"Tanking"

[Hannibal 5,814]

No worries.

I know your point and consider it to be poorly thought out and illogical.

I was answering your silly question, but that's OK.

That's the point - you didn't.

Not that you were asked to.

[Redleg 38,214]

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.

I'll do my best in answering and will go point by point as I don't know how to multi quote answer.

Yes I say other clubs list managed as is evidenced by their selections, removal of players from the ground, the securing of in some cases of multiple priority picks, admissions from coaches and players of the practice, sudden improvement the year after list managing and basically observing several clubs do what we did in 2009.

Examples, taking a fit Fev off the ground and keeping him off the last 10 mins when a few points up and losing, not selecting Fev against us for a pathetically minor indiscretion, sending players including Fev who has since denied any pressing injury, for surgery, who were not seriously injured and in need of it then and there, Freo sending a reserves side to Tassie against Hawks and getting belted by over 100 points and then the next week in a final, selecting their true side and beating the Hawks, GWS dropping 12 of their best players this year against the GC and losing and winning Whitfield and then bringing those players back the next week when they couldn't win against a superior side, the Pies, Hawks, Saints and others playing reserve sides to gain priority picks, crazy moves from the Carlton bench in 2007 and earlier and especially the last round of 2007 known far and wide as the Kreuzer Cup, need I go on.

I would not make what others did the excuse for us, but rather an illustration of the accepted methods of list management, endorsed and approved multiple times by the AFL. In other words if the ruling body says something is ok you are entitled to accept that and act accordingly.

I agree with your last point but I think you would have to discuss what went before and since to get to the heart of the matter of what is acceptable list management practice.

[Whispering_Jack 28,101]

That's the point - you didn't.

Not that you were asked to.

To be fair, you asked a number of questions and Rumpole answered one of them. Most of your other questions have been answered on this thread but I'm sure that Redleg is capable of giving you an erudite response within his usual fee structure.

Better still, if we can get hold of Finks' submission, that should tell you.

[Hannibal 5,814]

I'll do my best in answering and will go point by point as I don't know how to multi quote answer.

Yes I say other clubs list managed as is evidenced by their selections, removal of players from the ground, the securing of in some cases of multiple priority picks, admissions from coaches and players of the practice, sudden improvement the year after list managing and basically observing several clubs do what we did in 2009.

Examples, taking a fit Fev off the ground and keeping him off the last 10 mins when a few points up and losing, not selecting Fev against us for a pathetically minor indiscretion, sending players including Fev who has since denied any pressing injury, for surgery, who were not seriously injured and in need of it then and there, Freo sending a reserves side to Tassie against Hawks and getting belted by over 100 points and then the next week in a final, selecting their true side and beating the Hawks, GWS dropping 12 of their best players this year against the GC and losing and winning Whitfield and then bringing those players back the next week when they couldn't win against a superior side, the Pies, Hawks, Saints and others playing reserve sides to gain priority picks, crazy moves from the Carlton bench in 2007 and earlier and especially the last round of 2007 known far and wide as the Kreuzer Cup, need I go on.

I would not make what others did the excuse for, us but rather an illustration of the accepted methods of list management, endorsed and approved multiple times by the AFL. In other words if the ruling body says something is ok you are entitled to accept that and act accordingly.

I agree with your last point but I think you would have to discuss what went before and since to get to the heart of the matter of what is acceptable list management practice.

I have no doubt that Carlton tanked, but I also believe you'd have a hard time proving it. I agree with you on how Carlton played out that game, but, and correct me if I'm wrong, that's underwhelming "evidence". Does that evidence hold up by itself ?

In essence they're the same accusations that you're affronted by with regards to Melbourne. Or am I wide of the mark ?

[sue 8,561]

Having read Redleg's clear analysis I am convinced we can only be charged with bringing the game into disrepute. Presumably this would be based some of the things we have supposedly done (eg. CC's jokes) and the amazing guff that has appeared in the media (fumbling, Watts etc).

The former would not have been public if not for this drawn-out investigation and the later would probably never have been publicaly raised if not for the investigation. So the only people who have brought the game into disrepute are the people who started and ran the investigation.

Before this investigation, the 'tanking' actions of the MFC had brought the game into disrepute no more than that of the other clubs who had 'tanked' in the public's mind. (That is true regardless of how provable each case is.)

[Guest José Mourinho]

This is a bit conceptual for some, I know, but the rule that concerns coaches and players "performing on their merits" puts no time frame on that.

Surely the widely known and practiced method of "taking 1 step back to take 2 steps forward" makes this highly subjective?

I know others have pointed out certain practices, such as a player running to the bench after having kicked a goal - this is just an extrapolation of that over a longer time frame.

[Guest José Mourinho]

I'd also argue that "tanking" may be against the spirit of the game, but that it wasn't when a lot of other teams did it.

This changed after a sustained push by the media to influence football public opinion. We were unfortunate to have tanked whilst these goalposts were shifting.

Hence the retroactive scrutiny -- because the posts have shifted far enough now for the general mindless public to support such action.

Or at least to sit back and let the media champion such a cause with little resistance.

I think the average football fan couldn't give a f*** that we tanked, but enjoy the schadenfreude of watching MFC suffer a lengthy torturous investigation.

[Redleg 38,214]

I have no doubt that Carlton tanked, but I also believe you'd have a hard time proving it. I agree with you on how Carlton played out that game, but, and correct me if I'm wrong, that's underwhelming "evidence". Does that evidence hold up by itself ?

In essence they're the same accusations that you're affronted by with regards to Melbourne. Or am I wide of the mark ?

No that evidence doesn't hold up by itself.

Also no I am not affronted by our "evidence" whatever" it is , I am affronted that we are being investigated after being previously cleared, 3 years later, on the say so of a disgruntled former player.

[Redleg 38,214]

Having read Redleg's clear analysis I am convinced we can only be charged with bringing the game into disrepute. Presumably this would be based some of the things we have supposedly done (eg. CC's jokes) and the amazing guff that has appeared in the media (fumbling, Watts etc).

The former would not have been public if not for this drawn-out investigation and the later would probably never have been publicaly raised if not for the investigation. So the only people who have brought the game into disrepute are the people who started and ran the investigation.

Before this investigation, the 'tanking' actions of the MFC had brought the game into disrepute no more than that of the other clubs who had 'tanked' in the public's mind. (That is true regardless of how provable each case is.)

Sue, I couldn't agree more and I actually posted the same thing, weeks or even months ago.

[Redleg 38,214]

This is a bit conceptual for some, I know, but the rule that concerns coaches and players "performing on their merits" puts no time frame on that.

Surely the widely known and practiced method of "taking 1 step back to take 2 steps forward" makes this highly subjective?

I know others have pointed out certain practices, such as a player running to the bench after having kicked a goal - this is just an extrapolation of that over a longer time frame.

Correct , just another example of why the whole thing is a mess.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

Correct , just another example of why the whole thing is a mess.

It's a mess, too messy for court in my opinion. I just can't see a fight in court happening.

Edited February 9, 2013 by dandeeman

[Hannibal 5,814]

No that evidence doesn't hold up by itself.

Also no I am not affronted by our "evidence" whatever" it is , I am affronted that we are being investigated after being previously cleared, 3 years later, on the say so of a disgruntled former player.

Apparently that same disgruntled player retracted his comments. His comments LED to a investigation of Melbourne's practices during 2009, but once that review started there was clearly information that deemed it necessary to probe further and wider.

The media storm post McLean's comments made it virtually impossible for the AFL to ignore. I readily accept and understand why this investigation took place. And I'm certainly not affronted by it.

[sue 8,561]

The media storm post McLean's comments made it virtually impossible for the AFL to ignore. I readily accept and understand why this investigation took place. And I'm certainly not affronted by it.

Virtually impossible? I'm not so sure about that. A firm statement saying what Brock said wasn't anything new (compared to what Bailey had said post 186) and it had been investigated and cleared at the time might have defused the press. Of course the media might have kept going with the issue, but we'll never know because the AFL didn't say 'done & dusted and in any case we've dropped he PP rule, so move along'.

And I am affronted that once tanking was again investigated, the investigation wasn't widened.

[s-t-i-n-g-a 439]

Virtually impossible? I'm not so sure about that. A firm statement saying what Brock said wasn't anything new (compared to what Bailey had said post 186) and it had been investigated ad cleared at the time might have defused the press. Of course the media might have kept going with the issue, but we'll never know because the AFL didn't say 'done & dusted' and in any case we've dropped he PP rule, so move along.

I think that is exactly what happened in the Libba case...public statement made - AFL spoke to him - statement withdrawn - move on...

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Virtually impossible? I'm not so sure about that. A firm statement saying what Brock said wasn't anything new (compared to what Bailey had said post 186) and it had been investigated ad cleared at the time might have defused the press. Of course the media might have kept going with the issue, but we'll never know because the AFL didn't say 'done & dusted' and in any case we've dropped he PP rule, so move along.

And I am affronted that once tanking was again investigated, the investigation wasn't widened.

That's the problem isn't it.

The AFL have cherry picked a case and club to make and example of; they've seen us as the lame animal falling of the back of the herd and have gone after us to feed the masses and to warn other clubs that they are in charge. They didn't go after one of the "Cash Cow" clubs because it would cost them too much in lost revenue, we on the other hand don't make them any money anyway.

Some on here just don't get it; we are not saying that others did it so why can't we, what we are saying is that if you are going to do something do it fully and once and for all. If you are going to look in to the tanking issue do it properly, as I said don't cherry pick the weakest, show some semblance of fairness and treat all partners in the competition equally.

The AFL have never acted even handedly and they have a tendency to weaken the already weak so they can manipulate them when they want; we get used to fill the gaps and the weaker we are the more gaps they will use us ti fill. We have lost a huge amount over this, our members will wait to re sign, our sponsors will be wary, our "Brand" has been trashed and out administrators have had to waste their valuable time arguing this instead of courting sponsors.

What we have done is no different to what other clubs have done and if they aren't being charged why are we; as for the idea of the "Sacrificial Lamb"; forget it. Remember other clubs former players Coaches etc. have made similar comments to McLean so why are we being singled out?

[mjt 640]

Having read Redleg's clear analysis I am convinced we can only be charged with bringing the game into disrepute. Presumably this would be based some of the things we have supposedly done (eg. CC's jokes) and the amazing guff that has appeared in the media (fumbling, Watts etc).

The former would not have been public if not for this drawn-out investigation and the later would probably never have been publicaly raised if not for the investigation. So the only people who have brought the game into disrepute are the people who started and ran the investigation.

Before this investigation, the 'tanking' actions of the MFC had brought the game into disrepute no more than that of the other clubs who had 'tanked' in the public's mind. (That is true regardless of how provable each case is.)

If were charged with bringing the game into disrepute,180 pokie machines are up for grabs, maybe a stupid fool should have kept his off the cuff comments to himself, do you earn 400,000 a year, because thats more likely what hes on, people pay 200 bucks a year membership because they love the club, and they have to go through this crap because of someones warped humor,its the boys club there and a certain person is hanging on for dear life,its a [censored] absolute disgrace what this person has put the club through.

[sue 8,561]

If were charged with bringing the game into disrepute,180 pokie machines are up for grabs, maybe a stupid fool should have kept his off the cuff comments to himself, do you earn 400,000 a year, because thats more likely what hes on, people pay 200 bucks a year membership because they love the club, and they have to go through this crap because of someones warped humor,its the boys club there and a certain person is hanging on for dear life,its a [censored] absolute disgrace what this person has put the club through.

Oh good grief. So this is all down to someone with a bad sense of humour who is paid too much.

[rpfc 27,663]

If were charged with bringing the game into disrepute,180 pokie machines are up for grabs, maybe a stupid fool should have kept his off the cuff comments to himself, do you earn 400,000 a year, because thats more likely what hes on, people pay 200 bucks a year membership because they love the club, and they have to go through this crap because of someones warped humor,its the boys club there and a certain person is hanging on for dear life,its a [censored] absolute disgrace what this person has put the club through.

Thankyou for that.

That is the next logical step for anyone who is willing to let CC go down for his Zulus comment.

He isn't to blame because he made a joke about how little fans gave a sh!t that the team was beating a few easybeats toward the end of the season.

I sincerely hope that, IF we are charged, they have more than a joke about an extinct race of warriors being used to browbeat the Match Committee into not winning anymore than one more game.

[mjt 640]

Oh good grief. So this is all down to someone with a bad sense of humour who is paid too much.

It appears that way, you will find out next week.

[mjt 640]

Thankyou for that.

That is the next logical step for anyone who is willing to let CC go down for his Zulus comment.

He isn't to blame because he made a joke about how little fans gave a sh!t that the team was beating a few easybeats toward the end of the season.

I sincerely hope that, IF we are charged, they have more than a joke about an extinct race of warriors being used to browbeat the Match Committee into not winning anymore than one more game.

Its the little fans that pay memberships, you and the MFC seem to forget that.

[beelzebub 22,621]

Oh good grief. So this is all down to someone with a bad sense of humour who is paid too much.

That,and some want he and his mate gone !

[GM11 703]

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.

Genuine question Bob, is it your opinion that list management to lose for draft picks is cheating, whereas list management to lose & gain a finals advantage is not?

[mjt 640]

Thankyou for that.

That is the next logical step for anyone who is willing to let CC go down for his Zulus comment.

He isn't to blame because he made a joke about how little fans gave a sh!t that the team was beating a few easybeats toward the end of the season.

I sincerely hope that, IF we are charged, they have more than a joke about an extinct race of warriors being used to browbeat the Match Committee into not winning anymore than one more game.

And one more thing, theres 35,000 members of this club, and about 12 die hards on this forum saying save the big mouth at all costs ,risk the club so that stupid mans off the cuff remarks get proven not guilty in court,take a vote and 34900 people would say fall o)n your sword were done with this crap,its bad enough not winning for 6 years, how much do you want people to suffer, so far we have lost Drake international, Metro Solar, and Bet Ezy, how much more are you willing to risk.

[rpfc 27,663]

It appears that way, you will find out next week.

[daisycutter 28,712]

Thankyou for that.

That is the next logical step for anyone who is willing to let CC go down for his Zulus comment.

He isn't to blame because he made a joke about how little fans gave a sh!t that the team was beating a few easybeats toward the end of the season.

I sincerely hope that, IF we are charged, they have more than a joke about an extinct race of warriors being used to browbeat the Match Committee into not winning anymore than one more game.

Extinct? I didn't know that

Demonland is definitely better than Wikipedia LOL