Various journalists, including in today's Age, keep stating that Melbourne and some of its officials "face charges" in relation to tanking.

Definition of "face charges/counts":

"to be accused officially of committing a crime; have legal charges brought against you as a crime"

It seems premature to be saying in these press articles that the are "facing charges" when at this stage they are only being required to respond to the matters raised in the AFL's investigation.

To be fair, we have been asked to respond as to why we and two officials shouldn't be charged. In my book that does mean "facing charges", however flimsy or otherwise we might perceive the evidence of the nature of the possible charges.

A more pertinent question would be why many others are not in the same position?

A more pertinent question would be why many others are not in the same position?

And excellent point and one not often mentioned around here.

Glad you brought it up.

Had anyone else thought of it?

And excellent point and one not often mentioned around here.

Glad you brought it up.

Had anyone else thought of it?

The wheels on the bus go round and round, sometimes the most articulate men can look absolutely silly and not to switched on.

... and the lesser lights will always sound stupid too ...

The wheels on the bus go round and round, sometimes the most articulate men can look absolutely silly and not to switched on.

And excellent point and one not often mentioned around here.

Glad you brought it up.

Had anyone else thought of it?

Jake Niall discussed it back at the end of October in Why the Dees alone are facing probe but while the article posed a number of possibilities, the definitive answer wasn't given.

We do have a number of theories, many of which might be considered "conspiracy theories" depending on what camp you happen to be in - were we more careless than the others, were words whispered in the wrong ears or were we in the wrong place at the wrong time? Perhaps we'll never get that definitive answer we're looking for? Perhaps it has something to do with Adrian Anderson's seemingly hasty departure from the scene?

As I've said on Demonland and elsewhere, the AFL would have been seen in a better light had the investigation been called into tanking right across the board rather than into one club alone.

BTW Bob. I like the change of name. Is this another part of your image makeover?

The wheels on the bus go round and round, sometimes the most articulate men can look absolutely silly and not to switched on.

I no how you love a bit of comedy mate, by the looks of your avatar you will be on the old age pension before the mighty Dees win a flag.

I no how you love a bit of comedy mate, by the looks of your avatar you will be on the old age pension before the mighty Dees win a flag.

as long as they are built on values like loyalty, & looking out for one another, a bit like the hawks do, & don't take a mercenary look on life.

is it true your a mini bob?

as long as they are built on values like loyalty, & looking out for one another, a bit like the hawks do, & don't take a mercenary look on life.

is it true your a mini bob?

One things for sure mate, im not a pensioner,but anytime your at the G i will gladly by you a beer.

Jake Niall discussed it back at the end of October in Why the Dees alone are facing probe but while the article posed a number of possibilities, the definitive answer wasn't given.

We do have a number of theories, many of which might be considered "conspiracy theories" depending on what camp you happen to be in - were we more careless than the others, were words whispered in the wrong ears or were we in the wrong place at the wrong time? Perhaps we'll never get that definitive answer we're looking for? Perhaps it has something to do with Adrian Anderson's seemingly hasty departure from the scene?

As I've said on Demonland and elsewhere, the AFL would have been seen in a better light had the investigation been called into tanking right across the board rather than into one club alone.

BTW Bob. I like the change of name. Is this another part of your image makeover?

I think the afl's blind eye tactics were always going to have a use by date til the public got sick of the tactic.

Then the AFL try too use a scapegoat to avoid the critique of their actions. time that with a change of afl leadership & kazam!

all we did was be more Open ?& more honest & upfront about matters. but as we know some can't handle the truth... but, then again, the AFL & truth don't sit neatly in the same palm.

So what to do AFL Commission? & the media who have kahunas, sorry Kero your out?

how about squaring up the fixture,,, & the big homegame timeslots for a fair share of TV exposure.... a sharing of Anzac Day & other Big standalone fixtures.

One things for sure mate, im not a pensioner,but anytime your at the G i will gladly by you a beer.

Make mine a Melbourne.

One things for sure mate, im not a pensioner,but anytime your at the G i will gladly by you a beer.

Depending on how you want to define it, I can count 8.

Good effort!

Only got 7 myself, but it's still impressive.

Jake Niall discussed it back at the end of October in Why the Dees alone are facing probe but while the article posed a number of possibilities, the definitive answer wasn't given.

We do have a number of theories, many of which might be considered "conspiracy theories" depending on what camp you happen to be in - were we more careless than the others, were words whispered in the wrong ears or were we in the wrong place at the wrong time? Perhaps we'll never get that definitive answer we're looking for? Perhaps it has something to do with Adrian Anderson's seemingly hasty departure from the scene?

As I've said on Demonland and elsewhere, the AFL would have been seen in a better light had the investigation been called into tanking right across the board rather than into one club alone.

BTW Bob. I like the change of name. Is this another part of your image makeover?

In that article by Jake Niall, the second reason given is that McLean and Bailey both voiced the view to the media that the club intentionally lost. This was probably the main trigger for the investigation. If both have since backtracked on their statements, will Jake Niall review his article?

Jake Niall discussed it back at the end of October in Why the Dees alone are facing probe but while the article posed a number of possibilities, the definitive answer wasn't given.

We do have a number of theories, many of which might be considered "conspiracy theories" depending on what camp you happen to be in - were we more careless than the others, were words whispered in the wrong ears or were we in the wrong place at the wrong time? Perhaps we'll never get that definitive answer we're looking for?

For mine, a big part of what landed us in trouble was the increased sensitivity to the issue by the time we were open to it.

After the Kreuzer Cup it was going to be noticed. Add to that West Coast's big rebound after dropping back for one year and people were looking for it.

+2

and then the phase 2 waiting begins

phase 2: Will charges be laid and passed to AFL commission?

phase 3: If it goes to AFL commission what will be the outcome?

Still lots of time for hair-pulling, wailing, indignant outrage and victimisation statements. A select few are even salivating at the thought of revenge

stay tuned.............................

+2

and then the phase 2 waiting begins

phase 2: Will charges be laid and passed to AFL commission?

phase 3: If it goes to AFL commission what will be the outcome?

Still lots of time for hair-pulling, wailing, indignant outrage and victimisation statements. A select few are even salivating at the thought of revenge

stay tuned.............................

Is a countdown stating the same possible outcomes repetitive? (IWUAEHIIUE)

Is a countdown stating the same possible outcomes repetitive? (IWUAEHIIUE)

?

And what public statements will we make on Tuesday?

Unfortunately as we can't risk upsetting the AFL with any public condemnation of the whole fiasco, I am betting that it will be a very vanilla " The MFC has today lodged its formal response to the AFL's investigation into the club's list management strategies during season 2009. The response reaffirms the directors' insistence that the club at all times acted in accordance with rules and regulations of the competition as applied in the years immediately preceding and immediately following the year in question. The club will not be commenting further on the matter until it receives an official response from the AFL"

Wilson must just about have used up all her leave by now - and I'd love to see a little dig tacked on the end of our presser, like -"In the meantime, the club expects the media to allow the club and its officials to prepare for the season 2013 season free of further prejudicial speculation" But I think we probably have to remain dignified until the AFL shows its final hand.

This whole tanking issue would go away if the umpires just awarded free kicks to the team that's tanking.

+1

I've been giving this some thought and I've come up with this one.

To eliminate tanking, I would change the system for the next ten years to give preference in order to the length of time since a particular club won its last premiership. For the newbies that haven't won a flag at all, I would use as the benchmark, the year they entered the competition (GWS and GCS have had ample concessions and Freo gets a good spot anyway). This would have given us this order for the 2012 draft:

1 Western Bulldogs

2 Melbourne

3 St. Kilda

4 Richmond

5 Fremantle

6 Carlton

7 Adelaide

8 North Melbourne

9 Essendon

10 Brisbane Lions

11 Port Adelaide

12 West Coast Eagles

13 Hawthorn

14 Collingwood

15 GCS

16 Geelong

17 GWS

18 Sydney Swans

The incentive to tank has been eliminated and the Doggies keep getting #1 every year until they win a premiership (I might consider putting them between Carlton and Adelaide however, because that's when Footscray became the Western Bulldogs and this would lift Melbourne to # 1).

The idea is to give the clubs that have gone through hard times, the opportunity to rise without tempting them to list manage or, god forbid, break any AFL laws.

Thoughts?

That system would drop all pretenses wouldn't it, WJ?

The AFL wants different teams to have a chance every year to excite fans in every corner of the country. This would ensure that those who had seen the least receive the most...

Don't think it will get up though. It being communism and all...

I've been giving this some thought and I've come up with this one.

To eliminate tanking, I would change the system for the next ten years to give preference in order to the length of time since a particular club won its last premiership. For the newbies that haven't won a flag at all, I would use as the benchmark, the year they entered the competition (GWS and GCS have had ample concessions and Freo gets a good spot anyway). This would have given us this order for the 2012 draft:

1 Western Bulldogs

2 Melbourne

3 St. Kilda

4 Richmond

5 Fremantle

6 Carlton

7 Adelaide

8 North Melbourne

9 Essendon

10 Brisbane Lions

11 Port Adelaide

12 West Coast Eagles

13 Hawthorn

14 Collingwood

15 GCS

16 Geelong

17 GWS

18 Sydney Swans

The incentive to tank has been eliminated and the Doggies keep getting #1 every year until they win a premiership (I might consider putting them between Carlton and Adelaide however, because that's when Footscray became the Western Bulldogs and this would lift Melbourne to # 1).

The idea is to give the clubs that have gone through hard times, the opportunity to rise without tempting them to list manage or, god forbid, break any AFL laws.

Thoughts?

WJ, the idea has some merit. But because a premiership is so difficult to achieve and a lot of luck is involved, I believe a club is successful enough (for a draft order) if they make the final 4. What would be the order then be under your methodology? Because the preliminary final losers have equal standing, you can go back to the next time each of those clubs made the top 4.

Edited January 27, 201312 yr by djr

That system would drop all pretenses wouldn't it, WJ?

The AFL wants different teams to have a chance every year to excite fans in every corner of the country. This would ensure that those who had seen the least receive the most...

Don't think it will get up though. It being communism and all...

Well ... I did get the idea from Che Guevara!