"Tanking"

[Hannibal 5,814]

So now you're quoting Demetriou after spending a whole day telling us his word means nothing? Go figure!

His personal views won't determine whether Melbourne receives any sanction.

I appreciate that this is a little out of your depth.

[Hulett Packard III 166]

The views he expressed on what constitutes tanking weren't personal views. They were made in his capacity as chief executive of the AFL.

I'm staggered that this isn't obvious to you.

[Hannibal 5,814]

it will only go to the commission IF a decision is made to lay charges

and this is done by the afl executive (with or without Vlad's explicit involvement)

hard to believe the AFL executive would ignore things like vlads public statements or interpretation. mind you there are other charges than tanking

remember ben at this stage there are NO charges

Demetriou has already stated that he's not across all details of the matter, as he's keeping himself "at arm's length". Ergo, Demetriou won't be determining whether it goes to the Commission. And his personal comments and views won't be the determinant of whether charges are laid, although as a Commission member he'll have his say.

This has been the thrust of my premise, which others have tried to refute. At this point in time I see no reason to change my view. On the contrary my position seems to have been strengthened.

And yes, I know there have been no charges. That is patently obvious.

[Whispering_Jack 27,912]

His personal views won't determine whether Melbourne receives any sanction.

I appreciate that this is a little out of your depth.

Good grief!

There's not a hope in hell those views were "personal" views. He's the AFL CEO.

When he's introduced by reporters, on radio, TV or as a guest at a function, he's doing it in his official capacity. When he discusses matters in house with clubs he's not delivering personal messages.

[Hannibal 5,814]

The views he expressed on what constitutes tanking weren't personal views. They were made in his capacity as chief executive of the AFL.

I'm staggered that this isn't obvious to you.

The fact that you're "staggered" is of no surprise to me.

"When The Weekend Australian asked Demetriou whether the commission deserved an explanation, he said it did not and that, in fact, it should not be presumed that his fellow commissioners did not share his views on tanking."

By the above comment Demetriou is admitting that his views are in fact his views. The Commission MAY agree with his views, but they're merely his views. His views as CEO have no bearing on the AFL Commission.

The good news for you is that Robbie is cheering in the background. The bad news is that you're both struggling.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Good grief!

There's not a hope in hell those views were "personal" views. He's the AFL CEO.

When he's introduced by reporters, on radio, TV or as a guest at a function, he's doing it in his official capacity. When he discusses matters in house with clubs he's not delivering personal messages.

Good grief. I couldn't disagree more.

You are a lawyer aren't you ?

[Whispering_Jack 27,912]

Good grief. I couldn't disagree more.

You are a lawyer aren't you ?

What's that got to do with your failure to grasp the point about the pronouncements of the man responsible for the day to day running of a billion dollar operation?

I'll give you a second opinion from another lawyer:

When the CEO of a body indicates their interpretation of their own rule you can bet your house on it that they will be held to that on any prosecution of a breach of the rule.

[felixdacat 459]

Is it true that AD as the CEO will have a say in any discussion, but will not have a vote in any decision? I am sure I have read that somewhere. If it is then AD can only influence the outcome in terms of his only views on tanking and the benefits and risks of any decisions. The vote will still come down to the commissioners.

I remember seeing somewhere that the only Veto in play would be if 13 or 14 of the clubs decided they did not like the decision. If only we could wrangle a veto from 13 other clubs!

[Hannibal 5,814]

I accept that his views, which in my opinion are his personal views, reflect his position of CEO. But, he's even made it clear himself that his views, as CEO, may or may not be shared by the AFL Commission - on which he sits. In other words his views are not the sole determinant on whether Melbourne will face charges.

There's a reason he's put himself "at arm's length", and it's because he acknowledges that his own views may not be shared by the Commission. I agree that it's advantageous for him to hold the position he does, but too much is being made of his (personal) public stance.

If his views were so important we wouldn't be debating this matter 6 months on.

[rpfc 27,386]

I accept that his views, which in my opinion are his personal views, reflect his position of CEO. But, he's even made it clear himself that his views, as CEO, may or may not be shared by the AFL Commission - on which he sits. In other words his views are not the sole determinant on whether Melbourne will face charges.

There's a reason he's put himself "at arm's length", and it's because he acknowledges that his own views may not be shared by the Commission. I agree that it's advantageous for him to hold the position he does, but too much is being made of his (personal) public stance.

If his views were so important we wouldn't be debating this matter 6 months on.

If he was still in the country when McLean was on OTC - we wouldn't be debating this at all.

[Buffalo 203]

it will only go to the commission IF a decision is made to lay charges

and this is done by the afl executive (with or without Vlad's explicit involvement)

hard to believe the AFL executive would ignore things like vlads public statements or interpretation. mind you there are other charges than tanking

remember ben at this stage there are NO charges

But the other charges (draft tampering and disrepute) can only be laid if tanking is proved...

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

I accept that his views, which in my opinion are his personal views, reflect his position of CEO. But, he's even made it clear himself that his views, as CEO, may or may not be shared by the AFL Commission - on which he sits. In other words his views are not the sole determinant on whether Melbourne will face charges.

There's a reason he's put himself "at arm's length", and it's because he acknowledges that his own views may not be shared by the Commission. I agree that it's advantageous for him to hold the position he does, but too much is being made of his (personal) public stance.

If his views were so important we wouldn't be debating this matter 6 months on.

As far as the processes from here on are concerned, it's true that Demetriou will only be one voice on the Commission which, I'd agree, is necessarily where the decision to do anything is going to fall. That doesn't stop Demetriou, as CEO, providing a recommendation to the Commission when he forwards the Clothier report/MFC etc responses to the Commission. At that stage the 'arms length' shortens considerably and, whether he does or doesn't make any recommendations, one of the issues the Commission is going to have to take on board is the effect of Demetriou's pronouncements in the past.

So I doubt whether this is an either/or debate, it's much more both/and.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Demetriou is a very assertive character, so I tend to agree that he'll forcefully declare his position and one hopes his views hold considerable weight. In the end though it's out of his hands, imo.

I've doubted that we'll face charges during this entire process and haven't changed my mind. I suspect my comments haven't reflected that stance in some Melbourne supporters minds, but a quick search will reveal this to be the case. I simply don't agree with many of the interpretations put forward by aggrieved Melbourne supporters.

[rumpole 480]

I accept that his views, which in my opinion are his personal views, reflect his position of CEO. But, he's even made it clear himself that his views, as CEO, may or may not be shared by the AFL Commission - on which he sits. In other words his views are not the sole determinant on whether Melbourne will face charges.

There's a reason he's put himself "at arm's length", and it's because he acknowledges that his own views may not be shared by the Commission. I agree that it's advantageous for him to hold the position he does, but too much is being made of his (personal) public stance.

If his views were so important we wouldn't be debating this matter 6 months on.

We understand the point you're trying to make about who constitutes the body which will ultimately decide the AFL's position on whether to lay charges but WJ makes an entirely different point in connection to the rule against tanking.

That is, Melbourne's understanding of what was meritorious was based on advice given in and prior to 2009 by the AFL's CEO. Further, as Redleg pointed out, on any prosecution of a breach of the rule, the AFL would be held to accept that interpretation. One would expect the Commissioners to have legal advice to that effect and act accordingly on that advice and not on anyone's personal views as to what constitutes tanking.

[Hannibal 5,814]

That is, Melbourne's understanding of what was meritorious was based on advice given in and prior to 2009 by the AFL's CEO as to what constituted tanking.

Demetriou gave Melbourne "advice" on what constituted tanking prior to 2009 ? Interesting. If Melbourne's defence is Demetriou's public utterances on whether clubs tanked then we're in trouble. But I don't believe that's the case.

Btw, did this advice include trying to throw games in order to achieve a better draft pick ? Ultimately that's what will be ruled upon.

I'm glad that you now understand the point I'm "trying" to make.

[DemonWA 3,425]

This thread has turned into a carbon copy of the AFL investigation thread.

People bickering and nitpicking each others posts.

cant wait until the games start.....

[Whispering_Jack 27,912]

This thread has turned into a carbon copy of the AFL investigation thread.

People bickering and nitpicking each others posts.

cant wait until the games start.....

I don't think anybody's abusing anybody else.

On that basis, I reckon it's a healthy debate by the standards of the other thread. However, I do agree that this part of the discussion has gone on long enough and the two viewpoints have been well and truly canvassed and covered.

Let's move on to the next installment of whatever Pierik and Jay Clark have for us in tomorrow's "news".

[Redleg 37,470]

This thread has turned into a carbon copy of the AFL investigation thread.

People bickering and nitpicking each others posts.

cant wait until the games start.....

That is why I stopped posting on the other thread, this looks like the next one to avoid.

[dee-luded 2,958]

The CEO of the MFC was given private assurances by the head of the AFL during the latter part of 2009.

If you think that doesn't matter you are being disingenuous.

AD has the only view of tanking that is useful in terms of legislating against tanking. A narrow one that defines actions that can be tanking and tanking alone: players being told to lose.

The rest is unprovable short of documented evidence if intent.

And this is, if true, goes to my theory that Vlad was sent OS, & Gill thrust the chalice into AA's grasp & said you do it. it was a sour drop.

IMO the AFL commission wanted Vlad to end in nice style,,, & wanted AA & us, to wear the crapella.

But mostly for it to be cleaned up prior to Vlad handing over. ending any mud for the AFL & new AFL CEO.

[dee-luded 2,958]

The AFL will only act if there is a recommendation from the CEO to lay charges. If he does so, then Mike Fitzpatrick has a problem since he heads the commission and, to date, his former club Carlton which would, if it has reached that stage, also be open to a charge. Questions might be asked as to why he hasn't excused himself and why the Blues haven't been investigated. This scenario could lead to a situation where the AFL has a lame duck chairman and a lame duck CEO. Oh dear!

Good.

Bring it on...

[dee-luded 2,958]

I accept that his views, which in my opinion are his personal views, reflect his position of CEO. But, he's even made it clear himself that his views, as CEO, may or may not be shared by the AFL Commission - on which he sits. In other words his views are not the sole determinant on whether Melbourne will face charges.

There's a reason he's put himself "at arm's length", and it's because he acknowledges that his own views may not be shared by the Commission. I agree that it's advantageous for him to hold the position he does, but too much is being made of his (personal) public stance.

If his views were so important we wouldn't be debating this matter 6 months on.

do you think it possible that they (Commissioners & Vlad) did share the same view 2 or 3 years back on this subject, & for some reason may have changed their opinion on it since?

this would be a great way to rule society. the backroom boys help make the laws,,, but then change they're minds privately 5 years later, if it suits them, but then backdate they're change of mind.

[DirtyDees DDC 171]

are you suggesting the inquisition has changed 'tack', & is after the coaches now. Bailey & possibly Connolly?

As per AFL Regulation 19 (A5), tanking is defined as "a person, being a player, coach or assistant coach, must at all times perform on their merits and must not induce, or encourage, any player, coach or assistant coach not to perform on their merits in any match – or in relation to any aspect for the match, for any reason whatsoever".

http://www.avonadvocate.com.au/story/1224205/the-three-minutes-that-mattered/

I'm not sure if tanking is defined adequately by Regulation 19(A5).

Assume tanking is related to draft tampering, bringing the game into disrepute, and not coaching the game on its merits (the three alleged charges).

If Regulation 19(A5) can only apply to players, coaches and assistant coaches, and CS and CC are allegedly liable to possible charges of draft tampering and bringing the game into disrepute, then regulation 19(A5) cannot refer to these two charges. Is there some other regulation/s that covers draft tampering and bringing the game into disrepute?

Regulation 19(A5) does explain why only coach Bailey is allegedly looking at a third charge of not performing on his merits.

[dee-luded 2,958]

I'm not sure if tanking is defined adequately by Regulation 19(A5).

Assume tanking is related to draft tampering, bringing the game into disrepute, and not coaching the game on its merits (the three alleged charges).

If Regulation 19(A5) can only apply to players, coaches and assistant coaches, and CS and CC are allegedly liable to possible charges of draft tampering and bringing the game into disrepute, then regulation 19(A5) cannot refer to these two charges. Is there some other regulation/s that covers draft tampering and bringing the game into disrepute?

Regulation 19(A5) does explain why only coach Bailey is allegedly looking at a third charge of not performing on his merits.

I read that as just being coaches, regarding us,, so Bailey & Connolly would fit that bill, imo, & I'm not educated at all in law.

But i know what I think when it comes to fair play.

I like the game to be played Hard. on field.

Not in the courts... & not in the boardrooms of clubs, plying to whiteant other clubs.

[hoopla 418]

So Demetriou's off the cuff remarks on TV, or glib radio interviews when questioned about tanking in the AFL are now what constitutes the definition of "tanking" ?

And what legal interpretation are you referring to ?

No doubt a lawyer will be able to quote a case which challenges this - but surely if a CEO/ Commissioner makes the same statement several times AND acts accordingly , it is reasonable for a third party to assume that he is accurately representing the rules? We are not talking about a glib interview or two here - we are talking about considered statements consistent with full tolerance of the behaviours involved. If a third party cannot accept the CEO's interpretation of the rules, then who's interpretation can he accept? When seeking to interpret rules, the law places fundamental importance on the views of the "reasonable man"

there are allegedly 3 possible charges being considered d-l for allegedly the club and 3 individuals

* tanking

* draft tampering

* game disrepute

unfortunately there are no possible charges being considered for enticement/collaboration to break rules against the afl or dimwit

Having regard to established behaviours, the reasonable man would not conclude Melbourne's action clearly constituted illegal tanking or illegal draft tampering. If the game has been brought into disrepute through this - then it is the contrary and inconsistent behaviour of the AFL that has done it - not a few coaching moves in a close game between a couple of lowly teams sometime in 2009.

It would seem to me that the only charge that can "validly" be laid is the charge against Dean Bailey under Regulation 19 A5 - and Bailey is adamant that - as a matter of fact - he is innocent of that charge

The Age article this morning questioning the AFL's role in all this was welcome relief from the beat up it usually gives us. But in starkcontrast to the Wilson/Pierik Poison, it was buried deep behind the tennis coverage under a cartoon which suggested it wasn't a serious piece.

[robbiefrom13 877]

Middle of the night, ok? Round one is for us on Easter Sunday. So I idly asked myself if there was a useful analogy lying around here. If the tanking investigation is unfairly heading towards a crucifixion, can the biblical precedent shed any light on it?

McLean fits the role of the Judas - he put us in it. Demetriou is certainly playing the Pontius Pilate card - standing apart from it all, trying to look wise and pretending it's not his doing.

Who today will end up loathed and hated, if we try to parallel the biblical story? - not the investigators, whose role and mentality is pretty much like that of the Bible story's Roman soldiers. Judas and Pilate are obvious villains, but the synagogue power-brokers lurking in the shadows were the real instigators of the crucifixion in the Bible story. So, I ask myself, who's driving this attack on the MFC?

Mclean (like Judas) backed down when he saw what he'd done. Anderson gets the blame from some, but he left the building before it got anywhere near a crucifixion. Wilson has gone quiet. Carrying the thing forward has to be down to Pilate-like Demetriou, but in the Bible story Pilate isn't really the driver of the crucifixion: he just wanted to not get mired himself, and couldn't see any other way to placate the troublemaking Synagogue push.

Somewhere in the apparently evidence-free zone of the tanking inquiry, surely there has to be someone with unyielding agenda to get the MFC? Someone exerting pressure that won't go away and which ensures the momentum of the whole thing? Who? What is at the heart of their agenda? Jealousy in the Bible story, and surely that isn't it here.

Ok, it's the middle of the night and I've got nothing worthwhile to think about. How we long for the footy! May we too rise above the crap on Easter Sunday...