Thats the biggest load of [censored] i have read in the AGE for a long time, that vagrant CW should be a member of Demonland.

"One expected charge is bringing the game into disrepute. Connolly will be charged as will former coach Dean Bailey, but Fairfax Media could not confirm whether CEO Cameron Schwab would also be charged."

"Acting AFL football boss Gillon McLachlan is running the affair, having taken it over from the departed Adrian Anderson and has refused to discuss what has reportedly been constant dialogue with all parties."

It's nice to know the AGE could confirm the first few charges and not the CS one, so who's giving out the information seeing as Gillon is running things but is not talking according to the AGE.

"While club president Don McLardy missed the point entirely at last week's Melbourne annual general meeting when he suggested that his players had wrongly been accused of not trying, McLardy remains steadfast in his view that he would fight the AFL's charges all the way to the highest court in the land."

Someone missed the point and I'm pretty sure it wasn't good ol Don.

"Fairfax couldn't confirm". What, no word from the Daily Spectator or The Sunday Telegraph. They couldn't confirm because the verdict hasn't been announced.

-15 (phase II)

temperature rising

Thats the biggest load of [censored] i have read in the AGE for a long time, that vagrant CW should be a member of Demonland.

That's funny. You don't know, she might be posting under a discreet non-de-plume.

Edited February 12, 201312 yr by bush demon

So you aren't a casual commentator? What if I feel no solidarity with you,comrade?

Sorry, I mean't running commentary. Digger.

CW - In legal terms we may have done nothing wrong and nevertheless we should be punished heavily. I might have to completely rethink my whole career.

CW needs a lesson in manners!

She really is a terrible journo .

Its amazing how she makes things up as fact.

How does she know what our defence case is?

CW - In legal terms we may have done nothing wrong and nevertheless we should be punished heavily. I might have to completely rethink my whole career.

Yeah, I hope she never has legal issues...

One thing I will point out is this:

This is not a defence against the charge itself but a complaint in the manner by which the AFL gathered its information from those men who attended a meeting addressed by Chris Connolly at the Junction Oval ''vault''.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/demons-lameduck-excuses-20130212-2eb5v.html#ixzz2Kiq0kPpr

So at last - Fairfax, and The Bitter One, finally acknowledge the original lie of a code-named meeting to discuss tanking. Now it is 'a' meeting and it is 'at' the Junction Oval "vault". (Although one might question why 'vault' is mentioned at all...)

So with that now corrected by The Bitter One - there would be a few Demons on here who should now come to acknowledge the fact that Wilson has been wrong, by her own admission, and that - for this reason - we vehemently oppose what she is attempting to bring upon our club.

She is a poor journalist and we are pointing out that fact.

For the record.

Would someone please do me a favour and dig up where Terry Wallace is actually quoted as saying Richmond tanked.

CW- In legal terms we may have done nothing wrong and nevertheless we should be punished heavily. I might have to completely rethink my whole career.

This just about sums it up. One of the worst articles I've read in a long time.

For people in the know is there a case for defamation against the age if we are found to be innocent of tanking?

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

Far too late for that. we can see her for exactly what she is.

For the record.

Would someone please do me a favour and dig up where Terry Wallace is actually quoted as saying Richmond tanked.

He has said it on SEN a couple of times that I have heard. Well I guess it depends on your definition of tanking but he basically admitted to not coaching to win or whatever they call it by sitting on his hands and not making moves. He thought Cotchin was more important than winning.

For the record.

Would someone please do me a favour and dig up where Terry Wallace is actually quoted as saying Richmond tanked.

Richmond tanked ( well we didnt try to win )-Wallace

For the record.

Would someone please do me a favour and dig up where Terry Wallace is actually quoted as saying Richmond tanked.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/terry-wallace-admits-not-trying-in-afl-game-to-secure-trent-cotchin/story-e6frf3e3-1225752963181

A whole lot of carp again, but this time she has qualified it as an opinion piece.

What is she afraid of. C'mon Caro put your gonads on the line.

Well, she gave a forthright opinion piece in public what more do you want?

Some people here are suggesting that we had a genuine choice of a different outcome in 2009, perhaps of winning enough games to get into the eight; the reality is that we didn't! Why aren't we talking about last year (2012) when we only won a single game playing against the same fifteen teams? Did we tank last year, did we bring the game into disrepute? No we did not! We did the best we could, with the players we had and the injuries we had. Somebody has to lose every time two teams run out onto the paddock and it is not because the other team tanked!

Can you name these people with that view? Its certainly not a view I have read on Dland. The rest is strawman stuff.

Far too late for that. we can see her for exactly what she is.

And others as well.

The Straw Man Argument

There are a couple on here who are attempting belittle the views of those who do not believe we tanked by creating a Straw Man to blow over. This is when you simply attach a ridiculous or easily dismissable point-of-view to those to which you are arguing. The Straw Man du jour has been around The Pointing Defence: that we are just pointing to other clubs who were not charged with tanking and being 'childish' (to quote CW).

Many have made that juxtaposition but it hardly dominates the argument against our guilt or punishment.

What does dominate the argument, and CW points this out in her recent desperate attempt to save face, is the legal improbabilty of proving tanking without establishing motive.

If they cannot prove motive then they must find an action that is 'tanking.'

All actions that constitute our colloquial vision of 'tanking' are not unique to it. In fact, only telling players to lose would be unique to tanking.

So why not legislate against the only thing that can be constituted as tanking?

That is why I say we did not tank. Because the only way of legislating agianst it is by giving it a definition that is useful, and well outside of what we did in 2009.

That is my main argument and it can't be so easily blown over, which is why it hasn't been addressed by a few 'choice' posters on here and a few troubled journalists out there.

Richmond tanked ( well we didnt try to win )-Wallace

Beat me to it Belzebud!

For the record. Would someone please do me a favour and dig up where Terry Wallace is actually quoted as saying Richmond tanked.

Forward it to CW everyday

Richmond tanked ( well we didnt try to win )-Wallace

Wallet could honestly make that claim for nearly every game he coached at Richmond.

Richmond tanked ( well we didnt try to win )-Wallace

Thanks, BB.

(Although, if push came to back, Wallace would say that was not per se a confession and weasel out of any accusation that the Tigers tanked.)

Wallet could honestly make that claim for nearly every game he coached at Richmond.

dont tell Kerro that !! sheesh !!!

For the record.

Would someone please do me a favour and dig up where Terry Wallace is actually quoted as saying Richmond tanked.

Former Richmond coach Terry Wallace admits he did "absolutely nothing" in a game two years ago, knowing a win would cost the Tigers prized recruit Trent Cotchin.

"It was a no-win situation for everyone in the coach's box," Wallace said.

"We decided the best way to operate was just to let the players go out.

"I didn't do anything. I just let the boys play. There weren't any miracle moves in the last couple of minutes."

Richmond led by nine points 12 minutes into the final term, but the Saints kicked the last three goals to win by 10 points.

The rule -

"A person, being a player, coach or assistant coach, must at all times perform on their merits and must not induce, or encourage, any player, coach or assistant coach not to perform on their merits in any match - or in relation to any aspect of the match, for any reason whatsoever.'' - AFL Regulations 19(A5)

Does this sound like a coach performing on his merits?

I can tell you where the above has been stated. Here - on 'land.

Of course, all the posters on here are really MFC powerbrokers and have authority to state club views.

Hi Caroline, can you please quote me in tomorrow's paper? My real name is D.McLardy.

Btw, this is crap. The club hasn't made any statements and we have to read this bs in the paper.

Exactly what I was thinking. She reads Demonland. So improve your writing people or the Age's standards will fall even further.

The Straw Man Argument

There are a couple on here who are attempting belittle the views of those who do not believe we tanked by creating a Straw Man to blow over. This is when you simply attach a ridiculous or easily dismissable point-of-view to those to which you are arguing. The Straw Man du jour has been around The Pointing Defence: that we are just pointing to other clubs who were not charged with tanking and being 'childish' (to quote CW).

Many have made that juxtaposition but it hardly dominates the argument against our guilt or punishment.

What does dominate the argument, and CW points this out in her recent desperate attempt to save face, is the legal improbabilty of proving tanking without establishing motive.

If they cannot prove motive then they must find an action that is 'tanking.'

All actions that constitute our colloquial vision of 'tanking' are not unique to it. In fact, only telling players to lose would be unique to tanking.

So why not legislate against the only thing that can be constituted as tanking?

That is why I say we did not tank. Because the only way of legislating agianst it is by giving it a definition that is useful, and well outside of what we did in 2009.

That is my main argument and it can be so easily blown over, which is why it hasn't been addressed by a few 'choice' posters on here and a few troubled journalists out there.

the problem in reality is that there is essentially TWO "tanking's"

One.. a coloquial reference to what is in reality List management whereby a team , coach etc looks beyond the immediate game and plans/acts on behalf of the longer term benefit.

Then there's TWO.. TANKING ...Some mythical trangression supposedly enacted against a code of sport, in this instance AFL. Problem being there is actually no such thing as its not defined. Therefore it CANT exist.

Now some here( and elsewhere ) would have us charged with the second on the basis of the first.

Thats where they are unfounded and simply wrong..

try as they might these Alchemists are flawed in logic ( or simply have none )