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 could see Car'ton were tanking for the Kreuzer Cup from Rileys first game as coach (Rnd 14), after Daniher's final game as coach @ Etihad (Rnd 13).

They (Blues) tried to not play well the whole game.

... then of all strange things, Riley walks into a plum Car'ton job at seasons end...

... the Blues like our ex's,,, explayers like Wells, to ex coaches.... & recruiting people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Ratten#Coaching_career

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Pagan#Carlton_Football_Club

I've just spent a wonderful morning at the beach and returned to this discussion.

Is it Groundhog Day?

I've just spent a wonderful morning at the beach and returned to this discussion.

Is it Groundhog Day?

It has been for over six months now WJ.

I am sure you have noticed before today.

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.

The AFL want to clear-up/destroy any perception of AFL support of (list managing/tanking)...

Vlad will have to stay at arms length, so the AFL 'others' tidy it up, so Vlad can't be accused of tinkering with things before he goes. or after

Gillon handed down the chalice to AA.

* IMO they are waiting for us to run out of gas. If we don't & we keep up the anger, they will be worried we'll protest & make an awful lot of noise & trouble thru the season.

If we become excepting of our Fate, as we have done for 40 + Years, they will have their Patsy.... & spank us pat us on the Head & say run along.

Car'ton gets off Fitzpatrick Free...

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

IMO the AFL want this list management Finished & dusted off before Gillon takes the reigns.

... imo he will hand on the report & responses to the Commission, for them to sit in Judgement on. Gillon will be seen to be doing the right thing by the greater footy public.

A nice segway into the AFL's plum job.

The AFL will either have our sacrificial goat/s, or not,,,,,, & imo, this will determine their public findings.

... they will either charge some officials (ours), or alternatively find there isn't enough proof to charge the MFC.

if our officials are charged, it should go to court.

I agree with WYL that the commission and Vlad are on the same page or Vlad position becomes untenable ( despite his utterings mentioned by BH).

I have never bought into this investigation being about finding out if we tanked and what should happen. I think Vlad never wanted this to investigation in the first place and this is an exercise in "closure with minimal damage to the AFLs reputation ".

Vlad has denied tanking since Moses was playing fullback for the Jerusalem seconds, he goes away for five minutes and AA fires up an investigation on the back of McLeans stupid utterings. I believe Vlad's hand is now back firmly on the wheel and will he stage manage how this plays out.

A couple more weeks and we will know.

I agree with WYL that the commission and Vlad are on the same page or Vlad position becomes untenable ( despite his utterings mentioned by BH).

I have never bought into this investigation being about finding out if we tanked and what should happen. I think Vlad never wanted this to investigation in the first place and this is an exercise in "closure with minimal damage to the AFLs reputation ".

Vlad has denied tanking since Moses was playing fullback for the Jerusalem seconds, he goes away for five minutes and AA fires up an investigation on the back of McLeans stupid utterings. I believe Vlad's hand is now back firmly on the wheel and will he stage manage how this plays out.

A couple more weeks and we will know.

IMO that was all a part of the Pantomime.

IMO that was all a part of the Pantomime.

Interesting theory - I think completely opposite - Vlad wouldnt have been happy and part of the reason why AA is no longer in his current gig - but we are both speculating.

This is definately not a Pantomine. Like i have said before, Vlad could have stopped this at any time if HE had wanted to.

He decided to let it roll. He may have said "Go" from the UK. it is not really important.

But Andrew is number one. Don't kid yourselves. The AFL findings will come down with his blessing i have no doubt.

If they don't the competition is in serious trouble.

I agree with WYL that the commission and Vlad are on the same page or Vlad position becomes untenable ( despite his utterings mentioned by BH).

I have never bought into this investigation being about finding out if we tanked and what should happen. I think Vlad never wanted this to investigation in the first place and this is an exercise in "closure with minimal damage to the AFLs reputation ".

Vlad has denied tanking since Moses was playing fullback for the Jerusalem seconds, he goes away for five minutes and AA fires up an investigation on the back of McLeans stupid utterings. I believe Vlad's hand is now back firmly on the wheel and will he stage manage how this plays out.

A couple more weeks and we will know.

Gillon McLaughlin has been stand in COO from the start of this year. I agree with Fan that once MFC responds it will go the the COO before the Commission of which AD sits on. Unless the goal posts have moved, that was my understanding of the handling of this investigation anyway from the November/early December last year. Because it's my belief that that's what was stated.

That's not to say AD won't be looking over Gill's shoulder in a weeks time assisting him in his new interim role before being deputy CEO of the AFL.

IMO that was all a part of the Pantomime.

Whilst I agree this is all theatre I dont think that was anything in the script. A bit of impromptu sport theatre me thinks. A bit like turning your back on a 5yo. !!

Interesting theory - I think completely opposite - Vlad wouldnt have been happy and part of the reason why AA is no longer in his current gig - but we are both speculating.

yes we are speculating.

what we know.

* AA got rid of the priority pick early in the year.

* Gillon was going to the NRL, or stay to become the AFL CEO? He stayed.

* Vlad took his Long Service leave at the Olympics, left a couple of weeks prior to the coach expose, & weeks prior to Olympics. He was away while it all hit the fan.

* Gillon, in Vlads absence, handballed the grenade to AA...

* AA after the media storm, said he would start an investigation & did so.

* Kerro flamed things up.

* individuals targeted from the furore. (soft targets)

* the media suspiciously maintains the focus on one club, almost in Unison. (how come they aren't competing for the truth)?

* the AFL sneeks it out, that are looking at individuals. (read scapegoats)

* the 800 page report sees the light of fluorescence. (as some would say, "for your eyes only")

* rumours abound in media & social media takes off.

* some try to quash all the anger amongst the Dees supporters. (strange)

..... lets see the direction of the MFC after all this, will they buckle or will they fight?

yes we are speculating.

what we know.

* AA got rid of the priority pick early in the year.

* Gillon was going to the NRL, or stay to become the AFL CEO? He stayed.

* Vlad took his Long Service leave at the Olympics, left a couple of weeks prior to the coach expose, & weeks prior to Olympics. He was away while it all hit the fan.

* Gillon, in Vlads absence, handballed the grenade to AA...

* AA after the media storm, said he would start an investigation & did so.

* Kerro flamed things up.

* individuals targeted from the furore. (soft targets)

* the media suspiciously maintains the focus on one club, almost in Unison. (how come they aren't competing for the truth)?

* the AFL sneeks it out, that are looking at individuals. (read scapegoats)

* the 800 page report sees the light of fluorescence. (as some would say, "for your eyes only")

* rumours abound in media & social media takes off.

* some try to quash all the anger amongst the Dees supporters. (strange)

..... lets see the direction of the MFC after all this, will they buckle or will they fight?

If they buckle dee-luded i will be extremely disappointed.

..... lets see the direction of the MFC after all this, will they buckle or will they fight?

I have thought all along that it wont even come to a fight as there will be no charges to answer. Every fight the AFL picks, they usually are the the combatants, judge and jury. If they choose to fight by laying charges which we challenge in court, they lose the power to control the outcome. I dont think that want this with 5 other clubs that could face the same court defined scrutiny. The courts will not state that other clubs need to be charged etc but if they uphold any charges laid against us there will be meat on the bones of the AFL laws and rules governing this area - we will know exactly what actions we took that constituted "tanking" and then the media scrum will be baying for blood - e.g. Strange positional moves are tanking - Carlton ? Not coaching to ensure the teams success - Terry Wallace and Richmond. As it stands now, there are no practical defined actions under the existing rules - this will change in court and i feel sure that the AFL does not want to have investigate and possible charge 5 other clubs.

For this reason alone, we cannot afford to blink - no buckling - keep towing the same line - you charge us AFL and we will defend ourselves in court.

It has been for over six months now WJ.

I am sure you have noticed before today.

I have but on the subject of what constitutes the offence of tanking it's fairly clear that there are different views as to what constitutes "tanking" and I doubt that the differing views are going to be reconciled. As a result, we're getting posters debating others and going around in circles in the process.

The most helpful poster in all of this is DC who keeps telling us how many days to go before the next AFL commission meeting but even that doesn't tell us how far to go before we get an outcome.

We go around ovals; not in circles !!!

step at a time WJ there will be more counters to come

​apocalypse or nirvana is quickly approaching

step at a time WJ there will be more counters to come

​apocalypse or nirvana is quickly approaching

Not quicker enough for my liking dc

I have but on the subject of what constitutes the offence of tanking it's fairly clear that there are different views as to what constitutes "tanking" and I doubt that the differing views are going to be reconciled.

Its like the road rules stating

1/ its an offense to drive too fast and also an offense to drive badly.

I have but on the subject of what constitutes the offence of tanking it's fairly clear that there are different views as to what constitutes "tanking" and I doubt that the differing views are going to be reconciled. As a result, we're getting posters debating others and going around in circles in the process.

The most helpful poster in all of this is DC who keeps telling us how many days to go before the next AFL commission meeting but even that doesn't tell us how far to go before we get an outcome.

The main reason I now have interest WJ is that I am still worried about the outcome.

In reality nothing has changed for months.

I find it amazing that so many at Demonland ( me included ) can waffle on about a subject that we know so little about.

I.e. The detail we know so little about.

If it goes the way we all hope it will be over by mid Feb I think.

If not and we have to go to court then it might still have years rather than weeks to run.

God deliver me if the later is true.

yes we are speculating.

what we know.

Vlad took his Long Service leave at the Olympics, left a couple of weeks prior to the coach expose, & weeks prior to Olympics. He was away while it all hit the fan.

I don't think thats right, I think he has a 6 week annual vacation clause in his contract and has approval to go mid year. Clearly it coincided with the Olympics in 2012 where he was a guest of Carlton Board member Ahmed Fahour.

No conflict there.....

I don't think thats right, I think he has a 6 week annual vacation clause in his contract and has approval to go mid year. Clearly it coincided with the Olympics in 2012 where he was a guest of Carlton Board member Ahmed Fahour.

No conflict there.....

I am sure not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Carlton......funny that !

Here's an except from Wikipedia (and I'm aware that it's not the foremost authority on anything in particular but it might help). I've left out the references but they can be found http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priority_draft_pick]here.

There was annual speculation that poor performing teams manipulated their results after they were eliminated from finals contention, in order to ensure they remain below the eligibility criterion and receive a priority pick under the pre-2012 format; this was referred to as "tanking."

There are a wide variety of behaviours which could be considered to be tanking. These include:

* Instructing the players to deliberately lose matches

* Employing unusual tactics in matches, including using players in positions where they do not usually play

* Resting star players with minor injuries, who would likely not be rested if the team were contesting finals

* Playing younger players who do not yet have much experience at AFL level

While all of these behaviours can be interpreted as an attempt to avoid winning matches, all but the first point can also be justified as a sensible player management and development strategy for a team with no chance of playing finals, which complicates the debate about tanking. In addition, tanking has the significant issue that fans of these clubs sometimes openly support against their teams on game day; however, this could also be justified as a sign of fan dissatisfaction at the club's poor performance and/or its administration.

Also complicating the debate is the fact that different people have different opinions on what is acceptable behaviour. When speaking about West Coast's 2010 priority draft pick, coach John Worsfold openly defended his right to play young players in unfamiliar positions to assist their development; but, when speaking about Carlton's 2007 priority draft pick, assistant coach Tony Liberatore said he personally thought it was wrong to play younger players in place of senior players whose niggling injuries would not be bad enough to force their omission if the team were playing finals, and Brock McLean revealed that he requested to be traded away from the Melbourne Football Club because he disagreed with similar strategies in the lead-up to Melbourne's 2009 priority draft pick.

I've just spent a wonderful morning at the beach and returned to this discussion.

Is it Groundhog Day?

Has Tom signed yet?