"Tanking"

[Whispering_Jack 29,240]

I'm sure he'll answer.

I see you're skeptical but if the explanations proffered above don't help you, I certainly can't.

However, are you seriously suggesting that what Demetriou said publicly on numerous occasions by way of the AFL's interpretation of its rules was any different to what the clubs and their officials were told in private?

Moreover, on the question whether Melbourne did or did not at all times perform on its merits, would this not depend on the club's understanding of what was meritorious?

And if it could not depend on the advice of the CEO as to what was and what was not meritorious, then surely there is a problem with the law?

Edited January 20, 2013 by Whispering_Jack
Added the end bit

[dee-luded 2,959]

Try reading AFL Regulation 19 (A5) and then read the article quoted by WJ. All of those things which Vlad approved in the article are not included in the AFL's definition of tanking. The rest remains the AFL's interpretation of the law on the matter.

are you suggesting the inquisition has changed 'tack', & is after the coaches now. Bailey & possibly Connolly?

As per AFL Regulation 19 (A5), tanking is defined as "a person, being a player, coach or assistant coach, must at all times perform on their merits and must not induce, or encourage, any player, coach or assistant coach not to perform on their merits in any match – or in relation to any aspect for the match, for any reason whatsoever".

http://www.avonadvocate.com.au/story/1224205/the-three-minutes-that-mattered/

Edited January 20, 2013 by dee-luded

[The Third Eye 252]

are you suggesting the inquisition has changed 'tack', & is after the coaches now. Bailey & possibly Connolly?

As per AFL Regulation 19 (A5), tanking is defined as "a person, being a player, coach or assistant coach, must at all times perform on their merits and must not induce, or encourage, any player, coach or assistant coach not to perform on their merits in any match – or in relation to any aspect for the match, for any reason whatsoever".

http://www.avonadvocate.com.au/story/1224205/the-three-minutes-that-mattered/

The rule hasn't changed since the start of the inquisition.

[daisycutter 29,341]

are you suggesting the inquisition has changed 'tack', & is after the coaches now. Bailey & possibly Connolly?

As per AFL Regulation 19 (A5), tanking is defined as "a person, being a player, coach or assistant coach, must at all times perform on their merits and must not induce, or encourage, any player, coach or assistant coach not to perform on their merits in any match – or in relation to any aspect for the match, for any reason whatsoever".

http://www.avonadvocate.com.au/story/1224205/the-three-minutes-that-mattered/

there are allegedly 3 possible charges being considered d-l for allegedly the club and 3 individuals

* tanking

* draft tampering

* game disrepute

unfortunately there are no possible charges being considered for enticement/collaboration to break rules against the afl or dimwit

[Hannibal 5,814]

I see you're skeptical but if the explanations proffered above don't help you, I certainly can't.

However, are you seriously suggesting that what Demetriou said publicly on numerous occasions by way of the AFL's interpretation of its rules was any different to what the clubs and their officials were told in private?

Moreover, on the question whether Melbourne did or did not at all times perform on its merits, would this not depend on the club's understanding of what was meritorious?

And if it could not depend on the advice of the CEO as to what was and what was not meritorious, then surely there is a problem with the law?

I'm skeptical because I don't believe that the AFL's findings will have any reference to Demetriou's public comments. But they seem to be a cornerstone to your defence.

I think you'll need to do better.

[Whispering_Jack 29,240]

I'm skeptical because I don't believe that the AFL's findings will have any reference to Demetriou's public comments. But they seem to be a cornerstone to your defence.

I think you'll need to do better.

It's not for me to do better, it's for those advocating for the club.

In any event, as we keep getting reminded on this site it's getting closer to decision time every day.

[Hannibal 5,814]

It's not for me to do better, it's for those advocating for the club.

I was meaning the "hypothetical' defence that you were espousing.

[mjt 640]

I'm skeptical because I don't believe that the AFL's findings will have any reference to Demetriou's public comments. But they seem to be a cornerstone to your defence.

I think you'll need to do better.

they have to have reference to AD public comments, there on record.

[Hannibal 5,814]

they have to have reference to AD public comments, there on record.

No, they don't.

[Deeman 1,479]

they have to have reference to AD public comments, there on record.

And if the findings contradict what Vlad's been telling the world since the beginning of his tenure as CEO where does that leave him?

Surely he would have to hand in his resignation immediately?

[Sir Why You Little 36,668]

And if the findings contradict what Vlad's been telling the world since the beginning of his tenure as CEO where does that leave him?

Surely he would have to hand in his resignation immediately?

To Quote the Fat Controller himself.."I think he could be in a bit of strife.."

[mjt 640]

No, they don't.

Why not he stated what he thinks tanking is ?

[Whispering_Jack 29,240]

I was meaning the "hypothetical' defence that you were espousing.

It's possible that the AFL could ignore Demetriou's public and private advice to clubs and the fact that he hasn't investigated or sanctioned the other clubs which by the redefining of tanking would also now be guilty of offending against the new laws.

However, I could only see it happening in conjunction with a negotiated solution between the parties.

Otherwise, my "hypothetical" defence might get a life of its own together with several others in a court of law and I'd be backing my side in those circumstances.

Time will tell.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Why not he stated what he thinks tanking is ?

It may be used by the MFC's defence counsel, but it won't be used by the AFL Commission should they decide to impose a sanction, as the comments weren't representative of the AFL Commission, or any rulings they may decide to undertake.

[Redleg 40,219]

It may be used by the MFC's defence counsel, but it won't be used by the AFL Commission should they decide to impose a sanction, as the comments weren't representative of the AFL Commission, or any rulings they may decide to undertake.

When the CEO of a body indicates their interpretation of their own rule you can bet your house on it that they will be held to that on any prosecution of a breach of the rule.

Don't forget that AD said he and he alone would decide if the evidence warranted charges. He doesn't need the Commission involved at that stage. There is no way he will put up a new interpretation and charge retrospectively. He would look a total fool.

[daisycutter 29,341]

When the CEO of a body indicates their interpretation of their own rule you can bet your house on it that they will be held to that on any prosecution of a breach of the rule.

Don't forget that AD said he and he alone would decide if the evidence warranted charges. He doesn't need the Commission involved at that stage. There is no way he will put up a new interpretation and charge retrospectively. He would look a total fool.

agreed redleg.....but he is going to look a fool (in some respects) either way

and innocent or guilty we will have paid a price for Vlad's absence from the wheel

[Hannibal 5,814]

When the CEO of a body indicates their interpretation of their own rule you can bet your house on it that they will be held to that on any prosecution of a breach of the rule.

Don't forget that AD said he and he alone would decide if the evidence warranted charges. He doesn't need the Commission involved at that stage. There is no way he will put up a new interpretation and charge retrospectively. He would look a total fool.

The AFL Commission will be determining if there's to be any sanction, not Demetriou.

Besides, his comments have been little more than asides. You're placing too much weight on radio interviews. Melbourne will either escape a sanction, or be sanctioned on the available evidence irrespective of Demetriou's comments.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE AFL's inquiry into tanking at Melbourne is likely to drag into February after the league's last chance to charge the club this year elapsed yesterday.

The AFL Commission's last meeting for the year is next Monday, after a year full of controversy capped by Adrian Anderson quitting as football operations boss.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/melbourne-tanking-probe-to-drag-on-longer-with-february-linked-to-possible-outcome/story-e6frf9jf-1226534040794

[rpfc 28,052]

The CEO of the MFC was given private assurances by the head of the AFL during the latter part of 2009.

If you think that doesn't matter you are being disingenuous.

AD has the only view of tanking that is useful in terms of legislating against tanking. A narrow one that defines actions that can be tanking and tanking alone: players being told to lose.

The rest is unprovable short of documented evidence of intent.

Edited January 20, 2013 by rpfc

[daisycutter 29,341]

i think the commission only come into play if the AFL (vlad) are not happy with mfc's response and decide to lay charges

only then does it become a commission issue

might be wrong but

[mjt 640]

i think the commission only come into play if the AFL (vlad) are not happy with mfc's response and decide to lay charges

only then does it become a commission issue

might be wrong but

Thats correct, it has to go past AD first.

[rumpole 514]

The AFL Commission will be determining if there's to be any sanction, not Demetriou.

Besides, his comments have been little more than asides. You're placing too much weight on radio interviews. Melbourne will either escape a sanction, or be sanctioned on the available evidence irrespective of Demetriou's comments.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE AFL's inquiry into tanking at Melbourne is likely to drag into February after the league's last chance to charge the club this year elapsed yesterday.

The AFL Commission's last meeting for the year is next Monday, after a year full of controversy capped by Adrian Anderson quitting as football operations boss.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/melbourne-tanking-probe-to-drag-on-longer-with-february-linked-to-possible-outcome/story-e6frf9jf-1226534040794'>http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/melbourne-tanking-probe-to-drag-on-longer-with-february-linked-to-possible-outcome/story-e6frf9jf-1226534040794

The AFL will only act if there is a recommendation from the CEO to lay charges.

If he does so, then Mike Fitzpatrick has a problem since he heads the commission and, to date, his former club Carlton which would, if it has reached that stage, also be open to a charge. Questions might be asked as to why he hasn't excused himself and why the Blues haven't been investigated.

This scenario could lead to a situation where the AFL has a lame duck chairman and a lame duck CEO.

Oh dear!

[Hannibal 5,814]

The AFL will only act if there is a recommendation from the CEO to lay charges.

I disagree with you, MJT and DC.

"Demetriou said he had been briefed by AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson about the Demons' probe, which has intensified after interviews with current and former officials." "But he said he had deliberately keeping an "arm's length'' from it, in case it has to go to the AFL Commission, on which he sits."

"I am not involved (in the investigation),'' Demetriou said. "I sit on the commission and if Adrian believes it is serious enough to go to the commission, then I have to make sure I am at arm's length because I might have to listen to it.

"I have not formed a view one way or another because I am not privy to all the information.''

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/afl-boss-andrew-demetriou-says-there-will-be-no-whitewash-of-the-melbourne-tanking-investigation/story-e6frf9jf-1226507574961

This case will go to the AFL Commission for them to rule upon and it won't be up to Demetriou.

[Whispering_Jack 29,240]

Whichever way it's done I don't quite see them shooting the chairman, CEO and at least one if not more constituent clubs in the foot as well as render the position of the CEO untenable for the future.

[daisycutter 29,341]

I disagree with you, MJT and DC.

"Demetriou said he had been briefed by AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson about the Demons' probe, which has intensified after interviews with current and former officials." "But he said he had deliberately keeping an "arm's length'' from it, in case it has to go to the AFL Commission, on which he sits."

"I am not involved (in the investigation),'' Demetriou said. "I sit on the commission and if Adrian believes it is serious enough to go to the commission, then I have to make sure I am at arm's length because I might have to listen to it.

"I have not formed a view one way or another because I am not privy to all the information.''

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/afl-boss-andrew-demetriou-says-there-will-be-no-whitewash-of-the-melbourne-tanking-investigation/story-e6frf9jf-1226507574961

This case will go to the AFL Commission for them to rule upon and it won't be up to Demetriou.

it will only go to the commission IF a decision is made to lay charges

and this is done by the afl executive (with or without Vlad's explicit involvement)

hard to believe the AFL executive would ignore things like vlads public statements or interpretation. mind you there are other charges than tanking

remember ben at this stage there are NO charges

[Hulett Packard III 166]

I disagree with you, MJT and DC.

"Demetriou said he had been briefed by AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson about the Demons' probe, which has intensified after interviews with current and former officials." "But he said he had deliberately keeping an "arm's length'' from it, in case it has to go to the AFL Commission, on which he sits."

"I am not involved (in the investigation),'' Demetriou said. "I sit on the commission and if Adrian believes it is serious enough to go to the commission, then I have to make sure I am at arm's length because I might have to listen to it.

"I have not formed a view one way or another because I am not privy to all the information.''

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/afl-boss-andrew-demetriou-says-there-will-be-no-whitewash-of-the-melbourne-tanking-investigation/story-e6frf9jf-1226507574961'>http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/afl-boss-andrew-demetriou-says-there-will-be-no-whitewash-of-the-melbourne-tanking-investigation/story-e6frf9jf-1226507574961

This case will go to the AFL Commission for them to rule upon and it won't be up to Demetriou.

So now you're quoting Demetriou after spending a whole day telling us his word means nothing?

Go figure!