On 18/02/2013 at 10:11, Ben-Hur said:

Not only were they wanting to lose they were doing everything possible to lose.

I'm astonished you need to even ask the question.

As was discussed when this all first started, from an evidence and therefore charging (fines and suspensions) point of view it needs to be proven that the motivation for moves were to deliberately lose, not just winning not being a top priority (Scott Watters NAB Cup). Maybe that evidence is in the 800-1000 page report, but that's the sticking point of this whole debate.

I do think Melbourne wanted the Priority Pick, but I don't want to see the club punished for it if there isn't concrete evidence to prove this was the case.

That poor dead horse, how much longer must it be beaten ??

  On 18/02/2013 at 04:58, Baghdad Bob said:

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.

While the club probably didn't handle some dismissals very well in the transition from the Bailey era to that of Neeld, we really need to know who it was that lagged on us before apportioning blame on the club.

I've heard that at least one of those mentioned in despatches as a witness hostile to the club not only had an axe to grind but wasn't particularly popular and was described by another staff member as a "real p***k". You can draw your own inferences.

  On 18/02/2013 at 11:17, GrandOld said:

That poor dead horse, how much longer must it be beaten

So flogged that Tesco rejected it for its lasagne.

  On 18/02/2013 at 11:22, Whispering_Jack said:

While the club probably didn't handle some dismissals very well in the transition from the Bailey era to that of Neeld, we really need to know who it was that lagged on us before apportioning blame on the club.

I've heard that at least one of those mentioned in despatches as a witness hostile to the club not only had an axe to grind but wasn't particularly popular and was described by another staff member as a "real p***k". You can draw your own inferences.

I'm sure Fanbob knows who he/they is/are.

well the club will know robbie

and eventually it will come out

  On 18/02/2013 at 10:49, Alf Stewart said:

I have put him on ignore but is there a way that I can ignore replies to him rom others. I find Ben Hur to be a tool of the highest order. By me saying this it is probably feeding the troll anyway.

My apologies. I promise not to do it again.

  On 18/02/2013 at 11:30, daisycutter said:

well the club will know robbie

and eventually it will come out

Then they sleep with the fishes.

  On 18/02/2013 at 08:35, Ben-Hur said:

So the club was trying to win every game in 2009 in your opinion ?

Just saying everyone and their dog know bugger all.....Just because it is a popular opinon does not make it the right opinon......

  On 18/02/2013 at 11:28, RobbieF said:

I'm sure Fanbob knows who he/they is/are.

I do.

Sky News sports program is saying that "the tanking saga will come to a head tomorrow"

  On 18/02/2013 at 11:22, Whispering_Jack said:

While the club probably didn't handle some dismissals very well in the transition from the Bailey era to that of Neeld, we really need to know who it was that lagged on us before apportioning blame on the club.

I've heard that at least one of those mentioned in despatches as a witness hostile to the club not only had an axe to grind but wasn't particularly popular and was described by another staff member as a "real p***k". You can draw your own inferences.

You could blame the club, or on disloyalty and ill will of the individuals involved.

These things are rarely black and white though and both have culpability...along with the AFL's own rules and the tacit approval they have given the practice by failing to act in the past etc.

  On 18/02/2013 at 11:40, Baghdad Bob said:

I do.

They still mates Bobster or have you disowned them?

Let me guess, they're still mates.

Hope you haven't got any fleas; well maybe not.

The only negotiated agreement from this would be both parties to walk away with no further action, the commission or the AFL should not be able to come up with a whole new charge as you can only be guilty of the breaching the rules laid out in their constitution. Making up a new charge will see them (the AFL) without a leg to stand on because MFC could have them over a barrel. i.e due process and natural justice

The media will jump and down and say that the AFL should have done more i.e loss of draft picks or fines. But the AFL ,with all their investigation, can not and will not be able to prove that Melbourne tanked or that they brought the game into disrepute.

It is said on here by some that everyone believes that we Tanked, we have got commentators all saying it was obvious we Tanked and therefore we should be punished. I would ask those people if it was so obvious that we tanked then how come after a 7 month investigation and an 800 page report we have not been charged with some form of tanking as per the AFL rules.

If it was so blatant and inept form of tanking then obviously the smart ar$es that say this can prove unequivocally that it occurred. If so why don't they let the AFL in on the the secrets so they can charge us.

On the offsiders both CW & GW both say that we tanked but provide no evidence other then "it is known" what are we Dothrakian. Journalist used to base their articles on facts (and verifiable fact at that) but now they have these opinions columns where they voice their opinion and people treat them as fact. It really give me the sh!ts because there is a really great saying that goes Opinions are like a$$holes every one has them,and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks. SO what's the point? Is the opinion of a journalist any more wiser than say a Taxi driver or some quiz champion down the pub. I reckon they would be on par.

  On 18/02/2013 at 10:10, cowboy_from_hell said:

If a sticking point is the wording of the charges laid against us what can the AFL do? I would imagine we are hell bent on not having the charges of match fixing laid against us. They can't name it tanking or trying to get draft picks. You can't fine us and suspend people under the charge of being naughty. The AFL may be holding this up because they are clueless to the wording of the charges.

Surely the charges are everything .Its not just wording - it's actually defining our" crime" - from which the penalty should follow.

If they can't decide on a charge - then the question of a penalty should not arise. We should be holding out accordingly. Simple.

So it's first the penalty, then the question of guilt is determined and somewhere down the track, we'll decide what to charge you with. Justice AFL style.

  On 18/02/2013 at 12:03, Deeman said:

So it's first the penalty, then the question of guilt is determined and somewhere down the track, we'll decide what to charge you with. Justice AFL style.

AFL: "Waddaya reckon about a half a mill fine and suspend Cuddles for a bit."

Dees " Nah, reckon we'll give her a run at court."

AFL: "Geez, rigthto, leave it with us.."

  On 18/02/2013 at 11:37, Bossdog said:

Just saying everyone and their dog know bugger all.....Just because it is a popular opinon does not make it the right opinon......

Are you avoiding the question ? What is your opinion ? Did we try and lose matches in 2009 ? Come on. You can do it.

  On 18/02/2013 at 11:25, DeeMfc said:

So flogged that Tesco rejected it for its lasagne.

Roses are red

Apples are fruity

Watch your lasagne

It might be black beauty

Once the season was shot, I think we went into games with priorities other than the result. Preparing young players for the future, experimenting with positions - all of the things teams have done when confronted with that situation since time immemorial.

Let's face it, we were rubbish in 2009 and Bailey did what the boss said teams in that situation could do. If it were otherwise, the AFL wouldn't be struggling with the charges.

  On 18/02/2013 at 11:40, Baghdad Bob said:

I do.

Please pass my thoughts on to them Bob.

The damage they have done to the club is a disgrace. I want a club my grandkids can follow I want them to wear my Dees jumper when I am long gone, your friends or whatever they are to you tried to jeopardise that and for doing so I can never forgive them.

Furthermore tell them not to hide behind any excuse of others bringing this upon the club. It was done and dusted and we were moving on before those with agendas raised it again.

If they had the courage of their convictions and were so aghast at what allegedly occured they should have called upon any moral fibre within them to make a stand at the time.

If anything we have strengthened our resolve and an us against them mentality out of all of this.

As always Go Dees

  On 18/02/2013 at 10:41, Crawf52 said:

And your evidence is? You are an arrogant little man aren't you. I'm astonished I'm wasting my time respondi..... ah bugger it!

There isn't any credible evidence, which has been MY point here and elsewhere all the way along. But it doesn't mean I don't think we tanked.

You talk of "arrogance".

In 2009 I said that we must not win more than 4.5 games.

In 2009 I said we must manipulate results so that we gain an EXTRA 10 year player that would run around the 'G.

In 2009 I said that we'd be a laughing stock if we won one extra futile game. There was no point. We NEEDED the help that the PP gave.

In 2009 I argued that other clubs had done it and we'd be foolish not to. As a flag was all I wanted.

In 2009 I argued on here that we DID in fact tank, I was over the moon how things had been negotiated and importantly I met little opposition from fellow supporters on here.

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

In 2012 I get pilloried by some for saying that we did tank, which is what I advocated for in 2009, and yet I'm the "arrogant" one for holding the SAME position I did over 3 years ago.

I find many of you gutless, disingenuous, or just plain stupid. I'm at ease that I'm completely consistent with my views from then until now. I believed that It was the right thing to do and we did it.

I won't disown my previous and current views. I'm not so shallow.

  On 18/02/2013 at 12:32, Ben-Hur said:

There isn't any credible evidence, which has been MY point here and elsewhere all the way along. But it doesn't mean I don't think we tanked.

You talk of "arrogance".

In 2009 I said that we must not win more than 4.5 games.

In 2009 I said we must manipulate results so that we gain an EXTRA 10 year player that would run around the 'G.

In 2009 I said that we'd be a laughing stock if we won one extra futile game. There was no point. We NEEDED the help that the PP gave.

In 2009 I argued that other clubs had done it and we'd be foolish not to. As a flag was all I wanted.

In 2009 I argued on here that we DID in fact tank, I was over the moon how things had been negotiated and importantly I met little opposition from fellow supporters on here.

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

In 2012 I get pilloried by some for saying that we did tank, which is what I advocated for in 2009, and yet I'm the "arrogant" one for holding the SAME position I did over 3 years ago.

I find many of you gutless, disingenuous, or just plain stupid. I'm at ease that I'm completely consistent with my views from then until now. I believed that It was the right thing to do and we did it.

I won't disown my previous and current views. I'm not so shallow.

poster internet an just are you, 2009 in 'wrote' you what cares who = delusions of self importance. (you can say some things standing on your head and still people won't listen. )

  On 18/02/2013 at 12:32, Ben-Hur said:

There isn't any credible evidence, which has been MY point here and elsewhere all the way along. But it doesn't mean I don't think we tanked.

You talk of "arrogance".

In 2009 I said that we must not win more than 4.5 games.

In 2009 I said we must manipulate results so that we gain an EXTRA 10 year player that would run around the 'G.

In 2009 I said that we'd be a laughing stock if we won one extra futile game. There was no point. We NEEDED the help that the PP gave.

In 2009 I argued that other clubs had done it and we'd be foolish not to. As a flag was all I wanted.

In 2009 I argued on here that we DID in fact tank, I was over the moon how things had been negotiated and importantly I met little opposition from fellow supporters on here.

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

In 2012 I get pilloried by some for saying that we did tank, which is what I advocated for in 2009, and yet I'm the "arrogant" one for holding the SAME position I did over 3 years ago.

I find many of you gutless, disingenuous, or just plain stupid. I'm at ease that I'm completely consistent with my views from then until now. I believed that It was the right thing to do and we did it.

I won't disown my previous and current views. I'm not so shallow.

I hope you don't see me as gutless, disingenuous, or just plain stupid. I actually agree with your post.

Given that we both agree that there is no credible evidence that we tanked, are you as angry and bewildered as me that we face sanctions?

In somewhere between 40% and 70% of games of Australian Rules Footy, from my son's under 10s to AFL Grand Final's there comes a point where it is obvious who is going to win. Many times the team that is clearly going to lose drops their intensity, and then often so does the team that is going to win. Sometimes this is with 2 minutes to go. Sometimes with a quarter to go. Sometimes it is before the game.

Does that mean the inevitable losers are trying to lose? NO. It just means that sometimes there are other ways of getting something out of the game.

All those saying we tanked - well really you have no idea unless you were a coach or a player.

All those saying we didn't tank - same applies.

Biggest issue is tanking is not defined in AFL rules, and so this is truly a Breaker Morant moment for the game and for the AFL.

Note - I use the Breaker Morant example as a historic presendent and not in any way to suggest that AFL players should be compared to the sacrifice made by those who have fought for our country.