Really,BH?

I thought the Blues used pretty bloody obvious tactics when they lost the last 11 in a row.

Freo were pretty blatant about playing their virtual reserves against Hawthorn in Tassie in round 22, 2011.

So we were clumsy and they were skilful?

I'm in no way denying we tried to optimise draft picks, but I just think this statement is a bit of unnecessary self-flagellation!

I agree everyone could see Carlton did It worse than us and could be seen a mile away

Did she state these as facts of which she had been informed or, as I presume, this is just her speculating on what she thinks is likely to happen? Either that or the AFL's processes are totally corrupt and leak like a sieve. Or she has a crystal ball.

She quotes all her opinions as facts...

I agree everyone could see Carlton did It worse than us and could be seen a mile away

Two things:

1. That's a bit like establishing someone is a hooker and haggling over a price.

2. Explain how they were "worse than us" ?

Yes stuie I quite often feel like a standing in a soup rain storm holding a fork

So cup your hands, OD, and slurp away ...

2. Explain how they were "worse than us" ?

Get a hold of vision from any of the last six games that Ratten coached at the end of that year and work it out yourself. Some people have short memories.

Who's the judge (and jury)?

... and prosecutor and investigative body.

Get a hold of vision from any of the last six games that Ratten coached at the end of that year and work it out yourself. Some people have short memories.

No short memories here. Explain how they were worse ?

Who's the judge (and jury)?

The commission i presume

Two things:

1. That's a bit like establishing someone is a hooker and haggling over a price.

2. Explain how they were "worse than us" ?

did you watch the Kreuzer cup ? , that still to me goes down as one of the worse games i have ever seen

players might as well run away from the ball

we didnt try and win the game either but they played a hell of allot worse than us , or was that better as by losing that game they won

No short memories here. Explain how they were worse ?

Why do you bother?

Not that I've ever watched it, but entering this thread is like coming back to Days of our lives , apparently you don't miss much..

Does it really matter currently who was worse or more obvious?

Fwiw they both were obvious to me. And because we watched with baited breath thru '09, there's probably more clarity than two years prior for an opposition team.

If people and/or the club are charged, then there must be a hearing, if they want to contest the charges. Maybe the AFL wants us to defend ourselves and if we beat the charges, all is sweet. Then there would be no need for Court intervention.

Agree that there is a difference between being charged and being found guilty - and that a hearing must be involved

But surely if we are charged the AFL will want to make at least some of the charges stick. The AFL would look a heck of a lot more stupid rolling over after laying charges than they would by cutting their losses and withdrawing the charges now.

If Caro thinks it will be a negotiated settlement, then she thinks that - after seeing the evidence - the club won't proceed with its resolve to fight this all the way. That's a bit of a change in tune

I've been giving this some thought and I've come up with this one.

To eliminate tanking, I would change the system for the next ten years to give preference in order to the length of time since a particular club won its last premiership. For the newbies that haven't won a flag at all, I would use as the benchmark, the year they entered the competition (GWS and GCS have had ample concessions and Freo gets a good spot anyway). This would have given us this order for the 2012 draft:

1 Western Bulldogs

2 Melbourne

3 St. Kilda

4 Richmond

5 Fremantle

6 Carlton

7 Adelaide

8 North Melbourne

9 Essendon

10 Brisbane Lions

11 Port Adelaide

12 West Coast Eagles

13 Hawthorn

14 Collingwood

15 GCS

16 Geelong

17 GWS

18 Sydney Swans

The incentive to tank has been eliminated and the Doggies keep getting #1 every year until they win a premiership (I might consider putting them between Carlton and Adelaide however, because that's when Footscray became the Western Bulldogs and this would lift Melbourne to # 1).

The idea is to give the clubs that have gone through hard times, the opportunity to rise without tempting them to list manage or, god forbid, break any AFL laws.

Thoughts?

WJ, that's MY idea!

WJ, that's MY idea!

Tell Maurie. He's claimed the IP rights - I only get the royalties.

CW update. I never listen to 3AW, well rarely but i was keen to hear what they had to say about the bombers. CW back after her break. Was asked about the outcome of the dees tanking situation.

In a nutshell said something along the lines of:

• decision will be handed down in next 2-3 weeks, certainly before the season starts
• the board, bailey, cc and CS would all be charged
• a negotiated settlement would be worked out in a similar fashion to what went down with the crows

SNAP Grapeviney

If they cop a crows type penalty they should just cop it on the chin and move on, were the the least of the AFL problems now thanks to the Bombers.

Tell Maurie. He's claimed the IP rights - I only get the royalties.

haha, I have posts from 6 months ago on BF suggesting the exact same thing.

She said: "Dean Bailey WILL be charged. CC WILL be charged, CS will probably be charged, The club WILL be charged..."

Hopefully this is just her arrogant manner, and not a leak from HQ ( absolute disgrace if this is the case)

She's an opinionated old hack. In short, she hasn't a clue. Her sources within the AFL dried up some time ago.

Why do you bother?

Not that I've ever watched it, but entering this thread is like coming back to Days of our lives , apparently you don't miss much..

Does it really matter currently who was worse or more obvious?

Fwiw they both were obvious to me. And because we watched with baited breath thru '09, there's probably more clarity than two years prior for an opposition team.

Good point.

No short memories here. Explain how they were worse ?

give it a rest ben

having a debate about who has the biggest is getting very tiresome

-8 (phase II)

and stalling?

I read that the decision whether to lay charges rests with Gil Mcloughlin and Brett Clothier, and that Demetriou has stood aside from this decision as he is also a commission member (to avoid a conflict of interest). There was also a news report yesterday that McLoughlin is currently acting CEO.

There appears to be another conflict of interest here. Clothier was also the investigating officer, and now he will decide if charges are to be laid. Clothier spent 5 months putting this report together. It would be in his best interests to see some results from those 5 months, at least to justify his role as investigations officer. He's also playing the role of sherriff and judge in this matter.

My gut feeling is that charges will be laid and the matter referred to the Commission, where Melbourne will vigorously defend the charges. I have no inside knowledge, but i suspect the main evidence will be statements made to the investigators by certain individuals who had key MFC roles in 2009 and are no longer connected with the club. I feel these statements will carry far more weight than a dodgy frame-by-frame analysis of the last 3 minutes of one match in 2009.

Now is the perfect time for the AFL to release a finding of " no case to answer" as it would be quickly forgotten amongst the other AFL news currently in the media.

The AFL needs to take the opportunity which has conveniently presented itself.

No short memories here. Explain how they were worse ?

It's not the size of the infringement which is at issue.. What it is about is consistency of the application of the rules, supposedly being invoked in our case. Goose and gander stuff really. As for the now infamous Kruezer Cup, Travis Johnston got 43 possessions that night, not because he was a talented footballer, but because no-one went near him. May as well have had the witches hats out. Whitnall and Fevola being used in the most inopportune ways.

As others have said, whether you believe we tanked or not, the inescapable fact is we were a woeful footy team in 2009 and "rotations" of players, through "unusual" positions, would not have mattered a jot back then. We simply were not good enough in the vast majority of games. A poor team = tanking?

I don't think so.

Now is the perfect time for the AFL to release a finding of " no case to answer" as it would be quickly forgotten amongst the other AFL news currently in the media.

The AFL needs to take the opportunity which has conveniently presented itself.

We don't want a "no case to answer" result buried and forgotten.

We want it trumpeted out loud, so that everyone in Oz knows it and remembers it.

If we're off the hook, we need to rub a few noses in it.

We don't want a "no case to answer" result buried and forgotten.

We want it trumpeted out loud, so that everyone in Oz knows it and remembers it.

If we're off the hook, we need to rub a few noses in it.

I believe in Santa too !

Why do you bother?

.

Because it's easy. I'm actually not a detailed reader of 'Land, so it's quick to pop in for 5 minutes every few hours and have a quick skim. I haven't even opened the Essendon thread and I see it already has over 300 posts.

Posters have said that Carlton tanked worse than us, but when asked to demonstrate how they were WORSE they're light on for detail. We all know they tanked, we know Trapper had a day out and they mucked around with Fevola, but no-one has tanked as blatantly as we did in the Richmond game. It was hysterical stuff.