This guy Michelangelo in this morning's Hun is more creative than his Italian counterpart, suggesting that we get penalised 48 premiership points over the next four years (16 in 2013, 12 in 2014, 8 in 2015 and 4 in 2016) plus any MFC official identified being barred for life. Let's hope that we get exonerated in full and he gets barred from journalism for life! It is about time the AFL extended their powers to make journalists accountable for passing sentance when ignorant of the facts.

I can understand why Dean Bailey would be loathe to negotiate - "not guilty" is the only outcome I'd accept if I were him. He followed orders - perhaps a little too well.

I can understand why Dean Bailey would be loathe to negotiate - "not guilty" is the only outcome I'd accept if I were him. He followed orders - perhaps a little too well.

Dean Bailey's orders were to win games like every other coach in the AFL! What are you suggesting that they were?

Dean Bailey's orders were to win games like every other coach in the AFL! What are you suggesting that they were?

And Lance Armstrong never took EPO either.....

My vague recollection of Freudian theory is that the mind chooses to forget bad memories and recall the ones we cherish. I think we're all forgetting how bad we were in 2009. I think our defence should simply be "We didn't tank, we stank".

Jeebers Rucci has put the boot in!!

Lose 16 points a year for 4 years...Death of a club there.

Takes out 6 Clubs..BANG!

Clown.

Of course if we were talking about another club being investigated, say Carlton or Collingwood, then I suspect most would be in favour of harsh sanctions should a guilty verdict apply.

It's amazing how one can have a different perspective when it's one's own arse in the firing line.

BTW don't you think the AFL can walk and chew gum at the same time, if we have a case to answer that doesn't change because of the drug allegations.

I actually think they can do it better than most. I'm surprised you can't see that what is at stake here, as well as the merits of each individual issue, is the overall image or "brand" of the AFL. Most would recognize, you may not, that the drug issue at present represents a significant threat to the brand of the AFL. This plays into our hands as the AFL would be loath to be fighting "brand" issues on the drug issue and have the tanking issue going to court as well which circumstances of tanking being linked to more than one club.

Sometimes things are more complex than they seem Robbie.

Exactly Redleg.

Neither party wants to go to Court. Both know its a lose-lose situation.

A negotiated settlement which allows the AFL to hold some veneer of integrity and elements at the Club to get a mere slap on the wrist with overall a no further case to answer.

I've already said that - realistically- this is the only way it can go

The AFL won't throw the book at the club - because they are afraid that we'll win a legal battle. On the other hand the AFL won't let us off altogether - because they won't admit they spent 7 months writing 800 pages about nothing while drugs were flying around under their noses.

I reckon a slap on the risk for Connolly will be the compromise solution. Not a "just" outcome - but unfortunately the AFL forgot about justice when they decided to confine their investigation to one club.

With the Commission meeting on Monday, you'd reckon that there will be an announcement today or tomorrow

Just get it over with - its hard to get excited about the season with this fiasco hanging over everything.

Of course if we were talking about another club being investigated, say Carlton or Collingwood, then I suspect most would be in favour of harsh sanctions should a guilty verdict apply.

It's amazing how one can have a different perspective when it's one's own arse in the firing line.

The Great Contrarian strikes again...

I don't even now what this is supposed to say about 'most' of us...

I don't believe Carlton should be penalised - they did what was well within their devil-given rights. Same with Collingwood.

I object to the narrow focus of this 'investigation' but that's it.

What action is so punishable? No-one has suitably answered that question.

Some just allude to 'the vibe' and roll their eyes and reply in an arrogant droll: 'you knew what they were doing'...

Damning stuff...

Of course if we were talking about another club being investigated, say Carlton or Collingwood, then I suspect most would be in favour of harsh sanctions should a guilty verdict apply.

It's amazing how one can have a different perspective when it's one's own arse in the firing line.

i have no problems with "Tanking" being outlawed. Have said it all along.

I object to flimsy charges being made up (Fumbling the ball...Jack Watts game time in'09..) to further the AFL case.

There is no solid evidence in this case, hence it has dragged on for 7 months. If there was solid evidence of match fixing it would have been sorted out in 4-6 weeks.

It hasn't.

I've already said that - realistically- this is the only way it can go

The AFL won't throw the book at the club - because they are afraid that we'll win a legal battle. On the other hand the AFL won't let us off altogether - because they won't admit they spent 7 months writing 800 pages about nothing while drugs were flying around under their noses.

I reckon a slap on the risk for Connolly will be the compromise solution. Not a "just" outcome - but unfortunately the AFL forgot about justice when they decided to confine their investigation to one club.

With the Commission meeting on Monday, you'd reckon that there will be an announcement today or tomorrow

Just get it over with - its hard to get excited about the season with this fiasco hanging over everything.

you left out what happens to bailey. this i think is the sticking point

The Great Contrarian strikes again...

I don't even now what this is supposed to say about 'most' of us...

I don't believe Carlton should be penalised - they did what was well within their devil-given rights. Same with Collingwood.

I object to the narrow focus of this 'investigation' but that's it.

What action is so punishable? No-one has suitably answered that question.

Some just allude to 'the vibe' and roll their eyes and reply in an arrogant droll: 'you knew what they were doing'...

Damning stuff...

according to some the action that is punishable is the afl's "face" in having spent 7 months on this

it seems we are really becoming part of asia then

you left out what happens to bailey. this i think is the sticking point

The only slap on the wrist outcome that I could see happening would be parties being guilty of "injudicious comments that left open the possibility of misinterpretation" and maybe Connolly would come at that ( being guilty of a bad stand up routine)

I am not so sure that Bailey would come at "injudicious actions that left open the possibility of misinterpretation" but maybe..

Other than that, how can the AFL find any parties guilty of "tanking" and wave the finger at them and whack them on the bum twice and say thats it or how could the club accept that ?

For me, It is not about the penalty - it is about the wording of the charges - if any.

according to some the action that is punishable is the afl's "face" in having spent 7 months on this

it seems we are really becoming part of asia then

Spot on DC

"The MFC must be charged with SOMETHING...This sham has gone on for 7 months"..

Bring on the courtroom with that attitude.

I can understand why Dean Bailey would be loathe to negotiate - "not guilty" is the only outcome I'd accept if I were him. He followed orders - perhaps a little too well.

It's not an easy situation and you only have to look at Matt Rendell to see why. If Bailey refuses to cooperate the AFL go to Adelaide FC and just point out that his decision is putting stress on the AFL/AFC relationship and given past recent events that is not desirable. It would be in their best interest to part company with Dean.

I have sympathy for DB's situation re "following orders" but he was senior enough to carry a portion of the responsibility of those orders or simply not to follow them.

you left out what happens to bailey. this i think is the sticking point

IMO Bailey has to be "Not Guilty" - if he's guilty of something then so is everyone else.

Chris Connolly can be "Guilty" of bringing the game into disrepute through injudicious remarks.

If Dean Bailey is guilty of something it can only be tanking (not coaching to his merits) and that brings the whole deck of cards down - Bailey tanked, MFC tanked, Connolly ordered it on the say so of Schwab and the Board. Gurgle, gurgle - court action.

Of course if we were talking about another club being investigated, say Carlton or Collingwood, then I suspect most would be in favour of harsh sanctions should a guilty verdict apply.

It's amazing how one can have a different perspective when it's one's own arse in the firing line.

A guilty verdict of what Ben? All three charges, one of the charges or just two of them. You obviously know we haven't been charged with tanking - no such charege exists. Leaving aside the likelihood of charges being successfully prosecuted i would expect severe penalties of the dees or any club found guilty of all three of the charges, particularly draft tampering. Draft tampering is a bloody serious charge.

IMO Bailey has to be "Not Guilty" - if he's guilty of something then so is everyone else.

What if CS and CC instructed Bailey to tank but he didn't do it?

IMO Bailey has to be "Not Guilty" - if he's guilty of something then so is everyone else.

of course. If Bailey is found guilty that means he told players pull the handbrake.

If that happens it's walk the plank time, regardless of any other testimony.

DB is the key.

This guy Michelangelo in this morning's Hun is more creative than his Italian counterpart, suggesting that we get penalised 48 premiership points over the next four years (16 in 2013, 12 in 2014, 8 in 2015 and 4 in 2016) plus any MFC official identified being barred for life. Let's hope that we get exonerated in full and he gets barred from journalism for life! It is about time the AFL extended their powers to make journalists accountable for passing sentance when ignorant of the facts.

While he argued Adelaide was harshly dealt with over Tippet. FFS what a moron.

There is no way a senior afl coach could claim not guilty on the basis of the "just following orders" defence

not saying he was or was not given such orders. I very much doubt he was given "orders". it is possible he had "discussions" about "list management" outcomes and aquiesced/agreed, but these would always be his responsibility as a senior coach

if bailey tried the "given orders" defence (to other than legitimate list management) then he would just be damning himself

IMO Bailey has to be "Not Guilty" - if he's guilty of something then so is everyone else.

Chris Connolly can be "Guilty" of bringing the game into disrepute through injudicious remarks.

If Dean Bailey is guilty of something it can only be tanking (not coaching to his merits) and that brings the whole deck of cards down - Bailey tanked, MFC tanked, Connolly ordered it on the say so of Schwab and the Board. Gurgle, gurgle - court action.

but you haven't explained how PRIVATE injudicious remarks could bring the game into disrepute

this only came out as a result of the inquiry and more specifically because of a leak

when did his comments bring the game into disrepute? In 2009? I don't think so. In 2012 as part of a confidential inquiry? C'mon

Computer says NO

What if CS and CC instructed Bailey to tank but he didn't do it?

Well he's "Not Guilty" - that's the thing.

IMO the best negotiated settlement is that Chris Connolly spoke injudiciously about tanking and that brought the game into disrepute. Trigg-like punishment for CC and some benefactor soft landing for him. He loves the club and he did a dumb thing. Maybe a fine for MFC for not clamping down on him. No firm evidence that tanking actually occured. Case closed

but you haven't explained how PRIVATE injudicious remarks could bring the game into disrepute

this only came out as a result of the inquiry and more specifically because of a leak

when did his comments bring the game into disrepute? In 2009? I don't think so. In 2012 as part of a confidential inquiry? C'mon

Computer says NO

No [censored] Sherlock!!! Do you want this to go away or not?

What's your outcome then?