"Tanking"

[Slartibartfast 18,040]

Again i'm not sure if you are being disingenuous or not Bob. Perhaps i'm wrong, but to me your post (and several others in a similar vein) implied you believe we have transgressed or broken some rules.

But i'll take you at face value and accept you were asking Redleg for a legal opinion. Now that he has given it, and you profess to respect his opinion, i assume you will move on and leave the notion of us breaking rules (or Carlton for that matter) alone.

I believe, in a non legal sense, we were "wrong" in managing the club to lose game to gain draft picks. I believe we did that. I'm also on record of saying that I supported the move because it was "AFL approved best practice at the time we did it".

Redled is a person with significant legal background who's opinion I respect so I asked him the questions. Like everyone here I want the club to be cleared and I don't want anyone of our employees punished and if Redleg can explain to me why we are innocent within the written law well and good I'll be pleased. But I'll still think we "tanked" in the "right and wrong" sense of the word and while I'd like to believe we were "right" (did the honourable and right thing) I've not seen an argument here that allows me to think that.

And I'd like to.

I reckon if we are cleared there will be many who inwardly thing "thank heavens we got away with that".

[Dr. Gonzo 24,460]

There we go again on the accepted AFL definition of tanking, the players doing their best "on the field". Despite 186 and other poor performances "on the field" over many years, we are not being investigated for that but rather performance "off the field", which the AFL has said is not tanking.

Yes, I know what you were getting at, but again it is the basis of wrongdoing being established/proved, that is at the heart of this whole sorry saga.

I agree but the fact is that was one comment by Demetriou and we all know he can backflip. It is clear they are looking at off-field stuff to prove draft tampering and bringing the game into disrepute. There is no definition of tanking in the rules and no specific rule against it other than the one talking about players and coaches acting on their merits. But the AFL is clearly going after Schwab, Connolly and the MFC with draft tampering and bringing the game into disrepute and an added charge against Bailey of not coaching on his merits. Arguing the definition of tanking in this sense may not mean a damn thing.

[Whispering_Jack 31,305]

I've not seen anyone defend the process but that is quite different to considering the issue.

IMO too many are sidetracked by the inequities of the processes when considering our actions. It's an easy place to go and feel good as most love playing the victim and I agree, in terms of process we are.

Only up to a point because our legal system requires bodies which make determinations on the rights and obligations of their constituents to administer their judicial processes in a fair and transparent manner. The inequities of the manner in which the AFL has handled its processes therefore does, in addition to many other things, become a live issue.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Haha! Has no memory of it...Gold!!

I'm sire id someone offered him a contract he'd resemble something?

[Sir Why You Little 37,342]

I am fascinated that journalists Wilson & Denham have publicly denigrated Mclardy for his speech at the AGM concerning the effort of players on the ground, when the accusation of "fumbling" has been put forward.

Why is it these people do not acknowledge this?

Yes i know who they are, but they are the purveyors of information to a lot of people out there.

Both have been particularly denigrating of Mclardy.

I hope the Fink has it covered.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,460]

If this goes to court am I right in thinking we would be arguing the legitimacy of the AFL's investigation and investigation techniques rather than whether or not we tanked? I have a feeling if it goes to court we would be arguing about process rather than outcome as the AFL as a governing body of the league has the right to govern its own laws as it sees fit therefore we would only be able to argue some kind of prejudice due to investigation techniques etc rather than arguing "putting Frawley and Warnock up forward is not tanking and here's why..."

[titan_uranus 25,212]

If this goes to court am I right in thinking we would be arguing the legitimacy of the AFL's investigation and investigation techniques rather than whether or not we tanked? I have a feeling if it goes to court we would be arguing about process rather than outcome as the AFL as a governing body of the league has the right to govern its own laws as it sees fit therefore we would only be able to argue some kind of prejudice due to investigation techniques etc rather than arguing "putting Frawley and Warnock up forward is not tanking and here's why..."

It will be both.

I'm sure part of the argument will be the inadmissibility of a whole stack of AFL evidence. But I'm also sure that, on the basis of what the AFL adduces, we'll be arguing that the charges they're laying against us don't exist, or can't stand.

[binman 44,728]

I believe, in a non legal sense, we were "wrong" in managing the club to lose game to gain draft picks. I believe we did that. I'm also on record of saying that I supported the move because it was "AFL approved best practice at the time we did it".

Redleg is a person with significant legal background who's opinion I respect so I asked him the questions. Like everyone here I want the club to be cleared and I don't want anyone of our employees punished and if Redleg can explain to me why we are innocent within the written law well and good I'll be pleased. But I'll still think we "tanked" in the "right and wrong" sense of the word and while I'd like to believe we were "right" (did the honourable and right thing) I've not seen an argument here that allows me to think that.

And I'd like to.

I reckon if we are cleared there will be many who inwardly thing "thank heavens we got away with that".

Totally fair call Bob. That's your view and fair enough. But the moral question is a different one to the more black and white legal one of right or wrong.

But that's my query about being disingenuous. It appears to me (and i'm happy to be wrong) that you are trying to make the above points indirectly or via a legal 'clarification" question of Redleg.

[mjt 640]

Redleg, the wheels on the bus continue to go round and around without stop. You won't convince those who simply don't want to understand.

Understand what, they lost the game to gain Tom and Jack, the whole of Australia knows that, its up to the AFL to prove it, if they wanted to win the game Miller wouldnt be in the ruck, plus other questionable moves, Bailey never coached to win, then you have a small number of die hard crackpots thinking its list management, or experimenting, watch the game again, when the game was so close Bailey should have used his football acumen and decided to coach to win, it looked too obvious.

[Slartibartfast 18,040]

But that's my query about being disingenuous.

It's a non issue. People can make up there own mind.

Most have and I don't care.

[rpfc 28,966]

It's a non issue. People can make up there own mind.

Most have and I don't care.

Yeah, you're just here for the conversation...

[dee-luded 2,959]

It's a non issue. People can make up there own mind.

Most have and I don't care.

They/we have.

And you could have fooled me, that you don't care, or you wouldn't be still peddling this stuff, after what, 4 weeks or more along the same lines.

[Sir Why You Little 37,342]

Bob has a foot in both camps. He is happy for the AFL to storm the club and sieze records because we did it.

At the same time he doesn't want anyone to burn or any of the charges to stick but you can be sure if any present employees are put in the spotlight Bob will be willing to lose them without a further thought. So there is one paradox

At least he is honest with his simmering disdain.

[rumpole 537]

I'll take that as an invitation, as I have a few questions.

You say "other clubs have done what we're alleged to have done".

You can prove this allegation ? And by "done", what do you mean ?

Would other clubs' "actions" be a major platform for your defence in a court of law should you be representing the MFC ?

If so, would you bring up specific examples from other clubs in terms of their list management, or game day moves ?

Thanks, interested in your views. I'd personally be more inclined to refute any specific allegations about our own club by providing lucid and legitimate responses to our actions, without even mentioning what other clubs have "supposedly" done.

By that may explain why you're the silk and I'm not.

Melbourne and many other teams (including Carlton over a three year period) list managed and selected their teams and placed their players without having a great amount of regard for the outcome of games. Carlton took Fevola off the ground against Collingwood for long periods of time when he was "on fire" and would have won the game for them had he stayed on the ground. The Blues led Essendon by 5 goals at half time at the MCG, changed what was a winning combination and fell apart and lost and in the Kreuzer Cup nobody tagged Travis on his way to a career high 42 (dangerous) possessions. They went wide and to the flanks way to often that day. Everyone knew what was going on and a fat, overweight and unfit Whitnall was a joke at FF while Fev was hospitalised a month early to keep him out of this game in particular. The Blues were boasting about how smart they were at the time. Collingwood lost eight in a row at the end of 2005 and put in some shockers courtesy of some deft list management. I remember turning the TV off during a Friday night game when they were so obviously trying not to win that I couldn't watch any more. I don't expect any of that to be investigated the way they did with our game at Manuka when our players tried their guts out against the Swans. They were undermanned, were never going to win.

Once you allow what the AFL did when Freo dropped half its team for a meaningless final round game, intention and morality aren't relevant. The AFL set the precedent and they should take responsibility for the tanking controversy.

[old55 23,848]

You know I was just thinking of posting the same thing. If CC was at the AFL yesterday then adding 1+1 and getting 3, something is up. Maybe the charge will not be something as dramatic as bringing the game into disrepute but they will make something up (bad comedic timing when in charge of a seriously poor football club) and if Trigg got 6 months CC may get 3 with a suspended sentence or just a ss and told that the AFL is no laughing business.

Who knows???

Quick - get out of my way - where do I sign!!!

McLardy has already telegraphed that ""We will continue to defend the rights of all our past and present club employees where we believe it is necessary to do so."

That caveat is there for a reason and it doesn't say "under any and all circumstances"

We don't want to be smeared with a cheating conviction but we also don't want to take the AFL to court - even if we "win". We need a middle way out.

If Chris Connolly is required to take a fall for the club, in association with his mismanagement of the process, then there are many ways to soften that fall.

[Whispering_Jack 31,305]

Understand what, they lost the game to gain Tom and Jack, the whole of Australia knows that, its up to the AFL to prove it, if they wanted to win the game Miller wouldnt be in the ruck, plus other questionable moves, Bailey never coached to win, then you have a small number of die hard crackpots thinking its list management, or experimenting, watch the game again, when the game was so close Bailey should have used his football acumen and decided to coach to win, it looked too obvious.

The problem with that is the fact that the game was not only close but we were the ones in front when the siren sounded. As obvious as it might appear to all and sundry, being "obvious" in circumstances where, had McMahon missed his shot from fifty we actually would have won, is not evidence of any value whatsoever.

[mjt 640]

The problem with that is the fact that the game was not only close but we were the ones in front when the siren sounded. As obvious as it might appear to all and sundry, being "obvious" in circumstances where, had McMahon missed his shot from fifty we actually would have won, is not evidence of any value whatsoever.

Well if you put it like that then AFL should have no charges to lay, im not holding my breath, i dont trust the AFL.

[daisycutter 29,920]

Quick - get out of my way - where do I sign!!!

McLardy has already telegraphed that ""We will continue to defend the rights of all our past and present club employees where we believe it is necessary to do so."

That caveat is there for a reason and it doesn't say "under any and all circumstances"

We don't want to be smeared with a cheating conviction but we also don't want to take the AFL to court - even if we "win". We need a middle way out.

If Chris Connolly is required to take a fall for the club, in association with his mismanagement of the process, then there are many ways to soften that fall.

the problem with cuddles taking a fall for bad humour means by extension that bad humour (non pc) at all club meetings would be banned in future

i can think of quite a few officials at a few clubs who would be severely restricted by such a ruling.

will the afl ensure that all future football department meetings are recorded and lodged for scrutiny

could be a good job for rhino?

[Whispering_Jack 31,305]

the problem with cuddles taking a fall for bad humour means by extension that bad humour (non pc) at all club meetings would be banned in future

i can think of quite a few officials at a few clubs who would be severely restricted by such a ruling.

will the afl ensure that all future football department meetings are recorded and lodged for scrutiny

could be a good job for rhino?

Actually, if they place a ban on bad humour it might not be such a bad thing. For starters, it would mean the end of The Footy Show!

[Redleg 42,052]

Thanks for your reply Redleg. I'm not aware that anyone has suggested the players didn't play to their best abilities and if that's the definition of tanking then I don't understand why the AFL has gone to the trouble they have.

I think there must be more to their investigation.

I added the words "with the intention of gaining draft picks" because list management aimed to win a premiership in the current year is clearly different to the motive of "gaining draft picks". I thought it would direct the conversation away from the obvious examples of list management that were not aimed at getting draft picks.

Just on the topic of "legal background" I think this is much of the issue. The "ordinary" person would think it's wrong to "list manage" to get draft picks. They are making a decision on the morals of the situation based on "right or wrong".. Once it becomes an investigation and the legal interpretation of rules is examined then "right and wrong" become irrelevant and "did we break a law" becomes the issue. You will have seen this in your profession on countless occasions.

As to your first point there very well may be more to the investigation. My questions then are why and what?

Bob, again you have used examples of tanking for different purposes. The AFL has never distinguished in their rules this difference. Their rule is, to "play or coach beneath your merits" whatever that is, is a breach of rule 19A. Sloppy rule, sure is, you could drive a truck through it.

You are correct in that the ordinary person would condemn tanking for draft picks, but probably not for a premiership improvement in that year. The trouble is both are equally illegal under the AFL rules.

What we are left with is an investigation that is centred on a practice that is illegal under the rules, but which according to the ruling body is ok, but now perhaps not, if you are trying to get draft picks, though that is not written anywhere.

As a sideline, tanking to improve a premiership chance may involve a drop on the ladder. Guess what, that affects draft picks. Draft tampering in all its glory, but approved by the AFL and the ordinary man.

So now lets change the offence to tanking or draft tampering, but with the express purpose of getting a priority pick, which the AFL instigated and has now stopped. We won't charge on an ordinary pick being tampered with, only a priority pick. It's ok to drop down the ladder and get a better pick and draft tamper as long as it's not a priority pick.

This in my opinion is Basil Fawlty running the show.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Melbourne and many other teams (including Carlton over a three year period) list managed and selected their teams and placed their players without having a great amount of regard for the outcome of games. Carlton took Fevola off the ground against Collingwood for long periods of time when he was "on fire" and would have won the game for them had he stayed on the ground. The Blues led Essendon by 5 goals at half time at the MCG, changed what was a winning combination and fell apart and lost and in the Kreuzer Cup nobody tagged Travis on his way to a career high 42 (dangerous) possessions. They went wide and to the flanks way to often that day. Everyone knew what was going on and a fat, overweight and unfit Whitnall was a joke at FF while Fev was hospitalised a month early to keep him out of this game in particular. The Blues were boasting about how smart they were at the time. Collingwood lost eight in a row at the end of 2005 and put in some shockers courtesy of some deft list management. I remember turning the TV off during a Friday night game when they were so obviously trying not to win that I couldn't watch any more. I don't expect any of that to be investigated the way they did with our game at Manuka when our players tried their guts out against the Swans. They were undermanned, were never going to win.

Once you allow what the AFL did when Freo dropped half its team for a meaningless final round game, intention and morality aren't relevant. The AFL set the precedent and they should take responsibility for the tanking controversy.

You've missed the point, but that's OK.

[Redleg 42,052]

Binman the post you've responded to doesn't have a "stance" but asks questions of Redleg because I value his opinion. I thank him for taking the time to answer.

You are welcome as always. I do enjoy the posts that make me think.

[Macca 17,120]

If we do escape sanctions then many of us will feel vindicated.

In many ways we will still have been punished in various ways. Not the least being the cost to the club in monetary terms. The way the club has been treated has been shambolic. The football world will view our club in a far different way after all this is over. Some of those views will stick like mud. And we're going to have to wear it.

It's been said a thousand times but what we did in '09 was allowable at the time. The AFL 'rubber stamped' it back then. Apart from Connolly's 'flippant' comments just about everything else was known about at the time. Many teams have practiced what we did before and since (for instance, GWS last season when they 'rested' quite a number of players for their clash against the GCS)

The investigation is of a retrospective nature. The media haven't highlighted the retrospective nature of the investigation because in some ways it kills the story. Why would they take our side? It's all about the story.

The media will possibly/probably be biased against Essendon. Many of their fans are already ropeable about how they've been treated by various media people. Caro, Robbo included. They are looking for balance but it's not forthcoming. They are as frustrated as what we are.

Don't kill the story with a balanced view is often the 'Motto'. Keep the story alive.

[rumpole 537]

You've missed the point, but that's OK.

No worries.

I know your point and consider it to be poorly thought out and illogical.

I was answering your silly question, but that's OK.

[Whispering_Jack 31,305]

This in my opinion is Basil Fawlty running the show.

I thought he was running the show.