"Tanking"

[nutbean 8,838]

But it's got everything to do with providing a relevant defence. The defence that 'everyone was doing it' is about as valid as an insider trader getting up in court and saying 'I'm not guilty because the ASC didn't chase/pursue/catch all the other insider traders.

I dont know how a court would see it but i do see it differently. The ASC would suggest that they are doing everything with their limited manpower to catch insider traders. Breaching insider trading laws is very wide and may be committed by many. To say you can investigage all insider traders isnt logical.

On the other hand, with the AFL we are looking at a very narrow field of "perps" with clearly articulated examples of similar behaviours by them that warrant investigation.

You could level the charges of the AFL investigation being blinkered where it would be more difficult to do this on insider trading.

[rjay 25,062]

Caro to me is like the below - She is a loathesome offensive brute, yet I cannot look away"

Hang on a minute that looks like 'Macca', he's not that bad.

[nutbean 8,838]

I don't believe she does.

I think she deliberately over-exaggerates all of her points and only believes maybe a quarter of what she says about the club, and her agenda is not against MFC so much; it is to whip the media into a frenzy over this issue so she can continue to churn out these articles and be a leader of an artificial witch-hunt.

I'm with you - the only agenda I am confident that Caro has is the agenda to be as controversial and inflammatory as possible ( as she is doing in the Essendon drug probe) to keep herself relevant.

It is much easier for her to write inflammatory articles attacking all and sundry for not acting on or dismissing articles she has previously written rather than be known as journalist that is off the pace and not relevant.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

I dont see it as a defense - I see it more that if the AFL want to go us for our behaviors then no problem but dont be selective and look at other clubs that participated in similar behaviour. Whack us all or whack nobody.

(I just emailed Caro - I feel much better now)

Probably more accurate than what I said.

[Sir Why You Little 37,120]

^^^^ There is merit in the 2 above posts. The Aged is trying to sell product everyday. The more controversy that can be stirred make that potential much stronger.

[mauriesy 7,352]

I dont know how a court would see it but i do see it differently. The ASC would suggest that they are doing everything with their limited manpower to catch insider traders. Breaching insider trading laws is very wide and may be committed by many. To say you can investigage all insider traders isnt logical.

On the other hand, with the AFL we are looking at a very narrow field of "perps" with clearly articulated examples of similar behaviours by them that warrant investigation.

You could level the charges of the AFL investigation being blinkered where it would be more difficult to do this on insider trading.

You can count the number of insider traders taken to court on one hand. You'd need only a finger or two to count those actually found guilty. It's hard to prove ... very much like 'tanking'.

And IMHO, the appropriate response is not "We want to get off because all the others did it" but "If we are guilty, then others should be charged too".

[pantaloons 2,019]

Who'd have thought that Energy Watch would only be the second-most offensive sponsor we'd have to dump in a 12-month period?

[GM11 782]

But it's got everything to do with providing a relevant defence. The defence that 'everyone was doing it' is about as valid as an insider trader getting up in court and saying 'I'm not guilty because the ASC didn't chase/pursue/catch all the other insider traders.

So you want it both ways ... you think we 'probably' tanked in 2009, but in response to possible charges, you want us to say adamantly that we didn't?

If Caro and Fairfax are that concerned about subsequent defamation litigation, there's no way they'd come out with this morning's piece reiterating all the things she's said earlier.

It will become relevant because 'everyone was doing it' prior to us, yet no action was or has been taken.

That is obviously tacit approval of list management, tanking or whatever tag you want to give it.

[Slartibartfast 17,518]

I spoke to a long time MFC supporter yesterday and he said "we tanked". I said "it depends on the definition". He said "we didn't try and win".

That's what Caro is editorializing.

What WJ and Redleg are doing is acting in accordance with their training and profession. They are mounting legal arguments to get us off.

It's probably one time I hope the law is an ass in our favour.

[nutbean 8,838]

And IMHO, the appropriate response is not "We want to get off because all the others did it" but "If we are guilty, then others should be charged too".

+1 - its either all or none

[mjt 640]

One things for sure, CW has taken up a lot of peoples time in the last 7 months, that in itself is a small victory for her you would think.

[Jara 1,153]

I am by instinct with the 'line in the sand/take it to the High Court" brigade.

My only reservation is that a protracted legal engagement may weaken us even further. If we're having trouble getting a sponsor now, won't this make it even harder for us (ie damage our brand)? I hope somebody can persuade me otherwise - I suppose the counter argument is if we are seen as spineless push-overs, our brand is already damaged. Dunno.

Brand - cheez I hate that word, and I hate what it's done to the sport I grew up with.

And by the way, Robbie F's argument in favour of the 'everybody's doing it' defence is excellent. This isn't a court of law, it's a sporting code which has enormous flexibility when it wants to. If they shaft us and nobody else, it'll be an outrage.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

You can count the number of insider traders taken to court on one hand. You'd need only a finger or two to count those actually found guilty. It's hard to prove ... very much like 'tanking'.

And IMHO, the appropriate response is not "We want to get off because all the others did it" but "If we are guilty, then others should be charged too".

Insider Trading is against the law and punishable by imprisonment; what we are charged with is breaking the rules of a competition and there are no terms of imprisonment attached to that.

There were 16 equal shareholders at the time and we were one; for the AFL to impose sanctions against one and not the others is probably dealt with somewhere in the AFL constitution; all should be treated equal. If the AFL provided its shareholders with a way to optimise their chances in the draft then it can't be illegal, and if it is for one, then it has to be for all. The AFL should just admit that it got it wrong and that there are clubs that have flouted the rules and it will not be taking action against any of them as the loophole is now closed.

Edited February 13, 2013 by RobbieF

[nutbean 8,838]

I spoke to a long time MFC supporter yesterday and he said "we tanked". I said "it depends on the definition". He said "we didn't try and win".

The problem with his definition is that it as airy fairy as the word tanking. What does "we didnt try to win" mean ?

To draw an AFL analogy - at the beginning of each season the umpiring fraternity hand out a DVD with rules on it - say dropping the ball and then give 10 video examples of what is dropping and 10 examples of what will be considered play on. Thats a definition. Thats showing specific actions to give clarity to a rule.

You friends definition is not a definition - its a synonym of tanking.

( i regret my umpiring analogy because even with the clarity to the rules they cant get it right on the field !)

Edited February 13, 2013 by nutbean

[old dee 23,870]

I am by instinct with the 'line in the sand/take it to the High Court" brigade.

My only reservation is that a protracted legal engagement may weaken us even further. If we're having trouble getting a sponsor now, won't this make it even harder for us (ie damage our brand)? I hope somebody can persuade me otherwise - I suppose the counter argument is if we are seen as spineless push-overs, our brand is already damaged. Dunno.

Brand - cheez I hate that word, and I hate what it's done to the sport I grew up with.

And by the way, Robbie F's argument in favour of the 'everybody's doing it' defence is excellent. This isn't a court of law, it's a sporting code which has enormous flexibility when it wants to. If they shaft us and nobody else, it'll be an outrage.

Perpare your outrage

[dee-luded 2,959]

One things for sure, CW has taken up a lot of peoples time in the last 7 months, that in itself is a small victory for her you would think.

small victory, small mind?

the Victory, it could be said, is by Soccer & Rugby codes, etc. This may be Kerro's only victory, batting for the wrong team.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,906]

She does read Demonland - unfortunately like everything else she does - she reads demonland selectively

Tomorrows headline

Exactly what I was thinking. She reads Demonland. So improve your writing people or the Age's standards will fall even further.

Nice work nutbean. Reminds me of this note Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger allegedly sent back to California lawmakers when he vetoed a bill.

[The Chazz 4,077]

I'm with you - the only agenda I am confident that Caro has is the agenda to be as controversial and inflammatory as possible ( as she is doing in the Essendon drug probe) to keep herself relevant.

It is much easier for her to write inflammatory articles attacking all and sundry for not acting on or dismissing articles she has previously written rather than be known as journalist that is off the pace and not relevant.

Nutbean - Since the start of this investigation (could be argued that it was well before that), CW has had a personal goal of sinking Cameron Schwab. She has written some pretty bloody ordinary things about him, and at any chance, she has tried to catch him out.

This recent article has absolutely minimal on Schwab. Why has she stopped now? If this was an opinion article based on nothing other than her personal disliking for the MFC, why wouldn't she be getting up Schwab again? She wrote;

"Connolly will be charged as will former coach Dean Bailey, but Fairfax Media could not confirm whether CEO Cameron Schwab would also be charged."

This is the only mention of Schwab in her article. The only mention of the man that she has individualised in many articles for well over 2 years. What has changed in the last week or so that has made her take her foot of his throat? The only logical response is that she knows something, which is most likely that CS is in the clear, therefore anything she tries to pin on him could be used when the AFL announces its next move. The fact that her focus seems to be solely on Chris Connolly, in my honest opinion, speaks volumes.

We may still get told we have no case to answer, and Wilson is covering her ar$e in that article, just in case this eventuates (much to her disgust). But the thing that I took out of this article is not what she has written, it's more about what she hasn't (or who she hasn't written about).

[jnrmac 20,154]

Caro jumped on this story early and is not letting it go. She has no real news, no evidence but keeps peddling the same crap.

She wants to be able to shout out "I told you so" if we get toasted.

On the available evidence (that seems to be freely leaking from within the AFL) there is no evidence of any wrongdoing. Only some evidence of misguided comments.

Back to the smoking gun. if there any emails or specific meetings to engineer tanking that they have evidence of then we are toast. I very much doubt this exists. And without it they can't really do much.

One issue is that all parties seem to have appointed separate legal advisors. This will likely result in 3 separate legal opinions about what to do or say to the AFL.

CS, CC and DB and the Club might all have differing views on any strategy making a negotiated settlement much harder. Of course if one party rolls and fesses up that might make things more difficult.

I remember a few years ago Ken Jarret from Elders fessing up about some offshore transaction and doing 6mnths jail. Scanlon, Elliott and others fought and won despite the Jarret confession.

We must fight all the way because an adverse result affects us in every way. Sponsorship, gaming licences, recruitment, ridicule, penalties etc etc

Fight fight fight

[jnrmac 20,154]

^^^^ There is merit in the 2 above posts. The Aged is trying to sell product everyday. The more controversy that can be stirred make that potential much stronger.

They won't be selling any product to anyone on Demonland or Demonology..........

[daisycutter 29,701]

They won't be selling any product to anyone on Demonland or Demonology..........

or BomberBlitz

[DemonWA 3,936]

Wilson's articles are the news paper equivelant to a Kyle Sandilands or a secords rate shock jock. She writes the most one sided highly opinionated articles to get highly emotive responces from her readers. and it works.....

[hoopla 418]

The defence that "everyone was doing it" is valid; I doubt the AFL would want a situation where 5 or 6 clubs are all excluded from

the first two rounds of the draft for two years or more, especially if they include Collingwood, Carlton, Hawthorn, Richmond and West Coast. Despite what

some on here might believe, there are times when the old adage applies about "safety in numbers". This has got nothing to do with robbing banks, or

breaking the speed limit, or running red lights, this is about the interpretation of a competition’s rules that are somewhat confusing, and lacking in clarity.

This is such a key point particularly in the context of bringing the game into disrepute - which is what Wilson believes the charges will be

Even if you commit a clear-cut crime ( which we haven't) you can't possibly damage the reputation of an organisation by doing what everybody else has done. The action is known understood and accepted - you can't possibly damage the reputation of anything by following the status quo.

Let's put aside our loathing of Wilson for the moment .......... and ask seriously

1. Does she understand the concept of reputation - and does she understand the key characteristics of actions which bring something into disrepute?

2. Does she understand the difficult balance between short-term and long-term list management. in competitive team sport. At what point does it become reasonable to rest a player for next week - and at what point does it become reasonable to see how your players handle pressure situations in positions outside their comfort zones?

To her it is so ridiculously simple that you really have to ask whether she properly understands what she is talking about.She closed her mind on this months ago - and doesn't have the intelligence to recognize that its a very complex matter at best

Since when does following the leader damage reputation?

Edited February 13, 2013 by hoopla

[McQueen 17,867]

"The Demons have engaged former Federal Court judge Ray Finkelstein to lead their defence and their view is that they have a very good case. Perhaps in legal terms they are correct even though their stated excuses are so so flimsy, irrelevant and in some cases childish.

Perhaps, in the name of political expediency, their punishment will be mitigated."

This is the relevant part of the article and the conclusion that I have begun to draw.

The rest is just Caro rambling. What matters is what will matter in a court of law not a court of journos. I couldn't give a stuff about her opinion.

She's dug herself a hole that's getting deeper every minute we get closer to an announcement. If we come out of this without charges she might as well ask someone to fill it back in with her still in it. She's over-stepped the mark on several occasions now by reporting slanderous accusations and demeaning opinions of MFC employees and their comments. In her latest attempt she's put it that our "stated excuses are so so flimsy, irrelevant and in some cases childish." Just more proof of her vendetta against the club.

It's her last gasp of hope of being vindicated if we're charged because she knows that if we're not, it's going to be very damaging to her career.

[biggestred 5,125]

that article is literally just to set her up for if/when we get off. she has set the basis for continuing to attack us and the afl afterwards.

using words like "Excuses". she can just say the afl were soft for accepting their "excuses" because blind freddy could see we tanked.

we need to sue her for defamation.