"Tanking"

[Its Time for Another 4,187]

I'm certain the club will negotiate an outcome where their assets won't be put at risk. Or do you think that they wouldn't have thought about all that ?

If the outcome is what CW is claiming the assets will be at risk. The Club don't necessarily get what they want. But let's hope the AFL aren't that stupid. They will need to come up with charges that will stick in a court of law not an AFL Kangaroo Court. That means no tanking conviction and that means no $500000 fine. Maybe a CC and DB rapped over the knuckles for something less than tanking. Ie making stupid comments that bring the game into disrepute but nothing coming from them. A few months gardening duty.

[Its Time for Another 4,187]

The clubs not getting charged with match fixing, CC and DB are facing seperate charges, match fixing is players deliberatley throwing games, that didnt happen.

Nope match fixing is the Board telling the coach to lose games. That is match fixing within the definitions of the gaming authorities. If the Club gets a fine it can only be for tanking, in other words, match fixing.

[waynewussell 5,219]

Not doing your utmost to win is the Atlantic away from match fixing!

[Dee Fan 3,247]

If the outcome is what CW is claiming the assets will be at risk. The Club don't necessarily get what they want. But let's hope the AFL aren't that stupid. They will need to come up with charges that will stick in a court of law not an AFL Kangaroo Court. That means no tanking conviction and that means no $500000 fine. Maybe a CC and DB rapped over the knuckles for something less than tanking. Ie making stupid comments that bring the game into disrepute but nothing coming from them. A few months gardening duty.

$500,000 is a huge fine and if you have low level outcomes it would be hard to justify, that's why I'm looking forward to the official decision.

Be interested to know what is the biggest fine handed out and what it was for? Guessing Carlton for salary cap breaches?

[mauriesy 7,256]

Nope match fixing is the Board telling the coach to lose games. That is match fixing within the definitions of the gaming authorities. If the Club gets a fine it can only be for tanking, in other words, match fixing.

It could be for draft tampering.

[Hannibal 5,814]

make that a picrocosm and i'll agree. if they are a microcosm, forget global warming, we are doomed

Plenty of posters there that bare better than what you get here. Plenty.

[mauriesy 7,256]

Look if you don't see the Head Coach being sanctioned for Match Fixing as a major possible problem with our Gaming Licences then fine...carry on. But i do & i expect my club to take the issue further if in fact the report is correct.

The Red & Blue Tank on the front page of the sport section is a great look for our corporate image.

Of course I would see a charge of 'match fixing' as a problem, but I disagree on the probability (I think it's remote) and the long-term consequences. The club and the AFL will work around it to make sure none of our gambling assets are jeopardised.

Are you Why You Little or Chicken Little? You seem to think the sky is about to fall in, and I'm just providing a more optimistic view.

[sue 9,096]

It could be for draft tampering.

How do you tamper (in a way relevant to the MFC's case) without trying to lose games?

[mauriesy 7,256]

How do you tamper (in a way relevant to the MFC's case) without trying to lose games?

I don't know. The official charge hasn't been made yet.

[Hannibal 5,814]

$500,000 is a huge fine

Not for tanking.

When one thinks of the ramifications for being found guilty of what we've done it's a relief. I don't understand how that doesn't resonate with biased supporters.

I accept that you don't agree that we should have been investigated in the first place, I accept that if it went to court we have an exceptionally strong case, I accept that others have done it, but it's a weak penalty for the crime.

If you want to go to court over it that's another matter. I wouldn't. I'm just stoked that our bungling hasn't exposed us more.

[Dockett 32 1,239]

How do you tamper (in a way relevant to the MFC's case) without trying to lose games?

You follow previous role models I guess. Carlton might be worth looking at or perhaps West Coast or dare I say it the proteted unspoken about Tiger !

[DemonWA 3,929]

Hopefully the fine isn't as large as has been reported, however I'm glad there Is no talk of draft sanction or premiership points. The new footy dept should not be punished, and it seems as though this will be the case

[Sir Why You Little 36,958]

Of course I would see a charge of 'match fixing' as a problem, but I disagree on the probability (I think it's remote) and the long-term consequences. The club and the AFL will work around it to make sure none of our gambling assets are jeopardised.

Are you Why You Little or Chicken Little? You seem to think the sky is about to fall in, and I'm just providing a more optimistic view.

i view this as a very serious charge.

If i was a prospective sponsor with cash to use and not an MFC supporter i would not come near this club if that charge sticks.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Not for tanking.

When one thinks of the ramifications for being found guilty of what we've done it's a relief. I don't understand how that doesn't resonate with biased supporters.

I accept that you don't agree that we should have been investigated in the first place, I accept that if it went to court we have an exceptionally strong case, I accept that others have done it, but it's a weak penalty for the crime.

If you want to go to court over it that's another matter. I wouldn't. I'm just stoked that our bungling hasn't exposed us more.

Perhaps for tanking it isn't, but if we are found to have breached a lesser law then it's a lot. They have to justify a huge monetary penalty and if it was "littering", they'd be laughed at.

The penalty must fit the crime or it's going to look like a deal which might as well trumpet to the rest of the World that we are as guilty as hell.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Saints focus on game plan

"A day out from St Kilda's first hit-out in the NAB Cup coach Scott Watters said he isn't focussed on winning the AFL pre-season competition. "No interest - that is certainly not a focus," Watters told reporters in Adelaide on Saturday.

[sue 9,096]

I don't know. The official charge hasn't been made yet.

Maurie, I wasn't asking you personally and my question is independent of knowing the official charges. We are all speculating.

But it was argued that DB wouldn't be charged with trying to lose but with draft tampering, I asked that those who argue for that to speculate as to how he could draft tamper without losing games. (I excluded the sort of tampering that can be done in rigged trades etc.) I just don't see how.

The alternative suggestion that he could be charged with not reporting bad behaviour by CC seems weak. So I await with interest to see what the AFL comes up with if anything.

[Yossarian 1,820]

Saints focus on game plan

"A day out from St Kilda's first hit-out in the NAB Cup coach Scott Watters said he isn't focussed on winning the AFL pre-season competition. "No interest - that is certainly not a focus," Watters told reporters in Adelaide on Saturday.

They won't be trying to lose either.

[sue 9,096]

Saints focus on game plan

"A day out from St Kilda's first hit-out in the NAB Cup coach Scott Watters said he isn't focussed on winning the AFL pre-season competition. "No interest - that is certainly not a focus," Watters told reporters in Adelaide on Saturday.

Yet another example of 'tanking'. I recall someone made the argument that 'tanking' within a season is OK (eg Freo), but not across seasons (eg us). Now we have an example within a season but in a different competition.

It is a mess and the AFL has to quietly acknowledge that teams will not try to win every match (even if the players do). If they weren't such a bunch of egotists the AFL would admit all the naughty tanking (us) that has taken place was entirely due to their drafting formula and fix that to stop it ever happening again rather than crucify us. And make no mistake we have been crucified even if some think the rumoured penalties are small and even if we got off scot free now.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

The clubs not getting charged with match fixing, CC and DB are facing seperate charges, match fixing is players deliberatley throwing games, that didnt happen.

Tell that to the sponsors.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

Wow, first time I have ventured over to Bigfooty and I thought here got willing sometimes. That place is brutal. Don't think I'll wander back anytime soon

Understood.

But bigfooty is a kind of magnet for f****ing idiots.

[Guest Spirit of 39]

Understood.

But bigfooty is a kind of magnet for f****ing idiots.

Many of us BigFooty crew say the same thing about some of the people on here. At least on BigFooty we don't fight amongst ourselves. We know which team we are on.

[DeeVoted 583]

Awhile back I put this together. Makes for an interesting agruement on who was trying harder to tank. Compared who got the chocolates.If Richmond hadnt kicked the goal to win the game (after the siren) me wonders if a certain reporter would have gone just as hard if the Tiges had finished last. When you run through these last games, compare teams, who played against who. and then the margins won and lost.

It shows Melb actually outperformed Richmond.

Round 17

Ess (8th) Vs Rich (14th) Rich x 5 pts MCG (78.9% prior round)

Melb (16th) Vs Syd (11th) Syd x 18 pts Manuka (72.9% prior round)

-----------

Round 18

Melb (16th) Vs Rich (12th) Rich x 4 Pts MCG (73% / 80.4 prior round)

-----------

Round 19

Rich (14th) Vs Syd (10th) Sys x 55 pts MCG (81.4% prior round)

Nth (13th) Vs Melb (16th) Nth x 62 pts MCG (74.0% prior round)

-------------

Round 20

Rich (14th) Vs Coll (3rd) Coll x 93 pts MCG (79.8% prior round)

Melb (16th) Vs Freo (15th) Melb x 63 pts MCG (72.5% prior round)

------------

Round 21

Rich (14th) Vs Haw (9th) Haw x 42 pts MCG (76.9% prior round)

Carl (5th) Vs Melb (16th) Carl x 57 pts Docklands (76.5% prior round)

-----------

Round 22

W.Coast (11th) Vs Rich (15th) WC x 80 pts (76.4% prior round)

Melb (16th vs St.K (1st) St.K x 47 pts MCG (75.5% prior round)

==========================

Rich finished the season on 74.3%

Melb finished the season on 74.7%

==========================

last 4 games

Richmond dropped 7.1% won 0 games

Melb gained 1.5% won 1 game

Edited February 16, 2013 by DeeVoted

[diesel 420]

Many of us BigFooty crew say the same thing about some of the people on here. At least on BigFooty we don't fight amongst ourselves. We know which team we are on.

Ease up. We have groupthink here as well you know.

[QueensBirthday 186]

This happened behind the scenes of Footy Classified during the ad break.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fqs9DYisSsg

[Mono 455]

really? as for charges/punishment say much the same, albeit without the vitriol

i suspect he cherry picked his version direct from kero's copy

From Ralph:

"Insiders said yesterday that Schwab was hardly mentioned in the 1000-page dossier which detailed allegations over a stretch of games from late in 2009.

But while a negotiated settlement still looks a likely outcome, Melbourne sources were defiant last night about accepting penalties.

The club was adamant it would not be bullied, and was determined to protect employees ''both past and present''.

Despite speculation the Demons could accept a fines of several hundred thousand dollars and a short ban, possibly suspended, against former coach Dean Bailey, no agreement has been made."

And

"A Melbourne spokesman said last night the Demons were yet to receive an official set of charges or penalties from the AFL's acting football operations manager Gillon McLachlan.

Melbourne has been told by top legal experts is has an extremely strong legal case, which includes significant doubts about the manner in which interviews were conducted and whether they would stand up in a court of law.

The AFL's burden of proof falls on the club to prove its innocence, while in a court of law Melbourne believes it would be certain to win."

The slant is very different. Aint that hard.