"Tanking"

[PJ_12345 1,098]

I've just watched AFL Outsiders - and seen Wilson's latest effort to retain her credibility ..... " I've always expected a negotiated settlement" Rubbish - how about "CC and probably CS will go"

But again - after throwing up in the air a penalty of $500k ( "possibly watered down") she made the extraordinary admission that she didn't know what the charges would be - "probably disrepute" !!! Hang on Caro , the charge comes first - then, if appropriate, the penalty. You don't decide on a penalty - and then look for a charge !!Would you accept a penalty when you don't even know what you are being charged with?

Where's the evidence that Melbourne brought the game into disrepute? It would take a court 5 minutes to throw out that charge ................ no costly legal battle in that!

Come on Caro - you're still missing the point!!. You really are such a stupid woman............

The issue with the courts are that they always are a gamble.

It depends on the judge. There are always those who might not bother overturning an appeal because they believe that these types of issues should stay out of the already clogged judicial system - and sporting appeals in courts do not have a good precedent.

Also the legal costs would still be extremely high, so high that from an oppotunity point of view - might be better to take the fine.

I've thought about this long and hard, and always been an advocate of going to court. But I have to admitt, with a confirmed no draft pick penalty, only DB and CC being charged, and with the club only recieving a fine (reportedly $500k) + the prospect it could all be over tomorrow instead of another 12 months in the future - I'm finding this an incredibly tempting offer.

Bash me all you want. There are pros and cons about both paths: but I'll support the MFC no matter what choice.

Edited February 18, 2013 by PJ_12345

[stuie 7,374]

I've just listened to Caro...

There's your problem right there...

[DemonOX 8,779]

The ox just said on sen that the reports of $500k fine + db and cc being suspended are on the money. He also thinks the Dees will fight the sanctions.

Thinks it should be handed down tomorrow.

Interesting.

[Spirit of the Demon 249]

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.

Failure of management is an internal matter and the fact that "it" was discussed (and why should it not be discussed) does not make it (whatever "it" is) club policy. Did "it" mean list management as defined by the AFL CEO who declared it to be legal?

I understood the divisions in the FD and administration that led to replacements and people being disaffected happened in 2011. Are you suggesting that the club should have retained incompetents on staff so they wouldn't talk?

Absurd.

[The Chazz 4,077]

The ox just said on sen that the reports of $500k fine + db and cc being suspended are on the money. He also thinks the Dees will fight the sanctions.

Thinks it should be handed down tomorrow.

Interesting.

Was he 98% sure?

[sue 9,096]

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 peception that we tanked. Not in the slightest. We await the actual findings and verdicts, but the one that is being suggested seems to be a fitting one. No ones career will be ended and the club won't be crippled at the draft or financially.

I assume the punishment you wish to take is that outlined by CW (though that seems to be subject to change).

I agree the public perception will be that we tanked regardless - it is also the public perception that Carlton et al tanked.

The question is how and how long it will stick in the public mind that we were somehow specially bad and how this might effect future sponsors. (I don't personally know how significant $500K is). I think the most significant thing is how the 'crime' is finally portrayed by the AFL and how it might affect sponsors. We await this. Then I'll form an amateur-legal personal opinion on whether we should take it further or just take it on the chin and get on with it. But not till then.

[Akum 2,660]

The ox just said on sen that the reports of $500k fine + db and cc being suspended are on the money. He also thinks the Dees will fight the sanctions.

Thinks it should be handed down tomorrow.

Interesting.

Apart from anything else, if this is true, it seems to suggest that there have been at least 2 leaks to the media before the relevant parties have been informed. What sort of process is this?

[DemonOX 8,779]

Was he 98% sure?

He didn't give a % billy2083.

[DemonOX 8,779]

What sort of process is this?

It's happy hour at the funny farm.

[Vipercrunch 2,820]

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?

KB and Vlad were the only people in football to deny that tanking occured. I inclueded KB becuase it was such a short list and becuase even KB, one of the most stubborn men to walk this earth changed his mind on this issue, leaving Vlad all on his own. Time will tell if Vlad maintains that tanking doesn't exist.

[Damo 3,340]

"No reason to get excited," the thief, he kindly spoke,
"There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke.
But you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate,
So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late."

All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too.
Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl,
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl.

[daisycutter 29,600]

The issue with the courts are that they always are a gamble.

It depends on the judge. There are always those who might not bother overturning an appeal because they believe that these types of issues should stay out of the already clogged judicial system - and sporting appeals in courts do not have a good precedent.

Also the legal costs would still be extremely high, so high that from an oppotunity point of view - might be better to take the fine.

I've thought about this long and hard, and always been an advocate of going to court. But I have to admitt, with a confirmed no draft pick penalty, only DB and CC being charged, and with the club only recieving a fine (reportedly $500k) + the prospect it could all be over tomorrow instead of another 12 months in the future - I'm finding this an incredibly tempting offer.

Bash me all you want. There are pros and cons about both paths: but I'll support the MFC no matter what choice.

i would only accept that IF the afl then agreed to start an investigation on 6 other clubs (at least) suspected of "tanking"

i would love then to watch the media "speculation"

[Macca 16,902]

This whole saga has dragged on far too long but we are finally started to see some semblance of balance in the media (possibly because they've realised that the club isn't going to suffer draconian like penalties). And the court of public opinion is switching somewhat as well. The AFL have no doubt come to the realisation that this is far too complex for a black and white decision.

Finally, the big picture is being seen. So it may not be a such a wise thing for this to end too quickly. We need to see this thing through to it's fairest possible conclusion. We've come this far and we've seen the worst of it come our way (we think) so we should hold out for as long as we can. I suspect that it's our club that is dragging this thing out now. The AFL would have gone 'Whack' by now if they could have.

Those calling for expediency have got a point but we don't want to go 'too early' just because we want it over with. I've felt for the most part that we'd have a 'no case to answer for' verdict and we should maintain that edict. Of course, if an 'agreed settlement' absolves us of any sort of serious penalties then we may be best suited to get out now. A half million dollar fine and suspensions of Connolly and Bailey should not be agreed to.

Ray Finkelstein helped write the AFL rules back in the 90's. If ever you were going to trust anyone, it's him. I don't think it will end up in court. The AFL will probably have to water things down to our liking. The main problem for the AFL (all along) has been the 'vagueness' of the possible indiscretions.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Macca

[The Chazz 4,077]

Bailey's suspension is the interesting one for me, and I am looking forward to hearing what it actually is that he was suspended for. I personally thought he'd escape any sacntion, due to the fact that it's bloody near impossible to prove. But, that could be just it, it's not 100% impossible, and as it looks like he is being charged with "something", makes me wonder what some of those words throughout those 800-odd pages actually say. My immediate thoughts are for Bailey to challenge his charge, but could only support that if the evidence is as flimsy as some believe it is (which for the umpteenth time, none of us know what the evidence is).

I've said all along that CC would be done for bringing the game in to disrepute, so I'm far from surprised that it looks like he's copped a bullet, it's probably a less severe outcome for him than I expected.

The charges that we are slapped with to create the $500k fine will also be interesting. If it's becuase we couldn't keep CC's mouth shut, then I think it's over the top.

Perfect outcome for me would've been CC outed for 12 months, MFC fined $300k.

[GM11 776]

Why advocate accepting mooted penalties when there are no specifics on what the charges are.

What is the club charged with to earn a half-million dollar fine?

What is CC charged with?

What is DB charged with?

Does anyone really know?

Strange process when the penalties are accepted before the charges are known.

[The Reverend 1,736]

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.

And according to this thinking we might as well change our name to the Melbourne [censored]. Public perception is that we are insignificant. I don't see how furthering this perception by bending over for the AFL will help gain sponsorship.

[Sir Why You Little 36,954]

Why advocate accepting mooted penalties when there are no specifics on what the charges are.

What is the club charged with to earn a half-million dollar fine?

What is CC charged with?

What is DB charged with?

Does anyone really know?

Strange process when the penalties are accepted before the charges are known.

spot on.

Keep fighting MFC this is a kangaroo court to save face for the AFL so far.

Look after ourselves first.

[The Chazz 4,077]

Why advocate accepting mooted penalties when there are no specifics on what the charges are.

What is the club charged with to earn a half-million dollar fine?

What is CC charged with?

What is DB charged with?

Does anyone really know?

Strange process when the penalties are accepted before the charges are known.

The only one I reckon you could put your house on is the CC charge of bringing the game in to disrepute, for comments, regardless of their intention, about ensuring we lose required games, and threatening employees with their employment should this not happen.

Should he be punished for making a "joke" about tanking/losing games/etc? Sounds harsh, but the AFL need to get something out of this investigation, and from all reports, it's about the only piece of evidence that seems consistent, and has people/witnesses willing to put hand on heart in a court of law and tell it how it is.

I know I will cop the "it was only a joke" crap, but how about those posters have a realistic look at it and board this reality bus that seems to be the favoured mode of transport around here.

[mjt 640]

Bailey's suspension is the interesting one for me, and I am looking forward to hearing what it actually is that he was suspended for. I personally thought he'd escape any sacntion, due to the fact that it's bloody near impossible to prove. But, that could be just it, it's not 100% impossible, and as it looks like he is being charged with "something", makes me wonder what some of those words throughout those 800-odd pages actually say. My immediate thoughts are for Bailey to challenge his charge, but could only support that if the evidence is as flimsy as some believe it is (which for the umpteenth time, none of us know what the evidence is).

I've said all along that CC would be done for bringing the game in to disrepute, so I'm far from surprised that it looks like he's copped a bullet, it's probably a less severe outcome for him than I expected.

The charges that we are slapped with to create the $500k fine will also be interesting. If it's becuase we couldn't keep CC's mouth shut, then I think it's over the top.

Perfect outcome for me would've been CC outed for 12 months, MFC fined $300k.

If CC was getting outed for 12months, you would like to think that MFC would be trying to negotiate a fine that would be the same as CC wage over the next 12mnths, that would be the smart thing to do.

[H_T 3,043]

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.

What I take from that iview clip of the Offsiders about the investigation as well as the garnish that was used to answer some questions earlier, is that Caro and "Whateley" helped shed some light on:

• The fine could now be watered down from $500K and the sanctions for Bailey (or suspension for Bailey) could be watered down further.
• The more information that is coming to light indicates to me that Fifty-5's stab at possible penalties earlier in this thread is more likely to be very close to the mark. (but I'll say $250K Fifty-5 ).
• That those ~4 people (Caro refers to several) motivated by revenge by mistreatement against those still at the club, could well come to light.

My question is, why did these people get so motivated and use their power by talking more extensively more than 3 years after 2009? Because they lost their jobs after changes in 2011?

Because they saw an opportune time after the combination of further poor form and the passing of Jim Stynes (not to mention Brock's words that was the catalyst for the investigation)?

I don't know, but I'd sure like some light shed on some answers.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

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 see those as the crux at all.

I think that Melbourne did want the priority pick, and whilst some moves looked a little dodgey I cannot prove the motivation behind them was to deliberately lose.

The issue for me is that whilst we may suspect Melbourne "tanked", I don't want to see the club punished without concrete evidence against it.

None of us have seen the report and maybe there is damning evidence that proves it, but from what has supposedly been "leaked" to the media, the case doesn't look strong at all.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

KB and Vlad were the only people in football to deny that tanking occured. I inclueded KB becuase it was such a short list and becuase even KB, one of the most stubborn men to walk this earth changed his mind on this issue, leaving Vlad all on his own. Time will tell if Vlad maintains that tanking doesn't exist.

I am sorry S_T but you are sadly misguided. You cannot accept any punishment or sanction, if it has no legal basis in the first place. As the old adage goes and to paraphrase, bad things happen, when good men do nothing. This is not some foolish altruism, it is simply what is right.

As I said, Vlad presides over the AFL, the very body that has the power to impose any possible sanctions. You might want to consider the precepts which have stood the test of time, being the principle of natural justice and precedent.

Of course, if you believe you have a greater grasp of legal principle than other learned jurists, feel free to impart your wisdom.

[Whispering_Jack 29,753]

"No reason to get excited," the thief, he kindly spoke,

"There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke.

But you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate,

So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late."

All along the watchtower, princes kept the view

While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too.

Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl,

Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl.

I knew I'd heard those words before -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4AuxJH2Mj30

What do think they mean?

EDIT: Please ignore the ads inserted by google. They're as offensive and outrageous to me on this clip as is Caroline Wilson. I've emailed google telling them so too!

Edited February 18, 2013 by Whispering_Jack

[McQueen 17,864]

Don has stated that the integrity of the MFC will be defended in the strongest possible fashion. Does this clearly indicate we will not accept any charge whatsoever??

I would have thought that if we take any deal at all, then there is an admission of guilt.

[Sir Why You Little 36,954]

Don has stated that the integrity of the MFC will be defended in the strongest possible fashion. Does this clearly indicate we will not accept any charge whatsoever??

I would have thought that if we take any deal at all, then there is an admission of guilt.

that's my reading of the whole saga.

A guilty verdict of any sort that is related to Match Fixing will put a knife through this club. How bad the wound is still to be decided.

But it was this board who made decisions back in 2007-9 that have got us to this point. So i expect the same board to fight like hell to sort it ALL out, even if it takes a year or 2.

Short term pain for a club now in its 155th year.