All given a certificate of approval by the CEO of the AFL which means that, however, morally reprehensible you might think it was to put PJ on Brown (and he kept him to one fluke goal), it wasn't a crime.

Not yet anyway.

This is what few posters here conveniently forget. They cannot recall the lengths other teams previously went to such as this instance ^ to obtain early pick(s), yet have this opinion as follows: -

Mostly because they have a better understanding of watching our team week in, week out and not others in the past because they couldn't care less what other teams did. ie. rose coloured glasses view.

I have brought this point up before, and it remained unchallenged.

Find any un-biased journo who suggests others were more blatant....

Perhaps you are correct, but while journos say others tanked, more often than not they go out their way to say we were the most blatant.

We haven't won anything for 48 years is because we seem to always want the easy way out.

Tank now and the priority pick will lead our club out for the football wilderness. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

We have a pathetic messiah complex.

IMO S_T you need to change one word Had.

I don't believe that is now part of our make up.

IMO S_T you need to change one word Had.

I don't believe that is now part of our make up.

I hope you're correct, but we did still give 17 and 18 year old kids some of the more famous MFC jumper numbers. I would much prefer to hold those numbers back for 3rd and 4th year players who have truly become AFL players. Would it be a bad thing to give Toumpas and JV numbers in the mid 40's instead of 5 and 7?

I agree with most of your post, but the most blatant "list management" was indisputably Carlton losing the last 11 in a row.

To say we were more obvious is unnecessary self-flagellation which in no way adds to the credibility of your comments.

The win with a kick after the siren is really evidence suggesting we were not, in fact, trying to lose. That scenario could not possibly have been orchestrated.

Bailey's coaching against Richmond in 2009 was the most comical and obvious attempt to lose a match in the 100+ year history of the game. Nothing comes close.

Frawley forward, Warnock forward, Junior to the back pocket, Miller in the ruck, Newton on a wing, Johnson in the back pocket on Brown, anyone who was playing well went to the bench, etc. My Brother and I were in hysterics at the time. It's still hard not to have a chuckle.

Find any un-biased journo who suggests others were more blatant....

Perhaps you are correct, but while journos say others tanked, more often than not they go out their way to say we were the most blatant.

Find any un-biased journo - is probably the hard part.

Anyway, the degree of blatantness (new word) should not be the justification for a prosecution. So what if others tanked more secretly. You investigate the murder committed by a cunning murderer as well as the one committed by a fool. But we know there is no justice here, just the AFL diven by some in the media to look righteous.

Bailey's coaching against Richmond in 2009 was the most comical and obvious attempt to lose a match in the 100+ year history of the game. Nothing comes close.

Frawley forward, Warnock forward, Junior to the back pocket, Miller in the ruck, Newton on a wing, Johnson in the back pocket on Brown, anyone who was playing well went to the bench, etc. My Brother and I were in hysterics at the time. It's still hard not to have a chuckle.

Given the above and yet we still managed to be ahead at the siren, it would seem we were such a super team we should have been able to win the flag.

Edited February 18, 201312 yr by sue

Given the above and yet we still managed to be ahead at the siren, it would seem we were such a super team we should have been able to win the flag.

At the very least we were too good to deserve a priority pick.

Find any un-biased journo who suggests others were more blatant....

Perhaps you are correct, but while journos say others tanked, more often than not they go out their way to say we were the most blatant.

Watch above link. Here's just one unbiased highly respected journo who doesn't think our club was anymore blatant.

PS. And the highly respected journalist is not Caroline Wilson.

Edited February 18, 201312 yr by H_T
Addition

Given the above and yet we still managed to be ahead at the siren, it would seem we were such a super team we should have been able to win the flag.

Not quite true Sue. Remember we fumbled on purpose too!!!!!.

Seriously, once again, there are some on here who will just not come to terms with the fact that we were a very ordinary unit back then. We didn't have to "tank" to lose these games. Also, given the limited cattle we had, there is nothing wrong with any coach to challenge any player, beyond their perceived limitations, even if those players are collectively, an ordinary unit.

At the very least we were too good to deserve a priority pick.

So good in fact that since then we have.......oh! forget it!

Watch above link. Here's just one unbiased highly respected journo who doesn't think our club was anymore blatant.

PS. And the highly respected journalist is not Caroline Wilson.

He said we were definetely the most incompetent at doing it and but only AS (equal) blatant as Carlton. It puts us in a very short list and the most incompetent of the two. Hardly anything to hang our hats on.

The reason Demons supporters have being sooking for the last couple of years is because we seem to be the guinea pigs for rules & punishment.

Trengove sling tackle - given weeks for a tackle that had been encouraged as good technique for a significant period of time

Tanking - Investigated 4 years after the fact based on the comments of a disgruntled ex player

Scully - Seemingly had signed a deal outside of the permitted time frame, AFL turned a blind eye

Don't forget Sylvia having his jaw broken agains Kennedy of WCE but 'no case to answer'. Apparently its OK to break someones jaw if they are from Melbourne

The Blues sat down on their long bench, the custom of the time, and Barassi pulled the first of two masterstrokes over the next 50 minutes.

Dashing defender John Goold remembers "a super calm Ron replaced the ranting one".

"He asked the match committee and committee men to leave the room which just left Ron and us. He hardly raised his voice," recalled Goold.

"He was positive at all times and explained to us we were going to start a new game with a new team."

The new team included Vin Waite moving to centre half-back, David McKay to a back pocket, Goold to a wing, Phillip Pinnell to half-back and, of course, 19th man Ted Hopkins to replace Bert Thornley.Goold said the last move took real guts: "People don't understand it now, but you couldn't bring a player back on the ground once he had been replaced by one of the two reserves, so had we got an injury we would have been in all sorts.

...apparently Barassi is in trouble for a comical and obvious attempt to lose a match in 1970!!!

We haven't won anything for 48 years is because we seem to always want the easy way out.

Tank now and the priority pick will lead our club out for the football wilderness. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

We have a pathetic messiah complex.

Can you name a few other times when "we've wanted the easy way out" I'm not sure what you mean by that?

At the very least we were too good to deserve a priority pick.

Wha...

What?!

You have got to be kidding me.

In 2003 and 2007 we finished where only one other club has finished EVER in the history of the Priority Pick system - 1 game off a PP...

That means that this Evil Culture Ruining Exercise has been done by Coll, Haw, St K, Carl, et al. without fear or favour.

Naming players in 'weird' positions isn't blatant tanking because it is absurd to ajudge that as tanking.

Garland against Essendon had no right be a matchwinner but he was. Paul Johnson has every right to be placed at FB - he couldn't play anywhere else! Miller should be able to play ruck - why shouldn't he? Warnock was always going to be 'superceded' in the backline - why can't he play forward?

I know that winning was not our raison detre in 2009, but that is no proof that we 'forfeited' games and it should not be punished.

Find any un-biased journo who suggests others were more blatant....

Perhaps you are correct, but while journos say others tanked, more often than not they go out their way to say we were the most blatant.

So it's not about tanking, it's about how blatant it was? Does this sound a bit silly to you? Is it okay to tank if you cover it up well enough? FMD! Give me a break.

Thats not the way I see it. For us to only just lose given the extreme list management we undertook is evidence that we really didn't deserve the priority pick the loss gave us. If we stuck to what I would deem normal list management, we would have won IMO.

I don't know what Carlton did for those 11 losses, but the wholesale and inexplicable positional changes that we used against Richmond would be hard to beat. PJ on Nathan Brown? Hard to rationalise that one (but I am sure people will lol).

http://www.news.com.au/top-stories/brendan-fevola-admits-carlton-tried-not-to-win-back-in-2007/story-e6frfkp9-1226508043021

I hope you're correct, but we did still give 17 and 18 year old kids some of the more famous MFC jumper numbers. I would much prefer to hold those numbers back for 3rd and 4th year players who have truly become AFL players. Would it be a bad thing to give Toumpas and JV numbers in the mid 40's instead of 5 and 7?

On this logic we wouldn't have players playing in numbers 1-40.........we would have numbers in the 90's....Geez...It's just a number and you make it your own.......

Find any un-biased journo who suggests others were more blatant....

Perhaps you are correct, but while journos say others tanked, more often than not they go out their way to say we were the most blatant.

Gerard Whately on Outsiders on Sunday. Did you watch? Its on iView if you missed

Edit: sorry HT should have scanned ahead

Edited February 18, 201312 yr by daisycutter

Can you name a few other times when "we've wanted the easy way out" I'm not sure what you mean by that?

I'm not MFC history buff so i will just give you 2 off the top of my head

1. We (collectively as a membership - I was not a member at the time for whats it's worth) voted yes to merge with Hawthorn becuase we thought we could swallow them up, retain our identity and profit.

2. We treated Gutnick as our saviour because it would be easier than raising money other ways (rattling tins like other clubs or digging deep like Stynes was able to encourage to do).

Gerard Whately on Outsiders on Sunday. Did you watch? Its on iView if you missed

Outsiders? Are you referring to us or the show the "Offsiders"

I sang the Richmond theme song on that day in 2009.

To this day, my tongue is still blistered.

It was amateur hour.

So it's not about tanking, it's about how blatant it was? Does this sound a bit silly to you? Is it okay to tank if you cover it up well enough? FMD! Give me a break.

If you must comment, please read the posts leading up to it. It is a discussion about how blatant we were compared to others brought on because I suggested we were the most blatant of the lot.

I have always disliked tanking however blatant it is. I am however chosing to concern myself more with what we have done, rather what other clubs have.

He said we were definetely the most incompetent at doing it and but only AS (equal) blatant as Carlton. It puts us in a very short list and the most incompetent of the two. Hardly anything to hang our hats on.

Nor anything to hang only us on.

OK, you concede 1club as equally blatant. So how many clubs would have to tank as blatantly as us before you would say the investigation should have been wider than just us?