If this is the official result and it is not a negotiated one, then we weren't given a hearing under the rules of Natural Justice. That would take a Court less than a day to throw out. Is this the plan? Charge us and let a Court decide.

Also as I posted previously have the Commission members even read the report?

Still a thousand more questions than answers Redleg

+21 (phase II)

The media have announced a verdict in a frenzy f blood lust

Will the AFL announce a verdict today?

Will the mfc accept it or goto court?

Will the AFL investigate other clubs?

Does the AFL leak like a sieve?

These and more questions may/may not be answered today

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

Let me answer the question. Were the players told to lose.

No.

IF DB is sanctioned, he only has himself to blame. His presser on dismissal was one big grenade.

IF DB is sanctioned, he only has himself to blame. His presser on dismissal was one big grenade.

It was and that's why he deserves what he gets.

IF the reports on penalties are true (forget about the charges, they are irrelevant apparently) surely Bailey will go to court. In which case it could rebound on us. We may have no choice but to join him in going to court.

If we lose those pokie machines the clubs finished.

Mitchell (MFC supporter) on 3aw this morning says penalties on mfc are not tough enough

A "supporter" we don't need or a "supporter" in name only?

Waiting to hear Mike Sheahan's (another MFC supporter) opinion

Keep your powder dry people, and wait for the official response.

It wouldn't be the first time in this saga that the media have pre-empted an outcome that didn't eventuate.

Edited February 18, 201312 yr by Jens Lehmann

Mitchell (MFC supporter) on 3aw this morning says penalties on mfc are not tough enough

A "supporter" we don't need or a "supporter" in name only?

Waiting to hear Mike Sheahan's (another MFC supporter) opinion

We'll soon know the views of every man and his dog, but what about the one who started it all, Blind Freddy? Do we know what he thinks yet?

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.

It's not about the consistency of your views. It's about your attitude to others who question anything you have to say.

But were they trying to lose?

Yes we were - that's the whole point.

It's not about the consistency of your views. It's about your attitude to others who question anything you have to say.

It might be coincidence but it's a good thing I'm seeing an opthalmologist tomorrow. I've put the termagant's posts on block, but I keep seeing his nonsense popping up anyway in the midst of what others have to say. Hopefully new glasses might fix that.

Yes we were - that's the whole point.

Going in circles, but can it be proven?

EDIT: This has always been the crux of the issue, it's one thing for us to think it, but if it can't be proven no one should be charged.

Edited February 18, 201312 yr by Clint Bizkit

Roses are red

Apples are fruity

Watch your lasagne

It might be black beauty

Anyone for lasagne? Yay or neigh?

No, it's not a defence and never has been. But it's a pretty persuasive reason for extending investigations.

Sure, but a) it doesn't change anything about what WE have to now address and B) I just don't know that the other clubs have enough people with axes to grind. For example, who at GWS is going to say "we were instructed to try and lose against GC"? Junior Mac? Mark Williams?

And even if another club or three cops a $500K fine, suspensions etc. etc. ... how is that going to help us?

Edited February 18, 201312 yr by bing181

And even if another club or three cops a $500K fine, suspensions etc. etc. ... how is that going to help us?

By giving us some faith that there is some justice in the world. I'm cynical enough already thank you.

(Not to mention, we wouldn't be solely labelled tankers for the next x years with possible sponsorship ramifications.)

By giving us some faith that there is some justice in the world. I'm cynical enough already thank you.

(Not to mention, we wouldn't be solely labelled tankers for the next x years with possible sponsorship ramifications.)

If were going to be labelled tankers for the next few years dont blame the AFL, blame the people running the club.

Sure, but a) it doesn't change anything about what WE have to now address and B) I just don't know that the other clubs have enough people with axes to grind. For example, who at GWS is going to say "we were instructed to try and lose against GC"? Junior Mac? Mark Williams?

And even if another club or three cops a $500K fine, suspensions etc. etc. ... how is that going to help us?

Didn't say it did. Didn't say it would. My point was about the competence of the AFL. Addressing that might help everyone in the long term.

If were going to be labelled tankers for the next few years dont blame the AFL, blame the people running the club.

While one may be able make an argument to blame the people running the club, if you think they are solely to blame for this you really are into self-flagellation. Clearly the AFL are to blame to some extent at least. In my own view, very much so.

While one may be able make an argument to blame the people running the club, if you think they are solely to blame for this you really are into self-flagellation. Clearly the AFL are to blame to some extent at least. In my own view, very much so.

If the AFL were to blame for some extent we wouldnt be about to cop sanctions, to all those die hards who have been fist thumping the table for 7 months saying were innocent, well todays the day we find out, i just pray it doesnt cost us our Gaming venues, surely they would be trying to figure a way around that, i cannot see the AFL wanting us to lose those 2 venues.

If these sanctions are correct I would be disappointed if we didn't go to court.

We need to fight this and not negotiate an outcome as that indicates we are guilty which is not acceptable.

Like always we will have to wait and see what he correct finding is from the AFL before deciding our next move.

Edited February 18, 201312 yr by DemonOX

If the AFL were to blame for some extent we wouldnt be about to cop sanctions, to all those die hards who have been fist thumping the table for 7 months saying were innocent, well todays the day we find out, i just pray it doesnt cost us our Gaming venues, surely they would be trying to figure a way around that, i cannot see the AFL wanting us to lose those 2 venues.

I can't believe you meant to write something as naive as that highlighted above.

So DM saying tanking didn't exist did not influence us in our behaviour? The AFL's neglect of earlier cases didn't either?

Whilst it will seem to some a terribly over simplified take on it all I cant fathom for a moment how any one can be found guilty of accepting something by invitation..

They , the AFL created an environment and opportunities ( for all and sundry to participate in ) . They REWARDED those who didnt win. it was blatant on their part and how dare they or anyone afterwards get up on some high horse and suggest that the cake wasnt really there.

Vlad and co horts pimped the comp ( and still do ) and then want to play coppers too.

If sense doesnt rise to the surface then I am 100% for the club to take its grievance to court.

The money is somewhat second to this...its that WE will be the only ones supposedly guilty of somethig that doesnt even exist ffs!!

Bugger that

IF true that we have a case to answer it can only be that we had a meeting where it was actively discussed and enough people in the report have verified that. That would have been the likely info CW took to the AFL and said "what are you going to do about this?"

I hope the names of those squealers are in the report and the club is aware of who they are. I'd like the club to name names before we move fwd from this.