"Tanking"

[Redleg 40,926]

Little article in the Sun on us this morning about the tanking investigation. We will very soon know the outcome of the AFL's view on the report.

With the Essendon and drugs dramas holding centre stage and with inquiries taking off everywhere, about the Bombers and drugs, the Bombers and their handling of players, the Cats ( at a time when they won 2 flags), the Lions etc and new procedures being investigated and adopted, it is interesting that the latest articles keep mentioning how we will fight this to the death.

It just makes you wonder if the AFL see our issue as a distraction to more pressing issues. That may or may not help us I don't know, but I just can't see the AFL wanting to open up a whole new front to deal with, if we go to Court and then involve other clubs. It would just be a nightmare for the AFL and a terrific strain on their resources.

If CC was truly at AFL house all day, one day this week, that may lead to a deal, ending the saga, without a finding of cheating.

Then again the AFL may throw the book at us and say damn the consequences, though personally I can't see that happening.

I spoke to a senior footy journo yesterday and he said that he had absolutely no idea what would happen or how the latest dramas would affect us. He was familiar with the views expressed on Demonland and personally expressed sympathy for our position.He asked my opinion, if I thought we would go all the way if corruption was found against us by the AFL and I told him that if we wanted to continue as a proud club, that was the only choice and given the effect on our income streams and our standing in the community and our history, we would be forced to defend ourselves to our last dollar.

[mjt 640]

To me Baghdad Bob epitomises an attitude that has been the core of our clubs demise. A soft underbelly and an unwillingness to fight when the going get tough. I have watched from the outer for more years than I'd like remember as a succession of Boards and administrators rolled over when required and adopted a survivalist attitude. Sorry Bob I don't want to survive for the sake of surviving. More than ever I want to fight.

Once again, if the club fought when it counted on the field this crap wouldnt be happening, no use blaming Bob.

[Redleg 40,926]

Once again, if the club fought when it counted on the field this crap wouldnt be happening, no use blaming Bob.

There we go again on the accepted AFL definition of tanking, the players doing their best "on the field". Despite 186 and other poor performances "on the field" over many years, we are not being investigated for that but rather performance "off the field", which the AFL has said is not tanking.

Yes, I know what you were getting at, but again it is the basis of wrongdoing being established/proved, that is at the heart of this whole sorry saga.

[sue 9,107]

Once again, if the club fought when it counted on the field this crap wouldnt be happening, no use blaming Bob.

He wasn't blaming Bob personally - unless Bob runs the whole club. Just said that that sort of attitude was a problem.

[Pates 9,660]

With the whole drugs issue I think the AFL has a massive opportunity to make this go away. If they announce next week that there are no charges (or something to that effect) then there'll be outrage for a couple of days but the fact of the matter is there are bigger fish to fry in sports journalism at the moment.

[Slartibartfast 17,296]

There we go again on the accepted AFL definition of tanking, the players doing their best "on the field". Despite 186 and other poor performances "on the field" over many years, we are not being investigated for that but rather performance "off the field", which the AFL has said is not tanking.

Yes, I know what you were getting at, but again it is the basis of wrongdoing being established/proved, that is at the heart of this whole sorry saga.

Do you think it's against any rules for administrators or/and coaches to make decisions which don't give you the best chance of winning with the intention of gaining the best draft picks? (Bailey's comment)

Do you think we are guilty of that?

Were you of the opinion around the time of 2007 and 2008 that Carlton had broken rules and should have been punished given their behaviour in the latter part of the 2007 season?

[daisycutter 29,616]

YYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWNNNNN

[Whispering_Jack 30,169]

There we go again on the accepted AFL definition of tanking, the players doing their best "on the field". Despite 186 and other poor performances "on the field" over many years, we are not being investigated for that but rather performance "off the field", which the AFL has said is not tanking.

Yes, I know what you were getting at, but again it is the basis of wrongdoing being established/proved, that is at the heart of this whole sorry saga.

Redleg, the wheels on the bus continue to go round and around without stop. You won't convince those who simply don't want to understand.

[MadAsHell 4,212]

I can see the announcement coming on Thursday with a finding of they are satisfied with our response and there's nothing further to answer.

That way it's only in the papers for the following day before the first NAB cup matches start and the press go back to covering the footy and the drug issue.

[binman 42,975]

Do you think it's against any rules for administrators or/and coaches to make decisions which don't give you the best chance of winning with the intention of gaining the best draft picks? (Bailey's comment)

Do you think we are guilty of that?

Were you of the opinion around the time of 2007 and 2008 that Carlton had broken rules and should have been punished given their behaviour in the latter part of the 2007 season?

Bob, I'm really confused by your stance on this, particularly your emphasis on whether we broke rules or not. The answer to your question above is, of course it isn't against the 'rules' for administrators or/and coaches to make decisions which don't give you the best chance of winning with the intention of gaining the best draft picks? We can't break a rule that doesn't exist.

As Eddie said maximising draft position was and is standard business practice. Is it against the spirit of the rules or comp? Maybe. Is it, in the end a strategy that is worth the downside (eg not having a winning culture)? Probably not. But either way minimising the chances of winning by say resting players (such as GWS did just last year) for whatever purpose (draft position, chances of winning a final the next week etc) is not against the AFL rules as they stand now (which by the way i expect that they will be changed to make this clearer).

You can see this can't you or are you being disingenuous?

The whole point and problem for the AFL is there no specific rule that relates to this. The best that they have is the encouraging coaches, players etc not to play to their utmost, which is what i think they will try to pin on CC (and is perhaps the only charge they have a hope in hell of making stick).

As i have posted before there is an official definition of tanking. The AFL's CEO gave it and made it explicit and until they clearly articulate another in their policies and procedures it has to be the one that every one goes by (including a court). By his definition we have not tanked.

End of story.

[daisycutter 29,616]

.....

You can see this can't you or are you being disingenuous?

.....

Bob being disingenuous? Geez that's a bit rough binman

[Redleg 40,926]

Do you think it's against any rules for administrators or/and coaches to make decisions which don't give you the best chance of winning with the intention of gaining the best draft picks? (Bailey's comment)

Do you think we are guilty of that?

Were you of the opinion around the time of 2007 and 2008 that Carlton had broken rules and should have been punished given their behaviour in the latter part of the 2007 season?

Why do you need to add the words " with the intention of gaining the best draft picks"? There is no offence of in the AFL rules that I know of in not performing to get high draft picks.

There is of course an offence in not performing on your merits by Coaches and Players, whatever that means, but it applies without the rider of" gaining high draft picks"

Given that the AFL and many of us here have repeated countless times, that it is ok not to pick your best side, best positions, remove players from the ground, etc, etc, etc under list management principles, what is the relevance of the reason for doing it? If it is an offence, it is an offence no matter what your reason for doing it.

Given and I hate to mention again other clubs, as Ben Hur will descend upon me, have done what we are alleged to have done and every other club has list managed when it suited them, why is the reason for doing it of any consequence?

Now I concede that maybe 36 years as a Barrister has clouded my thinking, or maybe an even longer time as a fanatical Dees fan has, but I would just love to be at the coalface arguing this, as while I think we did what others did, this persecution 3 years after the events and after a previous investigation cleared us, based solely on the statement of a disgruntled ratbag former player, stinks.

[Spirit of the Demon 251]

Bob, I'm really confused by your stance on this, particularly your emphasis on whether we broke rules or not.

Just quietly Bob's confused too.

[CBDees 3,167]

Yes the same disgruntled player who got himself in the paper again this morning for keeping dubious company on a night out at Crown and who is currently 'helping the police with their enquiries'.

[jnrmac 20,087]

Once again, if the club fought when it counted on the field this crap wouldnt be happening, no use blaming Bob.

Even Caro said on FC no-one is accusing the players of not trying. Contradicts the last 3 mins of the Rich game focus mind you...

[titan_uranus 25,020]

Even Caro said on FC no-one is accusing the players of not trying. Contradicts the last 3 mins of the Rich game focus mind you...

I thought the same thing. She was like 'I don't know why Don McLardy's repeating that, no one is making that allegation', yet we had to deal with the HUN saying things like 'they purposely fumbled'.

[Whispering_Jack 30,169]

Why do you need to add the words " with the intention of gaining the best draft picks"? There is no offence of in the AFL rules that I know of in not performing to get high draft picks.

There is of course an offence in not performing on your merits by Coaches and Players, whatever that means, but it applies without the rider of" gaining high draft picks"

Given that the AFL and many of us here have repeated countless times, that it is ok not to pick your best side, best positions, remove players from the ground, etc, etc, etc under list management principles, what is the relevance of the reason for doing it? If it is an offence, it is an offence no matter what your reason for doing it.

Given and I hate to mention again other clubs, as Ben Hur will descend upon me, have done what we are alleged to have done and every other club has list managed when it suited them, why is the reason for doing it of any consequence?

Now I concede that maybe 36 years as a Barrister has clouded my thinking, or maybe an even longer time as a fanatical Dees fan has, but I would just love to be at the coalface arguing this, as while I think we did what others did, this persecution 3 years after the events and after a previous investigation cleared us, based solely on the statement of a disgruntled ratbag former player, stinks.

You're right. It stinks and it stinks to high heaven and, irrespective of the outcome of the tanking inquisition, the stench will hang around the AFL for a long, long time.

As a club, we've been treated with utter contempt by the AFL. This inquisition should never have lasted this long and the terms of the enquiry should never have involved an inquiry into us alone.

I asked an Essendon supporter (who is quite rightly down and concerned at their current situation) how he would feel if the investigation into the drug scandal lasted half a year and those involved in the investigation refused to consider looking into other clubs connected with the use of drugs.

You don't need to ask what was his response.

[Slartibartfast 17,296]

Why do you need to add the words " with the intention of gaining the best draft picks"? There is no offence of in the AFL rules that I know of in not performing to get high draft picks.

There is of course an offence in not performing on your merits by Coaches and Players, whatever that means, but it applies without the rider of" gaining high draft picks"

Given that the AFL and many of us here have repeated countless times, that it is ok not to pick your best side, best positions, remove players from the ground, etc, etc, etc under list management principles, what is the relevance of the reason for doing it? If it is an offence, it is an offence no matter what your reason for doing it.

Given and I hate to mention again other clubs, as Ben Hur will descend upon me, have done what we are alleged to have done and every other club has list managed when it suited them, why is the reason for doing it of any consequence?

Now I concede that maybe 36 years as a Barrister has clouded my thinking, or maybe an even longer time as a fanatical Dees fan has, but I would just love to be at the coalface arguing this, as while I think we did what others did, this persecution 3 years after the events and after a previous investigation cleared us, based solely on the statement of a disgruntled ratbag former player, stinks.

Thanks for your reply Redleg. I'm not aware that anyone has suggested the players didn't play to their best abilities and if that's the definition of tanking then I don't understand why the AFL has gone to the trouble they have.

I think there must be more to their investigation.

I added the words "with the intention of gaining draft picks" because list management aimed to win a premiership in the current year is clearly different to the motive of "gaining draft picks". I thought it would direct the conversation away from the obvious examples of list management that were not aimed at getting draft picks.

Just on the topic of "legal background" I think this is much of the issue. The "ordinary" person would think it's wrong to "list manage" to get draft picks. They are making a decision on the morals of the situation based on "right or wrong".. Once it becomes an investigation and the legal interpretation of rules is examined then "right and wrong" become irrelevant and "did we break a law" becomes the issue. You will have seen this in your profession on countless occasions.

[Slartibartfast 17,296]

You're right. It stinks and it stinks to high heaven and, irrespective of the outcome of the tanking inquisition, the stench will hang around the AFL for a long, long time.

As a club, we've been treated with utter contempt by the AFL. This inquisition should never have lasted this long and the terms of the enquiry should never have involved an inquiry into us alone.

I asked an Essendon supporter (who is quite rightly down and concerned at their current situation) how he would feel if the investigation into the drug scandal lasted half a year and those involved in the investigation refused to consider looking into other clubs connected with the use of drugs.

You don't need to ask what was his response.

I've not seen anyone defend the process but that is quite different to considering the issue.

IMO too many are sidetracked by the inequities of the processes when considering our actions. It's an easy place to go and feel good as most love playing the victim and I agree, in terms of process we are.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Do you think it's against any rules for administrators or/and coaches to make decisions which don't give you the best chance of winning with the intention of gaining the best draft picks? (Bailey's comment)

No, Bailey said "I had no hesitation at all in the first two years of ensuring this club was well placed for draft picks", that could mean that he delisted a lot of players to ensure Melbourne had a high quantity of draft picks, not necessarily quality of picks.

[pantaloons 2,019]

Why do you need to add the words " with the intention of gaining the best draft picks"? There is no offence of in the AFL rules that I know of in not performing to get high draft picks.

There is of course an offence in not performing on your merits by Coaches and Players, whatever that means, but it applies without the rider of" gaining high draft picks"

Given that the AFL and many of us here have repeated countless times, that it is ok not to pick your best side, best positions, remove players from the ground, etc, etc, etc under list management principles, what is the relevance of the reason for doing it? If it is an offence, it is an offence no matter what your reason for doing it.

Given and I hate to mention again other clubs, as Ben Hur will descend upon me, have done what we are alleged to have done and every other club has list managed when it suited them, why is the reason for doing it of any consequence?

Now I concede that maybe 36 years as a Barrister has clouded my thinking, or maybe an even longer time as a fanatical Dees fan has, but I would just love to be at the coalface arguing this, as while I think we did what others did, this persecution 3 years after the events and after a previous investigation cleared us, based solely on the statement of a disgruntled ratbag former player, stinks.

That's the nail on the head. End thread.

[Slartibartfast 17,296]

Bob, I'm really confused by your stance on this, particularly your emphasis on whether we broke rules or not. The answer to your question above is, of course it isn't against the 'rules' for administrators or/and coaches to make decisions which don't give you the best chance of winning with the intention of gaining the best draft picks? We can't break a rule that doesn't exist.

As Eddie said maximising draft position was and is standard business practice. Is it against the spirit of the rules or comp? Maybe. Is it, in the end a strategy that is worth the downside (eg not having a winning culture)? Probably not. But either way minimising the chances of winning by say resting players (such as GWS did just last year) for whatever purpose (draft position, chances of winning a final the next week etc) is not against the AFL rules as they stand now (which by the way i expect that they will be changed to make this clearer).

You can see this can't you or are you being disingenuous?

The whole point and problem for the AFL is there no specific rule that relates to this. The best that they have is the encouraging coaches, players etc not to play to their utmost, which is what i think they will try to pin on CC (and is perhaps the only charge they have a hope in hell of making stick).

As i have posted before there is an official definition of tanking. The AFL's CEO gave it and made it explicit and until they clearly articulate another in their policies and procedures it has to be the one that every one goes by (including a court). By his definition we have not tanked.

End of story.

Binman the post you've responded to doesn't have a "stance" but asks questions of Redleg because I value his opinion. I thank him for taking the time to answer.

[binman 42,975]

Binman the post you've responded to doesn't have a "stance" but asks questions of Redleg because I value his opinion. I thank him for taking the time to answer.

Again i'm not sure if you are being disingenuous or not Bob. Perhaps i'm wrong, but to me your post (and several others in a similar vein) implied you believe we have transgressed or broken some rules.

But i'll take you at face value and accept you were asking Redleg for a legal opinion. Now that he has given it, and you profess to respect his opinion, i assume you will move on and leave the notion of us breaking rules (or Carlton for that matter) alone.

[rpfc 28,433]

I added the words "with the intention of gaining draft picks" because list management aimed to win a premiership in the current year is clearly different to the motive of "gaining draft picks". I thought it would direct the conversation away from the obvious examples of list management that were not aimed at getting draft picks.

The rest of it we have gone over a million times...

Why is it different if we are getting draft picks?

Freo forfeited a game a few years ago, Leigh Matthews wanted them to do it again to avoid Geelong.

It's about the merits of EVERY game - not just ones that pertain to high draft picks.

And as CB said:

No, Bailey said "I had no hesitation at all in the first two years of ensuring this club was well placed for draft picks", that could mean that he delisted a lot of players to ensure Melbourne had a high quantity of draft picks, not necessarily quality of picks.

The list purge at the end of 2007, the focus on youth at that draft and the following year was the major thing that sent us plummeting to where we were in 2008 and 2009.

We have all projected our own interpretation onto what Bailey said but perhaps he was not talking about The Evil 3 Minutes, but rather the strategy of replacing pros (or older players) with youth, and heavily playing said youth. Only Joel MacDonald and Robert Campbell were experienced players that Bailey brought in.

Now this is certainly something that affects how a team plays (and doomed us) but surely we shouldn't placed limits on how much youth is brought in?

[Hannibal 5,814]

Why do you need to add the words " with the intention of gaining the best draft picks"? There is no offence of in the AFL rules that I know of in not performing to get high draft picks.

There is of course an offence in not performing on your merits by Coaches and Players, whatever that means, but it applies without the rider of" gaining high draft picks"

Given that the AFL and many of us here have repeated countless times, that it is ok not to pick your best side, best positions, remove players from the ground, etc, etc, etc under list management principles, what is the relevance of the reason for doing it? If it is an offence, it is an offence no matter what your reason for doing it.

Given and I hate to mention again other clubs, as Ben Hur will descend upon me, have done what we are alleged to have done and every other club has list managed when it suited them, why is the reason for doing it of any consequence?

Now I concede that maybe 36 years as a Barrister has clouded my thinking, or maybe an even longer time as a fanatical Dees fan has, but I would just love to be at the coalface arguing this, as while I think we did what others did, this persecution 3 years after the events and after a previous investigation cleared us, based solely on the statement of a disgruntled ratbag former player, stinks.

I'll take that as an invitation, as I have a few questions.

You say "other clubs have done what we're alleged to have done".

You can prove this allegation ? And by "done", what do you mean ?

Would other clubs' "actions" be a major platform for your defence in a court of law should you be representing the MFC ?

If so, would you bring up specific examples from other clubs in terms of their list management, or game day moves ?

Thanks, interested in your views. I'd personally be more inclined to refute any specific allegations about our own club by providing lucid and legitimate responses to our actions, without even mentioning what other clubs have "supposedly" done.

By that may explain why you're the silk and I'm not.