Cometti: The AFL must rethink tank

In recent days Melbourne chief executive Cameron Schwab, football manager Chris Connolly and former coach Dean Bailey were all given until the end of the month to give reason to the AFL why they should not be charged.

Yet no mention in this murky business of Jim Stynes!

Is it seriously being suggested the legendary Stynes was not a 'hands on' president?

I find the inference he was not a party to 'tanking' and that somehow he was duped by his own staff equally insulting to his memory.

Regardless, even the concept of 'tanking' is shadowy, and raises questions as to AFL oversight of coaching at all 18 clubs.

.........................................................................

The league should take a deep breath before getting involved in a round of finger-pointing that, who knows, could lead all the way to having a black box in the coach's box.

Really is any one surprised that the President would be implicated?

Cometti: The AFL must rethink tank

I actually think its not a bad article, brief but to the point

I believe Denis grew up following the dees

It's funny he mentions a black box in the coaches box as MFC pretty much had that in 2009. Recent articles have suggested we have coaches box recordings for most games that year and they may be used in any defence we mount.

I actually think its not a bad article, brief but to the point

I believe Denis grew up following the dees

I believe Den is a member, I think I heard him say back in 2010.

He's right to highlight the rediculous nature of this 1st Dimensional approach to the AFL Commissions failing list managing structures.

Mssr's Vlad & Fitz need to clean they're lockers out quick.

I believe Denis grew up following the dees

The following was in the Age:

DENNIS COMETTI (Nine): "There's only one team I support - West Perth," he said. "I guess I have a soft spot for Melbourne because I barracked for them as a kid, but I also care a little bit for Western Bulldogs (with whom he played seconds footy) and Fremantle. But Melbourne, I guess."Melbourne Feral rating 1

Dennis plays it down because he is a commentator and lives in Perth, but he is considerably more keen on the Dees than that article would have us believe.

well its a bit besides the point that he is or isnt a dees man and i think coming from a non dee gives more weight , but whatever , he is spot on , and it great to be seeing some support in the papers , about bloody time eh ,

I don't find it surprising at all that Jim and the Board are being implicated in some quarters. After all, it was suggested by some very early in the piece that forces opposed to the Board and some officials have been strongly involved in a campaign to denigrate and deligitimise them stretching back much further than the current tanking investigation. I think even Blind Freddie might have noticed this.

I don't find it surprising at all that Jim and the Board are being implicated in some quarters. After all, it was suggested by some very early in the piece that forces opposed to the Board and some officials have been strongly involved in a campaign to denigrate and deligitimise them stretching back much further than the current tanking investigation. I think even Blind Freddie might have noticed this.

Very sad WJ but I guess that is the human species.

In his book Jim as much as said he was torn, as most of us here would have been at the time, between winning meaningless matches and winning draft picks, given the system that the AFL had set up, but categorically denied ever deliberately trying to lose games.

That's pretty true, how can they point the finger at us then they have allowed GWS do it all season?

That's pretty true, how can they point the finger at us then they have allowed GWS do it all season?

Because the AFL own and run GWS, and their list management is in the AFL's interests.

We, after all, are only a genuine football club with a small membership base. So they think that they can pisz on us from a great height.

That's why we must fight them every inch of the way!

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?

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.

I don't find it surprising at all that Jim and the Board are being implicated in some quarters. After all, it was suggested by some very early in the piece that forces opposed to the Board and some officials have been strongly involved in a campaign to denigrate and deligitimise them stretching back much further than the current tanking investigation. I think even Blind Freddie might have noticed this.

This bit made me lol.

Some of you blokes must check under your bed for the boogie man every night too.

Jim was president. He is involved.

I have just finished the book. Without wanting to whitewash him, it would appear that in the second half of 2009 that he was so busy with treatment and focusing on his health that his involvement would have been minimal. I'm not sure if it is just my interpretation but I think that was the case for much of the time between the initial diagnosis and his sad passing. It also points to the great job that Don McLardy did to keep things together.

There is a disconnect on this.

Dragged into what?

We did nothing more than 'bottom out' - which is what all teams do in a draft regulated sport when they are having a losing season. Even the NBA is rife with this and it has the 'cure-all' lottery for their draft.

Put Jim at the forefront - we did nothing wrong.

The 18 players we sent out there onto the field did their best to win their position and games of football and they constantly failed to do so for years, so don't get fooled that a few losses are worse than the rest.

We were awful, we decided to have winning as a lower priority after we lost enough games, which is our right, and we did nothing wrong.

There is a disconnect on this.

Dragged into what?

We did nothing more than 'bottom out' - which is what all teams do in a draft regulated sport when they are having a losing season. Even the NBA is rife with this and it has the 'cure-all' lottery for their draft.

Put Jim at the forefront - we did nothing wrong.

The 18 players we sent out there onto the field did their best to win their position and games of football and they constantly failed to do so for years, so don't get fooled that a few losses are worse than the rest.

We were awful, we decided to have winning as a lower priority after we lost enough games, which is our right, and we did nothing wrong.

Your a smart Man, its called conspiring.

I think Jim has answered the inquisition anyway.

He was torn between wanting to win and keeping the priority pick (As most were).

The coach was never instructed to lose.

I believe Jim Stynes was a truthful man.

Of course Jim was involved.

If Schwab, McLardy and Connolly are determined to pursue a "no case to answer" verdict, they may well seek to emphasise this fact in the hopes that it makes it unpalatable for the AFL to pursue. This may be the only strategy that could lead to the "no case to answer" result.

Not sure I'd give them that much credit though.

I thought Jim Stynes was the best thing to happen to the Melbourne Footy Club for a long time. I think his legacy will live on long past this ridiculous and petty investigation is consigned to the annals of a long list of stuff ups by the AFL.

Jim was good friends and completely trusted Don McLardy. Don in turn promised Jim to do his best to carry through their vision to get the MFC back on track and a viable, vibrant and relevant part of the sporting landscape in Melbourne.

Don McLardy and the MFC among many others handled the passing of Jim less than a year ago with dignity and reverance to a great man. I don't know much else about Don McLardy except he has a reluctance to be thrust into the spotlight. But he is carrying out Jim's wishes to the best of his ability, in obviously very tough times.

And yet you Hazy while hiding behind a nom de plume and a keyboard keep being disrespectful to Don and others who at least are standing up and fighting for what they believe in, the MFC.

I actually think the MFC has handled this witch hunt reasonably well by keeping quiet.

I think you would do better Hazy to look at ways you can help out, stand up, be something rather than the pathetic negative figure you represent skulking around these forums.

I thought Jim Stynes was the best thing to happen to the Melbourne Footy Club for a long time. I think his legacy will live on long past this ridiculous and petty investigation is consigned to the annals of a long list of stuff ups by the AFL.

Jim was good friends and completely trusted Don McLardy. Don in turn promised Jim to do his best to carry through their vision to get the MFC back on track and a viable, vibrant and relevant part of the sporting landscape in Melbourne.

Don McLardy and the MFC among many others handled the passing of Jim less than a year ago with dignity and reverance to a great man. I don't know much else about Don McLardy except he has a reluctance to be thrust into the spotlight. But he is carrying out Jim's wishes to the best of his ability, in obviously very tough times.

And yet you Hazy while hiding behind a nom de plume and a keyboard keep being disrespectful to Don and others who at least are standing up and fighting for what they believe in, the MFC.

I actually think the MFC has handled this witch hunt reasonably well by keeping quiet.

I think you would do better Hazy to look at ways you can help out, stand up, be something rather than the pathetic negative figure you represent skulking around these forums.

Don is fighting to protect himself from his own incompetence. He has done nothing special to distinguish himself as a board member aside from aligning himself politically with Stynes. Stynes was only human.

Of course Jim was involved.

If Schwab, McLardy and Connolly are determined to pursue a "no case to answer" verdict, they may well seek to emphasise this fact in the hopes that it makes it unpalatable for the AFL to pursue. This may be the only strategy that could lead to the "no case to answer" result.

Not sure I'd give them that much credit though.

I doubt they want to tarnish the legacy of Big Jim to satisfy some half arsed tribunal.

Some people have whats known as character and loyalty.

These concepts may be foreign to you . Google them.

I doubt they want to tarnish the legacy of Big Jim to satisfy some half arsed tribunal.

Some people have whats known as character and loyalty.

These concepts may be foreign to you . Google them.

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.