Catch up time for me - did the below law not exist in 2009 as to my understanding this is the tanking law ?

"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)

( note they can only try and get Bailey on this - not CC or CS)

Yes it most certainly did and that is precisely my point. 19 (A5) relates to "bringing the game into disrepute". Against the dichotomy I outlined in my previous post, the AFL itself, by introducing the priority pick system, has undermined its very own rules.

The key phrase in 19 (A5) is "not to perform on their merits". Given the quality of our list in 2009, or lack thereof, what were our actual merits? You can only work with what you've got.

That inescapable fact seems to be forgotten

The end of CW's article:

To let the club off the hook now would be as

damaging to the game's image as Melbourne was back in that clumsy, divided and unhappy time four seasons ago.

After re-reading that mangled sentence several times, I assume she is saying that Melbourne's poor performance in 2009 was as damaging to the image of the game as the tanking is. An amazing statement!

All teams have been abysmal from time to time and no one has claimed that the game was brought into disrepute because of it and certainly no penalties have ever been applied by the AFL for being hopeless (quite the contrary with the PP and early picks etc). So if we take her at her word, there should be no penalty for our 'tanking' since it was no more damaging to AFL's reputation than our cruddy season was.

She is so vitriolic, she doesn't read what she writes.

A message for the AFL from Caroline perhaps........and getting back to the charges earlier in the article it is "expected" the club will be charged for bringing the game into disrepute.

I think this is what is being discussed atm. And she may be warning the AFL here^ that if they do let the club off the hook she will take aim (at the AFL) with both barrels (so to speak).

If this was the situation, I would be after an injunction to curtail her baseless & damaging articles.

"Melbourne manipulated football results in 2009. Bailey knew it, McLean and several teammates knew it and resented it and a disturbing number of witnesses have attested to it. To let the club off the hook now would be as

damaging to the game's image as Melbourne was back in that clumsy, divided and unhappy time four seasons ag

o."

Any lawyers here? Is that statement libellous? Certainly unproven speculation at best.

And what an absolutely vindictive vile woman (one of the mods does not like me using a word with references to lady folk once burned at Salem) though I am surprised that Schwab didn't crack a mention. She just cannot help herself.

Yes it most certainly did and that is precisely my point. 19 (A5) relates to "bringing the game into disrepute". Against the dichotomy I outlined in my previous post, the AFL itself, by introducing the priority pick system, has undermined its very own rules.

The key phrase in 19 (A5) is "not to perform on their merits". Given the quality of our list in 2009, or lack thereof, what were our actual merits? You can only work with what you've got.

That inescapable fact seems to be forgotten

Herein lies the problem - the law reads find up until the time of application - it is not about OUR actual merits as you can be crap and through your actions still tank - rather than be pretty sure you wont win - you can guarantee it ...(GC has little chance of winning with the team they field but you can guarantee a loss if you pull Ablett out). To my mind defining ANY teams actual merit and goes back to the 1800 posts here debating over list management, positional changes, rotations and earlier surgeries. A perfect example is teams playing for a finals berths nurse good players who are injured to get something out of them and hopefully contribute to a premiership. A team out of contention puts them in for early surgery. So clearly you have two choices dependant on ladder positioning - one is doing the best for this season and the other is doing the best for the next season. The second option means that you have made a choice not to put the best team on the field this season - you are actively lowering your chances of winning,

What a minefield.

It depends what the other alternative offer is - maybe it's to be charged with that AND have MFC, MFC Board, Dean Bailey, Cameron Schwab and Chris Connolly all charged with tanking which will no doubt end in court.

So your hoping the Board offers up poor cuddles Connolly as the sacrificial lamb guilty or not. After we have betrayed one of our own loyal servants, because we personally don't have the stomach for the fight, how do we as an organisation address our Football Department. "Now guys I realise that we as an organisation have committed an act of spineless betrayal against cuddles, but don't worry cos we got your back. Now go out there and play like Demons and not like Demon board members". To me a sporting clubs Life force is the that wonderful notion of loyalty. Standing by your people when they need you most. Setting the ethos and leading by example. I know that its a professional sport but that doesn't mean it's exclusive of integrity and commitment. I believe that this integrity filters down through organistation and becomes part of our club culture. Giving us as supporters something to be proud of. We ask a lot of our player on field , demanding courage and commitment sometimes at their own physical peril and yet in the past have shied away from the same courageous commitment off field. I see this as an opportunity for the club to break the habits that have condemned us for the last 45 odd years. Sadly I know that notion of loyal and inspiration leadership in todays world is an abstract concept that some people will never comprehend. Mores the pity.

Wilson just had to write the line "And Melbourne is just too weak to punish..." Must have taken her a while to find a position for that line.

This club should never forget that line, & never put ourselves in a position where somebody can write that

So your hoping the Board offers up poor cuddles Connolly as the sacrificial lamb guilty or not. After we have betrayed one of our own loyal servants, because we personally don't have the stomach for the fight, how do we as an organisation address our Football Department. "Now guys I realise that we as an organisation have committed an act of spineless betrayal against cuddles, but don't worry cos we got your back. Now go out there and play like Demons and not like Demon board members". To me a sporting clubs Life force is the that wonderful notion of loyalty. Standing by your people when they need you most. Setting the ethos and leading by example. I know that its a professional sport but that doesn't mean it's exclusive of integrity and commitment. I believe that this integrity filters down through organistation and becomes part of our club culture. Giving us as supporters something to be proud of. We ask a lot of our player on field , demanding courage and commitment sometimes at their own physical peril and yet in the past have shied away from the same courageous commitment off field. I see this as an opportunity for the club to break the habits that have condemned us for the last 45 odd years. Sadly I know that notion of loyal and inspiration leadership in todays world is an abstract concept that some people will never comprehend. Mores the pity.

And on the flipside - imagine how pizzed he would be at the club. His first press conference " if I am going down then I am going have some company on the trip"

(hell hath no fury like a cuddles scorned)

And on the flipside - imagine how pizzed he would be at the club. His first press conference " if I am going down then I am going have some company on the trip"

(hell hath no fury like a cuddles scorned)

we don't burn anyone. That includes deals where the club "saves face". This is not a corporation. It is a football club. I concede not all will agree with me, but if you start the colateral damage scenario in this situation this club will have no trust. That will include members. Why would i financially support a club that does not respect a past player who broke bones and knees for the Red & Blue?

EVERY HEART BEATS TRUE.

Herein lies the problem - the law reads find up until the time of application - it is not about OUR actual merits as you can be crap and through your actions still tank - rather than be pretty sure you wont win - you can guarantee it ...(GC has little chance of winning with the team they field but you can guarantee a loss if you pull Ablett out). To my mind defining ANY teams actual merit and goes back to the 1800 posts here debating over list management, positional changes, rotations and earlier surgeries. A perfect example is teams playing for a finals berths nurse good players who are injured to get something out of them and hopefully contribute to a premiership. A team out of contention puts them in for early surgery. So clearly you have two choices dependant on ladder positioning - one is doing the best for this season and the other is doing the best for the next season. The second option means that you have made a choice not to put the best team on the field this season - you are actively lowering your chances of winning,

What a minefield.

Precisely !!!!!!!!!!! And Wilson believes you can unequivocally legislate for these "minefield" scenarios, sustain a case in such vagaries and sanction accordingly. Give me a break please.

Under the "out of contention" scenario, would it be drawing a long bow for any coach to say to a gun young bloke, mate, we're shot this year, best you rest up for the rest of the year and get yourself right for next season? For that matter, it is likely a coach would say that to several gun players.

Were such a conversation to take place and I am bloody sure it would regularly and it happened to be overheard and relayed to the likes of Wilson, what would she make of that?

Clearly, this is pulp fiction at its best by Caro and almost as gruesome as its celluloid counterpart.

As a postscript, I say again, you cannot be charged with "tanking". That is simply fact.

So your hoping the Board offers up poor cuddles Connolly as the sacrificial lamb guilty or not. After we have betrayed one of our own loyal servants, because we personally don't have the stomach for the fight, how do we as an organisation address our Football Department. "Now guys I realise that we as an organisation have committed an act of spineless betrayal against cuddles, but don't worry cos we got your back. Now go out there and play like Demons and not like Demon board members". To me a sporting clubs Life force is the that wonderful notion of loyalty. Standing by your people when they need you most. Setting the ethos and leading by example. I know that its a professional sport but that doesn't mean it's exclusive of integrity and commitment. I believe that this integrity filters down through organistation and becomes part of our club culture. Giving us as supporters something to be proud of. We ask a lot of our player on field , demanding courage and commitment sometimes at their own physical peril and yet in the past have shied away from the same courageous commitment off field. I see this as an opportunity for the club to break the habits that have condemned us for the last 45 odd years. Sadly I know that notion of loyal and inspiration leadership in todays world is an abstract concept that some people will never comprehend. Mores the pity.

I would be interested to know how the coaching staff addressed the players after that Richmond game, Everybody's played footy at some point and been blasted by the coach after a close loss, how do you speak to players after that performance in the coaching box.

Nice little article in today's' Hun with Jamar talking about the "tanking plaver". Article says that the "controversial stretch of games where Melbourne was accused of tanking were the making of his career" with Jamar saying that playing in different positions helped him to be more versatile and helped build his confidence for the following year when he made AA.

He also notes playing forward has helped play that role now (as he is expected to, particularly given the changes to the interchange rules and the introduction of the sub - my comment).

Another great comment was that as a forward he kicked 5 against Carlton in round 21! Pretty poor bit of tanking by Bailey then. I mean how often in the last decade has any demon player kicked 5 in a game - a tanking coach worth half his salt would have moved him after he kicked his first.

I would be interested to know how the coaching staff addresed the players after that Richmond game, everybodys played footy at some point and been blasted by the coach after a close loss, how do you speak to players after that performance in the coaching box.

you'd have to ask the zulus

Nice little article in today's' Hun with Jamar talking about the "tanking player". Article says that the "controversial stretch of games where Melbourne was accused of tanking were the making of his career" with Jamar saying that playing in different positions helped him to be more versatile and helped build his confidence for the following year when he made AA.

He also notes playing forward has helped play that role now (as he is expected to, particularly given the changes to the interchange rules and the introduction of the sub - my comment).

Another great comment was that as a forward he kicked 5 against Carlton in round 21! Pretty poor bit of tanking by Bailey then. I mean how often in the last decade has any demon player kicked 5 in a game - a tanking coach worth half his salt would have moved him after he kicked his first.

How quaint.

Somebody actually asked a footballer about his experiences on this subject.

Nice little article in today's' Hun with Jamar talking about the "tanking plaver". Article says that the "controversial stretch of games where Melbourne was accused of tanking were the making of his career" with Jamar saying that playing in different positions helped him to be more versatile and helped build his confidence for the following year when he made AA.

He also notes playing forward has helped play that role now (as he is expected to, particularly given the changes to the interchange rules and the introduction of the sub - my comment).

Another great comment was that as a forward he kicked 5 against Carlton in round 21! Pretty poor bit of tanking by Bailey then. I mean how often in the last decade has any demon player kicked 5 in a game - a tanking coach worth half his salt would have moved him after he kicked his first.

Jamar handles himself in media situations. He did so in an interview last year. He has been asked those questions before and knows the answers. It more about what he did not say and the questions he was not asked.

Jamar did kick 5 and achieved it with having a varying times beside him in the forward line.....Spencer and McLean. Unless Jamar took the mark which he did on 5 occassions it was an automatic turnover to the Carlton opposition. They ran the ball so easily out of our forward line that it was farcical It was hardly pressure tactics by Bailey.

Jamar did kick 5 and achieved it with having a varying times beside him in the forward line.....Spencer and McLean. Unless Jamar took the mark which he did on 5 occassions it was an automatic turnover to the Carlton opposition. They ran the ball so easily out of our forward line that it was farcical It was hardly pressure tactics by Bailey.

Is having two giraffe's and a turtle in your forward line tanking though?

Jamar handles himself in media situations. He did so in an interview last year. He has been asked those questions before and knows the answers. It more about what he did not say and the questions he was not asked.

Jamar did kick 5 and achieved it with having a varying times beside him in the forward line.....Spencer and McLean. Unless Jamar took the mark which he did on 5 occassions it was an automatic turnover to the Carlton opposition. They ran the ball so easily out of our forward line that it was farcical It was hardly pressure tactics by Bailey.

So such a dissection is necessary to lessen the veracity of what he is saying, as it pertains to the current "tanking" debate? Your post entirely misses Jamar's point that he considers that experience made him a better player.

Jamar handles himself in media situations. He did so in an interview last year. He has been asked those questions before and knows the answers. It more about what he did not say and the questions he was not asked.

Jamar did kick 5 and achieved it with having a varying times beside him in the forward line.....Spencer and McLean. Unless Jamar took the mark which he did on 5 occassions it was an automatic turnover to the Carlton opposition. They ran the ball so easily out of our forward line that it was farcical It was hardly pressure tactics by Bailey.

Did you think we were a chance to win that game, ever? Or did it go the way you thought it would?

So your hoping the Board offers up poor cuddles Connolly as the sacrificial lamb guilty or not. After we have betrayed one of our own loyal servants, because we personally don't have the stomach for the fight, how do we as an organisation address our Football Department. "Now guys I realise that we as an organisation have committed an act of spineless betrayal against cuddles, but don't worry cos we got your back. Now go out there and play like Demons and not like Demon board members". To me a sporting clubs Life force is the that wonderful notion of loyalty. Standing by your people when they need you most. Setting the ethos and leading by example. I know that its a professional sport but that doesn't mean it's exclusive of integrity and commitment. I believe that this integrity filters down through organistation and becomes part of our club culture. Giving us as supporters something to be proud of. We ask a lot of our player on field , demanding courage and commitment sometimes at their own physical peril and yet in the past have shied away from the same courageous commitment off field. I see this as an opportunity for the club to break the habits that have condemned us for the last 45 odd years. Sadly I know that notion of loyal and inspiration leadership in todays world is an abstract concept that some people will never comprehend. Mores the pity.

And on the flipside - imagine how pizzed he would be at the club. His first press conference " if I am going down then I am going have some company on the trip"

(hell hath no fury like a cuddles scorned)

Fifty 5 and others have said that any negotiated settlement between the AFL and the MFC will also need the approval of any individuals charged (Schwab, Bailey and Connolly).

Its recognised that the negotiated settlement would be a waste of time if it scapegoats any one of them.

The first thing they would do would be to bring down MFC and the AFL and the integrity of the whole issue would be beyond repair.

But FWIW, I dont think Connolly needs to be glorified for his role at the Club. A dying Stynes took control of the FD from him in 2010. And the Club have moved him out of the FD in 2011 in preference for others. In the LT, he is hardly a must keep based on role performance.

Jamar handles himself in media situations. He did so in an interview last year. He has been asked those questions before and knows the answers. It more about what he did not say and the questions he was not asked.

Jamar did kick 5 and achieved it with having a varying times beside him in the forward line.....Spencer and McLean. Unless Jamar took the mark which he did on 5 occassions it was an automatic turnover to the Carlton opposition. They ran the ball so easily out of our forward line that it was farcical It was hardly pressure tactics by Bailey.

have you considered he may have been telling the truth in terms of himself??

Jamar was not making the moves...

I would be interested to know how the coaching staff addressed the players after that Richmond game, Everybody's played footy at some point and been blasted by the coach after a close loss, how do you speak to players after that performance in the coaching box.

What performance? We very nearly stole a match that most experts tipped us to lose. Revisionist history aside I actually agree with you. That address to the players would have made interesting listening. But it also underlines my point. As club we have spent most of the last 45 years baulking at shadows, hearing footsteps and taking short steps and where has that got us. The end result is we have a Football Club that many perceive as standing for nothing or worse irrelevant. As I said I see this as an opportunity to finally address this perceptions and begin to rebuild our club into the club we would all aspire it to be. To buckle under again would just confirm what many already believe.

Jamar handles himself in media situations. He did so in an interview last year. He has been asked those questions before and knows the answers. It more about what he did not say and the questions he was not asked.

Jamar did kick 5 and achieved it with having a varying times beside him in the forward line.....Spencer and McLean. Unless Jamar took the mark which he did on 5 occassions it was an automatic turnover to the Carlton opposition. They ran the ball so easily out of our forward line that it was farcical It was hardly pressure tactics by Bailey.

I think we need 18 RR's in the Coaching Box on matchdays!!

The point is that CW screams The Poor Players because of our tanking (she needs a helpless victim outside of her sensibilities) but to some of the players those seasons were the making of them.

Garland playing at all AND getting a second chance after his awful first few games...Jamar showing something forward...Young players given chances they would not have normally got...Paul Johnson given an extended run to save his career (didn't work out)

All these things and more! Brought to the players by 'tanking.'

Tanking - If you're good - you're in surgery, and if you're rubbish - you get chances to show you're not.

Did you think we were a chance to win that game, ever? Or did it go the way you thought it would?

We certainly werent a chance of competing in the match given those tactics. It was one of the most pressureless kick to kick events I have seen.

Carlton won easily on the scoreboard but they certainly werent tested, and would have hardly raised a sweat in doing so. It was a prime example of bruise free football that Carlton labelled us with in 2011.

As another day goes by & still no announcement it wouldn't surprise me if MFC have said , if you think youve got the evidence go ahead and charge us, but we don't think you have & will play hardball. The afl know they haven't got hard evidence & are finding it hard to reach a resolution. Really hoping I'm right

Jamar handles himself in media situations. He did so in an interview last year. He has been asked those questions before and knows the answers. It more about what he did not say and the questions he was not asked.

Jamar did kick 5 and achieved it with having a varying times beside him in the forward line.....Spencer and McLean. Unless Jamar took the mark which he did on 5 occassions it was an automatic turnover to the Carlton opposition. They ran the ball so easily out of our forward line that it was farcical It was hardly pressure tactics by Bailey.

well i can remember at least one goal didn't come from a mark