"Tanking"

[binman 43,020]

if last nights report is correct it has to be taken as a guilty verdict.

You do not get fine $500,000 for nothing.

More bollocks

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

Bollocks.

well let's see. This is a guilty verdict if correct.

[mauriesy 7,299]

if last nights report is correct it has to be taken as a guilty verdict.

You do not get fine $500,000 for nothing.

If the charges do not relate in any way to match fixing, then the club's gambling licences are not at risk from the Gaming Commission.

You don't think the MFC and AFL wouldn't agree to carefully word any report or charge to exclude that possibility?

[binman 43,020]

well let's see. This is a guilty verdict if correct.

That is just untrue. It will be made explicitly clear we are not guilty of tanking and there is no evidence supporting the allegation we conspired to lose matches. The charge of brining the game in disrepute will hinge on CC's comments in the meeting and their potential to embarrass the club and the AFL by being in an environment where they would likely be repeated. As i said stupid logic but the best they can do.

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

If the charges do not relate in any way to match fixing, then the club's gambling licences are not at risk from the Gaming Commission.

You don't think the MFC and AFL wouldn't agree to carefully word any report or charge to exclude that possibility?

of course i would hope so, but with a $500,000 fine and the senior coach stood down that hasn't happened has it.

At this point we are guilty of Match Fixing.

This must go higher. We should not accept it.

[mauriesy 7,299]

with a $500,000 fine

You're accepting Wilson's reported figure as gospel? I thought she was 100% wrong in everything.

At this point we are guilty of Match Fixing.

No we're not. 'Bringing the game into disrepute' (or some such charge) is by no means 'match fixing'.

You need a reality check from all the gloom and pessimism. Either that or you're just continually plain wrong.

[sue 9,107]

The biggest thing for me was draft picks. It's a huge relief for the club.

If the penalties are as suggested the outcry from some opposition supporters will be immense. If we were to be punished nearly everyone would have thought we'd be sanctioned at the draft table. It was the single biggest issue.

First sentence - agreed.

Second sentence - do you really care how outraged opposition supporters would be? After all, half of them know their own club's did the same (though why you and CW think doing it 'better' absolves them of investigation is beyond me).

[Whispering_Jack 30,198]

Back to CW for a moment.

In her latest piece of trash she states that it is true that the AFL has strong evidence in its 800 page report on Melbourne tanking. My info is exactly the opposite and our President agrees.

Next she said "

TANKING is a sensitive issue, particularly for Melbourne people who know how badly the club botched its attempts to gain early draft picks - and how the club botched the results.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/muckup-to-be-a-stain-on-demons-20130215-2eisg.html#ixzz2L0mx7QHR

I thought we actually got the picks and then selected T$ and JT. One is the highest paid inexperienced AFL player in the history of the game and he was taken from us by the AFL in pathetic fashion, with AFL money and handed to another club, the other player is our Co Captain. For losing T$ we have a Dawes, Barry and Hogan.

Question to the harpie, how did we botch the attempt to get the picks and next how did the club botch the results?

Redleg. I have to issue you with an official warning. We at Demonland regard the issue of bullying very seriously and by asking Ms. Wilson some questions about football (which are outside the bounds of her comprehension) you have clearly crossed the line.

You are guilty and should be ashamed of yourself and in future if you have any questions to ask of Ms. Wilson then please confine them to around the water cooler small talk.

Thank you.

[daisycutter 29,616]

If the charges do not relate in any way to match fixing, then the club's gambling licences are not at risk from the Gaming Commission.

You don't think the MFC and AFL wouldn't agree to carefully word any report or charge to exclude that possibility?

that may or may not be true maurie but the gambling authorities are free to put their own interpretation on what if any charges the afl bring down really mean

it sounds more like semantics to me

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

You're accepting Wilson's reported figure as gospel? I thought she was 100% wrong in everything.No we're not. 'Bringing the game into disrepute' (or some such charge) is by no means 'match fixing'.

You need a reality check from all the gloom and pessimism. Either that or you're just continually plain wrong.

you are delusional if you believe what you have written.

IF this report is correct $500,000 Fine & the Head Coach of the day implicated we are still in deep trouble and our licences are at risk.

Any celebrating now would be most dangerous.

[sue 9,107]

Some posters assert we will be charged with bringing the game into disrepute, not match fixing. They seem to base this on saying the AFL is hitting CC for comments likely to embarrass the AFL (requiring the AFL to give them publicity by running a 7 month witch-hunt, but we'll let that pass).

But how do you justify a penalty for Bailey in that case - did he say any such thing? And $500K seems a lot for MFC not reigning-in CC when he started to make such remarks. I'd be interested to see those posters address that. Of course it is easy to say CW is wrong re Bailey, but $500K for not controlling CC seems rich. Either CW is wrong about a lot or there is more info than we have seen so far.

In any case, I'd be very interested to see what possible wording there could be which says guilty but innocent at the same time. I think it may be achievable if the AFL includes a statement about tanking broader than just the MFC and the AFL takes a share of the blame for it.

Edited February 15, 2013 by sue

[heartbeatstrue 57]

The other issue will be what other clubs did. If the AFL's 'unofficial' thinking is that they can punish Melbourne and sweep the preceding tanking allegations under the carpet because in Caro's words, "they were less blatant" then that is absolute garbage and shows a serious flaw in the AFL's application and administration of it's own rules.

Agree all others must now be equally investigated by the same standards. One big difference is that Wilson who led the media charge against the Dees is a "rabid" Richmond supporter.

And so in her "opinion" pages in The Age, she has totally hidden the following info:

Wallace Tanked for Top Pick

Terry Wallace admits not trying in AFL game to secure Trent Cotchin

Read more: http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/terry-wallace-admits-not-trying-in-afl-game-to-secure-trent-cotchin/story-e6frf3e3-1225752963181#ixzz2L0voIJQj

Former Richmond coach Terry Wallace has confirmed he did "absolutely nothing" in a game two years ago, knowing a win would cost the club prized recruit Trent Cotchin.

As the AFL continues to deny tanking exists, Wallace told the Herald Sun he was compromised as the Tigers took on St Kilda in Round 22, 2007.

"It was a no-win situation for everyone in the coach's box," Wallace said.

"We decided the best way to operate was just to let the players go out.

"I didn't do anything. I just let the boys play. There weren't any miracle moves in the last couple of minutes."

Richmond led by nine points 12 minutes into the final term, but the Saints kicked the last three goals to win by 10 points.

In any case, The Age sports editors are in heaps of trouble with their own abysmally poor ethics:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/football/media-bosses-critical-of-papers-miscalculation/story-fn63e0vj-1226579191175

[mauriesy 7,299]

that may or may not be true maurie but the gambling authorities are free to put their own interpretation on what if any charges the afl bring down really mean

it sounds more like semantics to me

They're not 'free'. They still have to work within the gaming laws (and the political system probably). And they'd face litigation if they made a unilateral decision without any evidence.

Are you (and WYL) seriously suggesting they'd impose a penalty (e.g. licence withdrawal) based on 'match fixing', if the (contrived) AFL report findings were that we'd done no such thing?

[heartbeatstrue 57]

This is surely blatant twisting of truth by Wilson & The Age? She states:

On Wednesday we reported that Melbourne had run its unofficial defence upon five lines. We also stated that there seemed to be no doubt in anyone's mind any more that the club worked to lose games of football in 2009.

These two issues provoked an angry response from chairman Don McLardy on the Demons' website, although McLardy did not address either of the above.

And McLardy said:

Wilson also lists 5 points that she says forms part of MFC’s “unofficial defence”, and concludes these “stated excuses” are “flimsy, irrelevant and in some cases childish”. In fact not one of these points has been raised in the submission made by the MFC to the AFL, and in any hearing before the AFL Commission none will form part of our defence.

So the key points of Wilson’s opinion piece are just plain wrong

Is that not McLardy addressing the "above" (that MFC had run its "unofficial" defence upon 5 points of Ms Wilson), and pointing out to her that she is just plain wrong?

[mauriesy 7,299]

The 'unofficial versus official' distinction will do to Wilson's reputation as a journalist what 'core and non-core promises' did to Howard as a politician.

[demoniac 1,333]

you are delusional if you believe what you have written.

IF this report is correct $500,000 Fine & the Head Coach of the day implicated we are still in deep trouble and our licences are at risk.

Any celebrating now would be most dangerous.

much like Caro i think your fundamental error is that you regard this as a predominantly footy, or a footy politics story. Its not. Its a commercial legal issue and in that regard we are in very good hands in terms of our board and those we have briefed to represent us. Any issue with pokies licence would be similarly handled. It also goes without saying that there are patently dodgier outfits in the pokies game who would be way in front of us in any queue for investigation.

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

They're not 'free'. They still have to work within the gaming laws (and the political system probably). And they'd face litigation if they made a unilateral decision without any evidence.

Are you (and WYL) seriously suggesting they'd impose a penalty (e.g. licence withdrawal) based on 'match fixing', if the (contrived) AFL report findings were that we'd done no such thing?

i am saying the club goes higher to clear the grey areas which could very easily bite us badly. The AFL are not in charge of everything.

As long as Bailey is implicated we are under the hammer.

[mauriesy 7,299]

As long as Bailey is implicated we are under the hammer.

You miss the point. Implicated for what is the issue.

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

much like Caro i think your fundamental error is that you regard this as a predominantly footy, or a footy politics story. Its not. Its a commercial legal issue and in that regard we are in very good hands in terms of our board and those we have briefed to represent us. Any issue with pokies licence would be similarly handled. It also goes without saying that there are patently dodgier outfits in the pokies game who would be way in front of us in any queue for investigation.

i realize we have many Beaks. That is why i want them to finish this sham altogether.

I have no interest in the MFC just surviving.

We have to get bigger to climb the ladder.

These charges will retard us i have no doubt, if they are fact of course.

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

You miss the point. Implicated for what is the issue.

the Head Coach banned from the game for a period of time speaks volumes to me, no matter what wrapping paper is used.

[rpfc 28,482]

If the penalties are as suggested the outcry from some opposition supporters will be immense.

Uneducated groupthink?

I thought you were against that?

It's just Demon Groupthink you are against isn't it?

Frankly, I couldn't give a flying f___ what the idiot Carlton supporter I see at work thinks about Meltank or the Saints fan who pities my 'situation.'

You evidently do, and that is fine. But don't justify a destination reached by how much people from the outside dislike said destination.

This deal is only acceptable if Opel and Webjet are going to stand by us, prospective sponsors are not turned off, and the VCGLR see no issue for our licences.

Otherwise this will be worse than losing all the picks in the world, and will cost us more than $500k.

Edited February 16, 2013 by rpfc

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

^^^^^ correct

[mauriesy 7,299]

the Head Coach banned from the game for a period of time speaks volumes to me, no matter what wrapping paper is used.

Missed the point again. Banned for what?

[sue 9,107]

You miss the point. Implicated for what is the issue.

Pleas suggest an alternative for the coach which is not match fixing. Seems to me that if Bailey is charged it can't be for some wishy-washy 'disrepute' reason.

[Bonkers 994]

Gee I wonder if our Board and legal team would have thought of that? Why don't you give Guy and Ray a call and give them your insight. Get on a conference call with WYL.

My take is the negotiated settlement will cover these bases and that's why it's taking time.

Your take is just as speculative as anyone's, no need to be a SA. Why don't you get on the phone to GM & AD to find out what the charges will be....