"Tanking"

[mjt 640]

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).

I never voted yes and i was a member, take your garbage to Big Footy.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

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).

I'm not going to go in to the Merge issue because it's been done to death but suffice to say the club's directors though it was the only way to save the club which they believed was on the verge of extinction. That's not taking the easy way out it's commercial reality; at least they thought it was.

The reason we took on Joe Gutnick was because he promised to keep the club intact and not merge it, the $3m was the icing on the cake.

Can you give me some actual cases rather that rehashed rubbish, just one will do.

BTW there is still some doubt over the validity of the vote count and I was one who stood up and gave it to the current directors that night. There were many who were locked out.

Edited February 18, 2013 by RobbieF

[daisycutter 29,600]

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

haha looks like i was caught offside

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

I'm not going to go in to the Merge issue because it's been done to death but suffice to say the club's directors though it was the only way to save the club which they believed was on the verge of extinction. That's not taking the easy way out it's commercial reality; at least they thought it was.

The reason we took on Joe Gutnick was because he promised to keep the club intact and not merge it, the $3m was the icing on the cake.

Can you give me some actual cases rather that rehashed rubbish, just one will do.

BTW there is still some doubt over the validity of the vote count and I was one who stood up and gave it to the current directors that night. There were many who were locked out.

You're right, it has been done to death, but not only were many locked out, a Director at the time "purchased" 1,000 proxy votes to tip it in favour of the "merge" The vote in favour, as opposed to against had a very small differential.

[Vipercrunch 2,820]

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?

I concede that one journo (Weatley) says that only one other club (Carlton) was equally as blatant (but less incompetent). Are there any other examples?

I don't have any deep knowledge of what and how Carlton went about it, just the general perception from a majority of the media that we were more blatant.

The AFL probably should go after Calrton and others too in a fair world, but it doesn't lessen our guilt if they don't.

[H_T 3,043]

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

Kind of reminds me of the "Blind freddy" comment.

ie. "Obvious" > or = "Blind Freddy"

[Sir Why You Little 36,954]

Is there a difference between Tanking & blatant Tanking?

I say no. We either did it or did not. I have always been concerned at being fingered over 2008-09 but what i will not accept is the flimsy charges thrown at us. They are worth fighting against.

Carlton's Tank in 2007 was far more blatant, but the AFL are not prepared to smash them a 2nd time. It's that cynical.

[Mac7 309]

I'm not going to go in to the Merge issue because it's been done to death but suffice to say the club's directors though it was the only way to save the club which they believed was on the verge of extinction. That's not taking the easy way out it's commercial reality; at least they thought it was.

The reason we took on Joe Gutnick was because he promised to keep the club intact and not merge it, the $3m was the icing on the cake.

Can you give me some actual cases rather that rehashed rubbish, just one will do.

BTW there is still some doubt over the validity of the vote count and I was one who stood up and gave it to the current directors that night. There were many who were locked out.

I was with a group locked out and there were many more around us.

[Vipercrunch 2,820]

If as you say the board fixed the result to merge and not fight, isn't that an example of the club wanting to take the easy way out?

[The Reverend 1,736]

1. Each to their own, but given we undertook probably the most blatant and over the top "list management' in the games history in 2009 and then still only maganed to 'win" last place by a kick after the siren, I do not think we deserved the priority pick we received. IMO you can dance around with technicalities all you want, but it is no hollow charge.

2. IMO again here, but we did the wrong thing so we deserve to get punished. The back drop over precedence etc etc has and should mitigate the punishment but to continue to fight the likely outcome (we still await the officila verdict) is folly.

We are pretty much a joke witht the public, and the only way to gain respect is to start doing the right thing for a long period of time. Journalists will go us because we have made mistakes. Caro has gone at us hard in part because we are weak and we did something she finds particularly vile. Don't get me wrong, her methods and language in some cases has often made me angry, but there is no conspiracy. She is having a crack at a soft target for doing something she really doesn't like.

Heads down, work hard and let on and off field success do the talking.

Seems to me you are arguing that we should cop the punishment because we committed a crime that others have committed. I don't think we should be punished whilst others who were less blatant are excused. I get what you're saying but I disagree with you; that's all. I'm tired of us being the whipping boy of the AFL. It's time to fight this nonsense and at least ensure there is some integrity shown by those who run this competition. If we are punished, I want an admission from the AFL that they got the priority picks wrong and that it did encourage the practices we put in place and that they will be investigating every other club who gained pps during that time. Is that too much to ask? A little consistency and integrity....

[daisycutter 29,600]

Is there a difference between Tanking & blatant Tanking?

I say no. We either did it or did not. I have always been concerned at being fingered over 2008-09 but what i will not accept is the flimsy charges thrown at us. They are worth fighting against.

Carlton's Tank in 2007 was far more blatant, but the AFL are not prepared to smash them a 2nd time. It's that cynical.

of course there is a difference wyl, its the same difference as partially pregnant and pregnant

[Dee Fan 3,247]

If as you say the board fixed the result to merge and not fight, isn't that an example of the club wanting to take the easy way out?

I don't know why I even bothered to respond to you in the first place and that comment makes it a certainty that I won't do it again. You haven't got a clue.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Is there a difference between Tanking & blatant Tanking?

I say no. We either did it or did not. I have always been concerned at being fingered over 2008-09 but what i will not accept is the flimsy charges thrown at us. They are worth fighting against.

Carlton's Tank in 2007 was far more blatant, but the AFL are not prepared to smash them a 2nd time. It's that cynical.

Yes, Tanking is done by white collar types & Blatant Tanking is done the blue collar way.

which one is more apt?

silent & deceptive v honest open & proud.

[rpfc 28,247]

On Offsiders, CW again references 'the mountain' of evidence.

CC saying 'stay the course.'

Right now, we are being burnt by the negative interpretations of disgruntled former staff.

Excellent...

Here's hoping 'the movable feast' leaves Caro eating humble pie.

[Vipercrunch 2,820]

So how does "taking on Joe Gutnick" as you so nicely put it and rigging a vote in favour of a merger with Hawthorn as you so cleverly insinuate show us to be a club that does the hard yards and doesn't look for the easy option?

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

We did not "tank". Rather we simply list managed a very poor list. Secondly, we operated within a set of rules, the framework for which was designed by the AFL itself. Lastly, if we were so blatant, why did Demetriou spend so much time and effort publicly stating that no-one "tanked"?

The only evidence - so-called - that has been provided so far is at best hearsay, based on the rantings of Wilson, who bases her opinion pieces on information she claims to have derived from faceless and nameless people she speaks to from "within the Club".

People who wish to enter into conjecture about the facts are of course free to do so, but so far you rely simply on your own perceptions, not the facts.

[sue 9,096]

I concede that one journo (Weatley) says that only one other club (Carlton) was equally as blatant (but less incompetent). Are there any other examples?

I don't have any deep knowledge of what and how Carlton went about it, just the general perception from a majority of the media that we were more blatant.

The AFL probably should go after Calrton and others too in a fair world, but it doesn't lessen our guilt if they don't.

No it doesn't lessen our guilt. But why accept it and whatever we 'deserve' when it is patently discriminatory. To make the world fairer, it is necessary for those who have been treated badly to complain. Just sucking it up won't improve things, either for themselves or the world.

I wrote an analogy a while back about 2 cafe owners, one who covers the footpath with tables without council permission and is ignored by the authorities, and starts to take customers away from the other cafe. But when the owner of the other cafe does the same, perhaps being more blatant by advertising he was about to do it, he gets clobbered 4 years later for infringing the council rules. I asked readers, as the owner of the second cafe, how they would react. I haven't heard anyone say that as owner of the second cafe they'd be content with the result.

While it is true that some posters are hairy-chested about taking on the AFL regardless of any risks, there are also some who seem to take unjustified pride in being able to 'take their punishment like a man'.

[Vipercrunch 2,820]

We did not "tank". Rather we simply list managed a very poor list. Secondly, we operated within a set of rules, the framework for which was designed by the AFL itself. Lastly, if we were so blatant, why did Demetriou spend so much time and effort publicly stating that no-one "tanked"?

The only evidence - so-called - that has been provided so far is at best hearsay, based on the rantings of Wilson, who bases her opinion pieces on information she claims to have derived from faceless and nameless people she speaks to from "within the Club".

People who wish to enter into conjecture about the facts are of course free to do so, but so far you rely simply on your own perceptions, not the facts.

Welcome to page 117 of a forum discussing tanking. I assume given your wise words, this is your first contribution?

BTW, Vlad (and KB) were publicly ridiculed becuase of their absurd assertions that no-one tanked so hardly a sound arguement.

[Slartibartfast 17,150]

I've just listened to Caro and Waitley and it's quite different to the views I've read on here.

Everybody here is worried about the garnish but the real crux of the matter is not that we tanked which is widely accepted but

• firstly that the club allowed it to be openly discussed at the time meaning that many many people knew it was a club policy clearly articulated (generally accepted here)
• but coupled with this allowed the FD and administration to become so divided that the disaffected people who felt so mistreated by the divisions and power plays were prepared to talk extensively and were motivated by revenge against those still at the club.

It was a failure of management. If we'd managed the process OR managed the people we'd be home free. But we didn't do either.

That's the crux of it. I think the discussion on Offsiders was right on the money.

[rpfc 28,247]

Welcome to page 117 of a forum discussing tanking. I assume given your wise words, this is your first contribution?

BTW, Vlad (and KB) were publicly ridiculed becuase of their absurd assertions that no-one tanked so hardly a sound arguement.

The Bloated One sees tanking as players being told to lose. He has a narrow view of tanking - there is a great deal of merit in this view, especially from a legislation design and enforcement point of view.

Because whatever action YOU see as tanking, is not exclusively tanking without establishing motive.

That's what CW thinks she has (or Clothier has) - motive. Our lawyers don't think they do.

But 'we know what we did' so we will take our unprecendented penance and punishment and admit to our guilt because we are weak and we 'just want it to go away.'

Isn't this part of what encapsulates our 'victim mentality.'

Should we not fight?

[sue 9,096]

Welcome to page 117 of a forum discussing tanking. I assume given your wise words, this is your first contribution?

BTW, Vlad (and KB) were publicly ridiculed becuase of their absurd assertions that no-one tanked so hardly a sound arguement.

I think you miss the point of the reference to what Vlad said. It is not to say 'tanking' (as defined by some) did not take place.

[sue 9,096]

It was a failure of management. If we'd managed the process OR managed the people we'd be home free. But we didn't do either.

That's the crux of it. I think the discussion on Offsiders was right on the money.

Maybe, but we can still disagree about how the current club should react now. Hopefully we can discuss that more usefully when the AFL rather than CW announces a decision.

Edited February 18, 2013 by sue

[Vipercrunch 2,820]

No it doesn't lessen our guilt. But why accept it and whatever we 'deserve' when it is patently discriminatory. To make the world fairer, it is necessary for those who have been treated badly to complain. Just sucking it up won't improve things, either for themselves or the world.

I wrote an analogy a while back about 2 cafe owners, one who covers the footpath with tables without council permission and is ignored by the authorities, and starts to take customers away from the other cafe. But when the owner of the other cafe does the same, perhaps being more blatant by advertising he was about to do it, he gets clobbered 4 years later for infringing the council rules. I asked readers, as the owner of the second cafe, how they would react. I haven't heard anyone say that as owner of the second cafe they'd be content with the result.

While it is true that some posters are hairy-chested about taking on the AFL regardless of any risks, there are also some who seem to take unjustified pride in being able to 'take their punishment like a man'.

I would prefer us to take the punishment and get on with it becuase:-

1. I want to get on with it.

2. I think it is the best for the club. Winning a court case will not change the public perception that we tanked. Not in the slightest. We await the actual findings and verdicts, but the punsihment that is being suggested seems to be a highly negotiated and as close to a 'win-win' scenario as we might get. No ones career will be ended and the club won't be crippled at the draft or financially. Many will say the we got of lightly if it's the outcome (the media polls will be pretty one sided I think).

For it all to be over and for the club (not me as a individual) to be seen to 'take their punishment like a man' is the most positive outcome I can see from this. Far better than a fight to the bitter end as fas as i can see.

Public perception is our currency as fas as the the fight for sponsorships is concerned.

Edited February 18, 2013 by S_T

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

Welcome to page 117 of a forum discussing tanking. I assume given your wise words, this is your first contribution?

BTW, Vlad (and KB) were publicly ridiculed becuase of their absurd assertions that no-one tanked so hardly a sound arguement.

Yep, 117 pages, so I don't expect you top trawl through them to find the numerous posts on this topic that I have submitted.

So the CEO of the AFL, making such pronouncements is not a sound argument? The same CEO, which presides over the very same body, which, if it eventuates, will hand down the penalties to the MFC.

Go figure.

As for your reference to KB, I fail to see the relevance. Did I mention him in any of my posts?

Edited February 18, 2013 by iv'a worn smith

[rpfc 28,247]

I've just listened to Caro and Waitley and it's quite different to the views I've read on here.

Everybody here is worried about the garnish but the real crux of the matter is not that we tanked which is widely accepted but

• firstly that the club allowed it to be openly discussed at the time meaning that many many people knew it was a club policy clearly articulated (generally accepted here)
• but coupled with this allowed the FD and administration to become so divided that the disaffected people who felt so mistreated by the divisions and power plays were prepared to talk extensively and were motivated by revenge against those still at the club.

It was a failure of management. If we'd managed the process OR managed the people we'd be home free. But we didn't do either.

That's the crux of it. I think the discussion on Offsiders was right on the money.

I don't know what you are saying with your first point - we didn't immediately criticise McLean for accusing the club? Or reporters more generally? And that is proof of malfeasance? John Kerry was ruined in 2004 by lies told by terrible people, he didn't engage them, but that does not make the lies any more truthful. You are arguing bad PR, but that isn't punishable by $500k...

And the second point goes to credibility; disaffected former staff members are telling the truth and current staff members are 'towing the line?'

Apparently so, doesn't mean we should meet it with a white flag.

And we were home free - until McLean served it up and Anderson made a massive airswing. It was an investigation the AFL didn't want, and as we can see, is struggling to get out of.