"Tanking"

[Biffen 12,342]

the cowgirl ,the phantomess ,the Biffeness ,the govt and the church find it hard to admit fault .

Marriage is an institution .We must respect their strange beliefs.(even when they are wrong).

[nutbean 8,837]

you got my sympathy cfh

Much like my wife I don't think the AFL will ever admit they were wrong.

Neither of my ex wives admitted they were wrong. With the benefit of hindsight, maybe I did contribute a little to the wrongness

[daisycutter 28,569]

Neither of my ex wives admitted they were wrong. With the benefit of hindsight, maybe I did contribute a little to the wrongness

don't go soft on us now nutbeam

that's no way to win a flag

[ILLDieADemon 804]

After this investigation is finally over I would love the AFL to man up and admit that their actions which include priority picks that encourage list management caused the game of football damage. Much like my wife I don't think the AFL will ever admit they were wrong.

Lol, your wife would admit to being wrong before the AFL ever would.

[Guest the Sorcerer]

Lol, your wife would admit to being wrong before the AFL ever would.

SHE, who is never wrong, but is, never right. the afl

[felixdacat 459]

I would be confident this won't go to court, The AFL doesn't want it. The Dees don't want it. If the AFL don't have a smoking gun - ie an email saying don't win under any circumstances - then the AFL's case is word against word, hearsay, speculation and supposition. We would have heard about a smoking gun by now,

And then even if we were found guilty (of what I am not sure) the club would then say 'everyone has done what we have done'. We could subpoena Libba, Fev, Roos, Terry everybody and everyone that has discussed tanking. We could get the records of Carlton, Richmond, Collingwood etc. and dissect them forever. It would be ugly.

The AFL have condoned list management, Dimwit has condoned it etc. The penalty would be - nothing. The AFL would look stupid and seen to have lost control. They don't like losing control.

If there was a smoking gun Melb wouldn't be so Bolshy about fighting them.

I am not a lawyer but it seems any court case would be about the rules of the AFL (which are broad and ill defined in regards to all of this - Dean Bailey not trying his 'utmost'. WTF does that mean in a legal sense??). Our case would be that we haven't broken any rules of the AFL. Their 'investigation' was a sham, illegal, non-admissable etc

We are OK is my reading.

I agree we should be okay and not go to court.

But even if they did find us guilty of what they accuse and we did take them to court I am pretty sure that the club could prove on the balance of probabilities that the AFL is more likely than not guilty of not providing a process that afforded natural justice and utilized investigation methods that were not reasonable or just. You could even prove that they are guilty of creating an environment that made it beneficial to Tank maybe even a negligence tort or similar anyway. That's if I am correct on the points I raised in my previous post which I was hoping to find someone who has any knowledge around this type of litigation.

The other thing is that if that is true from the little research I have done, then you can be pretty certain that the Legal team that advises the AFL would be providing advice along those lines also. which take me back to the reason I believe we are not going to be punished. Others have said that we are safe because we would take them to court and win, I am just trying to see if that was actually true or not. Civil Litigations is a very intricate business and there are no guarantees in law.

So I am wondering if any one can verify that my reading of the basics of the onus/balance of proof in Civil law is correct.

Oh and my missus is always right especially when she is within seeing and hearing distance.

Edited February 3, 2013 by Felix da Dee

[daisycutter 28,569]

-5 (phaseII)

[Redleg 37,654]

Channel 7 News reported that the Coaches Association has had secret talks with the AFL in respect to Bailey. Also suggested that Connolly will face allegations that he told MFC staff to tank or be sacked. Not sure if this refers to the " Vault Statement" that Bailey was quoted as saying he thought was clearly a joke and which he never acted upon.

Bailey of course has been reported as denying that he or the team ever tanked and this has been supported of course by his Solicitor.

If the Coach didn't tank, I fail to see how any charges can then flow.

[Biffen 12,342]

Lets just plead insanity .

Everyone will believe it .

Over Forty years of public implosions can't be wrong.

Or am I just speaking for myself here.

[Redleg 37,654]

Lets just plead insanity .

Everyone will believe it .

Over Forty years of public implosions can't be wrong.

Or am I just speaking for myself here.

We must be insane as we are the only team to win 5 games in a priority pick year and we did it twice. We are also the only team to lose our pirority pick player within 2 years of getting him due to a new AFL rule that wasn't there when we drafted him. Despite almost universal acceptance in the football community that we did what the AFL said was ok and exactly what several other teams have also done, we are also the only team being investigated for tanking.

Yep, insanity.

[old dee 22,921]

Lets just plead insanity .

Everyone will believe it .

Over Forty years of public implosions can't be wrong.

Or am I just speaking for myself here.

If I could just get out of this blasted jacket I would vote Yes

[Sir Why You Little 34,551]

If I could just get out of this blasted jacket I would vote Yes

absolute classic!!

[Hannibal 5,814]

We must be insane as we are the only team to win 5 games in a priority pick year and we did it twice. We are also the only team to lose our pirority pick player within 2 years of getting him due to a new AFL rule that wasn't there when we drafted him. Despite almost universal acceptance in the football community that we did what the AFL said was ok and exactly what several other teams have also done, we are also the only team being investigated for tanking.

Yep, insanity.

It's clear that as a club we didn't tank (successfully) PRIOR to Bailey, and that's not under investigation, so I'm unsure why you're so incredulous.

And the AFL never said that coaches should attempt to lose, which is what is under investigation.

[Redleg 37,654]

It's clear that as a club we didn't tank (successfully) PRIOR to Bailey, and that's not under investigation, so I'm unsure why you're so incredulous.

And the AFL never said that coaches should attempt to lose, which is what is under investigation.

I am incredulous that you don't understand what I said. I said we did exactly what several other clubs did and yet we are the only one being investigated. Bailey did nothing different to the Coaches of Hawthorn, Freo, Carlton, Collingwood, StKilda, Richmond etc.

Also I am mystified as to what you mean by we didn't tank successfully prior to Bailey, just because we won one extra game. I thought tanking was if you threw a single game.Are you saying tanking only occurs if you get a priority pick as a result of throwing games? Does that mean you believe a team can throw several games but if it wins 5 it is not tanking?

BTW Bailey has apparently told the AFL investigators that he never tanked or threw games. His Solicitor has confirmed that. If he in fact said that, why is this farce going on, unless there is absolute proof he did?

[Left Field 313]

It's clear that as a club we didn't tank (successfully) PRIOR to Bailey, and that's not under investigation, so I'm unsure why you're so incredulous.

And the AFL never said that coaches should attempt to lose, which is what is under investigation.

Your position is that we definitely tanked.

What evidence do you have to back this up?

Would your evidence stand up in court?

The vibe and no are not great answers.

We didn't tank (whatever the hell that even means).

[Redleg 37,654]

The AFL CEO has long held the view that as long as players are not told to lose a game, then whatever the Coach does, is protected by long term goals, under the heading "List Management".

Clubs for as long as we have played the game, have at times not worried about winning and experimented for the long term good of the club. I won't list the various experiments as we all know them. The AFL has sanctioned this and especially when referring to the Priority Picks. I don't see any investigation into GWS who rested a dozen of their best players in a game against GC that would decide who got Whitfield. The next week those same players were back in the side. This was not even worth a phone call from AFL headquarters.

AFL legend Matthews called for Freo to lose a game to avoid the Cats in their first final, he said that is what he would do. Freo ignored him, won that game and then beat the Cats. I don't recall one word in the media criticising him or any comment from the AFL. So therefore it is ok to actually throw games according to many in the game as long as it is for the club's greater good and you don't get a priority pick as a result.

I am just [censored] off at the double standards of the AFL and the media. The worst tankers of all who got the most out of it, have a former champion as the Chairman of the AFL and sleep very soundly as a result. We have gone through hell for 7 months and it still continues.

Why couldn't there just have been an investigation into tanking generally, that would have been fair. I am sure if you speak to some disgruntled ex Blues players and coaches you would uncover some amazing material.

I do agree with Patrick Smith who said that the first resignation if the Dees are charged, should be that of AD.

[Whispering_Jack 27,999]

Tanking is only one of AD's worries. The AFL's drug policy is under attack, there are inequities relating to fixturing and a few clubs are under the pump financially.

The AFL's pumping millions into Western Sydney but, despite monumental assistance with recruiting, the game doesn't look like attracting the support of the locals while at the same time, the Wanderers, with less time and less money is capturing the hearts of the people in the region and has been an instant success on the field.

And a look at the sports pages in both the Age and the Sun tell the story. Soccer and the two rugby codes are making enormous inroads into the Melbourne market at the same time as this iniquitous 6 - 7 month investigation is disrupting and destabilising the original football club.

What an absolute disgrace!

[Slartibartfast 15,799]

What an absolute disgrace!

If we didn't tank why did you call this the "Tanking" thread.

BTW I thought we were arguing that there was not rule against tanking?

It's all getting very confusing.

[Johnny Karate 559]

It's clear that as a club we didn't tank (successfully) PRIOR to Bailey, and that's not under investigation, so I'm unsure why you're so incredulous.

And the AFL never said that coaches should attempt to lose, which is what is under investigation.

At the risk of derailing the thread somewhat, I thought Daniher did a brilliant job to get us two top 5 picks in 2003. Pity it was the worst AFL Draft in history.

I generally agree with BH's take on it. Did the MFC tank? Yes. Have others done it before? Yes. Did we botch it just about every way? Yes. Is that why we stand alone in facing potential charges? Undoubtedly. Is it fair? Probably not. Is it a conspiracy against the MFC? No. Is it the AFL trying to protect their image? Undoubtedly.

[Range Rover 1,935]

Channel 7 News reported that the Coaches Association has had secret talks with the AFL in respect to Bailey. Also suggested that Connolly will face allegations that he told MFC staff to tank or be sacked. Not sure if this refers to the " Vault Statement" that Bailey was quoted as saying he thought was clearly a joke and which he never acted upon.

Bailey of course has been reported as denying that he or the team ever tanked and this has been supported of course by his Solicitor.

If the Coach didn't tank, I fail to see how any charges can then flow.

As will the courts.

Haddad and Clothier must've really leaned hard on Bailey in those interviews. Good-cop bad-cop-ing him, trying to get him to turn whistleblower. Clearly it failed, so they made good on a threat to throw the book at him. I bet you they told him on the one hand that the mere mud of having such heinous charges brought against him would stain his name in football forever, while on the other offering the carrot of some kind of immunity if he named names. Theyd've said "come clean Dean and help us get the (alleged) ringleaders (Schwab and Connolly) and we'll go easy on you ... we'll spin it that you were coerced under threat of being sacked".

But Dean didn't bend for them. We owe him a debt of gratitude for that but what an ass he was all the same with that naive comment at his final MFC presser, the one about ensuring we were 'well placed for draft picks'. It was a grenade that always had the potential to blow up in his own face. And so it did.

[Red and Bluebeard 2,035]

If I could just get out of this blasted jacket I would vote Yes

I am out of the jacket, but it is the padded room with no door that is giving me all the trouble ...

[Fitz Fitzpatrick 886]

Tanking is only one of AD's worries. The AFL's drug policy is under attack, there are inequities relating to fixturing and a few clubs are under the pump financially.

The AFL's pumping millions into Western Sydney but, despite monumental assistance with recruiting, the game doesn't look like attracting the support of the locals while at the same time, the Wanderers, with less time and less money is capturing the hearts of the people in the region and has been an instant success on the field.

And a look at the sports pages in both the Age and the Sun tell the story. Soccer and the two rugby codes are making enormous inroads into the Melbourne market at the same time as this iniquitous 6 - 7 month investigation is disrupting and destabilising the original football club.

What an absolute disgrace!

as for the problem of inequality in fixturing and gate receipts there is one very easy solution i think. The AFL takes all the gate receipts for every match of the season. then at the end of the season, the total is divided evenly among all teams, thus removing the presumed favouritism of the bigger clubs with the larger crowd drawing matches. leave the membership revenue as a club independent income source .

[rpfc 27,486]

At the risk of derailing the thread somewhat, I thought Daniher did a brilliant job to get us two top 5 picks in 2003. Pity it was the worst AFL Draft in history.

I generally agree with BH's take on it. Did the MFC tank? Yes. Have others done it before? Yes. Did we botch it just about every way? Yes. Is that why we stand alone in facing potential charges? Undoubtedly. Is it fair? Probably not. Is it a conspiracy against the MFC? No. Is it the AFL trying to protect their image? Undoubtedly.

I don't think we see anything very differently, but, again, definition of tanking is important (I reckon we will be discussing this after the 'announcement') and I don't see how we 'botched' it up.

I guess the proof of that will come with the, well, proof that the investigators have but we didn't bring this on ourselves. An unfortunate series of events kicked this investigation off. We list managed and experimented almost expertly.

[Whispering_Jack 27,999]

If we didn't tank why did you call this the "Tanking" thread.

BTW I thought we were arguing that there was not rule against tanking?

It's all getting very confusing.

[WJ's note: only the former Iraki Minister for Misinformation would put words that never existed in one's mouth]

I feel sorry for your confusion Mr. Bob because you were once such a clear thinker.

For your information, I would only change the name of a thread if I thought it was necessary and since we were investigated for "tanking" the title remains unaltered.

Moreover, had you read the OP carefully you might have noticed that I don't deny there's a rule against tanking (in fact I have never done so) but rather, I maintain it is bad law because it is often misinterpreted and misunderstood and has been selectively used in a discriminatory manner that reflects poorly on those who administer the game.

My conclusion is that the AFL would do well to admit this, abandon the farce that's going into its seventh month and rewrite its rules on tanking.

Baghdad Bob = Fan

Since it was you who questioned why something was given a particular name, I have to raise the change in yours from Fan to Baghdad Bob. The other Mr. BB was one of the greatest exponents of sophistry and double talk of this century. Was the change in title effected to herald your metamorphosis from a "fan" to a fall guy for those on the dark side who crave our demise? Those like your heroine Wilson who have no respect for democratic principles like the rule of law and presumption of innocence and are happy to sink the boots into a man when he's down and before he's even had the opportunity to defend himself?

It's reminiscent of the time on World Championship Wrestling when someone hypnotised Mario Milano and turned him into a baddie.

The good thing is that Mario eventually snapped out of it and I trust that like him, you will manage to overcome your confused state and return to being a Fan again!

[nutbean 8,837]

I feel sorry for your confusion Mr. Bob because you were once such a clear thinker.

For your information, I would only change the name of a thread if I thought it was necessary and since we were investigated for "tanking" the title remains unaltered.

Moreover, had you read the OP carefully you might have noticed that I don't deny there's a rule against tanking (in fact I have never done so) but rather, I maintain it is bad law because it is often misinterpreted and misunderstood and has been selectively used in a discriminatory manner that reflects poorly on those who administer the game.

My conclusion is that the AFL would do well to admit this, abandon the farce that's going into its seventh month and rewrite its rules on tanking.

Since it was you who questioned why something was given a particular name, I have to raise the change in yours from Fan to Baghdad Bob. The other Mr. BB was one of the greatest exponents of sophistry and double talk of this century. Was the change in title effected to herald your metamorphosis from a "fan" to a fall guy for those on the dark side who crave our demise? Those like your heroine Wilson who have no respect for democratic principles like the rule of law and presumption of innocence and are happy to sink the boots into a man when he's down and before he's even had the opportunity to defend himself?

It's reminiscent of the time on World Championship Wrestling when someone hypnotised Mario Milano and turned him into a baddie.

The good thing is that Mario eventually snapped out of it and I trust that like him, you will manage to overcome your confused state and return to being a Fan again!

Making a Mario Milano analogy is a bit of stretch - dare I say an abdominal stretch ?

(thats the one thing this forum really lacks - a good world championship wrestling thread)