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'm not claiming the gambling authorities will go after us if we are charged with disrepute (though i don't see how bailey comes under this) and not match fixing

I was just querying your logic and saying it is not necessarily as black and white as you are proposing.

I think there is a risk, even if it is small

clearer?

"Other clubs did tank, although it is important to note they did so less blatantly and systematically than Melbourne. Certainly no other club was found to have held a meeting in which some 15 staffers were allegedly addressed on the topic."

Please! Melbourne did all the same things as these clubs; tried young players, experimented, sent injured players for early operations, etc. so why is it more blatant and systematic if Melbourne did it? And regarding the meeting, its extremely naive of her to think that none of these other clubs had any sort of meeting, its just that none of these other clubs have been investigate for 7 months to uncover anything.

CW's theory is that if you say it enough times, then its true; if you're questioned, argue black is white. She will rarely be taken seriously again after this saga.

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.

If that were true, then surely Brock McLean would need to be punished too. Didn't he embarrass the AFL with his allegations?

Caro has stated that everyone did it but the difference was that melbourne held a meeting in the "vault", so we are more guilty than anyone else so we alone should pay. This does not mean others did not hold meetings, for instance tigers coach said he and presumably his support coaches in "the coaches box" agreed to leave things up to the players during one of their tanking matches, was that discussion not a deliberately action by the coaches to NOT TRY to win.

The fact that the AFL has come out with the deal mentioned means that deal has probably been done between the various parties to shove this into the closet and close the door on tanking. which essentially equates to no investigation of Hawthorn, Collingwood, Richmond, west coast and Carlton. Problem solved. Who knows the AFL may even pass a $500k grant across to Melbourne somewhere in the next year or so to cover our fine. Which makes sense because if you had found a club had won a premiership with players they received from tanking there would be an outcry from some for them to be stripped of the flag. The afl has far too much to loose by allowing this to drag on.

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).

No I couldn't give a continental. I'm trying to show you and others how views can differ depending on the side of the fence you sit.

It's not lost on me that it's a fruitless task.

Missed the point again. Banned for what?

NOT DOING HIS JOB...FFS!!

"Other clubs did tank, although it is important to note they did so less blatantly and systematically than Melbourne. Certainly no other club was found to have held a meeting in which some 15 staffers were allegedly addressed on the topic."

Please! Melbourne did all the same things as these clubs; tried young players, experimented, sent injured players for early operations, etc. so why is it more blatant and systematic if Melbourne did it? And regarding the meeting, its extremely naive of her to think that none of these other clubs had any sort of meeting, its just that none of these other clubs have been investigate for 7 months to uncover anything.

CW's theory is that if you say it enough times, then its true; if you're questioned, argue black is white. She will rarely be taken seriously again after this saga.

yes, the other clubs were so less-blatant they managed to organise it un-systematically without having any meetings.

I think telepathy may have been the key, or did they just get their performance scientist to nobble the players?

It's CW snide and belittleing remarks which actually do me in as well as that she is so loose with her facts:

Dean Bailey..." will miss some weeks of football but not enough to ruin him as the Melbourne experience nearly did".

On DM's response "if people fell for this" - imagine if she said the same about Eddie.

Statements she makes as if fact:

DM - "he knows what his board and staff have been declaring behind closed doors" - how would she know (unless there is still a rogue element/fan inside MFC)

AFL " "had in its 800 pages of evidence, a good case against Melbourne" - how does she know this

DB " would have been cruel to end his career given he was contrite" - if he was contrite why would he be fighting the charges. But then she goes on to say he "did not completely fess up to actually deliberately losing". Doesn't make sense.

No other journalist is actually going to openly query her very selective pieces or the AFL because they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. The Club should be asking the question of the AFL as to how such information (if it is true) is being leaked.

How can the AFL act for the Clubs if it knowingly leaks information - selective or not. The smell of rotting fish is everywhere.

Didn't take you long to resort to your old stock in trade abuse did it?

And leave my wife out of it you pr!*k.

Just a word of advice. If you've got a glass jaw don't go out of your way looking for a fight, which is exactly what YOU did.

Not to mention your absurd overreaction.

Could we please leave the personal attacks against other posters out of this and concentrate on the subject matter.

Thanks

yes, the other clubs were so less-blatant they managed to organise it un-systematically without having any meetings.

I think telepathy may have been the key, or did they just get their performance scientist to nobble the players?

I like performance scientist idea - minimise those in the know.

It really irks me that CW and some of our regular contrarian posters think it is acceptable to not be investigated if you commit a crime more secretly than someone else. Of course the wily criminal is more likely to get away with it, but you do expect the cops to investigate when there is a dead body on the floor regardless of whether the murderer appears to be a dill or not.

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.

In the article on the AFL website they said with regard to how the investigation is affecting our marketability::

"it is understood.... to have had a commercial impact".

If true $500000 is going to have a major impact on our future viability.

NOT DOING HIS JOB...FFS!!

So the Gaming Commission will withdraw our licences because Bailey 'didn't do his job'? I see now.

Applied universally, there wouldn't be any licences left in Victoria.

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?

She also denied that she wrote these 5 points on Footy Classified.....so I'm stunned to see her now referring to them

I was just querying your logic and saying it is not necessarily as black and white as you are proposing.

By no means did I make any 'black and white' proposals.

On the contrary, I used quite a number of 'ifs'.

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.

Well actually she has been when you think about it.

WYL is just has a no charge, no fine, no compromise view on this.

He doesnt need a reality check because this issue is just becoming polarised: willing to accept charges or not

I notice that some around here are writing letters and sending emails to Wilson and the Age. You're wasting your time - the Age is struggling across the board but the fact that people are responding (even negatively) suggests to them that their policy of unleashing a feral Wilson is working to attract more interest and readership.

Instead, it would be better to write to the advertisers of the Age whose product appears on any page where a Wilson article appears, that you will be patronising their competitors and not purchasing their product as long as she remains their chief football writer.

Please 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.

I don't know what Bailey will be charged with, or whether he'll be charged at all. I'm waiting for the official report.

Well here is my view on this whole sordid episode.

The MFC should be completely exonerated, due to lack of any legally binding evidence and the damage/penalty it has already suffered, to its brand and commercial operations, as a result of a selective investigation, for a course of conduct widely accepted being done by many other clubs, with most gaining substantially more benefit and advantage than the MFC, yet without investigation by the ruling body and without any explanation from it, as to why that is so.

NOT DOING HIS JOB...FFS!!

Just like Terry Wallace... Rnd 22, 2007

(he's even on record as admitting it)

By no means did I make any 'black and white' proposals.

On the contrary, I used quite a number of 'ifs'.

i thought you were fairly B&W in that the afl could find a way to find us guilty (of "something") and word it in such a way that the gambling commission could not act

You seemed confident that this would be the case

And you poo-haha'ed others suggesting that there was a risk we could lose our gambling licence

anyway this is getting too semantic and you are being pedantic

Well here is my view on this whole sordid episode.

The MFC should be completely exonerated, due to lack of any legally binding evidence and the damage/penalty it has already suffered, to its brand and commercial operations, as a result of a selective investigation, for a course of conduct widely accepted being done by many other clubs, with most gaining substantially more benefit and advantage than the MFC, yet without investigation by the ruling body and without any explanation from it, as to why that is so.

Excellent! You want to fax that through to Gillon McLachlan before Monday, Redleg?!

I notice that some around here are writing letters and sending emails to Wilson and the Age. You're wasting your time - the Age is struggling across the board but the fact that people are responding (even negatively) suggests to them that their policy of unleashing a feral Wilson is working to attract more interest and readership.

Instead, it would be better to write to the advertisers of the Age whose product appears on any page where a Wilson article appears, that you will be patronising their competitors and not purchasing their product as long as she remains their chief football writer.

the best way to treat the age with the wilson issue, is to remove them from your bookmarks folder, & don't go there at all.

Well here is my view on this whole sordid episode.

The MFC should be completely exonerated, due to lack of any legally binding evidence and the damage/penalty it has already suffered, to its brand and commercial operations, as a result of a selective investigation, for a course of conduct widely accepted being done by many other clubs, with most gaining substantially more benefit and advantage than the MFC, yet without investigation by the ruling body and without any explanation from it, as to why that is so.

Was that dream before or after the Bev dream?

I like performance scientist idea - minimise those in the know.

It really irks me that CW and some of our regular contrarian posters think it is acceptable to not be investigated if you commit a crime more secretly than someone else. Of course the wily criminal is more likely to get away with it, but you do expect the cops to investigate when there is a dead body on the floor regardless of whether the murderer appears to be a dill or not.

actually sue, thinking about it, there is no need for the sports scientist to nobble the players

all they need do is hold back the peptides for a year (reminds me of WC just a few years ago)