It's clear that as a club we didn't tank (successfully) PRIOR to Bailey, and that's not under investigation, so I'm unsure why you're so incredulous.

And the AFL never said that coaches should attempt to lose, which is what is under investigation.

Actually it can be argued we did 'tank' successfully...back in 2003. The last game of the season against the Swans - they were 6th on the ladder, and we were on 4 wins. Staying on 4 wins would give us two draft picks in the top 5, but we would lose our priority pick if we ended with 5 victories.

So at half time we were leading!! Not the desired result. Fortunately the swans took over in the 3rd, and we were able to lose the match and pick up Brock McLean as our priority pick. (There was no tanking investigation at the time..maybe the AFL thought we has suffered enough punishment in picking McLean).

Channel 7 News reported that the Coaches Association has had secret talks with the AFL in respect to Bailey. Also suggested that Connolly will face allegations that he told MFC staff to tank or be sacked. Not sure if this refers to the " Vault Statement" that Bailey was quoted as saying he thought was clearly a joke and which he never acted upon.

Bailey of course has been reported as denying that he or the team ever tanked and this has been supported of course by his Solicitor.

If the Coach didn't tank, I fail to see how any charges can then flow.

Secret?

At the risk of derailing the thread somewhat, I thought Daniher did a brilliant job to get us two top 5 picks in 2003. Pity it was the worst AFL Draft in history.

I generally agree with BH's take on it. Did the MFC tank? Yes. Have others done it before? Yes. Did we botch it just about every way? Yes. Is that why we stand alone in facing potential charges? Undoubtedly. Is it fair? Probably not. Is it a conspiracy against the MFC? No. Is it the AFL trying to protect their image? Undoubtedly.

The statement in bold is often claimed but I haven't seen much evidence that supports this view. What is it based on? And in what way did the botching lead to us alone being investigated?

The sacking of Bailey? Even if it could have been handled more personally after 186, I expect most coaches, no matter how smoothly they were sacked, would have said the same sort of comment given the AFL's/AD's public position on 'experimenting'.

What else did we botch (more than other 'tanking' clubs) and in what way did it lead to us alone being investigated?

While there may be no anti-MFC/individuals conspiracy and doubtless the AFL is only concerned with its image, the process has, as you say, been unfair. That doesn't do much for the AFL's image in the eyes of Demons supporters. We must make sure our friends and acquaintances see that too.

Should find out today surely.

I don't think we see anything very differently, but, again, definition of tanking is important (I reckon we will be discussing this after the 'announcement') and I don't see how we 'botched' it up.

I guess the proof of that will come with the, well, proof that the investigators have but we didn't bring this on ourselves. An unfortunate series of events kicked this investigation off. We list managed and experimented almost expertly.

I disagree that we list managed & experimented "expertly" - this is where we completely botched it IMO.

The Richmond game sticks out like a sore thumb with the dodgy positional moves en masse. With the media hounds sniffing a tanking story, perhaps the MC could've been a little more subtle than playing Frawley & Warnock as KPF's etc. Although it did take a kick after the siren for us to "win" - so perhaps extreme measures were warranted.

I'm not saying what we did was any worse than what others have done but it was almost certainly dumber from a managing outside & inside perceptions point of view.

It's also clear the MFC have/had people management issues, Bailey & McLean speaking out of school as well as a host of whisperers in the dark. How many people of credibilty spoke out about Carlton doing it? How many were whiteanting them three years later?

I don't like this inquiry, I hope we have no case to answer & if we do I hope we fight it like hell. I don't blame the MFC for tanking but I do blame them for mismanaging it enough to get to this point.

The AFL would've never investigated if there weren't people at the coal face during 2009 coming out & making these allegations.

-6 (phase II)

Again, what seems to be forgotten in all of this is that in 2009, we were - plain and simple - a bloody awful footy side. At that time, it was a case of drastic measures, for drastic times.

In 1948, Jack Mueller played just 2 home and away games and was coaching the 2nds, when he was recalled to the 1st's for the final series. He kicked 8 in the prelim final and 6 each in the grand final and subsequent replay. Smithy obviously wasn't "foxing" then, he must have been "tanking" for most of the 1948 season.

Then there was Big Bob Johnson, who, although ostensibly a ruckman, formed a partnership with then full forward, Athol Webb, to be the "decoy". How would Wilson view such "decoys" at the Melbourne Football Club in the modern era? I guess, the difference being, back then we were winning flags.

Still, the principle does not alter.

I disagree that we list managed & experimented "expertly" - this is where we completely botched it IMO.

The Richmond game sticks out like a sore thumb with the dodgy positional moves en masse. With the media hounds sniffing a tanking story, perhaps the MC could've been a little more subtle than playing Frawley & Warnock as KPF's etc. Although it did take a kick after the siren for us to "win" - so perhaps extreme measures were warranted.

Your last sentence sums up what's wrong with the argument. Despite all these outrageous positional moves we were winning. Deliberately done to lose, or inspirational ideas for a crap team to try? No one can really tell but Bailey.

Now if Bailey sent out a runner to tell a player to run over the mark after the siren to ensure a 50m penalty and a goal to Richmond, then you'd have a watertight case. But that didn't happen.

Your last sentence sums up what's wrong with the argument. Despite all these outrageous positional moves we were winning. Deliberately done to lose, or inspirational ideas for a crap team to try? No one can really tell but Bailey.

Now if Bailey sent out a runner to tell a player to run over the mark after the siren to ensure a 50m penalty and a goal to Richmond, then you'd have a watertight case. But that didn't happen.

It appears to me that you, like many others in this thread are confusing what really happened with our defence against possible charges. As B-H has pointed out a number of times - we tanked but proving it is a different matter. Jimmi's argument is sound to me - to some significant extent we brought the focus on ourselves by our actions.

I disagree that we list managed & experimented "expertly" - this is where we completely botched it IMO.

The Richmond game sticks out like a sore thumb with the dodgy positional moves en masse. With the media hounds sniffing a tanking story, perhaps the MC could've been a little more subtle than playing Frawley & Warnock as KPF's etc. Although it did take a kick after the siren for us to "win" - so perhaps extreme measures were warranted.

I'm not saying what we did was any worse than what others have done but it was almost certainly dumber from a managing outside & inside perceptions point of view.

It's also clear the MFC have/had people management issues, Bailey & McLean speaking out of school as well as a host of whisperers in the dark. How many people of credibilty spoke out about Carlton doing it? How many were whiteanting them three years later?

I don't like this inquiry, I hope we have no case to answer & if we do I hope we fight it like hell. I don't blame the MFC for tanking but I do blame them for mismanaging it enough to get to this point.

The AFL would've never investigated if there weren't people at the coal face during 2009 coming out & making these allegations.

I don't think either club turned up that day and wanted their team to win. If Richmond had lost they would have had an extra pick in the teens. They had come off a stirring win against a finals aspirant in the Bombers after drawing against NM and then they throw up the sh!te they did against us in that fateful game.

It wasn't easy to lose against that team and make it look like we wanted to win.

And if the best people can come up with is Warnock playing forward then I think we experimented well enough...

I am certain the AFL will rule that experimentation is legal, and that CC's remarks were glib, unfortunate, but harmless and unpunishable and that we will be absolved.

And that is the full measure of whether we handled this well enough.

Carlton had an Assistant Coach and Full Forward admit they tanked. How subtle is that? They should be the yard stick on how a club should not manage 'extensive experimentation' and yet the MFC is to blame for this investigation because Warnock played forward, and Johnson played back?

(This is not a 'woe is us, what about them?' argument - I don't care for that argument really. It is an argument against how we managed our 'excessive experimentation' as compared to others and the different results - the MFC has a disgruntled ex-player NOT admit we were tanking but say we were not taking winning as a highest priority VS the CFC having a disgruntled former assistant coach explicitly say they were tanking and have a former FF admit to being taken off to avoid winning games)

Other factors than our own 'subtlety' led to this 2 years after-the-fact investigation kicking off.

at this point in time i think writing long winded posts about why we will or wont be found guilty is a waste of cyber space. We've covered it all already. I just wish the AFL would make a decision, so we can move on regardless of which way it goes.

It appears to me that you, like many others in this thread are confusing what really happened with our defence against possible charges. As B-H has pointed out a number of times - we tanked but proving it is a different matter. Jimmi's argument is sound to me - to some significant extent we brought the focus on ourselves by our actions.

Always been my take.

1/ there is a fuzzy rule in place with no clear actions defined as to what constitutes tanking

2/ there has been clear actions in the past by AFL teams ( including ourselves) which would fall under a broad definition of "tanking" however in the absense of a clear definition and with past actions tacitly approved by the AFL, this further muddies the water.

It has never been an issue of whether in a broad sense, we tanked or not. It is proving tanking against the absense of a definition ( with demonstrable actions) and in light of accepted precedents. In the absense of clarity of the definition it is a matter of what can proven definitive vs subjective.

Out of curiosity, if and i believe when we are found to have no case to answer for what result would you deem acceptable? In terms of other teams being investigated, AFL possible compensating, wilson getting what she deserves?

Out of curiosity, if and i believe when we are found to have no case to answer for what result would you deem acceptable? In terms of other teams being investigated, AFL possible compensating, wilson getting what she deserves?

Nothing. Grateful we got away with it. Hopeful the AFL don't hate us so much they punish is in indirect ways like fixturing and equalisation dividends. Talkback and letters to The Age is about as far as pointing out that Wilson got it wrong goes.

Yeah we've been punished by the investigation and negative press, but if we escape without direct penalty then I'll be rapt!

Out of curiosity, if and i believe when we are found to have no case to answer for what result would you deem acceptable? In terms of other teams being investigated, AFL possible compensating, wilson getting what she deserves?

I would deem acceptable that the quicker and quieter that this book is closed and forgotten the better.

( it wont stop me, however, sending a "suffer in ya jocks" email to Caro)

Out of curiosity, if and i believe when we are found to have no case to answer for what result would you deem acceptable? In terms of other teams being investigated, AFL possible compensating, wilson getting what she deserves?

I see the AFL making a statement that clears us and acknowledges the grey area that had been exploited by other clubs previously.

Secret?

As opposed to standard nationally-televised talks, of course.

I see the AFL making a statement that clears us and acknowledges the grey area that had been exploited by other clubs previously.

A grey area created by the AFL ?

"The MFC are cleared of any and all wrongdoings in a situation that was created by us and other clubs exploited" said the AFL never.

A grey area created by the AFL ?

"The MFC are cleared of any and all wrongdoings in a situation that was created by us and other clubs exploited" said the AFL never.

touche

I see the AFL making a statement that clears us and acknowledges the grey area that had been exploited by other clubs previously.

I dont.

They will surely not skewer themselves and the "integrity" of the six month plus long investigation in the process.

Whether true or not, its fanciful to think that a media sensitive organisation like the AFL would freely admit they had been asleep at the wheel for a prolonged period of time knowingly allowing team to undertake actions that at worst could be termed cheating.

Given past comments about Vlad and surely their reluctance to undertake investigations against other clubs based on even less evidence than whats available in the MFC case, I cant see them making any statement of that sort whatsoever.

Can't find any mention of a specific date for the next AFL Commission meeting. Some references to "February" is the best I can find.

As opposed to standard nationally-televised talks, of course.

Ah...that kind of secret.

I wonder if AD caught any Badminton while he was over there....

http://espn.go.com/olympics/summer/2012/badminton/story/_/id/8221408/2012-london-olympics-eight-badminton-players-disqualified-trying-lose-matches

I am incredulous that you don't understand what I said. I said we did exactly what several other clubs did and yet we are the only one being investigated. Bailey did nothing different to the Coaches of Hawthorn, Freo, Carlton, Collingwood, StKilda, Richmond etc.

Also I am mystified as to what you mean by we didn't tank successfully prior to Bailey, just because we won one extra game. I thought tanking was if you threw a single game.Are you saying tanking only occurs if you get a priority pick as a result of throwing games? Does that mean you believe a team can throw several games but if it wins 5 it is not tanking?

BTW Bailey has apparently told the AFL investigators that he never tanked or threw games. His Solicitor has confirmed that. If he in fact said that, why is this farce going on, unless there is absolute proof he did?

You and others are deluded on this issue.

I don't care that others did it, I'll leave the "list management" defence for our lawyers. We're the ones being investigated, not Carlton, or anyone else. I agree that it's difficult to prove, I've said that all along. We're not being picked on. Once it became a media storm it was always going to be looked at again. Other clubs avoided media storms - the Carlton one was over before it started once Libba retracted his comments the nest day.

And yes, we were hopeless in our orchestration of deliberately trying to fix match outcomes. Rather than constantly laying the blame with the critics, or the investigators, why don't you consider the amateur hour fashion in which we conducted ourselves ?

Please explain??