"Tanking"

[daisycutter 29,743]

-10 (phase II)

nervous times, hold the line

[Pates 9,660]

Very very doubtful - they hold the Aces here, not us.

I disagree, they are going down uncharted waters trying to prove what appears to be the unprovable. Even Caro didn't seem to think in a court of law they'd be able to prove it. If they can get us to plead guilty to something and avoid the courts, especially with everything that's going on, then they'll try to make it happen. But that would mean us admitting guilt and I don't think that will happen unless we get a VERY good deal.

Unfortunately it looks like another year of distractions.

[bing181 9,329]

-10 (phase II)

nervous times, hold the line

Next week apparently:

"Gill McLachlan has told triple M that the AFL will deliver its tanking verdict on Melbourne next week. Dees were at AFL yesterday"

[beelzebub 23,383]

-10 (phase II)

nervous times, hold the line

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcVEOc7ZYgk

[deanox 9,989]

Next week apparently:

"Gill McLachlan has told triple M that the AFL will deliver its tanking verdict on Melbourne next week. Dees were at AFL yesterday"

Why would there be a verdict? Surely the only thing that can be announced is that the investigation has recommended charging certain parties with various offences.

[bing181 9,329]

Jay Clark ‏@ClarkyHeraldSun

Chris Connolly spent a long day at AFL HQ yesterday. Great footy person, would be tough if an individual took the brunt. Dees will fight.

[beelzebub 23,383]

Why would there be a verdict? Surely the only thing that can be announced is that the investigation has recommended charging certain parties with various offences.

surely the logical announcement is "After due process and thorough investigation and taking on board the submissions from the MFC arising from concerns arising from the AFL's exhaustive investigations that we determine there are in fact no charges to be laid and we accept the version of events and circumstances as provided to us by the club."

finis...move along

[pantaloons 2,019]

If we are (unthinkably) charged, does anyone here actually believe we could lose the case? I just can't believe the AFL would be dumb enough to put their hands up for the inevitable embarrassment of being taken to the cleaners by people with an IQ greater than plankton.

[Grimes Times 1,278]

Sent him a text but of course they didn't read it out.

That makes two of us

[H_T 3,049]

Why would there be a verdict? Surely the only thing that can be announced is that the investigation has recommended charging certain parties with various offences.

There could also be an alternative announcement. That they were satisfied with Melbourne's and Bailey's responses.

[Demon Stalwart 255]

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong but Last night on Footy Classified

Didnt Caro say something to the affect that the MFC players had nothing to answer to but some of the staff did ?

If the players have nothing to answer too wouldnt that mean that in affect they didint Tank and if the Players didnt Tank then why does the MFC have anything to answer to?

Or did I mis hear or interpret what she said ?????

Edited February 7, 2013 by Demon Stalwart

[beelzebub 23,383]

If we are (unthinkably) charged, does anyone here actually believe we could lose the case? I just can't believe the AFL would be dumb enough to put their hands up for the inevitable embarrassment of being taken to the cleaners by people with an IQ greater than plankton.

It will to some degree now come down to prioritising the deployment of manpower and monies. The AFL now has much bigger concerns.. The MFC becomes a no win situation. A pointless exercise and a waste of precious resources now.

Thanks Essendon You just made Vlads choices much more focussed.

[sue 9,145]

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong but Last night on Football confidential

Didnt Caro say something to the affect that the MFC players had nothing to answer to but some of the staff did ?

If the players have nothing to answer too wouldnt that mean that in affect they didint Tank and if the Players didnt Tank then why does the MFC have anything to answer to?

Or did I mis hear or interpret what she said ?????

Regardless of whatever she said, the coach etc can 'tank' no matter what the players do given the ambiguity in the rules. For example if you dropped half your good players in the next match to ensure they were fit for a final match the following week, you could be charged with 'tanking'..... You might not be apparently, but you could be.

[daisycutter 29,743]

It will to some degree now come down to prioritising the deployment of manpower and monies. The AFL now has much bigger concerns.. The MFC becomes a no win situation. A pointless exercise and a waste of precious resources now.

Thanks Essendon You just made Vlads choices much more focussed.

that's a good point. this drug investigation is going to cost the afl lots of spondulaks, not to mention people's and lawyer's time

a long expensive court case on top of this would stretch the afl's coffers and capabilities

[Dee Fan 3,247]

From what I was told Gil McLauchlan said he hadn't finished reading the report and consequently hadn't made any decision.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

I agree Old but it is the sanctimonious "I know more than you" way she conducts herself that I find so grating (apart from other things)

That reminds me of a few of her Fans on here.

[Outside fifty 967]

If we are (unthinkably) charged, does anyone here actually believe we could lose the case? I just can't believe the AFL would be dumb enough to put their hands up for the inevitable embarrassment of being taken to the cleaners by people with an IQ greater than plankton.

Will the AFL be silly enough to let this go to court? Unfortunately I think they are Pantaloons. At the best of times the AFL decision making process is shambolic and ad hoc . In times of crisis like these I can't see that improving. They will want to be seen to standing firm in regard to the integrity of the competition. My gut feeling is that they are arrogant enough to try and bluff us into submission, even though they must know that have little or no chance of a favourable outcome in a court of law. More than ever I want my football club to stand firm and stare them down.

[pantaloons 2,019]

From what I was told Gil McLauchlan said he hadn't finished reading the report and consequently hadn't made any decision.

He claimed there weren't enough pictures and some of the words were too long. This has been going on how long?

[Dr. Gonzo 24,305]

You think they want to risk spending months and months in court fighting a case that the majority of legal eagles have predicted there is no way they can win?

I think a protracted court case would be a vastly worse outcome for us than it would be for the AFL.

[daisycutter 29,743]

I think a protracted court case would be a vastly worse outcome for us than it would be for the AFL.

not if you win

[jabberwocky 2,301]

I wonder if there is some negotiating going on behind closed doors or at least an attempt to negotiate by the AFL.

I thought McLardy's reference to defend the employees and staff of the club poignant.

[rpfc 28,779]

I think a protracted court case would be a vastly worse outcome for us than it would be for the AFL.

Absolutely.

But WE are running out of alternatives and we will take it to court instead of admitting to forfeiting matches.

It's the AFL's decision - McLachlan's really - and he can save us some money and his organisation a headache.

[pantaloons 2,019]

I think a protracted court case would be a vastly worse outcome for us than it would be for the AFL.

If punished (unless it's an absolute slap on the wrist), we have to take it to court, regardless of how long the case takes. We'd have a 99% probability of victory, and any distractions caused by an ongoing case would be offset by the gains in reclaiming lost draft picks/fines. The only negative would be that after we won the case, I'd expect a significantly more difficult fixture than the ones we've been given of late.

[rjay 25,093]

I think a protracted court case would be a vastly worse outcome for us than it would be for the AFL.

It's not good for anyone.

[daisycutter 29,743]

I wonder if there is some negotiating going on behind closed doors or at least an attempt to negotiate by the AFL.

I thought McLardy's reference to defend the employees and staff of the club poignant.

melbourne's visit to afl house last night doesn't necessarily mean there is negotiation re penalties etc. They would be set by the commission anyway if required

could be as simple as clarifiying some of the club's response items

but who knows?