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.

1. Most people thought that, I think. Most people on here took pleasure in calling them Carltank, hypocritically or otherwise. Totally irrelevant though.

2. This changes nothing. All the arguments in favour of the MFC getting out of this penalty free stand whether it's a plan employed for one week or 22.

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 am not sure what you are insinuating.

Teams 'announce' they have no intention of going for the flag and 'bottoming out' by retiring older players and seasoned pros, delisting established depth players, and bringing in youth in spades.

And teams do say they are 'rebuilding.' Do they not?

What do they rebuild through?

The draft.

Oh, and by the way (to those not ignoring me), our 'tanking' began with the retirements of seasoned pros after 2007 (Brown, Bizzell, and Pickett) and kicked into high gear at the beginning of 2008 with the youth we brought in (7 players 20 years old or younger with two 17 year olds) and when we played two kids with no hope in Rd 1 (Garland and Weetra).

Sometimes it's not the worst thing in the world for players when teams 'tank.'

Colin Garland should be thankful...

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.

I agree, that IMO the AFL Do Not want a court action. ((( Unless we are in agreement before entering the court building that we will during the course of the court action, make a settlement????)))

Alternatively: maybe they wanted us to sack/force them to step down?

They the AFL will want something to show the media & public, or they will look like fools.

Who has what they want, to get the egg off?

We go around ovals; not in circles !!!

Your right we do go around in Elipse's...

Life, I think, goes around in cycles, or is that cycles around in circles? Its confusing, Confucius said to the French maid.

Edited January 21, 201312 yr by dee-luded

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.....

Well It was in one of the papers Jnr, in print & on the net. Thats where I got it from, & I checked all the dates of Vlad leaving to first go to Europe, checked against the date of mclean on the footy show, & checked against the dates of the London Olympics... and of Gillons handball to AAnderson, & of Vlads comments after the shite hit the media fan.

Its all out there for you to check.

Guest of Ahmed, I didn't know that. How many Greek islands & Swiss Chalets did they buy? LoL... not to mention the Belgian chocolate factories?

wheels within wheels.

I am not sure what you are insinuating.

Teams 'announce' they have no intention of going for the flag and 'bottoming out' by retiring older players and seasoned pros, delisting established depth players, and bringing in youth in spades.

And teams do say they are 'rebuilding.' Do they not?

What do they rebuild through?

The draft.

Oh, and by the way (to those not ignoring me), our 'tanking' began with the retirements of seasoned pros after 2007 (Brown, Bizzell, and Pickett) and kicked into high gear at the beginning of 2008 with the youth we brought in (7 players 20 years old or younger with two 17 year olds) and when we played two kids with no hope in Rd 1 (Garland and Weetra).

Sometimes it's not the worst thing in the world for players when teams 'tank.'

Colin Garland should be thankful...

spot on rpfc.

Another useless rehash from John Pierik in the Age -

'Difficult' season still haunts Demons board

Another useless rehash from John Pierik in the Age -

'Difficult' season still haunts Demons board

I don't agree unless I've missed some things along the way. It tells me that 8 members of the 2009 Board have been interviewed and have denied any knowledge of an intention to lose.

I find that very interesting.

It also confirms that one of the journalists who is covering this story and getting leaks has no smoking gun and his continued focus on the last three minutes of the Richmond game puts the investigation into keystone cops territory.

It's a good article from our point of view.

I don't agree unless I've missed some things along the way. It tells me that 8 members of the 2009 Board have been interviewed and have denied any knowledge of an intention to lose.

I find that very interesting.

I hadn't read that either but of course it makes sense (that board members were interviewed that is). This quote is also interesting:

'Those interviewed have said the club was in a rebuilding phase but did not tank. They have also not implicated former football manager Chris Connolly in any alleged contentious behaviour.'

Weird line. Why would they have implicated CC if they deny tanking, or even any contentious behaviour And i any case not implicating could just mean they didn't mention him at all (as opposed to defending him). No mention of CS or DB here, which i reckon is just more mischievous journalism. I'll bet London to a brick they didn't implicate them in any contentious behaviour either.

The other finny bit is that the way it read to me is if some has had access to the report and or parts of it. Which to be honest is highly likely as if 4 copies (possibly more if multiple copies were given to the board) were distributed then some of it would inevitably be leaked. All part of the AFL plan.

And i agree Fan it also suggests to me it is very unlikely there is any smoking gun and therefore this is all going to go away. But not before the AFL hogs some more media time and punishes the club by implication.

Edited January 22, 201312 yr by binman

I don't agree unless I've missed some things along the way. It tells me that 8 members of the 2009 Board have been interviewed and have denied any knowledge of an intention to lose.

I find that very interesting.

It also confirms that one of the journalists who is covering this story and getting leaks has no smoking gun and his continued focus on the last three minutes of the Richmond game puts the investigation into keystone cops territory.

It's a good article from our point of view.

Still mainly a repetition of what we've already read half a dozen times before and, quite frankly, I wasn't really anticipating any confessions from the individual board members. And what about the "infamous" vault reference? The only thing that's "infamous" about the vault is that the Age stuffed up the story nearly three months ago. At least Caroline, if she were writing now, would have given the story a conspiratorial twist.

I reckon the football world is well and truly bored with the regular rehashing of similar facts in this never ending saga and the only people who read these articles are probably Demonland and Demonology posters. I reckon we should send the Age a bill for the publicity they've been getting from us.

Many on this site who are grammatically challenged and incapable of writing coherently like to bag journos to an excessive degree...but this latest article really does warrant condemnation. An absolute crock.

Many on this site who are grammatically challenged and incapable of writing coherently like to bag journos to an excessive degree...but this latest article really does warrant condemnation. An absolute crock.

It is most certainly an absolute crock - like just about every other article on the MFC over the last six months!

Again no new news. Just a page filler full of innuendo and speculation,

I did 'learn' that there is apparently a new charge for Bailey - "Former coach Dean Bailey is facing an additional third charge - of not coaching to his utmost."

Utmost? That's an interesting one. Like to see the definition of that. Cos there certainly isn't one in the AFL rules as far as I am aware. Perhaps coaching to you 'extreme' ability?? 'Hey Dean you didn't coach to your extreme ability today just your usual every day garden variety average ability'. 'Off with his head'.

It also appears in summary there are some 'disgruntled ex-employees' who perhaps have said we tanked and lots of current employees who say we didn't. No smoking gun. Impossible to charge anyone on that, Particularly when they are laughably focusing on the last 3 mins of the Richmond game, our 'fumbling' and the non playing of Watts.

It is comedy central but I won't have a good belly laugh until they exonerate us completely.

Again no new news. Just a page filler full of innuendo and speculation,

I did 'learn' that there is apparently a new charge for Bailey - "Former coach Dean Bailey is facing an additional third charge - of not coaching to his utmost."

Utmost? That's an interesting one. Like to see the definition of that. Cos there certainly isn't one in the AFL rules as far as I am aware. Perhaps coaching to you 'extreme' ability?? 'Hey Dean you didn't coach to your extreme ability today just your usual every day garden variety average ability'. 'Off with his head'.

It also appears in summary there are some 'disgruntled ex-employees' who perhaps have said we tanked and lots of current employees who say we didn't. No smoking gun. Impossible to charge anyone on that, Particularly when they are laughably focusing on the last 3 mins of the Richmond game, our 'fumbling' and the non playing of Watts.

It is comedy central but I won't have a good belly laugh until they exonerate us completely.

You may have to wait a while Jnr

If this turns into "The MFC will not be charged"

That IMO is all we will get the AFL will not admit they are D--- H----

I don't want to have to re-read everything in order to find out, but is there an actual date by which the MFC must respond to the allegations... and if so, what is it (there are only 6 business days left in January)?

And beyond that, is there a time-frame within which the AFL must make their decision as to whether to go ahead and press charges or to drop the whole thing?

I don't want to have to re-read everything in order to find out, but is there an actual date by which the MFC must respond to the allegations... and if so, what is it (there are only 6 business days left in January)?

And beyond that, is there a time-frame within which the AFL must make their decision as to whether to go ahead and press charges or to drop the whole thing?

Fairly confident it is 29th Jan 2013

On the 29th of January we will give what will amount to a well worded 'Are you serious?' to these AFL 'charges' and from there the AFL can send it to the AFL Commission to determine our punishment, absolve us of any wrongdoing, or throw a heavily liqoured party with Rodney Dangerfield as MC - "Hey, what the hell am I doing here?"

(You have to say that in his voice)

You may have to wait a while Jnr

If this turns into "The MFC will not be charged"

That IMO is all we will get the AFL will not admit they are D--- H----

A 'no case to answer' would be slightly better...

But really, given the crap we have had to endure as a club I would expect the AFL to be more strident - 'we have looked in every nook and cranny and there is no evidence the MFC did anything untoward. The witch hunt and unfettered speculation by the media, particularly against the office bearers, supporters and employees has been appalling and we would be happy to join with the MFC in ensuring those responsible for such attacks are brought to account.'

...a man can dream can't he??

A 'no case to answer' would be slightly better...

But really, given the crap we have had to endure as a club I would expect the AFL to be more strident - 'we have looked in every nook and cranny and there is no evidence the MFC did anything untoward. The witch hunt and unfettered speculation by the media, particularly against the office bearers, supporters and employees has been appalling and we would be happy to join with the MFC in ensuring those responsible for such attacks are brought to account.'

...a man can dream can't he??

yes

Some days I think that is all I have left

A 'no case to answer' would be slightly better...

I dont think the AFL will even be that magnanimous - i am tipping "inconclusive and insufficient evidence to bring charges"

( the slap your having when you're not having a slap)

I dont think the AFL will even be that magnanimous - i am tipping "inconclusive and insufficient evidence to bring charges"

( the slap your having when you're not having a slap)

In that case the punishment will have been 7 months of crap and damage to our reputation.

Probably not much left of it by now as the general public thinks we are guilty.

Never mind we only didd the same as 6 other clubs.

In that case the punishment will have been 7 months of crap and damage to our reputation.

Probably not much left of it by now as the general public thinks we are guilty.

Never mind we only didd the same as 6 other clubs.

Yes but AD will think it has had a happy ending - tanking is finally put to bed

Yes but AD will think it has had a happy ending - tanking is finally put to bed

Yes and to hell with the MFC!

The article says the board is "haunted" by the 'difficult' season. No we're being haunted by lazy journalists who keep stalking us with their version of the same pathetic "news" story every second day. The board should take out an intervention order.

Well if all we are being investigated on is the Richmond game and not playing Jack Watts then we should be fine. But its this CC joke that he was meant to make after the port game that will be more investigated. Did he mean it or was it a joke.

Pierik states: "eight were interviewed as part of the AFL's investigation into the team's coaching and management philosophy in a year the club was desperate to not win more than four matches and therefore secure the two top picks in the national draft".

Since when do journalists speculate on the motives and therefore guilt, or innocence of a club when they're supposedly reporting on the matter ? Melbourne deny any tanking charges, but the reporter is insinuating that we were loathe to win, which is at the crux of this investigation.