"Tanking"

[rpfc 28,401]

We certainly werent a chance of competing in the match given those tactics. It was one of the most pressureless kick to kick events I have seen.

Carlton won easily on the scoreboard but they certainly werent tested, and would have hardly raised a sweat in doing so. It was a prime example of bruise free football that Carlton labelled us with in 2011.

And why should we give a F___ about winning that game over and above trying to get Jamar or Spencer some exposure up forward?

Leaving aside picks in the draft - what was more valuable: a ruckman capable of kicking goals or an extra 4 points in a losing seasons?

Our priorities were fine.

[Outside fifty 967]

Fifty 5 and others have said that any negotiated settlement between the AFL and the MFC will also need the approval of any individuals charged (Schwab, Bailey and Connolly).

Its recognised that the negotiated settlement would be a waste of time if it scapegoats any one of them.

The first thing they would do would be to bring down MFC and the AFL and the integrity of the whole issue would be beyond repair.

But FWIW, I dont think Connolly needs to be glorified for his role at the Club. A dying Stynes took control of the FD from him in 2010. And the Club have moved him out of the FD in 2011 in preference for others. In the LT, he is hardly a must keep based on role performance.

I think Cuddles contributions to the club both on and off the field far outweighs either yours or mine.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I think we need 18 RR's in the Coaching Box on matchdays!!

The point is that CW screams The Poor Players because of our tanking (she needs a helpless victim outside of her sensibilities) but to some of the players those seasons were the making of them.

Garland playing at all AND getting a second chance after his awful first few games...Jamar showing something forward...Young players given chances they would not have normally got...Paul Johnson given an extended run to save his career (didn't work out)

All these things and more! Brought to the players by 'tanking.'

Tanking - If you're good - you're in surgery, and if you're rubbish - you get chances to show you're not.

It would certainly more palatable than squeezing 18 shrill rpfc's in a a restricted area.

Johnson got an extended run in 2009 because Jamar was injured and failed. No problem Jamar forward as he was coming back from injury but playing both he and Spencer on the FF line hardly scares an oppposition.

Garland's opportunity has little to do with the tactics at fault.

Its good you are defending Bailey for playing the kids.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

As another day goes by & still no announcement it wouldn't surprise me if MFC have said , if you think youve got the evidence go ahead and charge us, but we don't think you have & will play hardball. The afl know they haven't got hard evidence & are finding it hard to reach a resolution. Really hoping I'm right

The MFC will have the brief in hand will it not? If the chance is good that the court will rule in our favour then it is rational and pragmatic to walk away from the negotiating table entirely...

Let the legal people make the call.

[daisycutter 29,613]

the afl are weighing up whether to look stupid or even more stupid and poorer

my heart bleeds

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I think Cuddles contributions to the club both on and off the field far outweighs either yours or mine.

Unfortunately we dont get paid like he does to do it.

And why should we give a F___ about winning that game over and above trying to get Jamar or Spencer some exposure up forward?

Leaving aside picks in the draft - what was more valuable: a ruckman capable of kicking goals or an extra 4 points in a losing seasons?

Our priorities were fine.

There was a question about the tactics used on that day and its a valid question.

But its good you dont think we should give a F about winning but bleat on that we did not tank.

well i can remember at least one goal didn't come from a mark

True. He would have had to do his own crumbing too.

[Good Times Grimes 2,396]

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-02-13/from-the-president.workstation

I love you, Don McLardy.

[45HG 1,539]

Cop that, Caro!

Tough to defend her after reading that I'd have thought.

Interesting that he mentions it forms none of what the MFC have put to the AFL - something I was intrigued by and wrote as much about last night.

"Unofficial defence" indeed.

Well done, Don.

[mauriesy 7,287]

Wilson just had to write the line "And Melbourne is just too weak to punish..." Must have taken her a while to find a position for that line.

This club should never forget that line & never put ourselves in a position where somebody can write that

At least get it right ... she said one of the 'lame duck excuses' was that Melbourne was too weak to punish.

In other words, she's saying that's a poor excuse, not that Melbourne is weak.

[Outside fifty 967]

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-02-13/from-the-president.workstation

I love you, Don McLardy.

+ one. Stand firm DON

[old55 23,559]

Maybe Cuddles should have considered the consequences of his "joke"

Maybe Cuddles recognises he's been part of the problemm

Maybe Cuddles is prepared to take a wack for the club

Maybe Cuddles is big enough to stand up in front of the club and say I made a mistake

Maybe the club will look after Cuddles for his sacrifices

[H_T 3,043]

I think it's fair to say our team in 2009 hardly scared an opposition. Let alone both Jamar and Spencer for a stint on the forward line trying to stretch the opposition for height during a game. Fwiw, Jamar kicked a couple and guess what, Bailey left him there and he kicked a few more. I would have played Spencil up forward to hopefully clunk a few or at least make a contest, because I know he was useless around the ground in '09.

Yet apparently it was all just "unacceptable"

Cue: Midnight Oil's "Short Memories"

[Redleg 40,903]

The position of the AFL is shameful in this whole sorry episode.

It created the priority pick system.

Despite years of abuse of the system and complaints by the media, it endorsed and legitimised that abuse, actually making it legal under then AFL policy.

It created a shameful rule, that allowed GWS to steal the young player we got for our Priority Pick in 2009, by giving him AFL money and contracted during the first year of his initial contract with the MFC.

It then banned the MFC from doing what other clubs have been allowed to do, using a 3rd party contract to keep him.

Despite then being the highest paid inexperienced player in the league's history, the AFL Ceo said it was our fault that we didn't retain him.

The AFL then accepted their error with the PP system and abolished it.

The AFL then chose to launch a tanking investigation of over 8 months so far, on the say so of a former, disgruntled, less than perfectly behaved player, who actually provided no evidence of the offence to the AFL.

Despite admissions of other players and coaches and examples of similar behaviour of other clubs, provided by the media, the AFL refused to investigate other clubs or widen the investigation.

The MFC which is the only club to have won 5 games under the PP system and lost a PP pick twice, costing them Nic Nat and another player in the other year, have received no credit for that.

The AFL has started this investigation knowing that their rules on the subject were poor and that the system has failed.

The AFL has heard other Presidents like Eddie say that the MFC would have been the laughing stock of the AFL if they did not do what others had done and what was approved of by the AFL

The AFL has conducted the interrogation like rank amateurs and bully boys with probably unusable statements.

The AFL runs a competition for the benefit of its member clubs that it admits is totally compromised by its fixture and various deals and concessions.

The AFL at the moment appears to be in disarray.

Despite the above the AFL has continued with this victimisation of one club and seemingly is intent on not losing face above all else and securing charges against the MFC and its officers.

The AFL should be ashamed of itself.

Print this Caro, you self-opinionated harpie.

[mauriesy 7,287]

Cop that, Caro!

Tough to defend her after reading that I'd have thought.

Interesting that he mentions it forms none of what the MFC have put to the AFL - something I was intrigued by and wrote as much about last night.

"Unofficial defence" indeed.

Well done, Don.

I think the 'unofficial defence' she cites consists of all the reasons put forward by supporters, particularly on this and other forums, not by the club itself. Maybe it shows where she's getting a lot of opinions (I won't say facts) from.

Clearly it also shows that a lot of what passes here and elsewhere for facts, and information about any defence, does not necessarily side with the club's real point of view.

Someone will switch on the lights, hopefully soon.

[P-man 13,366]

Sent. Quite therapeutic, I recommend giving it a bash.

Afternoon Caroline,

I don't know if you take the time to read through emails from the public, as I'm sure you get your fair share. Thus, I put the main underlying point in the subject.

There was a general acceptance of your positioning yourself as the defender of justice and truth in the tanking affair. But I have to say Caroline, your latest "lame duck" article is actually more offensive for its shoddy journalism than anything else, for several reasons.

It goes beyond poor fact checking. We previously overlooked the embarrassment of your calling the alleged (you should look that word up btw) tanking meeting the "vault", in an attempt to make it seem more insidious, when that nickname was revealed as the name of the room in which football meetings were held year round. Sometimes fact checking goes off the rails. [censored] happens.

But to actually present to the public the defences of the club, that you label as "lame duck excuses," when the club has not come out with any of the stated defences regarding its conduct, is quite frankly disgraceful on your part. It is in fact blatant lying, Caroline.

The club has NOT presented a defence, unofficial or not, that "everyone was doing it". Some of the fans might hold that view, but for the club to present such a defence would be foolishness. It would be an admission of guilt. Your stating that they have used any such defence is an outright lie.

The club has NOT tried to use its registered complaint regarding the conduct of AFL investigators as some sort of defence or excuse for tanking. The two are unrelated. The club is however entitled to natural justice (which I'm sure annoys you to no end) and thus the concern was rightly raised. Your attempt to criticise the club for using it as an excuse for tanking is without ANY basis.

Connolly had EVERY right as an individual to contest the accusations you put to print regarding his threats to staff, and yet you found reason to group that into these fictitious "lame duck excuses" by the club.

You go so far as to admit that the club probably has a solid legal case, but in the same sentence label the excuses (the ones the club has not used) as "flimsy" and "childish". How does that work exactly? How does one have a solid legal case based on flimsy and childish grounds? What are we talking here, Caroline? "Sure, they probably won't be found guilty but they should be punished regardless"? Welcome to the world of law and order, where there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and only the guilty are punished. Not the reverse.

You use statements such as "Melbourne manipulated football results in 2009", a slanderous statement, which you back up with further speculation. In essence, this brings me to what in my opinion is the worst thing a journalist can do, even one that is opinion based such as yourself. You speculate, but present that speculation as fact. You mislead your readers. I can not say with any certainty if you do this with any agenda, but the fact remains that you have done this continually in your covering of this matter.

The basis of this article in particular is not only shaky, it's non-existent. It is by some margin the worst article I've seen you write, and that includes all of the disgusting and frankly hateful articles you've written about the MFC these past several months. So why write it? I believe because you know that Melbourne will likely get off and are getting your ducks in a row for the final judgement, to cause the least amount of egg on your face as possible.

Honestly, I think you are better than the way you've conducted yourself recently, and if I were you I'd be doing everything I can to stitch together what remains of my reputation. The way you are going about it right now is just digging the almighty hole even bigger.

Regards,

Simon

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

The MFC will have the brief in hand will it not? If the chance is good that the court will rule in our favour then it is rational and pragmatic to walk away from the negotiating table entirely...

Let the legal people make the call.

I understand the sentiment but we don't need to be pragmatic here, the AFL will not want this to get inside a court.

In this case I agree.

If there is a negotiation available and MFC is the one to walk away I would hope the Board would meet their responsibility (and not the lawyers) to make that call and take the responsibility for the outcome from the Court and was results from it. Its not in the interests of any party to the table to go to Court on this.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

I think the 'unofficial defence' she cites consists of all the reasons put forward by supporters, particularly on this and other forums, not by the club itself. Maybe it shows where she's getting a lot of opinions (I won't say facts) from.

Clearly it also shows that a lot of what passes here and elsewhere for facts, and information about any defence, does not necessarily side with the club's real point of view.

Someone will switch on the lights, hopefully soon.

Indeed, if what you say is true, journalism surely has sunk to an all time low.

[binman 42,918]

Jamar handles himself in media situations. He did so in an interview last year. He has been asked those questions before and knows the answers. It more about what he did not say and the questions he was not asked.

Jamar did kick 5 and achieved it with having a varying times beside him in the forward line.....Spencer and McLean. Unless Jamar took the mark which he did on 5 occassions it was an automatic turnover to the Carlton opposition. They ran the ball so easily out of our forward line that it was farcical It was hardly pressure tactics by Bailey.

Ok but leaving aside any discussion about tanking given it was round 21 and we had no chance of making the finals standard coaching practice for ever and a day would be to experiment, play players in positions not their norm, try a few things - all with the aim of improving our chances of success in the following season. Which it appeared to do. For example Jamar claims that increased versatility helped him take his game to another level (AA level as it turns out) which had to help the team in general (and still is for that matter). So in fact rather than coaching in an extraordinary suspect fashion Bailey was in fact coaching in a bog standard ordinary way.

And by the by what does it matter or indicate that at times he had Spencer and McLean beside him? He played as a forward that day and as the key ruckman Spencer would have his turn resting up forward. And McLean was/is a mid and almost all mids spend some time up forward, indeed it is often said what makes players like Judd and Ablett (and Swan for that matter) so dangerous is their capacity to play forward and contribute goals.

Again all moves at the [censored] end of listless season have to be seen through the lens of what is best for the side in the following year(s). The parallel to our last season is obvious. Several players were players were played out of their normal position (which reduced our chances of winning at times) in large part due to Neeld having an eye to the future.

Playing Rivers, arguably our best defender up forward for an extended period allowed the back six to gel (ie the ones who would be playing together in 2013) and Tommy Mac to flourish. All in the name of development not winning discreet games. Tanking? I think not and no different to what Bailey did.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-02-13/from-the-president.workstation

I love you, Don McLardy.

Slam Dunk.

[binman 42,918]

In this case I agree.

If there is a negotiation available and MFC is the one to walk away I would hope the Board would meet their responsibility (and not the lawyers) to make that call and take the responsibility for the outcome from the Court and was results from it. Its not in the interests of any party to the table to go to Court on this.

I also agree

[binman 42,918]

Slam Dunk.

Love it!

Is Don. Is Good

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

I also agree

A laid down misere I would have thought. But one must leave all contingencies open, mustn't one, until the gavel is slammed down on this for the final time.

[Outside fifty 967]

Maybe Cuddles should have considered the consequences of his "joke"

Maybe Cuddles recognises he's been part of the problemm

Maybe Cuddles is prepared to take a wack for the club

Maybe Cuddles is big enough to stand up in front of the club and say I made a mistake

Maybe the club will look after Cuddles for his sacrifices

Never made a Joke in the last 4 years 55?

Maybe he already has. People make silly mistakes all the time. I believe he has already paid a price in this regard.

Maybe he is, which by the way is a selfless act by a person who truly loves his club, and I admire him all the more for it should he choose that course.

Maybe Wilson and co have made the mistake and that Cuddles was simply misrepresented.

They better.

[P-man 13,366]

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-02-13/from-the-president.workstation

I love you, Don McLardy.

Brilliant stuff. Well done Don.

[Outside fifty 967]

Sent. Quite therapeutic, I recommend giving it a bash.

Afternoon Caroline,

I don't know if you take the time to read through emails from the public, as I'm sure you get your fair share. Thus, I put the main underlying point in the subject.

There was a general acceptance of your positioning yourself as the defender of justice and truth in the tanking affair. But I have to say Caroline, your latest "lame duck" article is actually more offensive for its shoddy journalism than anything else, for several reasons.

It goes beyond poor fact checking. We previously overlooked the embarrassment of your calling the alleged (you should look that word up btw) tanking meeting the "vault", in an attempt to make it seem more insidious, when that nickname was revealed as the name of the room in which football meetings were held year round. Sometimes fact checking goes off the rails. [censored] happens.

But to actually present to the public the defences of the club, that you label as "lame duck excuses," when the club has not come out with any of the stated defences regarding its conduct, is quite frankly disgraceful on your part. It is in fact blatant lying, Caroline.

The club has NOT presented a defence, unofficial or not, that "everyone was doing it". Some of the fans might hold that view, but for the club to present such a defence would be foolishness. It would be an admission of guilt. Your stating that they have used any such defence is an outright lie.

The club has NOT tried to use its registered complaint regarding the conduct of AFL investigators as some sort of defence or excuse for tanking. The two are unrelated. The club is however entitled to natural justice (which I'm sure annoys you to no end) and thus the concern was rightly raised. Your attempt to criticise the club for using it as an excuse for tanking is without ANY basis.

Connolly had EVERY right as an individual to contest the accusations you put to print regarding his threats to staff, and yet you found reason to group that into these fictitious "lame duck excuses" by the club.

You go so far as to admit that the club probably has a solid legal case, but in the same sentence label the excuses (the ones the club has not used) as "flimsy" and "childish". How does that work exactly? How does one have a solid legal case based on flimsy and childish grounds? What are we talking here, Caroline? "Sure, they probably won't be found guilty but they should be punished regardless"? Welcome to the world of law and order, where there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and only the guilty are punished. Not the reverse.

You use statements such as "Melbourne manipulated football results in 2009", a slanderous statement, which you back up with further speculation. In essence, this brings me to what in my opinion is the worst thing a journalist can do, even one that is opinion based such as yourself. You speculate, but present that speculation as fact. You mislead your readers. I can not say with any certainty if you do this with any agenda, but the fact remains that you have done this continually in your covering of this matter.

The basis of this article in particular is not only shaky, it's non-existent. It is by some margin the worst article I've seen you write, and that includes all of the disgusting and frankly hateful articles you've written about the MFC these past several months. So why write it? I believe because you know that Melbourne will likely get off and are getting your ducks in a row for the final judgement, to cause the least amount of egg on your face as possible.

Honestly, I think you are better than the way you've conducted yourself recently, and if I were you I'd be doing everything I can to stitch together what remains of my reputation. The way you are going about it right now is just digging the almighty hole even bigger.

Regards,

Simon

Bravo P man