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.

Possibly drawing a long bow there D-L. It would be an easy argument for a lawyer to limit 19(A5) to players, coaches and assistant coaches.

There must be some other regulations that cover draft tampering and bringing the game into disrepute. Maybe they are on page 799 of the report.

+8

I find extraordinary the proposition that the interpretation publicly and consistently given to a rule over a number of years by the chief executive of an organisation should not be the one to be applied in any decision about its breach.

I find extraordinary the proposition that the interpretation publicly and consistently given to a rule over a number of years by the chief executive of an organisation should not be the one to be applied on any decision about its breach.

especially a retroactive decision re 2009

Let me present to situations:

1. At the time did anyone think Carlton tanked in 2007 and did you think it was appropriate? Did you call them Carltank?

2. What would you think if a team announced that at the beginning of the season it had no hope of winning the Premiership and accordingly it was going to make it the objective of the Club to finish bottom to obtain the stand out player in the draft? Would your view change if they had that objective but keep it in house, not even telling the players but selecting teams and playing players in such a manner as to significantly increase their non competitiveness and ensuring the outcome they'd identified.

I find extraordinary the proposition that the interpretation publicly and consistently given to a rule over a number of years by the chief executive of an organisation should not be the one to be applied in any decision about its breach.

Two things:

1. The AFL Commission will decide if charges are laid and Demetriou has admitted that the Commission may, or may not view tanking the same way as him.

2. Melbourne is being investigated, in part, for trying to manipulate match day results (losses) from the coaches box. Perhaps you can point me to Demetriou's public endorsement of such an approach ?

Two things:

1. The AFL Commission will decide if charges are laid and Demetriou has admitted that the Commission may, or may not view tanking the same way as him.

2. Melbourne is being investigated, in part, for trying to manipulate match day results (losses) from the coaches box. Perhaps you can point me to Demetriou's public endorsement of such an approach ?

My understanding was that Demetriou would decided, once he'd received Melbourne's response, whether MFC had a case to answer. If he decided we don't then there is no referral to the Commission.

Is that not right?

Let me present to situations:

1. At the time did anyone think Carlton tanked in 2007 and did you think it was appropriate? Did you call them Carltank?

2. What would you think if a team announced that at the beginning of the season it had no hope of winning the Premiership and accordingly it was going to make it the objective of the Club to finish bottom to obtain the stand out player in the draft? Would your view change if they had that objective but keep it in house, not even telling the players but selecting teams and playing players in such a manner as to significantly increase their non competitiveness and ensuring the outcome they'd identified.

1. Yes I did. Did I understand why Carlton chose this course of action? Certainly.

2. Surely this was not the case. I would need some proof to even contemplate that this could have taken place.

2. Surely this was not the case. I would need some proof to even contemplate that this could have taken place.

Spirit it's a hypothetical and not related to any particular situation.

Spirit it's a hypothetical and not related to any particular situation.

Ok. If proven to be correct, that would be a disgrace. Who could support a club that condoned having its cue in the rack before a ball was even bounced in anger??? Forget the potential long term gain.

Two things:

1. The AFL Commission will decide if charges are laid and Demetriou has admitted that the Commission may, or may not view tanking the same way as him.

2. Melbourne is being investigated, in part, for trying to manipulate match day results (losses) from the coaches box. Perhaps you can point me to Demetriou's public endorsement of such an approach ?

In terms of the first, I think it's unlikely that there hasn't been any discussion in the AFL and probably the Commission about a general position on tanking, which Demetriou has then represented in his various pronouncements as CEO. But anything he's said to date involves only tanking in the commonly understood version of 'list management' (playing inexperienced players, playing players out of position for the experience etc).

Hence the shift in the investigation towards an emphasis on the second point and the coaches box since that directly engages 19 (A5).

There's no way the Commission is going to make a decision that hangs Demetriou out to dry (that is, contradicts his statements on list management). But you're right, he hasn't said anything about Jack Watts, fumbling, interchanges and so on. The two issues are separate and the second is all the investigation has been able to cling to.

My understanding was that Demetriou would decided, once he'd received Melbourne's response, whether MFC had a case to answer. If he decided we don't then there is no referral to the Commission.

Is that not right?

That's how I'd understand it, but the evidence is going to have to be very flimsy indeed for Demetriou not to choose the Pontius Pilate option that's been mentioned already and pass this on to the Commission.

My understanding was that Demetriou would decided, once he'd received Melbourne's response, whether MFC had a case to answer. If he decided we don't then there is no referral to the Commission.

Is that not right?

I think I read this somewhere with the exception that it would go to McLachlan.

May be McLachlan is filling in Andersons role.

In terms of the first, I think it's unlikely that there hasn't been any discussion in the AFL and probably the Commission about a general position on tanking, which Demetriou has then represented in his various pronouncements as CEO. But anything he's said to date involves only tanking in the commonly understood version of 'list management' (playing inexperienced players, playing players out of position for the experience etc).

Hence the shift in the investigation towards an emphasis on the second point and the coaches box since that directly engages 19 (A5).

There's no way the Commission is going to make a decision that hangs Demetriou out to dry (that is, contradicts his statements on list management). But you're right, he hasn't said anything about Jack Watts, fumbling, interchanges and so on. The two issues are separate and the second is all the investigation has been able to cling to.

That's how I'd understand it, but the evidence is going to have to be very flimsy indeed for Demetriou not to choose the Pontius Pilate option that's been mentioned already and pass this on to the Commission.

Yes, good points DJD. I'd imagine there have been significant "informal" discussions between the Commission and the senior AFL execs. What puts the AFL in the best light: 1. Demetriou says "NCTA", 2. Referred to the Commission who says "NCTA or 3. Commission imposes penalty.

I don't know, I'd think 2 but I can see 1 has it's advantages.

Yes, good points DJD. I'd imagine there have been significant "informal" discussions between the Commission and the senior AFL execs. What puts the AFL in the best light: 1. Demetriou says "NCTA", 2. Referred to the Commission who says "NCTA or 3. Commission imposes penalty.

I don't know, I'd think 2 but I can see 1 has it's advantages.

Personally, i think I'd I'd prefer 2 in that a full Commission decision ought to add enough weight to the thing to bury it forever. A decision by Demetriou alone will leave it open to suspicions of coverups etc, although if the only evidence they've got really comes down to incidents of fumbling and so on then he might think he's on fairly safe ground in closing things himself.

Both Demetrio & the Commission have to be in agreement for this issue to be finished.

Which is why other clubs are still worried.

The MFC are viewed as the Test Case.

My understanding was that Demetriou would decided, once he'd received Melbourne's response, whether MFC had a case to answer. If he decided we don't then there is no referral to the Commission.

Is that not right?

"Demetriou said he had been briefed by AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson about the Demons' probe, which has intensified after interviews with current and former officials." "But he said he had deliberately keeping an "arm's length'' from it, in case it has to go to the AFL Commission, on which he sits."

"I am not involved (in the investigation),'' Demetriou said. "I sit on the commission and if Adrian believes it is serious enough to go to the commission, then I have to make sure I am at arm's length because I might have to listen to it.

"I have not formed a view one way or another because I am not privy to all the information.''

Two things:

1. The AFL Commission will decide if charges are laid and Demetriou has admitted that the Commission may, or may not view tanking the same way as him.

2. Melbourne is being investigated, in part, for trying to manipulate match day results (losses) from the coaches box. Perhaps you can point me to Demetriou's public endorsement of such an approach ?

I think Fan has effectively dealt with your first point. Besides it is hardly realistic to presume that the CEO and the Commission have widely differing views. Any Board worth its salt will quickly pull a CEO into line if they believe he is misrepresenting the rules of the organisation!

On the face of it your second point is correct - but so what? Where is the clear evidence that we actively tried to orchestrate losses from the coaches box? You are not talking about the game we lead until the final siren are you? Bailey wants the tapes of his instructions that day - because they will prove his innocence.

"Demetriou said he had been briefed by AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson about the Demons' probe, which has intensified after interviews with current and former officials." "But he said he had deliberately keeping an "arm's length'' from it, in case it has to go to the AFL Commission, on which he sits."

"I am not involved (in the investigation),'' Demetriou said. "I sit on the commission and if Adrian believes it is serious enough to go to the commission, then I have to make sure I am at arm's length because I might have to listen to it.

"I have not formed a view one way or another because I am not privy to all the information.''

i remember this quote Ben..But the reality will be that Vlad & the commission must end up in agreement otherwise one must go.

Will Vlad resign over an issue that was started while he was AWOL?....i doubt it very much.

It will be similar if CS is forced into resignation. The Board must follow as it was them who negotiated his last contract well after the 2008-09 seasons.

I think Fan has effectively dealt with your first point. Besides it is hardly realistic to presume that the CEO and the Commission have widely differing views. Any Board worth its salt will quickly pull a CEO into line if they believe he is misrepresenting the rules of the organisation!

On the face of it your second point is correct - but so what? Where is the clear evidence that we actively tried to orchestrate losses from the coaches box? You are not talking about the game we lead until the final siren are you? Bailey wants the tapes of his instructions that day - because they will prove his innocence.

You can put your own interpretation on what you think will happen, or how much the CEO and Commission's views may vary. That is separate to the point I was making.

As for my second point ? Once again, I'm merely providing an answer, I'm not giving an opinion. If you want my opinion then ask and I'll give it.

"Demetriou said he had been briefed by AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson about the Demons' probe, which has intensified after interviews with current and former officials." "But he said he had deliberately keeping an "arm's length'' from it, in case it has to go to the AFL Commission, on which he sits."

"I am not involved (in the investigation),'' Demetriou said. "I sit on the commission and if Adrian believes it is serious enough to go to the commission, then I have to make sure I am at arm's length because I might have to listen to it.

"I have not formed a view one way or another because I am not privy to all the information.''

My view is that AD as he has said in the quote will stay at arms length from the investigation. Once it is wrapped up he will be involved to either to say the evidence shows there is a case to answer and hand it on to the commission or say there is no case to answer.

I would think he's seen the evidence now that the investigation is wrapped up and is waiting responses before he makes his decision.

My view is that AD as he has said in the quote will stay at arms length from the investigation. Once it is wrapped up he will be involved to either to say the evidence shows there is a case to answer and hand it on to the commission or say there is no case to answer.

I would think he's seen the evidence now that the investigation is wrapped up and is waiting responses before he makes his decision.

"I sit on the commission and if Adrian believes it is serious enough to go to the commission, then I have to make sure I am at arm's length because I might have to listen to it."

That's not how I read it. Anderson is gone, but Demetriou appears to make it clear that it won't be his decision.

"I sit on the commission and if Adrian believes it is serious enough to go to the commission, then I have to make sure I am at arm's length because I might have to listen to it."

That's not how I read it. Anderson is gone, but Demetriou appears to make it clear that it won't be his decision.

So it goes to Gillon and he makes the decision if it goes any further. Do we take AD at his word? I guess we have to. Only another week or so to go and we will find out where it all sits unless there is a leak beforehand. The history of this investigation is that a leak is more probable than not.

My understanding was that Demetriou would decided, once he'd received Melbourne's response, whether MFC had a case to answer. If he decided we don't then there is no referral to the Commission.

Is that not right?

That is what AD said. I heard him say it.

Possibly drawing a long bow there D-L. It would be an easy argument for a lawyer to limit 19(A5) to players, coaches and assistant coaches.

No long bow as that is exactly who the regulation applies to, no one else.

"I sit on the commission and if Adrian believes it is serious enough to go to the commission, then I have to make sure I am at arm's length because I might have to listen to it."

That's not how I read it. Anderson is gone, but Demetriou appears to make it clear that it won't be his decision.

so maybe it is gillom who doesn't want to put a foot wrong and go the way of angry

so what does this mean? Does he duck shove it upstairs? Does the commission want to handle it?

whatever, i'm sure gillom will be taking plenty of counsel from plenty of the power brokers

hmmmmm