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

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

This ended up really weird after I clicked through a few related videos and then reread "This happened behind the scenes of Footy Classified" while watching the Best of Quagmire.

Niall says this:

As the painstaking interviews began, it was soon clear that a) there was a significant amount of evidence against the club, b) that the AFL's investigators had prised open cracks created by a divided football department and club, and c) that the garrulous Chris Connolly would likely end up as the fall guy, with ex-coach Dean Bailey a chance to be lashed but not put in the stocks.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dee-great-escape-20130216-2ek7j.html#ixzz2L6bQpBNN

What is the 'significant evidence?'

CW has always alluded to it and here Niall does the same.

If it is so 'significant' - please tell us what it is, because I haven't heard the significant evidence, all I have heard is a joke about zulus, some ex-employees claiming they take the threat of Zulus seriously, Schwab's 'ashen face,' and the killer evidence of the general footy public 'knew what they were doing.'

Great article by Jake Niall. It perfectly sums up events for me. He's the best journalist in town, imo.

Surely not as good in your estimation as Caroline Wilson?

Not sure if this Jake Niall article has been posted

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dee-great-escape-20130216-2ek7j.html

Much better than Kero. Like the comment about Brock's Luna Park mouth and the AFL preferring clubs to "open up the kimono" and come clean. I kinda like reading Niall, despite him being a magpie supporter.

It's still slanted against us but its infinitely more intelligent and better constructed than Kero's usual diatribe. Just shows there are good writers at The Age sports.

Will be a very interesting week.

Surely not as good in your estimation as Caroline Wilson?

Yes, I think BH determines the 'greatness' of articles by how closely they follow his opinion.

2706 posts but do any contain FACTS regarding the outcome?

Mods - is there some way you can hold a TANKING OUTCOME FACTS thread and control it carefully?

I always felt that this incident didn't get enough exposure, the "joking" excuse was used here and accepted.

EDIT: More here.

That comment by Roos, is more damning than CC now poor attempt on trying to be a comic. That has turned to bite him on the bum.

Lets face it, we have been singled out, comments by various coaches and players from other teams are on record of more damning statements.

2706 posts but do any contain FACTS regarding the outcome?

Mods - is there some way you can hold a TANKING OUTCOME FACTS thread and control it carefully?

There are no facts released yet regarding the outcome - as such, it'd be a small thread.

You'll also know fairly quickly when there are official facts regarding the outcome.

Which reminds me of a similar story about a conversation I had with a former Blues board member a few weeks before the Kreuzer Cup game.

You really should pass that onto the AFL. It seems much the same as the type of evidence we are up against.

Yes, I think BH determines the 'greatness' of articles by how closely they follow his opinion.

A great article in my view would be one which revealed the exact charges, the main evidence against MFC and the MFC's defence (sorry I meant excuses) rather than the alleged penalties.

More here.

The interesting part is how the article ends

Following on from the announcement the AFLCA will now be seeking a rule clarification from the AFL.

"While the coaches are happy with the result that Paul Roos was found to have no case to answer, I think we now need to get some clarification with regards to this rule," Daniher said.

The specific rule under which the investigation was launched was

Gambling 19.3 (v) which states: "being a Player, Coach or assistant Coach fail to perform on their merits, or induce or encourage any Player, Coach or assistant Coach not to perform on their merits, in any Match for any reason whatsoever."

The rule was renumbered and is the current 19 (A5) but the AFLCA was never able to have the rule changed.

This means that if you accept that Connolly was joking when he talked about Zulus and Jimmy falling out of his hospital bed then you have to follow the precedent set by the AFL over Paul Roos and throw the whole thing out rather than let the Supreme Court make that decision.

The farce continues ...

Edited February 16, 201312 yr by Pink Freud

There are no facts released yet regarding the outcome - as such, it'd be a small thread.

You'll also know fairly quickly when there are official facts regarding the outcome.

Yes, imagine how many articles there would be if there was actual facts and information out in the public sphere.

It's terribly great that journalists can make do with inklings, bias, and unofficial views.

Yes that is fine by me!!

Me too wyl.

To the courts, I am prepared to add a little bit extra that I can afford.

Surely not as good in your estimation as Caroline Wilson?

Why ? I have no time for Wilson and her knowledge on footy is the pits. I've said this consistently over the years. I think one of her recent articles accurately portrayed timelines and our sorry tanking efforts, but she's an ordinary journalist at best.

Your eyes must be painted on.

A great article in my view would be one which revealed the exact charges, the main evidence against MFC and the MFC's defence (sorry I meant excuses) rather than the alleged penalties.

Has that information been released ?

You really should pass that onto the AFL. It seems much the same as the type of evidence we are up against.

Until it's clear that we're "guilty" of doing something similar in the eyes of the AFL (remembering that "list management" and other devices used to minimise your chances of losing matches was and still remains "legal" to this very day), I'm loathe to provide the details to them.

I also have to think about the person who told me about the "big fish" Carlton were after from another club while, at the same time being quite certain that the Blues would finish bottom again and get the priority pick (and how sending Fev off for premature surgery would help the cause). It's not as if I was told in confidence but on the other hand it would embarrass him.

What would you do?

Are the cited penalties official?

The AFL spin & bullsh!t department operates like a political party's spin & bullsh!t department. In politics it is customary to leak information, gauge the reaction to the leaked information, then tailor the release of the information to the reaction to the leaked information.

Has that information been released ?

The possible charges have been released. There are three of them. Surely, there must be someone at the Age with enough brains to attempt an analysis of how the so-called facts as presented in the media over the past months fit in with those charges. Instead, we get a daily dose of articles regurgitating old stories and innuendo without any understanding of the nature of the offences with which the club might be charged? IMO it's not possible to determine whether the rumoured penalties for our supposed guilt are fair or otherwise without such an understanding.

It's still slanted against us but its infinitely more intelligent and better constructed than Kero's usual diatribe. Just shows there are good writers at The Age sports.

Will be a very interesting week.

It's not a huge issue to me if an article is critical of Melbourne. It's when you run a vendetta like Caro has is when I take exception.

Yes that is fine by me!!

??? why?

it still talks of fines upto 500k and penalties for connolly and bailey

that means a guilty finding of some as yet unspecified charge

so why is that suddenly now ok by you after your previous comments?

Has that information been released ?

For what it is worth Ben, last night was the second time I have been told, by a different source, that there is no evidence of actual tanking or match fixing in the report of the AFL.

If that is true and given our President is the third to say it, I can see why our legal advice is as everyone now seems to agree, that the case is extremely strong.

This whole shameful episode is now about the AFL saving face for launching an Inquisition against one club, that received the lowest gain of all clubs that did the same thing.

Edited February 16, 201312 yr by Redleg

Why ? I have no time for Wilson and her knowledge on footy is the pits. I've said this consistently over the years. I think one of her recent articles accurately portrayed timelines and our sorry tanking efforts, but she's an ordinary journalist at best.

Your eyes must be painted on.

You said that Niall's article "perfectly sums up events" for you. However, what he was doing was much more than summing up events. He was in fact, providing his opinion which lamentably backs up that expressed umpteen times before by Wilson and others at this lamentable newspaper which gives little or no opportunity for alternative viewpoints that question those of its own apparatchiks. You call that good journalism, I call it utter garbage.

Furthermore, I don't need any eyes at all to see through your baloney.

Interesting DV. This means that had Jordan McMahon missed the shot from 50 metres after the siren then Richmond would have finished last and it would be them facing a tanking enquiry not us.

And they would have been serial offenders in the light of Terry Wallet's confession about what he didn't do against St. Kilda two years earlier. It's time for the AFL to investigate this a little more closely.

Won't happen as we are the designated patsy.

??? why?

it still talks of fines upto 500k and penalties for connolly and bailey

that means a guilty finding of some as yet unspecified charge

so why is that suddenly now ok by you after your previous comments?

it's not a rollover.

This case needs a courtroom to sort it ALL out.

IMO the only real difference between the Hun and Age articles is tone. Both suggest we'll accept a fine and penalty for Connolly and Bailey. The Hun says we're prepared to fight if the penalty is unacceptable - wowee!!!

"A fine of up to $500,000, and suspended or light penalties for figures including Bailey and Connolly, would prove tempting."