"Tanking"

[Scoop Junior 3,568]

If we go before the Commission and they strip us of a couple of draft picks for the next year or two cop it on the chin and move on. We already have enough top end draft picks to work with and have mitigated against any penalties somewhat by having Hogan up our sleeve and gaining Viney with F/S. FA will also mitigate any draft picks we lose.

Do you really think that will be the extent of the damage?

Do you not think that being found guilty will have a significant adverse impact on the club's brand, which in turn could lead to issues with sponsorship and other revenue-generating activities?

As Don McL said we need to protect the integrity of the MFC.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,448]

Do you really think that will be the extent of the damage?

Do you not think that being found guilty will have a significant adverse impact on the club's brand, which in turn could lead to issues with sponsorship and other revenue-generating activities?

As Don McL said we need to protect the integrity of the MFC.

And you think going to court is going to solve that? Our brand has already been adversely impacted going to court won't repair that. At the very best we can hope for is an outcome of insufficient evidence to find we tanked, no way we would be cleared altogether.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Let's be honest here - everyone knows we tanked, it's only whether it can be proven that is the issue. I don't think we really want to go to court with this at the end of the day and the consequences of a loss are far worse for us than they are for the AFL. If we go before the Commission and they strip us of a couple of draft picks for the next year or two cop it on the chin and move on. We already have enough top end draft picks to work with and have mitigated against any penalties somewhat by having Hogan up our sleeve and gaining Viney with F/S. FA will also mitigate any draft picks we lose.

If we've learnt anything out of this whole debacle it should be that draft picks are not the panacea we thought they were. Sydney haven't had many high draft picks and they've won 2 flags in recent years (COL hasn't really played a factor either). Adelaide haven't had many high draft picks either and they've got a decent squad. Just get on with it and let this club get back to the business of playing footy instead of being about anything but.

Dr everyone knows that we tanked, just as they know that the other clubs tanked, the issue is do the AFL want this to go to court and be forced to investigate those other clubs? I doubt it and let's not forget the MFC has said they will open this matter up. If this comes out in Court the AFL will have no choice other than to open up a wide enquiry in to the whole matter, public opinion will dictate that it does.

On the matter of draft picks, we are not a strong club and let's not get fooled in to thinking that we can cover the loss of two years early draft picks, we've already seen the consequences of this from early this decade. Viney and Hogan will not make up for lost picks, nothing will.

[beelzebub 23,390]

Under no circumstances can we allow a 'guilty' tag to be administered . Nor really can the AFL .

A reality i suppose is a negotiated peace. But no Guilty .

[rjay 25,307]

guilty = end of club

the AFL can't afford to loose 2 or maybe more clubs in a week, now that would be more than careless.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,448]

Dr everyone knows that we tanked, just as they know that the other clubs tanked, the issue is do the AFL want this to go to court and be forced to investigate those other clubs? I doubt it and let's not forget the MFC has said they will open this matter up. If this comes out in Court the AFL will have no choice other than to open up a wide enquiry in to the whole matter, public opinion will dictate that it does.

On the matter of draft picks, we are not a strong club and let's not get fooled in to thinking that we can cover the loss of two years early draft picks, we've already seen the consequences of this from early this decade. Viney and Hogan will not make up for lost picks, nothing will.

I don't doubt we've been scapegoated here but I think that's another matter. We are definitely not a strong club (recent years attest to that) but I think there are ways of mitigating the impact of any draft penalties especially with FA now in play. I'm not saying it won't hurt but taking this to court? That would be a far worse outcome for the footy club than just getting on with the job of trying to win games of footy.

If we take it to court it is likely it will overshadow Neeld’s entire career and he will be sent packing without ever having a real chance to show his coaching skills unimpeded by these off-field issues. Then you have the ramifications of any adverse court finding against us.

I don’t believe the AFL has a strong case and we should fight it fervently if it goes to the Commission but we need to weigh things up very carefully before deciding to take on City Hall in the courts.

I think the arguments leaked as “evidence” of our tanking can be ripped to shreds but I’m not confident in the things I’ve heard coming out of the club which would seem we would try to argue the matter on technicalities (e.g. definition of tanking, precedent by other clubs). If we think we will get away with it by dragging others down with us we may want to rethink our strategy very carefully because it is very likely the minute we raise potential tanking by other clubs it will be dismissed. And even if it is not, investigations of other clubs won’t mean a damn thing for us.

We can certainly use these arguments as deterrents to the AFL to press charges but if they call our bluff I think we need to determine what is in the best long term interests of the club and I don’t think a long, drawn-out court battle with dirty laundry being aired, negative media attention impacting our brand and FD (including coaches & players) and backlash from the AFL with a possibility of more severe penalties is really what we want. Now if we suffer further investigation from government bodies due to an adverse finding by the league we may have no other choice than to fight it but I don’t welcome the thought.

[nutbean 8,838]

. I don't think we really want to go to court with this at the end of the day and the consequences of a loss are far worse for us than they are for the AFL.

This is where I disagree - a loss is far worse for the AFL as the AFL will (should) be forced by the court definition of what actions constitute tanking to apply the same standard against other teams which participated in the same/similar practices. This would bode badly for Carlton, WCE, Richmond, Collingwood etc.

[nutbean 8,838]

{haha I know why you like waffles now; nice one nutbean}

BH told me in no uncertain manner that I waffle so I thought a change of avatar was appropriate - however I would like to see BH change his avatar to Mark Latham.

[sue 9,195]

Assuming (as I do as a bush-lawyer) that the MFC would have a case in court that could allow admitting evidence relating to the AFL's lack of action with respect to other club's tanking, it is a game of bluff. Neither side can want it to go to court, but who would blink first? Even if it is true that the downside is worse for one side than the other, this may be balanced by the probability of winning in the game of bluff.

I think/hope the drug issue will help. If the AFL dropped the tanking issue they would cop some flack, but unless there is a very smoking gun, it must suit them not to have 2+ clubs guilty of bad behaviour. And clearly the drug issue is massive compared to the vague issue of tanking.

I don't think it is worth agonising over whether we should actually take it to court till we know more - charges, evidence etc.

I can imagine a finding of 'guilty' but expressed in such mild terms, with qualifications about the AFL's own guilt in the matter and with such minimal or no penalties that maybe we could live without significant damage to the brand of being found guilty.

[Bossdog 2,002]

I don't doubt we've been scapegoated here but I think that's another matter. We are definitely not a strong club (recent years attest to that) but I think there are ways of mitigating the impact of any draft penalties especially with FA now in play. I'm not saying it won't hurt but taking this to court? That would be a far worse outcome for the footy club than just getting on with the job of trying to win games of footy.

If we take it to court it is likely it will overshadow Neeld’s entire career and he will be sent packing without ever having a real chance to show his coaching skills unimpeded by these off-field issues. Then you have the ramifications of any adverse court finding against us.

I don’t believe the AFL has a strong case and we should fight it fervently if it goes to the Commission but we need to weigh things up very carefully before deciding to take on City Hall in the courts.

I think the arguments leaked as “evidence” of our tanking can be ripped to shreds but I’m not confident in the things I’ve heard coming out of the club which would seem we would try to argue the matter on technicalities (e.g. definition of tanking, precedent by other clubs). If we think we will get away with it by dragging others down with us we may want to rethink our strategy very carefully because it is very likely the minute we raise potential tanking by other clubs it will be dismissed. And even if it is not, investigations of other clubs won’t mean a damn thing for us.

We can certainly use these arguments as deterrents to the AFL to press charges but if they call our bluff I think we need to determine what is in the best long term interests of the club and I don’t think a long, drawn-out court battle with dirty laundry being aired, negative media attention impacting our brand and FD (including coaches & players) and backlash from the AFL with a possibility of more severe penalties is really what we want. Now if we suffer further investigation from government bodies due to an adverse finding by the league we may have no other choice than to fight it but I don’t welcome the thought.

Yeah....Just run up the white flag and bow to Goliath.....Some times you just have to face your ememies.....Any admission of guilt will bring harsh penalties.....I know you just want this to be over but we at some stage need to stick up for ourselves or forever be the easy beat.....

[Sir Why You Little 37,310]

Let's be honest here - everyone knows we tanked, it's only whether it can be proven that is the issue. I don't think we really want to go to court with this at the end of the day and the consequences of a loss are far worse for us than they are for the AFL. If we go before the Commission and they strip us of a couple of draft picks for the next year or two cop it on the chin and move on. We already have enough top end draft picks to work with and have mitigated against any penalties somewhat by having Hogan up our sleeve and gaining Viney with F/S. FA will also mitigate any draft picks we lose.

If we've learnt anything out of this whole debacle it should be that draft picks are not the panacea we thought they were. Sydney haven't had many high draft picks and they've won 2 flags in recent years (COL hasn't really played a factor either). Adelaide haven't had many high draft picks either and they've got a decent squad. Just get on with it and let this club get back to the business of playing footy instead of being about anything but.

so what you are saying in reality is that you are happy for the club to accept guilt to a bunch of very flimsy laws, to Roll Over to the AFL punishment and forever be labelled a cheat.

That is not the team i want to follow.

I want my club to fight for its place on & off the field Dr. G.

[pitmaster 3,589]

Must disagree with those who say most fans want us punished.

Those I talk to say we did nothing others have not done, and that any club in our spot would have done the same.

They also suggest the AFL is at fault for creating the system.

Meanwhile Jay Clark tweets that CC had a long day at AFL HQ yesterday.

First movement of any sort for almost two weeks.

Who knows what it means but Clark says it would be a shame to see CC scapegoated.

[jnrmac 20,276]

An adverse finding would jeopardise our bentleigh pokies licence which gave us $5m of revenue last year.

And adverse finding and protracted court case would stuff our club for some time and be bad for the AFL.

The AFL doesn't want or need this,.........

[Dr. Gonzo 24,448]

Yeah....Just run up the white flag and bow to Goliath.....Some times you just have to face your ememies.....Any admission of guilt will bring harsh penalties.....I know you just want this to be over but we at some stage need to stick up for ourselves or forever be the easy beat.....

Do you think we tanked in 2009?

[daisycutter 29,892]

Do you think we tanked in 2009?

WTF, are you a DJ gonzo?

[Dr. Gonzo 24,448]

WTF, are you a DJ gonzo?

Bizarre question but no I'm not, why?

[sue 9,195]

Do you think we tanked in 2009?

This may be too paradoxical for some, but it is possible to think we tanked in 2009 and at the same time believe we are not guilty of an ill-defined charge of tanking.

[daisycutter 29,892]

Bizarre question but no I'm not, why?

coz you are sounding like a broken record

i'm sure you can be more original if you try

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

Do you think we tanked in 2009?

Unequivocally, the answer is no, I do not think we "tanked". I believe we simply operated within a system which was conceived and had life breathed into it by the AFL itself. It was a system put in place that we and others AFL teams used to its greatest affect available at that time.

[Bossdog 2,002]

Do you think we tanked in 2009?

It doesn't matter what I think Dr......It's what the AFL can or can't prove...

If Coll'wood,Carlton,Richmond were being investigated....Do you reckon they would just 'roll over'??????

You would hear the yells of foul play drown out a grand final crowd and they would go down fighting

Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.....

[Macca 17,113]

Thousands of clubs in a stack of sports have 'List managed' for over 100 years. Describing what we did in 2009 as tanking has sinister connotations for a few reasons. Not the least being that tanking can equate to match fixing.

Tanking doesn't have a clear definitive meaning so therefore shouldn't be used as a description for what we did in 2009.

Edit : Spelling and grammar (I blame the phone)

Edited February 8, 2013 by Macca

[Dr. Gonzo 24,448]

Unequivocally, the answer is no, I do not think we "tanked". I believe we simply operated within a system which was conceived and had life breathed into it by the AFL itself. It was a system put in place that we and others AFL teams used to its greatest affect available at that time.

So how did we "operate" within the system. If it was by ensuring we qualified for a PP by not winning more than 4.5 games then we tanked.

It doesn't matter what I think Dr......It's what the AFL can or can't prove...

If Coll'wood,Carlton,Richmond were being investigated....Do you reckon they would just 'roll over'??????

You would hear the yells of foul play drown out a grand final crowd and they would go down fighting

Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.....

I appreciate the sentiment and to some extent I agree but in the long run I think it will be even more detrimental to the club to try and fight this in court.

This may be too paradoxical for some, but it is possible to think we tanked in 2009 and at the same time believe we are not guilty of an ill-defined charge of tanking.

That's where I sit at the moment. I think we should fight the charges fervently before the Commission (should we be charged) and rip the ridiculous arguments apart one by one. Although I'd probably lean mroe towards there being insufficient evidence rather than a mere "not guilty".

coz you are sounding like a broken record

i'm sure you can be more original if you try

Uh huh - OK whatever you want to think. I'm not happy with the whole situation, I think we've been scapegoated and have done nothing other clubs have not also done. I also think the AFL basically gave tacit approval of tanking in the years before we did it. But that doesn't mean we didn't do it.

By the way I haven't commented on this thread until the last page or so so fail to see how I could be a "broken record". I'm hurting as much as we all are at the moment but I don't want to see the club crippled beyond repair by trying to fight this in the courts when at the end of the day everyone knows our goal in 2009 was to get the PP. I'm not going to hang the admin for doing that as if they didn't the supporters would have been furious especially after what had gone down in the years prior. But if we are exposed then we need to cop our medicine regardless of what happens to other clubs. It's not fair but life rarely is, all we can do is put all our focus into winning games of footy instead of fighting the AFL in the courts.

[Scoop Junior 3,568]

At the very best we can hope for is an outcome of insufficient evidence to find we tanked, no way we would be cleared altogether.

If there is insufficient evidence that we 'tanked', then why wouldn't we be cleared altogether?

You can't be half guilty of breaching the 'tanking' rule.

[rpfc 28,913]

Jesus christ Dr, where have you been?

Go and read the thread and you will a rebuttal for everything you have written and a whole heap of things you are about to write.

[old dee 24,003]

Jesus christ Dr, where have you been?

Go and read the thread and you will a rebuttal for everything you have written and a whole heap of things you are about to write.

Sorry mate it took me 15 minutes.

Can I help?