"Tanking"

[daisycutter 29,613]

There have been plenty of past instances of players & employees parting ways with the MFC in unhappy if not poisonous terms. The club has leaked like a sieve to the media over the past 3 years from within & outside from former employees/admin. Bailey & McLean felt compelled to infer that the club was rorting the system. How was the JMac fiasco handled? Miller & Bruce gave scathing exit interviews. Chris Johnson son of an MFC gun was publicly humiliated in front of the whole playing group. If you want to go further back, how was Woewodin treated? Or Daniher in being asked to reapply for his own job after 10 years in the chair? A large factor in our massive debt was high staff turnover.

When Hawthorn turned over their list - players such as Holland, Thompson & Barker had nothing bad to say about their club. Yet we have had players such as Bruce, McLean & Moloney who all loved the club, depart very hastily as well as a number one draft pick who felt he would be looked after better by a team that hadn't even kicked a ball in anger.

Carlton wasn't really killed by the AFL for salary cap rorting, they were killed by Silvagni, O'Reilly & other whistleblowers willingly admitting fraud to spite John Elliott. Melbourne is being investigated for tanking on the back of a former coach & player inferring that the club was delibrately losing for draft picks. No other club has had former employees go on the record with such candour. Fev & Libba's suspicions are not the same as Bailey saying he had "no hesitation" about placing the club well for draft picks, nor McLean claiming Bailey was under pressure to tank & that both agreed that it was [censored] in DB's office. Both have tried to qualify those statements now but a large part of it is to save their own hides. Neither would've made the statements so recklessly in the first place if they didn't feel some antipathy towards the MFC for how it had treated them & the situation in the first place.

The MFC has a history of mismanagement & treating its own poorly. Those are facts, not conjecture. A spade is a spade & a club that doesn't treat its people well is bound to be bitten on the arse by revenge seekers.

Jimmi, you seem keen to join those on the trail for revenge. Have you been poorly treated by the club in the past, because your comments seem to have a personal touch to them?

[Johnny Karate 559]

I was wrong as above is from an AFL article on the subject. he actually said both things. Last line is still interesting. There was an AFL investigation which cleared us and yet given Brock's comments were far less inflammatory than Bailey's, yet another investigation was started. The question then becomes, Why?

Andrew: "I'm on holidays Adrian, what is it?"

Adrian: "I'm so sorry sir but er-"

Andrew: "SPIT. IT. OUT."

Adrian: "It's just the tanking thing has raised its head again."

Andrew: "Oh Jesus, is it GWS?"

Adrian: "No sir, it's Melbourne again."

Andrew: "Them again. What now?"

Adrian: "Well sir, Brock McLean was on OTC-"

Andrew: "The chap with AIDS? Get to the point Adrian"

Adrian: "No sir, I mean yes sir. Well he was asked why he left Melbourne & implied it was because the club was tanking in 2009 & that he felt sorry for the coach because he was being put up to it."

Andrew: "Flip!"

Adrian: "Flippin oath, sir!"

Andrew: "How bad is it?"

Adrian: "Well I don't think it'll be in the front pages of the Sydney papers..."

Andrew: "Yes! The Giants won again?!"

Adrian: "No sir, nobody gives a sheet up there. I mean the Melbourne media are running with the line that McLean left Melbourne because of tanking in 2009 & linking it with Bailey's comments at his departing press conference last year."

Andrew: "Flipping Elle! What did HE say?"

Adrian: "He said he had no hesitation in placing the club well for draft picks."

Andrew: "How did we respond to this?"

Adrian: "I rang Dean, told him to shut the flip up, & put out a press release saying I called him & he had clarified the comments."

Andrew: "The Motherflipping Melbourne Football Club! We've tried our best to make this go away for both our sakes but the chimps keep chattering away & passing their sheet to the media to hurl at us. They've lost control of their zoo down there. Adrian, grab a pen, this is what I want you to do."

Adrian: "Go ahead sir"

Andrew: "Two large pizzas & four cokes."

Adrian: "You're in London, sir"

Andrew: "Force of habit. I want you to run a no holds barred investigation into the goings on at the Melbourne Football Club in 2009. Take as long and be as thorough as you want. We need to look like we're doing something about this. It doesn't look good for us but we can still plead da fif while throwing the MFC under the bus. I'm sick of cleaning up their mess for them. Why they have some dodgy old guy with jobs for the boys at his recycling plant like Carlton did, that shut them up down there. The old 'shut the flip up' phone call won't do this time. Call Schwabby, tell him I'm sorry but he couldn't control his people, it's either him or me, and I love me."

Adrian: "Yes sir."

Andrew: "On second thought, Adrian."

Adrian: "Yes sir?"

Andrew: "I dont give a sheet that I'm in London order the pizzas anyway, you're my personal beach so do it!"

Adrian: "Yes sir."

Andrew: "Good dog, handle that other stuff too, I'm off to the badminton, don't call me over here again. I'll see you when I get back & Adrian if you've chewed on my favourite slippers again, you'll be sleeping outside when I get back. Got it?"

Adrian: "Woof!"

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Its in nobodies interest that this saga ends in Court. MFC cant afford the time and money. The AFL cant afford the reputational hit nor the end result to bail out a strugggling club thats further crippled.

And if it does Court I am stuffed how MFC can ever be the "winner"? We will incur costs with no certainty that we can pass to the other party to play. And if our relationship with the AFL is not already in tatters, it will be permanently stained and will have adverse consequences for future fixturing and entitlements.

I just hope that in someway the AFL can reverse engineer a plausible "no case to answer" and this matter is finally put to the grave.

[Johnny Karate 559]

Jimmi, you seem keen to join those on the trail for revenge. Have you been poorly treated by the club in the past, because your comments seem to have a personal touch to them?

Daisy, I love the club. I hope we get off. I don't really want to see heads roll needlessly. I don't believe in change for the sake of change.

I have a view that the club has made its own bed with the triggering of this inquiry & that those think the club is a blameless victim of circumstance are seriously deluded.

I agreed with tanking at the time but it's clear that the club got many things horribly wrong & that is why we stand alone, accused of tanking when others have probably done the same. Yes, it is a tad unfair but we brought ourselves down, no one else did.

I suspect from some of the views expressed in this thread that 'Baghdad Bob' will receive some enticing offers for his avatar.

[Redleg 40,913]

I just hope that in someway the AFL can reverse engineer a plausible "no case to answer" and this matter is finally put to the grave.

Amen.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

Its in nobodies interest that this saga ends in Court. MFC cant afford the time and money. The AFL cant afford the reputational hit nor the end result to bail out a strugggling club thats further crippled.

And if it does Court I am stuffed how MFC can ever be the "winner"? We will incur costs with no certainty that we can pass to the other party to play. And if our relationship with the AFL is not already in tatters, it will be permanently stained and will have adverse consequences for future fixturing and entitlements.

I just hope that in someway the AFL can reverse engineer a plausible "no case to answer" and this matter is finally put to the grave.

And your basis for such a scenario occurring is? Of course, we will not go to Court if it will cripple us financially, but as I said on a previous post, no-one goes to Court, unless more than confident of the outcome, before the writs are even issued.

The Lawyers already engaged will know the answer to this scenario. I doubt anyone on here - right now - does know.

Alternatively, if we do not get the "no case to answer" verdict, we will be labelled as cheats in perpetuity, which will have far more and wider reaching negative affects on the club in the long term.

Not forgetting that if we are found guilty and subsequently sanctioned, it will be done under the guise of bringing the "game into disrepute". If that does eventuate, it will have the potential of further ramifications for the operations of this football club.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

And your basis for such a scenario occurring is? Of course, we will not go to Court if it will cripple us financially, but as I said on a previous post, no-one goes to Court, unless more than confident of the outcome, before the writs are even issued.

The Lawyers already engaged will know the answer to this scenario. I doubt anyone on here - right now - does know.

Alternatively, if we do not get the "no case to answer" verdict, we will be labelled as cheats in perpetuity, which will have far more and wider reaching negative affects on the club in the long term.

Not forgetting that if we are found guilty and subsequently sanctioned, it will be done under the guise of bringing the "game into disrepute". If that does eventuate, it will have the potential of further ramifications for the operations of this football club.

Basic common sense.

Because if the AFL come up with guilty on the Club and/or officials then MFC should fight for its integrity in Court. It has no other option but to defend itself from serious charges. Any AFL gulity charge is both a damning assessment of the Club, Board and management. As you say we will be labelled cheats. And its going to be media circus and PR disaster in Court that neither the Club nor the AFL will want. We will never unstick the slur of the gulity tag. The reputation and competency of the Board and the Management will be severely damaged with their futures in the sport in jeopardy. The tenure of individuals will also be potentially at risk without any willing or capable replacements. MFC would potentially be without a functional Board or management. And if the AFL assess that we are guilty then I cant see this being good for any future relationship with them while the key parties fingered remain with the Club.

From the AFL position, they are already bad for having a system that "promoted" the PP, have said that tanking did not exist despite numerous media statements from a number of sources that questioned the integrity of MFC's actions in 2009. The AFL were "forced" into an investigation that has surely gone longer than they anticipated with potentially serious outcomes. If they find guilty charges then they know they will end in Court and the AFL and its rule credibility thrown to the wolves. A media and PR disaster for the AFL. And why would they further punish and risk a lengthy and costly court battle against a crippled club that they will ultimately have to pay the costs through the special funding arrangements

Its a fight for both parties that there will be no winners...just losers. The scenario of being found guilty and the alternatives to address this do not provide any happy ever after.

Its in the interest of the AFL and MFC that they find a no case to answer and that the AFL engineer such an outcome. I hope that is the case.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

Basic common sense. ..............

......................Its in the interest of the AFL and MFC that they find a no case to answer and that the AFL engineer such an outcome. I hope that is the case.

Oh, if only basic common sense prevailed in Law.

As for your final comment, and so say all of us. I am just concerned that what appears to be in the interest of both parties may not transpire. What then?

[sue 9,103]

It's like going up on a charge of burglary and using as a defence that all the other burglars haven't been caught, so you should get off.

It's like the naughty kid at school who when caught by the teacher points to another kid and says "but she did it too!"

There might be some injustice, but it doesn't mean you didn't do it.

You miss my point entirely. I'm not talking about guilt or innocence. I'm saying we are in a competition, organized by the AFL, with the other possible 'offenders'. Burglars and speeding motorists are not in such a competition. That difference may have legal consequences.

I'm saying there MAY be a line of argument in court which could be taken. Not a line to prove we are not guilty. But perhaps we can argue that whatever punishment the AFL dishes out (beyond this ludicrously long process) is unfair and discriminatory <replace words with legal jargon here> unless the AFL can show why they have not investigated other clubs with whom we compete who are equally deserving of investigation. And that is a can of worms I expect the AFL would like to leave unopened.

[Range Rover 1,935]

Daisy, I love the club. I hope we get off. I don't really want to see heads roll needlessly. I don't believe in change for the sake of change.

I have a view that the club has made its own bed with the triggering of this inquiry & that those think the club is a blameless victim of circumstance are seriously deluded.

I agreed with tanking at the time but it's clear that the club got many things horribly wrong & that is why we stand alone, accused of tanking when others have probably done the same. Yes, it is a tad unfair but we brought ourselves down, no one else did.

I suspect from some of the views expressed in this thread that 'Baghdad Bob' will receive some enticing offers for his avatar.

JimmyC ... a contrary view might be that far from being 'mistreated', MFC players have been overindulged in the past. Handed out pay increases and contract extensions when their output did not warrant it.

When snouts in the trough are forcibly removed, it's understandable that a few greedy pigs will resort to squealing.

It was a cancer that had to be cut out.

[rpfc 28,415]

But it's not. It's Warnock playing forward, Frawley playing forward, PJ down back, Miller in the ruck, low rotations, massive changes in team selections - all in just one game! If it was over the course of 4 or 5 weeks, you could argue list mgmt & experimentation but the fact it happened on one day against the next worst team in the comp forms the perception that Melbourne deliberately trying to lose ergo losing was their no.1 priority.

I hope so, but given our history of ineptitude in managing this - I wouldn't bet an outright against there being a paper trail.

The whole thing has been a complete [censored]-up from start to finish. Anybody who thinks it has been anything but is deluded.

Well, I don't agree that I am deluded. There is a simple timeline of AFL denial of an MFC malfaesence after THAT game and continuing until A Series of Unfortunate Events saw this investigation kick off.

And our experimentalism is a well-worn talking point.

At what point does context not bring 'eye rolls' from those who refuse to admit that many believed Frawley should play forward, that PJ was never a ruckman, nor a forward, that Miller was flailing and failing in the forward line, that three injuries (two before half time) will curtail rotations, and the meaningless of the number of changes before a game?

I know, and knew, what we were trying to do, as do you. But to argue we were too blatant is to argue that the average AFL supporter knows more about our club than we do.

'They didn't play Watts enough' & 'Bate was played in the midfield' & 'Dunn was played in defence'

These are seen by those on the outside (and the investigators if reports are correct) with just as much veracity as the ones we admit we pushing the envelope of believability.

And that tells me that we are projecting that veracity onto those 'unbelievable moves intended to lose the game.'

Well I won't project it. They were legal moves, intended to experiement with our players in a legal way when a result (ie. a win) didn't matter. Well within our rights and handled well by the club.

I note that you didn't actually name Fevola & Liberatore. In my op on this topic I stated that people of credibility at the coal face were still knocking Melbourne.

Fev & Libba hardly reek of credibility. Fev was the AFL's answer to Amy Winehouse & Libba has a reputation for shooting his mouth off (yes, I'm aware McLean is similar) However, they have been just about the only two at Carlton during 2007 to go on the record & not much was of substance it pretty much extended to nudge, wink & "tanksalot" jokes.

This is different to DB stating at his final press conference in direct response to a question about tanking that he had "no hesitation in ensuring the club was well placed for draft picks..."

It is also different to a former player (albeit a boofhead), with a reputation for honesty, who had donated money to the club in 2008 claiming on national television that he walked out because he felt uncomfortable with the club's "experimentation" & then went on to imply that during a heart to heart with Dean Bailey that he felt the same.

Carlton's "whistleblowers" can easily be dismissed as a couple of boofheads speculating about motives. Bailey & McLean inferred direct corruption.

You can't really expect me to take this argument on its merits - it's a different take on the "woe is us" mentality - "no-one screws up like we screw up!!"

Well they do. And I am happy to name the protagonists but their roles are more important - an Assistant Coach and a dominant FF admitting that "Blind Freddie being able to see that winning wasn't the highest priority."

Whoops. They didn't say that - they were much more blunt:

"I never heard [a directive to lose], but I could feel it, if that makes sense.

"Nobody ever said we're not going to win but the feeling in the group was that it was a bit of a laugh."

"We wouldn't use those words (how do we lose), but another assistant coach would say, 'Tanks very much', or something along those lines in a jocular way," he said.

...

Asked if he felt that constituted tanking, he said: "I would have to say yes.''

AND:

The two-time Coleman Medallist said the club took "initiatives" such as asking players to have surgeries and making unusual match-ups.

"It did seem like the club did a lot of things that made it more difficult for us to win games," Fevola, who yesterday kicked 18 goals in an exhibition match in Tasmania, wrote.

I don't mention this as a "they got away with it" argument. I mention it as an example of a club that has had just as strong voices from the inner sanctum come out and say things that were more direct than what Bailey and McLean said.

And yet OUR former 'donut' loving idiot kicks off an investigation and their 'dildo' loving idiot doesn't?

I'm mystified as to how some still feel as though the MFC is a victim of a complete media/AFL/anti-Stynes/anti-MFC conspiracy.

This investigation doesn't suit anyone's agenda & is damaging to both the AFL & the MFC. The AFL is to blame because they set up rules that could be exploited & kept their head in the sand on the issue when it was clear that tanking was becoming a definite tactic. The MFC is to blame for botching their strategy & people management so epically, that there are now a cabal of whiteants that are so [censored] off that they wouldn't mind seeing the club eviscerated.

Yes there are other factors, some may have been a bit of bad luck (re. McLean filling in as a guest on OTC that night, although who's to say he wouldn't have made similar kinds of claims the next time he was on media St?).

However, I can't help but feel, if we'd've treated our own a little bit better - that they wouldn't be lining up with the baseball bats now.

In my view Carlton & Collingwood got away with what they did because the admin rallied together, the way they "managed" their teams was subtle enough not to ring alarm bells with the players & finally the timeframe was not after years of tanking controversy unlike the MFC in 2009.

Again I'm not saying that what the MFC did was morally wrong in comparison to Carlton & Collingwood. But almost certainly their strategy and execution was inferior.

Where do I say there is a conspiracy? I hope you haven't been fooled by RR, BH and BB's inferences that anyone who thinks that we didn't bring this on ourselves thinks it is a conspiracy...

But of course you don't - you mention the 'bad luck' of having McLean fill-in on OTC.

Well, all I am saying is that The Bloated One went to the Olympics and left Andersen in charge and while I am not privvy to the inner maschinations of the AFL, AA put the League on a course that AD had been attempting to strongly avoid since the various 'fateful' games have occured. He comes back and still maintains his belief that 'tanking' does not exist. I don't think my inference that Andersen 'screwed the pooch' is that much of a flight of fancy...

That coupled with 'the bad luck' led to this mess being regurgitated after TWO AFL WHITEWASHES of the an investigation, TWO YEARS after the fact.

Our execution was no more heinous than others - nor more obvious, we are in the mess because of a confluence of events outside our control.

*If you want to discuss whether we should have 'tanked' (list purge, youth, surgeries, experimentation) in the first place that is a seperate argument, and not directly related to 'how' we went about it in 2009.

Edited February 5, 2013 by rpfc

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Oh, if only basic common sense prevailed in Law.

As for your final comment, and so say all of us. I am just concerned that what appears to be in the interest of both parties may not transpire. What then?

The Basic common sense is in regard to the decision of the AFL is in regard to the investigation. Its not an issue of Law.

I have given an assessment if the option is that MFC is found guilty. Its a disaster for both the AFL and MFC on a number of fronts.

[Sir Why You Little 37,035]

If the AFL proceed with this the club has to go to court. It may be a case of lose/lose in the short term...but i believe the club could survive.

To accept a "cheating" wack from HQ would kill the club.

Who would sponsor us?

The longer this drags the better chance we have of a "no case" scenario.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

The Basic common sense is in regard to the decision of the AFL is in regard to the investigation. Its not an issue of Law.

I have given an assessment if the option is that MFC is found guilty. Its a disaster for both the AFL and MFC on a number of fronts.

OK, I suppose that is why Lawyers are already involved in this process?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

OK, I suppose that is why Lawyers are already involved in this process?

The issue of the AFL decision to proceed with the guilty verdict will be an issue of its commercial interests above the determination of the Law.

If it gets to Court then its.....

[robbiefrom13 887]

It's pretty clear that there is no smoking gun - surely it would have leaked out if there was. Some of what has leaked out is absurd, and will certainly hurt the AFL rather than the MFC if it comes to the public fight we have more or less promised if we get clobbered initially by the AFL.

Even the media is overall taking a very much changed view of the whole issue.

If it drags on indefinitely, the cries of "bully!" and "unfair!" will start coming from all sides, against the AFL.

Yet, when Anderson left and Vlad had the chance to shut the thing down, he didn't. I don't buy it that the AFL is simply too stupid or too proud to do the obvious. I still think that what we have not yet heard is, who is the puppeteer here? That's what I want to have come out into the open. Then there will be an alternative story, that will take the heat off the MFC.

[DemonWA 3,934]

Well, I don't agree that I am deluded. There is a simple timeline of AFL denial of an MFC malfaesence after THAT game and continuing until A Series of Unfortunate Events saw this investigation kick off.

And our experimentalism is a well-worn talking point.

At what point does context not bring 'eye rolls' from those who refuse to admit that many believed Frawley should play forward, that PJ was never a ruckman, nor a forward, that Miller was flailing and failing in the forward line, that three injuries (two before half time) will curtail rotations, and the meaningless of the number of changes before a game?

I know, and knew, what we were trying to do, as do you. But to argue we were too blatant is to argue that the average AFL supporter knows more about our club than we do.

'They didn't play Watts enough' & 'Bate was played in the midfield' & 'Dunn was played in defence'

These are seen by those on the outside (and the investigators if reports are correct) with just as much veracity as the ones we admit we pushing the envelope of believability.

And that tells me that we are projecting that veracity onto those 'unbelievable moves intended to lose the game.'

Well I won't project it. They were legal moves, intended to experiement with our players in a legal way when a result (ie. a win) didn't matter. Well within our rights and handled well by the club.

You can't really expect me to take this argument on its merits - it's a different take on the "woe is us" mentality - "no-one screws up like we screw up!!"

Well they do. And I am happy to name the protagonists but their roles are more important - an Assistant Coach and a dominant FF admitting that "Blind Freddie being able to see that winning wasn't the highest priority."

Whoops. They didn't say that - they were much more blunt:

"I never heard [a directive to lose], but I could feel it, if that makes sense.

"Nobody ever said we're not going to win but the feeling in the group was that it was a bit of a laugh."

"We wouldn't use those words (how do we lose), but another assistant coach would say, 'Tanks very much', or something along those lines in a jocular way," he said.

...

Asked if he felt that constituted tanking, he said: "I would have to say yes.''

AND:

The two-time Coleman Medallist said the club took "initiatives" such as asking players to have surgeries and making unusual match-ups.

"It did seem like the club did a lot of things that made it more difficult for us to win games," Fevola, who yesterday kicked 18 goals in an exhibition match in Tasmania, wrote.

I don't mention this as a "they got away with it" argument. I mention it as an example of a club that has had just as strong voices from the inner sanctum come out and say things that were more direct than what Bailey and McLean said.

And yet OUR former 'donut' loving idiot kicks off an investigation and their 'dildo' loving idiot doesn't?

Where do I say there is a conspiracy? I hope you haven't been fooled by RR, BH and BB's inferences that anyone who thinks that we didn't bring this on ourselves thinks it is a conspiracy...

But of course you don't - you mention the 'bad luck' of having McLean fill-in on OTC.

Well, all I am saying is that The Bloated One went to the Olympics and left Andersen in charge and while I am not privvy to the inner maschinations of the AFL, AA put the League on a course that AD had been attempting to strongly avoid since the various 'fateful' games have occured. He comes back and still maintains his belief that 'tanking' does not exist. I don't think my inference that Andersen 'screwed the pooch' is that much of a flight of fancy...

That coupled with 'the bad luck' led to this mess being regurgitated after TWO AFL WHITEWASHES of the an investigation, TWO YEARS after the fact.

Our execution was no more heinous than others - nor more obvious, we are in the mess because of a confluence of events outside our control.

*If you want to discuss whether we should have 'tanked' (list purge, youth, surgeries, experimentation) in the first place that is a seperate argument, and not directly related to 'how' we went about it in 2009.

RPFC i get the feeling you write these massive posts to convince yourself and others that we wont be charged.

You make valid points but unfortunatley your post will not have any say in the final outcome.

So we sit and wait until the AFL make a decision

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

It's pretty clear that there is no smoking gun - surely it would have leaked out if there was. Some of what has leaked out is absurd, and will certainly hurt the AFL rather than the MFC if it comes to the public fight we have more or less promised if we get clobbered initially by the AFL.

Even the media is overall taking a very much changed view of the whole issue.

If it drags on indefinitely, the cries of "bully!" and "unfair!" will start coming from all sides, against the AFL.

Yet, when Anderson left and Vlad had the chance to shut the thing down, he didn't. I don't buy it that the AFL is simply too stupid or too proud to do the obvious. I still think that what we have not yet heard is, who is the puppeteer here? That's what I want to have come out into the open. Then there will be an alternative story, that will take the heat off the MFC.

Nobody knows what is in the AFL report. The media has been treated to selective leaks by either or both the AFL and MFC.

The media is not taking a different view but waiting for the AFL decision.

The investigation has already dragged on far longer then expected and the only cries of bully and unfair are on site like this.

If the AFL were to shut this down without coming to a verdict then they destroy their integrity completely and are a fair game for allegations of a "cover up". They are not too stupid or proud to do a "cover up".

Its why there has discussion that the AFL engineer an outcome to suit its interests...and hopefully MFC's.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

.................the guilty verdict will be an issue of its commercial interests above the determination of the Law..............

Edited February 5, 2013 by iv'a worn smith

[Redleg 40,913]

Basic common sense.

Because if the AFL come up with guilty on the Club and/or officials then MFC should fight for its integrity in Court. It has no other option but to defend itself from serious charges. Any AFL gulity charge is both a damning assessment of the Club, Board and management. As you say we will be labelled cheats. And its going to be media circus and PR disaster in Court that neither the Club nor the AFL will want. We will never unstick the slur of the gulity tag. The reputation and competency of the Board and the Management will be severely damaged with their futures in the sport in jeopardy. The tenure of individuals will also be potentially at risk without any willing or capable replacements. MFC would potentially be without a functional Board or management. And if the AFL assess that we are guilty then I cant see this being good for any future relationship with them while the key parties fingered remain with the Club.

From the AFL position, they are already bad for having a system that "promoted" the PP, have said that tanking did not exist despite numerous media statements from a number of sources that questioned the integrity of MFC's actions in 2009. The AFL were "forced" into an investigation that has surely gone longer than they anticipated with potentially serious outcomes. If they find guilty charges then they know they will end in Court and the AFL and its rule credibility thrown to the wolves. A media and PR disaster for the AFL. And why would they further punish and risk a lengthy and costly court battle against a crippled club that they will ultimately have to pay the costs through the special funding arrangements

Its a fight for both parties that there will be no winners...just losers. The scenario of being found guilty and the alternatives to address this do not provide any happy ever after.

Its in the interest of the AFL and MFC that they find a no case to answer and that the AFL engineer such an outcome. I hope that is the case.

Amen again.

[nutbean 8,838]

Amen again.

Red... I have sensed that this trauma has made you somewhat religious. If praying for the outcome will help, I'm with you !!

[Scoop Junior 3,472]

It's like going up on a charge of burglary and using as a defence that all the other burglars haven't been caught, so you should get off.

It's like the naughty kid at school who when caught by the teacher points to another kid and says "but she did it too!"

There might be some injustice, but it doesn't mean you didn't do it.

I don't know how many times I've seen this type of comment, but I cannot agree that it's irrelevant that other clubs have not been investigated or charged.

This is not a case of burglary or another clearly defined law.

This is a poorly drafted rule that is vague and basically inoperative without some form of clarification from those in charge of administering the rule.

You could ask 20 people what the rule is about and you'd get 20 different answers.

Therefore, the fact that certain conduct (e.g. what Carlton did in 2007) has been deemed by those in charge of administering the rule as satisfactory and not in breach of the rule shows how the rule is interpreted and applied by those in charge. Even if it was only tacit acceptance by the AFL (for what it's worth I think it was more than that), then I think the clubs are entitled to rely on such tacit acceptance in formulating their understanding of the rule and the interpretation and application of the rule by those administering it.

Even during the 2009 season the CEO of the AFL publicly backed what Melbourne was doing!

If a club cannot rely on the administering body's interpretation and application of a vague, poorly drafted rule, then what can they rely on?

So no, the speeding ticket example is not relevant to the current circumstances. Everyone knows that you cannot drive over the speed limit. No one knows what the hell 'on their merits' means. Hence the need for guidance and the relevance of administrative acceptance of similar prior conduct by other clubs.

[dee-luded 2,959]

SHE'S BACK............................

wake up Kerro

someone tell her to wakeup, its 2013. time for the new season. holidays over...

Gawny, wake her up, quick..

[Whispering_Jack 30,090]

I don't know how many times I've seen this type of comment, but I cannot agree that it's irrelevant that other clubs have not been investigated or charged.

This is not a case of burglary or another clearly defined law.

This is a poorly drafted rule that is vague and basically inoperative without some form of clarification from those in charge of administering the rule.

You could ask 20 people what the rule is about and you'd get 20 different answers.

Therefore, the fact that certain conduct (e.g. what Carlton did in 2007) has been deemed by those in charge of administering the rule as satisfactory and not in breach of the rule shows how the rule is interpreted and applied by those in charge. Even if it was only tacit acceptance by the AFL (for what it's worth I think it was more than that), then I think the clubs are entitled to rely on such tacit acceptance in formulating their understanding of the rule and the interpretation and application of the rule by those administering it.

Even during the 2009 season the CEO of the AFL publicly backed what Melbourne was doing!

If a club cannot rely on the administering body's interpretation and application of a vague, poorly drafted rule, then what can they rely on?

So no, the speeding ticket example is not relevant to the current circumstances. Everyone knows that you cannot drive over the speed limit. No one knows what the hell 'on their merits' means. Hence the need for guidance and the relevance of administrative acceptance of similar prior conduct by other clubs.

Go to the top of the class Scoop Junior.

Indeed, it goes further than that. The AFL is acting as the administrative body dealing with the rights of all constituent clubs. It can't apply its rules in one way with one club and refuse to apply them to others without good reason.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

.................the guilty verdict will be an issue of its commercial interests above the determination of the Law..............

The AFL decision.....