"Tanking"

[sue 9,107]

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.

I can imagine a finding which covers both bases. A bit crude and subject to criticism, but with the more serious drug issue to work on, possibly sufficient to allow everyone to move on.

Along the lines of: While there was insufficient evidence to sustain a charge against MFC and its officials, it is clear that the PP system has given rise to the public perception that winning games was not their highest priority. The AFL has already taken steps to ensure this cannot happen in future by taking decisive action in abolishing the PP. blah blah blah....

[daisycutter 29,627]

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.

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.

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".

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.

Well, now you have put in some context that's a much better post. FWIW i agree with most of it but i don't agree we should roll over and not go to court. I'm sick of "rolling over" and "not standing for anything"

Apologies if i have confused you with someone else, but i thought you had made the point a number of times that "we tanked" without defining your meaning.

Yes I think we "tanked" and within what the AFL seemed to be saying was acceptable and what they had "allowed" other clubs to do. Everyone has their own definition of "tanking" so I thought just asking the question "do you think we tanked" without any qualification was a bit provocative. Also, we seemed to have had this discussion a thousand times over and it was sounding like a broken record. Again apologies if i mixed up posters

[Hannibal 5,814]

Gonzo, we tanked in that we tried to lose to Richmond, but some supporters won't acknowledge it, because of the argument over the definition of tanking. I assume they'd admit it over a beer, but maybe not.

I agree with others though in that we have to fight this all the way. Being found guilty has too many consequences and imo it should be very difficult to prove, unless there's evidence which is yet to come to light, i.e. emails, etc.

Also, one of the most important things any person, club, or entity can have in life is their reputation. I accept that whatever happens ours has been tarnished to a degree, but meekly accepting a guilty verdict has consequences and permeation's that will never be eradicated. That is not acceptable.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,237]

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.

Insufficient evidence to penalise is not the same as not guilty.

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.

Been busy mate, trying very hard not to get in trouble surfing the web at work today

[binman 43,212]

Thousands of clubs in a stack of sports have 'List managed' for over 100 years. Describing what we in 2009 as tanking has sinister connotatiions for a few reasons. Not the least reason is that tanking can equal 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.

I don't know about the bolded bit - in lieu of a clear written AFL definition, the definition given publicly by the organisations CEO has to be the accepted understanding of what tanking means ie a player or players not trying their best to win. That has to be the definition used i reckon and by that one we are in the clear. Hence McClardy's choice of words.

Perhaps if Demonland accepts AD's definition there will be greater consensus and less ridiculous semantic posturing.

So i'll say that by the official AFL definition of tanking - we categorically did not tank!

(ps i think i juts broke a record for the most number of times the word definition has been used in a DL post)

[Dr. Gonzo 24,237]

Well, now you have put in some context that's a much better post. FWIW i agree with most of it but i don't agree we should roll over and not go to court. I'm sick of "rolling over" and "not standing for anything"

Apologies if i have confused you with someone else, but i thought you had made the point a number of times that "we tanked" without defining your meaning.

Yes I think we "tanked" and within what the AFL seemed to be saying was acceptable and what they had "allowed" other clubs to do. Everyone has their own definition of "tanking" so I thought just asking the question "do you think we tanked" without any qualification was a bit provocative. Also, we seemed to have had this discussion a thousand times over and it was sounding like a broken record. Again apologies if i mixed up posters

No worries DC.

Gonzo, we tanked in that we tried to lose to Richmond, but some supporters won't acknowledge it, because of the argument over the definition of tanking. I assume they'd admit it over a beer, but maybe not.

I agree with others though in that we have to fight this all the way. Being found guilty has too many consequences and imo it should be very difficult to prove, unless there's evidence which is yet to come to light, i.e. emails, etc.

Also, one of the most important things any person, club, or entity can have in life is their reputation. I accept that whatever happens ours has been tarnished to a degree, but meekly accepting a guilty verdict has consequences and permeation's that will never be eradicated. That is not acceptable.

That's fair enough and I understand the sentiment but it really is all or nothing at that point. We'll either be acquitted or the club will be close to oblivion. And our brand is damaged now - look at the Bombers they're tarnished as drug cheats now no matter what happens.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Dr. Gonzo

[mjt 640]

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,.........

Im starting to think they dont care.

[daisycutter 29,627]

No worries DC.

That's fair enough and I understand the sentiment but it really is all out nothing at that point. We'll either be acquitted or the club will be close to oblivion. And our brand is damaged now - look at the Bombers they're tarnished as drug cheats now no matter what happens.

and we are already tarnished as tankers but at this stage only in the same way carlton (and others) are already tarnished in the public eye

afl charging us and penalising us is a WHOLE LOT different type of tarnishing

[sue 9,107]

and we are already tarnished as tankers but at this stage only in the same way carlton (and others) are already tarnished in the public eye

afl charging us and penalising us is a WHOLE LOT different type of tarnishing

True, though unlike Carlton we have had a 7 month investigation with frequent press 'updates'. But probably the general public has taken less notice of that than Demons supporters and even less than people on this forum.

[Sir Why You Little 37,055]

Once cleared of tanking charges in court the legacy of tanking will blow away...

Carltank survived their salary cap breaches and i doubt our charges will stick.

Fumbling the ball...is that a crime??

[nutbean 8,838]

Fumbling the ball...is that a crime??

For us it has been a lifestyle choice.

[old dee 23,805]

For us it has been a lifestyle choice.

very good nut bean it is only 2.15 but I reckon you have won the comment of the day

[rpfc 28,551]

I can go a few rounds again, but I have already written it about 30 times before.

Let's just wait until next week and see what happens.

[Pennant St Dee 13,253]

We must fight this to the end, the club will survive if we fight to the end. We will be no more tarnished then those who tanked/list managed before us.

If you put your hand up and PG then you become the tarnished club on the tanking issue, win in court and you fall in with Carlton/Collingwood/Hawthorn etc.

As others have said sometimes you just have to fight and this is our time

Contrary to other opinion the AFL does not hold the aces we do, we are prepared to go to court they do not wish for it to go that far. Don Mclardy at every opportunity has put it out there in a suttle way.

We are now not their biggest problem

My apologies in advance to Deelanders who don't condone foul language but this is how I feel on the matter

"Fook em & bring it on"

[dee-luded 2,959]

I actually feel a bit for Gil....

Adrian gets hot under the collar and calls an investigation with the backing of Demetriou. Appoints Haddad and Clothier to bring in the chains and torture equipment (Cue German speak: we have ways of making you talk!....give me your finger nail..........)..

Adrian receives detailed information from Gerard Healy 12 months ago into banned substance rumblings at Essendon, sits on it (or handballs to relative authorities...).

Adrian in November/December decides to move onto better pastures, thinks he has left at a time of sustained integrity and left the AFL in good hands - in the midst of a lengthy investigation when Haddad and Clothier are still collating information from their 3rd round of interviews (ie.job not done).

Gil fills the gap for the time being at such an unprecedented and significant time in the AFL's history.

The AFL has launched an investigation into claims made by former

Melbourne midfielder Brock McLean that the Demons tanked in 2009.

McLean had admitted winning was not a priority for the Demons during that controversial season under former coach Dean Bailey.

Acting AFL chief executive officer Gill McLachlan said league operations manager Adrian Anderson would interview McLean, who is now at Carlton.

"The AFL has resolved that this matter will be addressed by the general manager of football operations, Adrian Anderson," McLachlan said in a statement.

McLean last night admitted winning games was not Melbourne's priority

in 2009, when the Demons finished last and secured a priority pick plus the top pick in that year's national draft, which it then used to recruit Tom Scully and Jack Trengove.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-launches-demons-tanking-claim-probe-20120731-23bwz.html#ixzz2KHSdoyl9

[dee-luded 2,959]

McLean's 'tanking' claims may have opened a Pandora's box

Posted by: Michael James // 31 July, 2012 - 7:00 PM

http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/3aw-football-blog/mcleans-tanking-claims-may-have-opened-a-pandoras-box/20120731-23cqc.html

"And now there is a big dirty bomb at AFL Headquarters."

Today acting AFL CEO Gill McLachlan said the AFL would interview McLean but will make no further comment until their investigation has concluded.

Sheahan says that if the AFL take any action against the Demons it could open a Pandora's box.

"If in fact they do Melbourne over, and take draft picks off them or fine them, then what do they do to Carlton and West Coast and Collingwood in the early part of this decade."

"If they (Melbourne) go down, I guarantee you....at least two other clubs have got to go down with them," Sheahan concluded.

[Sir Why You Little 37,055]

This will tickle your fancy wyl and others WCE CEO Trevor Nisbett said today

Nisbett, who described West Coast as "one of the major advocates" of clean sport,

I almost fell off my chair.

Does he really think we all have that short of memories

Really!

Hahahahaha!! (Falls off Chair) Hahahahaha... Ben Cousins....Michael Gardner...Hahahahaha!! Coach Worsfold The Chemist...Hahahaha!!

Thanks O.D...

[old dee 23,805]

Hahahahaha!! (Falls off Chair) Hahahahaha... Ben Cousins....Michael Gardner...Hahahahaha!! Coach Worsfold The Chemist...Hahahaha!!

Thanks O.D...

Sorry mate I posted it on the wrong thread.

Now on Bombers Drug thread

[DemonWA 3,936]

This will tickle your fancy wyl and others WCE CEO Trevor Nisbett said today

Nisbett, who described West Coast as "one of the major advocates" of clean sport,

I almost fell off my chair.

Does he really think we all have that short of memories

Really!

haha he should read this to refresh his memory

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/eagles-battle-drug-stigma/story-e6frexni-1111113211534

If they had been carying on like that these days there would be so many videos and pictures on twitter or facebook that there could be no denial.

[dee-luded 2,959]

McLean's 'tanking' claims may have opened a Pandora's box

Posted by: Michael James // 31 July, 2012 - 7:00 PM

http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/3aw-football-blog/mcleans-tanking-claims-may-have-opened-a-pandoras-box/20120731-23cqc.html

"And now there is a big dirty bomb at AFL Headquarters."

Today acting AFL CEO Gill McLachlan said the AFL would interview McLean but will make no further comment until their investigation has concluded.

Sheahan says that if the AFL take any action against the Demons it could open a Pandora's box.

"If in fact they do Melbourne over, and take draft picks off them or fine them, then what do they do to Carlton and West Coast and Collingwood in the early part of this decade."

"If they (Melbourne) go down, I guarantee you....at least two other clubs have got to go down with them," Sheahan concluded.

http://www.triplem.com.au/adelaide/sport/afl/news/video-afls-adrian-anderson-to-investigate-brock-mcleans-tanking-claims/

Posted: 31 July, 2012 by Triple M Footy

VIDEO: AFL's Adrian Anderson To Investigate Brock McLean's Tanking Claims Brock McLean has re-ignited the tanking debate and AFL's Adrian Anderson is set to investigate with Melbourne's support.

The AFL has released a statement saying that they are going to investigate Block McLean dicussions relating to tanking during his time at Melbourne on Fox Footy (see video of the comments above).

The AFL released the following statement:

Acting AFL Chief Executive Officer Gill McLachlan today said the AFL would interview Carlton player Brock McLean, following comments he had made concerning the on-field performance of the Melbourne Football Club in his final year at the club in 2009.

Mr McLachlan said the AFL had this morning reviewed an interview given by player McLean last night on television, relating to Melbourne’s performance in matches at the end of the 2009 season.

"The AFL has resolved that this matter will be addressed by the General Manager of Football Operations, Adrian Anderson," Mr McLachlan said.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

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.

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.

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".

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.

Under current AFL rules, we can only be charged with "bringing the game into disrepute". There is no "tanking rule". Under the AFL system that was in place at that time, there is no sustainable argument which could lead to a finding of guilt, based on that system.

[old dee 23,805]

I have defend a few in the media lately but it this leaves me shaking my head.

On AFL/ bigpond site the AFL media has posted a video of CS saying he had no comment to make on tanking enquiry.

No I ask you.

It just shows the need the media has to fill space.

I despair some days

[Redleg 41,016]

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.

Now there is a good post, with a sentiment I endorse completely.

[rjay 25,012]

We must fight this to the end, the club will survive if we fight to the end. We will be no more tarnished then those who tanked/list managed before us.

If you put your hand up and PG then you become the tarnished club on the tanking issue, win in court and you fall in with Carlton/Collingwood/Hawthorn etc.

As others have said sometimes you just have to fight and this is our time

Contrary to other opinion the AFL does not hold the aces we do, we are prepared to go to court they do not wish for it to go that far. Don Mclardy at every opportunity has put it out there in a suttle way.

We are now not their biggest problem

My apologies in advance to Deelanders who don't condone foul language but this is how I feel on the matter

"Fook em & bring it on"

..and that's the key point, we can't afford to be found guilty in any way shape or form.

[Slartibartfast 17,384]

Gonzo, we tanked in that we tried to lose to Richmond, but some supporters won't acknowledge it, because of the argument over the definition of tanking. I assume they'd admit it over a beer, but maybe not.

I agree with others though in that we have to fight this all the way. Being found guilty has too many consequences and imo it should be very difficult to prove, unless there's evidence which is yet to come to light, i.e. emails, etc.

Also, one of the most important things any person, club, or entity can have in life is their reputation. I accept that whatever happens ours has been tarnished to a degree, but meekly accepting a guilty verdict has consequences and permeation's that will never be eradicated. That is not acceptable.

So, if after all the negotiations the AFL say "a couple of scalps and we'll call it quits or it's draft penalties and fines and off to court" what would you do?

Taking city hall to court is a lose lose situation for all of us. The difference is city hall will survive, we may not.