Even if there are some willing to make statements to that effect, it is still not proof it happened the way they say it did.

Don't underestimate the lengths some will go to in the name of revenge, especially if they got their fingers burnt.

No, it's not a defence and never has been. But it's a pretty persuasive reason for extending investigations. Given the way things are going, with the drugs issue and now Brisbane, the only people who are going to need a defence soon are the AFL and showing some competence with how they go about things might actually strike them as a good idea.

I happen to believe that in a "grey area" you can only define a crime by reference to established practice. Even if you are not prepared to accept that - you must agree that it is a compelling defence against "bringing the game into disrepute".

What have we been charged with?

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

Not right - the football world and most Melbourne supporters expected us to get that priority pick. In fact a lot of people thought that we were amateurish in losing the Kruezer Cup.

Under the standards of the AFL in 2009 we did nothing wrong. We are being judged by the AFL in 2013 when "integrity" is the flavour of the month. I think you'd find that Connolly's strategy in 2012-3 would have been based more on injuries at training than on playing people in unfamiliar positions. The whole beat-up has been unjust. full stop.

We do have an official definition of tanking. The AFL CEO was explicit in his definition and left no room for confusion. Until it is codified his definition stands as the official AFL definition of tanking.

I don't understand all the semantic posturing over this issue. We have a definition. Perhaps if people want to have a semantics or ethics discussion they could open a thread called 'Lets have fun and define tanking'.

The only question that for me is worth debating and or discussing in this thread (which is - or was - about the outcomes of the AFL investigation and possible sanctions) is did we tank according to the official definition? The answer is no. The investigation appears to have found absolutely no evidence we did. Nothing, nada, zip. McClardy made that clear in his intelligent and to the point response to CW's silliness.

We did not tank.

You seem to have changed sides.

I happen to believe that in a "grey area" you can only define a crime by reference to established practice. Even if you are not prepared to accept that - you must agree that it is a compelling defence against "bringing the game into disrepute".

What have we been charged with?

I'd love to know. All we keep getting is "it is believed that" and "reports say" so for the time being I'm assuming nothing. As to the defence issue, perhaps I was a bit too cryptic, but a lot of discussion has gone down this path already about the "they did it too" issue. There's not much of a case in that. Where there is a case is, as you say, in accepted practice and if that is established it's a different matter because it relies on what has been condoned rather than what has been done ... hence my focus on the AFL rather than us or other teams.

Even if there are some willing to make statements to that effect, it is still not proof it happened the way they say it did.

Don't underestimate the lengths some will go to in the name of revenge, especially if they got their fingers burnt.

Good third post

Disgruntled former employees - starting with McLean who should be sanctioned for an outburst he couldn't sustain - drove this. I like the way some people say this is because our HR practices were unprofessional. What do you say to a big head like McLean who couldn't accept that he was too slow to win a place in our first choice midfield?

Its been intimated that the powers within the club arent particularly interested in copping any rubbish from the League. If and when Vlad and mates ever get around to contacting the club regarding proposed sanctions etc I suppose then we should get a real idea of the stance of the club.

No backward steps please.

I'd love to know. All we keep getting is "it is believed that" and "reports say" so for the time being I'm assuming nothing. As to the defence issue, perhaps I was a bit too cryptic, but a lot of discussion has gone down this path already about the "they did it too" issue. There's not much of a case in that. Where there is a case is, as you say, in accepted practice and if that is established it's a different matter because it relies on what has been condoned rather than what has been done ... hence my focus on the AFL rather than us or other teams.

Fair enough Doc................ looks like we might be on the same page after all !

Gerard Whateley is right - let's have a hearing before the Commission and get the evidence out there. Hear the case, hear the defence.

If we accept this deal then I think it is because the evidence was more substantial than what we have seen in the papers.

However, considering the vehemence that Wilson has displayed toward our guilt I don't think she would have held anything back or her 'leakers' not revealed the 'worst.'

Hear the case, hear the defence.

However when poster boy Hird is suggested may be sacked so many media types are jumping to his defence, raising all sorts of reasons why he should stay, including lets wait for the findings.

But you're on record as saying that you too agree that he shouldn't be sacked, so it stands to reason that you'd agree with those very defences. Yet you mock them.

You more than most should realise that the circumstances differ therefore views will too.

Gerard Whateley is right - let's have a hearing before the Commission and get the evidence out there. Hear the case, hear the defence.

If we accept this deal then I think it is because the evidence was more substantial than what we have seen in the papers.

However, considering the vehemence that Wilson has displayed toward our guilt I don't think she would have held anything back or her 'leakers' not revealed the 'worst.'

Hear the case, hear the defence.

Agree. Let's hear everything. Let's hear the responses from those interviewed.

Is it true what was mentioned in one article (Ralph?) about burden of proof?

That for the AFL Commission, we effectively have to prove we didn't do anything wrong, while for the court, the AFL have to prove that we did?

If it is true, wouldn't that be a key factor in how we respond?

And for those who believe we should accept a $500,000 fine and suspensions to CC & DB - do you still believe this if we would have to agree to charges of match-fixing or draft-tampering in order to do so?

So has a press conference been called yet? Usually they happen by either mid-morning or early afternoon, and if we haven't heard of one yet then again it might not happen today.

It all depends on what the charges to me. I will wait & wait & wait until something concrete finally comes out from the AFL and the club.

You seem to have changed sides.

Why so?

Announcement coming up guys, within the hour I'm told.

Announcement coming up guys, within the hour I'm told.

Thanks HG.

Morning all

I asked over at Demonology, but nobody answered.

Could somebody explain to me how this 'equalization' thing works? If we cop a half a mill fine, will we really get it back through some 'equalization' fund?

My god it sucks that one of the poorest teams in the League is apparently going to be slammed for doing something that half a dozen other teams have done.

Cheers

The AFL gives us money.

So if they take it away, they will just give it back, at least in part.

Not that simple, but for the sake of this argument, it explains it enough.

Where do we sign up to donate our hard earned to the legal bills?!

Fingers Crossed HG...

If what the media is saying is correct the AFL is about to deliver a massive vote of no confidence in Demetriou.

We need to see the charges and the details of the negotiated settlement (if and when it comes) but it would appear that Vlad's credibility is going to be undermined at the very time when he needs it the most in order to deal with the drug issues the code is facing.

Instead, he's going to have to consider tendering his resignation.

Ha, the commission set the whole tone & let it be known through its elected front man, & they get off Scott free (sorry, fitzpatrick free)...

I don't want Vlads resignation, I want the Commission Chairmans resignation, & the rest can step down for an Election.

Its time all clubs were represented on the commission equally, & it became more transparent.

Is it true what was mentioned in one article (Ralph?) about burden of proof?

That for the AFL Commission, we effectively have to prove we didn't do anything wrong, while for the court, the AFL have to prove that we did?

If it is true, wouldn't that be a key factor in how we respond?

And for those who believe we should accept a $500,000 fine and suspensions to CC & DB - do you still believe this if we would have to agree to charges of match-fixing or draft-tampering in order to do so?

The offer which the media is speculating is a $500k fine but the club wouldnt be charged, they are saying just DB and CC. So having CC being charged for (what I guess) bringing the game into disrepute, and DB (what I guess) charged for not coaching upon his merits is a BIG DIFFERERNCE to having the club charged with match-fixing, draft-tampering or tanking.

In court it would be a civil case, therefore would rest on the balance of probabilities, unlike criminal which is beyond reasonable doubt.

Sporting appeals do not have a good history in the Supreme Court, partly because judges can turn around throw it out of court because they dont like it when these type of cases clog up the judicial system.

At the end of the day you can either take the negotiated offer where:

- We can keep our draft picks

- Fined $500k

- DB recieves a suspended sentance which would not affect his current employment or role

- CC recieves a long holiday

- Club not charged

OR go to court:

- Legal fees costing more than the fine

- Another 12 months

- Possible better or worse outcome

For me the biggest thing is that the club isnt charged and we keep our draft picks... take the deal

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.

We're keepin' the powder dry...

we haven't even started to get angry Yet.

Wait til they throw the book at us... firstly court action,

then marches on the Fed square over the shambles the commission has made of our game.

All supporters will be up in arms over the coverups the AFL presided over which has caused this quagmire.

AFL Commission, its time for you all to step down.

Announcement coming up guys, within the hour I'm told.

Jon Ralph just tweeted Dees Media Mgr rushes from training - to prepare for tanking finding??

yep agree, take the deal