"Tanking"

[mjt 640]

tell me mjt, which club official ran over your pet dog?

give us some history for once

oh and tell us how much you love the club

I love the club more than you, you are going to spew next week.

[cowboy_from_hell 2,390]

I love the club more than you, you are going to spew next week.

You told jack he is in for a world of hurt and now DC is gonna spew. Are you the bloke from the Saw movies? I'm picturing jack and DC waking up in a room with chained legs and a handsaw.

[daisycutter 29,616]

I love the club more than you, you are going to spew next week.

haha i'm spewing right now just reading your contemptuous bile

[sue 9,107]

I love the club more than you, you are going to spew next week.

And if the result is as bad as you predict, I assume you will be spewing too. I'm sure you won't be tempted to gloat.

[mjt 640]

And if the result is as bad as you predict, I assume you will be spewing too. I'm sure you won't be tempted to gloat.

there screwed sue, they leaked like the titanic, as i said its a boys club, not a family club, there not thinking about sue.

Edited February 9, 2013 by mjt

[binman 42,978]

Would people pleaaaaase stop replying to MJT - it's making a mockery of my ignore function!

[Bitter but optimistic 22,241]

Fully purged yet DC?

[daisycutter 29,616]

Fully purged yet DC?

much better thanks bbo. At first I thought it must have been a bad bottle of beer but then i realised the root cause

[Sir Why You Little 37,041]

So it's all next week hey. Let's just see....

[mjt 640]

Would people pleaaaaase stop replying to MJT - it's making a mockery of my ignore function!

binmans like that lady off Seinfield, remember the Speed Dial episode, remember i said Lady.

[binman 42,978]

My take on cutting a deal to avoid court action? I reckon stand firm to any pressure to suspend or sack (or anything remotely similar) CC.

But do a deal where we make it clear we haven't tanked but acknowledge that even though CC was just joking in the infamous meeting we understand that it is possible that some employees (but not key ones, in particular DB) may have thought he was being serious. We agree perception is reality blah, blah and we will certainly ensure CC is aware of that. So plead guilty to the charge of encouraging coaches not to perform to their utmost. But only that charge. All others withdrawn

The penalty? Cop fine or even perhaps a fine and a second round draft pick.

Why? Because at the end of the day we really don't want to go to court. No winners going down that route. Who cares about some coin (which is likely going to be far less than paying lawyers) and a draft pick?, well we know there is no guarantee you'll get an AFL player in the second round anyway.

This way we avoid court, make it clear we haven't tanked an can move on without all the white noise.

[keep13alive 78]

CC and DB are gone CS is SAFE, as for betting companys do the math.

Betezy, would that be the same betezy that takes 3 days to result a winning wager.Betezy will be in the same place as sports alive by the time EFC investigation is resulted.

I'd consider Betezy no longer a sponsor as much a positive as that strange racist from energywatch.

[FarNorthernD 5,861]

This is my first post on this topic. I have probably read every post. For what it is worth here is my take

Andrew Demetriou is enjoying the all that is being offered to him at the Olympics. He is staying in the best hotels, has front row seats to his favourite sports and is being entertained by the most important in people in world sport. He has made it

His game back home is pulling in the ratings and bums on seats. The big clubs - Carlton, West Coast, Sydney are all going great. Collingwood is now winning after a shaky start and and an AFL favourite son is coaching another powerhouse to a 8-2 start. And my, Hird certainly has delivered. The Essendon boys are much bigger and stronger than last year.

Demetriou is at the top of his game. He is the King of Sport

He is following the news from back home and is regularly speaking to Adrian and others. Eventually, after the Brock Mclean statements, he is forced to make the call on what to do with the Melbourne Footy Club and the tanking scandal that has been dogging the club and the AFL for years.

He thinks about and gets annoyed. Here he is, the King of Sport at the top of his game, being disturbed by the goings on of a lowly Club. "I should be having the time of my life rather than have to deal with this crap", he thinks to himself. Didn't I defend them in the past? Didn't I do everything in my power to get them over this? I was pilloried by the press when I stood by them. And this is how they repay me, the King of Sport

He is running late for dinner with Jacques Rogge/Bernie Ecclestone/the PM at Downing St and on the way out the door rings Adrian. "They have [censored] me off one too many times. Send in Haddad and Clothier"

[Dr. Gonzo 24,221]

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.

If that's the argument you're planning on taking to court I think you'd lose. All they'd have to say is that the distinguishing factor between those examples and ours is that in ours key figures in the admin and Football Department undertook those actions with the explicit intent of gaining a PP whereas there is nothing to prove that is the case in the others (though everyone knows it was). They will just say at the time of those other examples they had no evidence clubs were list managing with the intent to lose games and now that thy have evidence of it happening at Melbourne we will be punished.

I sincerely hope this isn't the case and can see all your arguments to the contrary however I'm just explaining what I think the response will be. It will be about the intent of the actions rather than the actions themselves. Intent is hard to prove but if they have enough people saying it was openly discussed in team/FD meetings then they will probably punish us.

[beelzebub 23,377]

What Red is saying,I believe, is what others did, and the condonment by the powers that be,, go to context and precedent.

Defense rests your honour !

[binman 42,978]

What Red is saying,I believe, is what others did, and the condonment by the powers that be,, go to context and precedent.

Defense rests your honour !

Is that like one of CW's sources?

[rpfc 28,435]

mjt - didn't you post last week that we will be acquitted, ie. not charged?

Now you are back where you were about three weeks ago. ie. we are in trouble?

I can't be the first person not to take you seriously can I?

[GM11 776]

List management to gain draft picks is "wrong" in the generally accepted sense IMO. List management to freshen players up for finals, resting players during the year as Geelong has regularly done is fine if it is to maximize the chances of success in that year.

List management to lose a game to have you better placed for finals (ie "selecting opponents") is really tricky but in essence I think is ok but TBH I'm not sure. Players doing anything but their best (in contrast to list management) is unacceptable in any circumstances.

Thanks.

[hoopla 418]

Do you know if they have gone to other football clubs? If not maybe they did not consider football sponsorship a priority this year. Were they lost as a result of the tanking inquiry? If so we have a claim against the AFL if we beat tanking charges.

You make an important point here. Unfortunately it is a very good reason for the AFL to press the charges.

As McLardy has pointed out the investigation has damaged our club.To justify that damage the AFL are going to have to at least charge us with something

The AFL can't afford to throw the book at us - but they can't afford to say that their 800 page document amounts to nothing either. The answer lies somewhere in between. The simplest solution for the AFL is to charge Connolly - and let the club, CS and DB go.

I'm not saying that is the proper outcome - or even a fair outcome. But its the outcome that best suits the AFL. It will allow the AFL to justify the investigation and demonstrate that you test the limits of its rules etc at your peril. At the other end of the scale they will conclude that -as neither the club nor a member of footy department is directly implicated,- it is an outcome that will allow them move on relatively quickly

IMO we are kidding ourselves if we think the AFL is going to admit that it forced a club to endure a 7 month enquiry - only to produce an 800 page report which didn't justify even one charge being laid!!

Connolly will be the scapegoat.

We can all be outraged by this - but the AFL will see it as the only way it can escape this fiasco with any credibility.

[Macca 16,972]

People who want to 'hang' Connolly are in my eyes looking for an easy way out. You stand by your people. The club won't hang Connolly out to dry so it's a fruitless argument anyway. The next part of the saga is about to be played out and this is where the club needs to be at it's strongest.

What the hell has Connolly done wrong? You can't hang the bloke because of a flippant comment involving 'Zulus'. This comment is somehow bringing the game into disrepute and relates to draft tampering? What a load of absolute rot.

This whole investigation is a complete joke and has been right from the start. A complete waste of time and money. The breaking issue about drugs makes the investigation into our club look quite silly.

Most people are heartily sick of this whole tanking saga and the AFL have dug a big hole for themselves. The bloke who kicked off the whole investigation is now gone (under unusual circumstances) How bad does that look? If we had a half decent media in this town they would have ridiculed the whole thing from the start. Wilson and her mates are there to sell newspapers - nothing else. Morals and ethics in the journalistic trade have been thrown out the window - long ago.

This thing all started from a few ill chosen words from a 'questionable source' who may in fact be in a little bit of trouble with the law. You can bet 'London to a brick' that the media won't touch the credibility of the star witness. Forget T$, this bloke deserves our total wrath. I wonder if he gives some thought to the fans who used to cheer him on?

Nup, he doesn't seem the type to have a conscience.

Scapegoating can always come at a price. You have to look down the track if you take that path. If you want to attract good administrators to the club in the future then the big picture should always be taken into account. You can live and die by poor decisions. Offering up Connolly would create a whole raft of new issues. Especially if the only thing he's deemed to have done is make a joke about 'Zulus'.

But in some ways this whole saga creates an opportunity. It should have the effect of galvanising our club and the supporters (it already has started to do that in my eyes) It also allows the club to stand up for itself. And the coaching staff should be using this as a chance to steel the playing group.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Macca

[Dr. Gonzo 24,221]

What Red is saying,I believe, is what others did, and the condonment by the powers that be,, go to context and precedent.

Defense rests your honour !

The powers that be will merely state they didn't condone anything because there was never any evidence of other clubs enacting a strategy of deliberately losing games. Whether you or I believe that or not is one thing (and I definitely agree the AFL gave tacit approval of the strategy) but this is what the response will be if we try and rely on that argument before the Commission or in court.

If we go down it will be an injustice but that's the way the world is sometimes. Our best chance of getting off (should we be charged) would be to argue each allegation against us which I feel any half competent lawyer could smash out of the park for 6. But if we are punished by the Commission I don't think we should waste out time or money in court as it will not only be difficult to prove our innocence (because we are clearly guilty of having a strategy of winning no more than 4.5 games in 2009) but we may also have some dirty laundry aired in public testimonies and evidence that we may have wished was kept under wraps.

I don't want to see anyone punished for the actions I feel the board/MFC had to take in 2009 but if its the difference between draft sanctions/fine and a guilty verdict and taking them to court or offering up someone (CC) as a scapegoat, well, you know how these things go...

[DirtyDees DDC 176]

The powers that be will merely state they didn't condone anything because there was never any evidence of other clubs enacting a strategy of deliberately losing games. Whether you or I believe that or not is one thing (and I definitely agree the AFL gave tacit approval of the strategy) but this is what the response will be if we try and rely on that argument before the Commission or in court.

If we go down it will be an injustice but that's the way the world is sometimes. Our best chance of getting off (should we be charged) would be to argue each allegation against us which I feel any half competent lawyer could smash out of the park for 6. But if we are punished by the Commission I don't think we should waste out time or money in court as it will not only be difficult to prove our innocence (because we are clearly guilty of having a strategy of winning no more than 4.5 games in 2009) but we may also have some dirty laundry aired in public testimonies and evidence that we may have wished was kept under wraps.

I don't want to see anyone punished for the actions I feel the board/MFC had to take in 2009 but if its the difference between draft sanctions/fine and a guilty verdict and taking them to court or offering up someone (CC) as a scapegoat, well, you know how these things go...

If we are punished by the Commission, would you still be happy not to go to court, if that punishment also forced the Gaming Commission to take away the gambling and alcohol licences for the Bentleigh and Leighoak clubs? Definitely not.

If we are found guilty there are much bigger consequences than just a fine or loss of draft picks. We don't just have a moral right to protect the integrity of the club and its employees. We may have to fight for our financial survival; potentially suffering losses that far outweigh the legal costs of a court hearing.

We are not clearly guilty either. The coach is the key, and he denies it. That's why we will go to court.

Edited February 9, 2013 by DirtyDees DDC

[daisycutter 29,616]

-12 (phase II)

gird your loins...............and lock up all sharps

[sue 9,107]

I fear Hoopla's arguments in #1319 is correct - after this long investigation the AFL will have to hit us for something or look very silly. I just hope they and the MFC come up with a formula which lets the AFL pretend it wasn't wasting its time but does no significant damage to the club or further damage to our 'brand'.

[Redleg 40,926]

If that's the argument you're planning on taking to court I think you'd lose. All they'd have to say is that the distinguishing factor between those examples and ours is that in ours key figures in the admin and Football Department undertook those actions with the explicit intent of gaining a PP whereas there is nothing to prove that is the case in the others (though everyone knows it was). They will just say at the time of those other examples they had no evidence clubs were list managing with the intent to lose games and now that thy have evidence of it happening at Melbourne we will be punished.

I sincerely hope this isn't the case and can see all your arguments to the contrary however I'm just explaining what I think the response will be. It will be about the intent of the actions rather than the actions themselves. Intent is hard to prove but if they have enough people saying it was openly discussed in team/FD meetings then they will probably punish us.

Firts that would only be one component of a defence not the whole defence. Second this alleged evidence against us only came about after a 7 month investigation, that may by the way be flawed, but why then shouldn't others be investigated to see what evidence comes out after 7 months, as you admit others did the same as us. Why only us?