On 05/02/2013 at 22:20, nutbean said:

I believe in Santa too !

Funny that NB so do my kids!

  On 06/02/2013 at 00:26, Ben-Hur said:

Because it's easy. I'm actually not a detailed reader of 'Land, so it's quick to pop in for 5 minutes every few hours and have a quick skim. I haven't even opened the Essendon thread and I see it already has over 300 posts.

Posters have said that Carlton tanked worse than us, but when asked to demonstrate how they were WORSE they're light on for detail. We all know they tanked, we know Trapper had a day out and they mucked around with Fevola, but no-one has tanked as blatantly as we did in the Richmond game. It was hysterical stuff.

potato potarto, tomato tomarto - if detailed retrospective investigation is being done on our club and if the prime reason is because of the game vs Richmond then it is remiss of the AFL not to widen the investigation and look at Carlton as well. If the AFL want to label us a tankers due to that match, they should not be letting Carlton off the hook because they "tanked a little bit less". If it so obvious what we did on that fateful day vs the tigers then what Carlton did was also obvious.Both or none - ( its like comparing Son of Sam and Charles Manson and debating who was the biggest mass murderer).

(but you are right..we were more blatant. The only worse piece of tanking according to the rules (IMO) is the Wallace confession re Cotchin - that is an admitted confession to not coaching to the maximum due to the conflict over draft picks.)

  On 06/02/2013 at 00:26, Ben-Hur said:

We all know they tanked, we know Trapper had a day out and they mucked around with Fevola, but no-one has tanked as blatantly as we did in the Richmond game. It was hysterical stuff.

Remarkable then that we got beaten with a kick after the siren (after kicking 2 goals in time on in the last quarter). Who did it worse - what is worse? Blah blah blah.

  On 06/02/2013 at 00:37, nutbean said:

potato potarto, tomato tomarto - if detailed retrospective investigation is being done on our club and if the prime reason is because of the game vs Richmond then it is remiss of the AFL not to widen the investigation and look at Carlton as well. If the AFL want to label us a tankers due to that match, they should not be letting Carlton off the hook because they "tanked a little bit less". If it so obvious what we did on that fateful day vs the tigers then what Carlton did was also obvious.Both or none - ( its like comparing Son of Sam and Charles Manson and debating who was the biggest mass murderer).

(but you are right..we were more blatant. The only worse piece of tanking according to the rules (IMO) is the Wallace confession re Cotchin - that is an admitted confession to not coaching to the maximum due to the conflict over draft picks.)

You're waffling.

  On 05/02/2013 at 10:52, Baghdad Bob said:

Who's the judge (and jury)?

My question as well and it would have to be a body that can administer the rules of Natural Justice, so may be some form of tribunal that the AFL has already or can constitute to hear the matter.

  On 06/02/2013 at 01:29, Redleg said:

My question as well and it would have to be a body that can administer the rules of Natural Justice, so may be some form of tribunal that the AFL has already or can constitute to hear the matter.

I reckon I want it to be the AFL themselves as that will allow them the outcome that is best for all. FM I'm sick of this!

  On 05/02/2013 at 21:37, DirtyDees DDC said:

I read that the decision whether to lay charges rests with Gil Mcloughlin and Brett Clothier, and that Demetriou has stood aside from this decision as he is also a commission member (to avoid a conflict of interest). There was also a news report yesterday that McLoughlin is currently acting CEO.

There appears to be another conflict of interest here. Clothier was also the investigating officer, and now he will decide if charges are to be laid. Clothier spent 5 months putting this report together. It would be in his best interests to see some results from those 5 months, at least to justify his role as investigations officer. He's also playing the role of sherriff and judge in this matter.

My gut feeling is that charges will be laid and the matter referred to the Commission, where Melbourne will vigorously defend the charges. I have no inside knowledge, but i suspect the main evidence will be statements made to the investigators by certain individuals who had key MFC roles in 2009 and are no longer connected with the club. I feel these statements will carry far more weight than a dodgy frame-by-frame analysis of the last 3 minutes of one match in 2009.

The statements might not be worth a pinch of sh-t if received in an illegal manner. I would have thought evidence would be led in front of the tribunal and submissions made and then a decision given which could then be appealed to a Court by either side if unhappy. Witnesses might say statements were obtained by threats and intimidation for example or might say that the person recording them did so incorrectly or left parts out.

I would think a Tribunal would act on evidence on oath or affirmation given before it and tested, rather than statements that may be completely wrong. .

  On 06/02/2013 at 01:32, Baghdad Bob said:

I reckon I want it to be the AFL themselves as that will allow them the outcome that is best for all. FM I'm sick of this!

You are not Robinson Crusoe, I am just as sick of it. Can't we talk about drugs for a change?

The Tanking Investigation pales in comparison to what is happening to Essendon and around 30+ players and, by extension, the league.

They should end this pointlessness now and focus on how to save Essendon.

You will never convince me anything was ever as more obvious than Carltons Kruezer cup game.

Nothing !!!

  On 06/02/2013 at 02:00, belzebub59 said:

You will never convince me anything was ever as more obvious than Carltons Kruezer cup game.

Nothing !!!

agreed. Will take that to the grave.

Riley was working for Carlton within weeks.

  On 06/02/2013 at 02:00, belzebub59 said:

You will never convince me anything was ever as more obvious than Carltons Kruezer cup game.

Nothing !!!

I don't need to. You and most others on here aren't capable of managing your own bias.

  On 06/02/2013 at 02:07, Ben-Hur said:

I don't need to. You and most others on here aren't capable of managing your own bias.

youre waxing between learned and comical.

Hope the stand up goes well for you as your objectivity seems waning.

I got done for tanking about 40 yrs ago, & yes i received my cumupperance. I'd been considering a course of action for some time. Everywhere I went I had the opportunity to implement my scheme. It wasn't hard to implement, just a matter of left & right thumbs engaging unaware target & lol top down.

  On 06/02/2013 at 02:10, pikeout said:

I got done for tanking about 40 yrs ago, & yes i received my cumupperance. I'd been considering a course of action for some time. Everywhere I went I had the opportunity to implement my scheme. It wasn't hard to implement, just a matter of left & right thumbs engaging unaware target & lol top down.

Thanks for sharing that piece of history pikeout.

  On 06/02/2013 at 00:26, Ben-Hur said:

Because it's easy. I'm actually not a detailed reader of 'Land, so it's quick to pop in for 5 minutes every few hours and have a quick skim. I haven't even opened the Essendon thread and I see it already has over 300 posts.

Posters have said that Carlton tanked worse than us, but when asked to demonstrate how they were WORSE they're light on for detail. We all know they tanked, we know Trapper had a day out and they mucked around with Fevola, but no-one has tanked as blatantly as we did in the Richmond game. It was hysterical stuff.

I actually thought Carlton getting 3 number 1 picks in a row was hysterical stuff, FMD Carlton invented tanking and you know it, they lost 11 games in arow to get Kruezer and Judd, we lost a game by a kick after the siren, there tanking was a lot more obvious than ours.

  On 06/02/2013 at 02:07, Ben-Hur said:

I don't need to. You and most others on here aren't capable of managing your own bias.

Bias towards what?

I am still waiting for solid evidence. So far after 7 months it is still not present.

  On 06/02/2013 at 01:19, Ben-Hur said:

You're waffling.

Absolutely, but I am not in an exclusive club.

(the membership committee advises that you have met all the necessary entry requirements and wishes you welcome)

  On 06/02/2013 at 01:19, Ben-Hur said:

You're waffling.

This thread is 36-odd pages of waffling. I don't know why I keep coming back here...

Footy Classified is on at 9:30 tomorrow. Wonder if they'll touch this or just stick to the bombers

BH - profile pic changed....

Interesting sideline for those complaining about CS meddling in footy matters. In todays press on the Bombers, the media and the AFL, have stated that the CEO should have intimate knowledge of the whole footy area of the club and know pretty much exactly what is going on. Seems maybe CS was only trying to do his job. I note we knocked back "the Pharmacist" for a job last year after he left the Bombers. Seems our admin got that right too.

C'mon CS haters, you too Caro, lets bash CS again.

  On 06/02/2013 at 03:22, Redleg said:

Interesting sideline for those complaining about CS meddling in footy matters. In todays press on the Bombers, the media and the AFL, have stated that the CEO should have intimate knowledge of the whole footy area of the club and know pretty much exactly what is going on. Seems maybe CS was only trying to do his job. I note we knocked back "the Pharmacist" for a job last year after he left the Bombers. Seems our admin got that right too.

C'mon CS haters, you too Caro, lets bash CS again.

Meddling and doing your job would not be the same would they or is it just semantics?

The CEO should know what's going on at his club but not be micro managing.

It would be hard to believe the Schultz defence that Robson, Hird, Thompson and Corcoran knew nothing. As for the player managers????? great bunch of scavengers they are.

I would think as I've said elsewhere that it would have been Craig or Misson that turned him down and for good reason.

  On 06/02/2013 at 03:33, rjay said:

Meddling and doing your job would not be the same would they or is it just semantics?

The CEO should know what's going on at his club but not be micro managing.

It would be hard to believe the Schultz defence that Robson, Hird, Thompson and Corcoran knew nothing. As for the player managers????? great bunch of scavengers they are.

I would think as I've said elsewhere that it would have been Craig or Misson that turned him down and for good reason.

What some might see as meddling others would call doing their job.

If Craig and Misson turned him down, they would be acting well and would seem as far as that issue goes and judged solely on that, good appointments.

  On 06/02/2013 at 03:22, Redleg said:

Interesting sideline for those complaining about CS meddling in footy matters. In todays press on the Bombers, the media and the AFL, have stated that the CEO should have intimate knowledge of the whole footy area of the club and know pretty much exactly what is going on. Seems maybe CS was only trying to do his job. I note we knocked back "the Pharmacist" for a job last year after he left the Bombers. Seems our admin got that right too.

C'mon CS haters, you too Caro, lets bash CS again.

The Board seemed to have some issues in 2011 about that. And Jimmy seemed to express a qualified assessment of Schwab.

  On 06/02/2013 at 03:41, Redleg said:

What some might see as meddling others would call doing their job.

If Craig and Misson turned him down, they would be acting well and would seem as far as that issue goes and judged solely on that, good appointments.

Was Dank actually applying for an open position at the time? Or just testing the waters if anything was around?