. The same applies to the scenario of charges being laid and we are found not guilty by the commission (though i reckon if they decide to lay charges it is very unlikely we will found not guilty).

And funnily enough it will strengthen the position of the board and by extension CS as not only will they have been exonerated their response to the investigation and threat of charges will have proven successful.

I really hope that if no charges are laid or they are and we are found not guilty that credit is given where it is due and the anti DM and CS factions recognise that both the war and the battle is over.

Edited January 19, 201312 yr by binman

I really hope that if no charges are laid or they are and we are found not guilty that credit is given where it is due.

I suppose that depends on whether or not you think this was a good slips catch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoWoxn4mFOw

I suppose that depends on whether or not you think this was a good slips catch:

Scoreboard says Hooper, caught Taylor bowled Bevan.......... it doesn't care how

I suppose that depends on whether or not you think this was a good slips catch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoWoxn4mFOw

"Can you believe it - that was brilliant, he didn't panic in the slightest" - Richie Benaud, one of Australia's greatest captains and arguably the most respected cricket commentator the game has known (and not a bad fielder either).

Perhaps he was talking about how the dees have handled the tanking allegations rather than Mark Taylor's terrific catch (by the by as a pretty average spin bowler my definition of a poor catch was one that was dropped).

"Can you believe it - that was brilliant, he didn't panic in the slightest" - Richie Benaud, one of Australia's greatest captains and arguably the most respected cricket commentator the game has known (and not a bad fielder either).

Perhaps he was talking about how the dees have handled the tanking allegations rather than Mark Taylor's terrific catch (by the by as a pretty average spin bowler my definition of a poor catch was one that was dropped).

I have always found that catch a good divider of opinion. I am not surprised to find myself in a different camp to you. In any case, I assume you took my point.

I have always found that catch a good divider of opinion. I am not surprised to find myself in a different camp to you. In any case, I assume you took my point.

Point taken.

But to be honest if we come out of this with no charges to answer (or found not guilty of charges) any arguments by people who have an axe to grind with CS, such as CW, that suggest we were just lucky to escape charges (as opposed to acknowledging a successful strategy) would be very hard to take seriously.

Interestingly my take on the AFL's approach is that they won't charge but want to punish by embarrassing Bailey et al and therefore provide some deterrent factor for any other club that wants to list manage to maximise draft position in the future.

The AFL would consequently be more than happy for the 'dees were very lucky to escape any penalties' line to be pushed. Anyone pushing that line would therefore be assisting the AFL's in its attempt to run the dees down - a stooge for the AFL (and anti CS forces) if you will.

Lets hope that if i'm correct and we are not charged or found not guilty (ie cleared of any wrongdoing) that there isn't then an ongoing debate in the media (perhaps fed by people with axes to grind) - or on DL for that matter - about whether we were lucky, should we have been charged etc etc. Unfortunately I think that is rather wishful thinking.

I have always found that catch a good divider of opinion. I am not surprised to find myself in a different camp to you. In any case, I assume you took my point.

Are you trying to say that was not a catch??

I have always found that catch a good divider of opinion. I am not surprised to find myself in a different camp to you. In any case, I assume you took my point.

And by the way i thought it was a very creative and witty way to make it. Good work.

I wondered though if perhaps a clip of Bradbury's Olympic gold medal might have more effectively illustrated your point (though perhaps not illustrating as well how the dees being cleared might divide opinion)?

Lets hope that if i'm correct and we are not charged or found not guilty (ie cleared of any wrongdoing) that there isn't then an ongoing debate in the media (perhaps fed by people with axes to grind) - or on DL for that matter - about whether we were lucky, should we have been charged etc etc. Unfortunately I think that is rather wishful thinking.

For the sake of the club, I hope you are right about the MFC not being charged or being charged and found "not guilty".

I do not agree that this means we should ignore the circumstances that led to our being charged (or asked to explain why we should not be charged) and the way the club has managed the tanking and associated fallout from the start. I have noted that there are many fanatical supporters of McLardy, Schwab and Connolly who are keen to do this as they believe that there is a conspiracy involving former club figures and, bizarrely, demonland posters like myself and they are keen to uncover it. Obviously I have a much simpler theory about who is at fault.

Regardless of who is responsible for the situation we find ourselves in currently, the club would do well to at least try and learn from this debacle. As supporters, we have a duty to keep informed and to hold the club's leadership to account. Even putting the obvious stuff aside about indiscreet meetings and best corporate practice etc., we would do well to examine the integrity of senior club figures, relationships within the club and between the club and the AFL just as a starting point. After all, we are constantly assured that the club has never been more united and that our relationship with the AFL has never been better. This stands in stark contrast to recent events whereby Connolly has publicly claimed the existence of an internal club conspiracy and we are the only club being investigated for tanking by the AFL. Of course, I do not for one moment think that the Board and Admin will be transparent about these issues but it is clear they can't keep a secret so I am sure that further details will surface in time.

You think this makes be a bad supporter, I think this makes me a better supporter. Once again, different camps.

Hazy-nearly 40 thousand supporters and the club had a terrible year in 2012 due to circs largely out of our control.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion ,no matter how tedious the majority of people find it .

A lot of people want CC and CS out of the club-both internally and externally .

Why? Is there a reason for it?

Or do you think its because we experimented with our list and moved on the elder statesmen?

Personally I think we are set for a top year .

Anyone with the ambition and the drive to challenge the board should go for it .

It's not a closed shop -do it if you have the ticker and the acumen .

Otherwise ,don't expect to win friends at a time when we are circling the wagons and you are slagging of those we wish to defend .

Point taken.

But to be honest if we come out of this with no charges to answer (or found not guilty of charges) any arguments by people who have an axe to grind with CS, such as CW, that suggest we were just lucky to escape charges (as opposed to acknowledging a successful strategy) would be very hard to take seriously.

Interestingly my take on the AFL's approach is that they won't charge but want to punish by embarrassing Bailey et al and therefore provide some deterrent factor for any other club that wants to list manage to maximise draft position in the future.

The AFL would consequently be more than happy for the 'dees were very lucky to escape any penalties' line to be pushed. Anyone pushing that line would therefore be assisting the AFL's in its attempt to run the dees down - a stooge for the AFL (and anti CS forces) if you will.

Lets hope that if i'm correct and we are not charged or found not guilty (ie cleared of any wrongdoing) that there isn't then an ongoing debate in the media (perhaps fed by people with axes to grind) - or on DL for that matter - about whether we were lucky, should we have been charged etc etc. Unfortunately I think that is rather wishful thinking.

For the sake of the club, I hope you are right about the MFC not being charged or being charged and found "not guilty".

I do not agree that this means we should ignore the circumstances that led to our being charged (or asked to explain why we should not be charged) and the way the club has managed the tanking and associated fallout from the start. I have noted that there are many fanatical supporters of McLardy, Schwab and Connolly who are keen to do this as they believe that there is a conspiracy involving former club figures and, bizarrely, demonland posters like myself and they are keen to uncover it. Obviously I have a much simpler theory about who is at fault.

Regardless of who is responsible for the situation we find ourselves in currently, the club would do well to at least try and learn from this debacle. As supporters, we have a duty to keep informed and to hold the club's leadership to account. Even putting the obvious stuff aside about indiscreet meetings and best corporate practice etc., we would do well to examine the integrity of senior club figures, relationships within the club and between the club and the AFL just as a starting point. After all, we are constantly assured that the club has never been more united and that our relationship with the AFL has never been better. This stands in stark contrast to recent events whereby Connolly has publicly claimed the existence of an internal club conspiracy and we are the only club being investigated for tanking by the AFL. Of course, I do not for one moment think that the Board and Admin will be transparent about these issues but it is clear they can't keep a secret so I am sure that further details will surface in time.

You think this makes be a bad supporter, I think this makes me a better supporter. Once again, different camps.

You insinuate that we haven't handled our 'tanking' well enough - what about Carlton? They had a former assistant coach and a former full forward come out and admit they were tanking. Richmond's coach said that he did nothing to stop a loss as if that is any different to anything we did or did not do.

Yet why are we investigated? Because of a disgruntled former player saying we didn't have winning as the No.1 priority?

And why has the investigation lasted so long? Because of a joke at a match committee meeting and Paul Johnson playing at FB?

There is no conspiracy, but we are in the cross-hairs of a few journalists for subjective and unfair reasons relating to their issues with a few people working at the club.

I am not about to blame the club for the pettiness and vindictiveness of a few journalists who got their way because of the unfortunate instance of Adrian Andersen being in charge when Healy and Sheahan showed their intent.

Once again, we are the owners of outrageous misfortune and while that seems to be our 'lot' it certainly is not our fault.

Anyone ever taken what they call a "reflex" catch?

I have twice in my less than illustrious cricket career. I've always written them off as complete flukes because I have no idea how I took them. On one of those occasions, all I remember is the ball being bowled and the next second it was in my hands. Probably looked like a good catch but I'm certain it had absolutely nothing to do with any skill I possessed for catching the ball. Anyway, the next ball was faced by a different batsman.

At least Mark Taylor was known as a decent slips fieldsman and regularly took spectacular catches.