BH, just so that I become enlightened, could you give me a concise definition of your version of "tanking". PLEASE.

Also, it would appear that at least one of RR's posts has been removed from this thread. AMAZING!!!!!

Why are you interested ? My view doesn't matter, it's only an opinion. Redleg has done well expressing the legal opinion on this thread, so you should search his posts.

My personal view is that it is making decisions which will negatively impact performance in an effort to manipulate a loss. I accept that that's not a legal definition, but it's mine. I don't think we should be found guilty, because unless you're really dumb in your implementation it should be almost impossible to prove. One may think we tanked, like me, but proving it was never going to be easy.

At the end of the day it's just an investigation and if you've got nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. I think most here think we tanked, buy they're now up in arms debating legal definitions, which is fine, but it's the howling about the injustice of it all that amuses me. I completely understand why we're being investigated, but so many of you appear to still be in shock. How dare they ? But but but but what about the others ? Do you know how bad we were that year ? But but we were ahead at the final siren ? Carlton were much worse than us. Etc, etc.

As I've said, each to their own.

What a gem. One of the more cutting things I've ever seen on the net.

The guy is like a female I burnt years ago.

And we are childish?

A Demon who can't stand Demons.

Just leave.

It's not paranoia, WYL, and I think it's far from baseless.

Cuddles may be a great bloke and a hard worker, but if he has said on numerous occasions in numerous forums that our aim for the year is to win less than a certain amount of games, then he is a fcuking idiot, and should take the blame for this whole saga if found guilty, given that I'm in no doubt that the Club will not be charged with tanking, and that Schwab is cleared.

I'm continually amazed at the amount of people saying "he said it as a joke, it's just others misunderstood it". Why did he say it at all? Why did he say it in multiple forums? Why not keep it between he, Schwab, Stynes and Bailey? This is my issue - we all knew what we had to do, we all knew what we wanted to achieve, we all knew what we were doing was a grey area, why not just STFU and let people do the job they know they are expected to do. Why tell groups of supporters/sponsors what the plan is? This is part of the reason that we are in the sh!t and all the others aren't.

I would be blown away if our legal team think CC will get off. I hope for his sake that they do, and that he is, and will happily apologise.

i like cuddles. get off his case billy

i like cuddles. get off his case billy

What if he's the only one to be found guilty? What if his "comments" are the only thing the AFL have managed to discover in this process, and becuase of them, we have had to put up with this investigation for near 8 months? In this time, how many potential sponsors have told us to pi$$ off?

I would love to get off his case Daisy, I honestly would (as much as that may be hard to believe).

What a gem. One of the more cutting things I've ever seen on the net.

The guy is like a female I burnt years ago.

your comment about females doesnt suprise me when you have a picture of Kate Upton as your avatar. hero

What if he's the only one to be found guilty? What if his "comments" are the only thing the AFL have managed to discover in this process, and becuase of them, we have had to put up with this investigation for near 8 months? In this time, how many potential sponsors have told us to pi$$ off?

I would love to get off his case Daisy, I honestly would (as much as that may be hard to believe).

My issue with all you are saying is that if he is found guilty for his "comments" he will be the first to be found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute by use of word rather than by his actions. And apart from words that villify which are black and white, all he has said is things which are open to interpretation.

"That Billy is such a dick" - said with a smile on my face it's a term of endearment - said expressionlessly then you should rightly get offended.

If the one person who was best positioned to alter courses of games ( outside the players) being Dean Bailey said he didnt take CC seriously ,a big joke then I find it galling that investigators who weren't there to hear the context or manner of delivery and have not been exposed to lengthy periods of CC taking the pizz as he tends to do can profer a different conclusion with any certainty. Dean Bailey may be lying through his teeth but his comments and the investigators reporting of it is simply a matter of he said she said. Hardly a hanging offence.

Also, it would appear that at least one of RR's posts has been removed from this thread. AMAZING!!!!!

Are you sure I'va?

edit: I haven't noticed anything removed in relation to RR's posts fwiw.

My issue with all you are saying is that if he is found guilty for his "comments" he will be the first to be found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute by use of word rather than by his actions. And apart from words that villify which are black and white, all he has said is things which are open to interpretation.

"That Billy is such a dick" - said with a smile on my face it's a term of endearment - said expressionlessly then you should rightly get offended.

If the one person who was best positioned to alter courses of games ( outside the players) being Dean Bailey said he didnt take CC seriously ,a big joke then I find it galling that investigators who weren't there to hear the context or manner of delivery and have not been exposed to lengthy periods of CC taking the pizz as he tends to do can profer a different conclusion with any certainty. Dean Bailey may be lying through his teeth but his comments and the investigators reporting of it is simply a matter of he said she said. Hardly a hanging offence.

I agree with what you say nutbean

The investigators probably think that for Connoly to be 'joking' then there must have been some discussions about tanking or the priority pick to provide context for the quip to be funny to those that heard it.

I already called it months ago, and continue to stand by it.

It's just a waiting game now.

I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

What if he's the only one to be found guilty? What if his "comments" are the only thing the AFL have managed to discover in this process, and becuase of them, we have had to put up with this investigation for near 8 months? In this time, how many potential sponsors have told us to pi$$ off?

I would love to get off his case Daisy, I honestly would (as much as that may be hard to believe).

If that's all they have after 8 months, then they are the problem not Cuddles.

I think CC was a clown to say what he did. I also think the club needs to stand by him now. For too long our club has thrown too many loyal servants under the bus when their usefulness to us has ran out. The bloke lost his footy manager's job because of that entire fiasco. Let's not punish him further by offering him as a sacrifical lamb to the AFL.

Why are you interested ? My view doesn't matter, it's only an opinion. Redleg has done well expressing the legal opinion on this thread, so you should search his posts.

My personal view is that it is making decisions which will negatively impact performance in an effort to manipulate a loss. I accept that that's not a legal definition, but it's mine. I don't think we should be found guilty, because unless you're really dumb in your implementation it should be almost impossible to prove. One may think we tanked, like me, but proving it was never going to be easy.

Are we being investigated for breaches of AFL rules or for something that's legal but offends some people's moral values?

Edited February 14, 201312 yr by The Great Pretender
Fixed quote tag

No we're being hounded for bad dad jokes !!

You can side all you like with whom you like. It means nothing to me.

I believe we tanked, as does every supporter I know. You don't. Bully for you.

I wonder if instead of calling it tanking we could call it "peaking" then i can stand with the believers.

Only one side can win the premiership and even in the final stages of that quest there are doubtful actions which are taken to lead to victory but which can equally been seen with hindsight to cause defeat.

Only one side can win but many will lose and some have known this very early in the season and their quest is then often directed peaking in the next season

Call it what you will but I prefer to think of it as peaking and getting thatmix right is what will define us.

For too long in my lifetime we have been defined as the losers rather than the winners we have not peaked at the right time/s to get the premiership. Despite peaking in many aspects at many times. I hope that we are peaking by not using stimulants.

I am hoping yet again that this year our team will peak at the right times and we can see success and we can sustain that success.

Lets forget tanking and concentrate on peaking

My issue with all you are saying is that if he is found guilty for his "comments" he will be the first to be found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute by use of word rather than by his actions. And apart from words that villify which are black and white, all he has said is things which are open to interpretation.

"That Billy is such a dick" - said with a smile on my face it's a term of endearment - said expressionlessly then you should rightly get offended.

If the one person who was best positioned to alter courses of games ( outside the players) being Dean Bailey said he didnt take CC seriously ,a big joke then I find it galling that investigators who weren't there to hear the context or manner of delivery and have not been exposed to lengthy periods of CC taking the pizz as he tends to do can profer a different conclusion with any certainty. Dean Bailey may be lying through his teeth but his comments and the investigators reporting of it is simply a matter of he said she said. Hardly a hanging offence.

Nutbean, you are obviously an employee/er in an area of law, so I do take your posts seriously.

The other example that you used is obviously to make your point, however, I think it at the extreme. I will throw this one at you, and again, I respect your views.

If a boss said to his employee "if you don't do this, you will be sacked", where does that sit? Oh yes, the boss was only joking, but what about the employee what felt threatened by the remark? Even though the boss had a smile on his face, that doesn't mean it's a joke.

No we're being hounded for bad dad jokes !!

If that's all they have after 8 months, then they are the problem not Cuddles.

You won't get an argument on that part.

What a gem. One of the more cutting things I've ever seen on the net.

The guy is like a female I burnt years ago.

CW would report your last post as "Ben-Hur is an admitted arsonist and pyromaniac, who has admitted setting fire to a woman, has no remorse about it and in fact is quite proud of that disgusting and pathetic violent act, towards another human being and a defenceless female at that. Shame on you Ben-Hur, you deserve the full punishment of the law and my sources tell me you will soon be charged . In addition to his vile behaviour he displays homophobic tendencies comparing a man to a woman, this guy is clearly mentally unwell".

PS. I have just been offered a job as a Journo at The Age.

Edited February 14, 201312 yr by Redleg

Nutbean, you are obviously an employee/er in an area of law, so I do take your posts seriously.

The other example that you used is obviously to make your point, however, I think it at the extreme. I will throw this one at you, and again, I respect your views.

If a boss said to his employee "if you don't do this, you will be sacked", where does that sit? Oh yes, the boss was only joking, but what about the employee what felt threatened by the remark? Even though the boss had a smile on his face, that doesn't mean it's a joke.

If CC went to all and sundry and kept beating the same drum then it is hard to say he was "joking". But the example you give below, if action was taken against the boss for a singular occurance, in all likelyhood he would be required to do exactly as CC should do. - apologise for not making it clear it was a joke and being misinterpreted. and causing employees to feel threatened - and then everyone moves on . ( we had this exact case at our workplace)

- edit - not in law - CEO'd a fashion company and the company was bought out by private equity. moved into the head office managing 6 purchased companies and do everything from integration to logistics but i need to be well versed in HR due to the sometimes ugly nature of what i need to do.

Edited February 14, 201312 yr by nutbean

If CC went to all and sundry and kept beating the same drum then it is hard to say he was "joking". But the example you give below, if action was taken against the boss for a singular occurance, in all likelyhood he would be required to do exactly as CC should do. - apologise for not making it clear it was a joke and being misinterpreted. and causing employees to feel threatened - and then everyone moves on . ( we had this exact case at our workplace)

- edit - not in law - CEO'd a fashion company and the company was bought out by private equity. moved into the head office managing 6 purchased companies and do everything from integration to logistics but i need to be well versed in HR due to the sometimes ugly nature of what i need to do.

This is the bit that in unknown. BUt it's not only about telling someone they will be sacked, the AFL will be arguing that it's not about an employee being threatened with being sacked, it's what they would be sacked for...ensuring we don't win too many games (the whole point of their argument). That's why I'm expecting CC to be done.

That there are 2 seperate issues in the "joke" will make it hard to prove our innocence in court. Potential workplace bullying, on top of discussing delibrately losing games.

I'm appreciating and respecting the genuine responses to my concerns, bubt I'm yet to see something come back at me that has convinced me otherwise, and I want to be convinced!!! I honestly don't hate CC...yet!

your comment about females doesnt suprise me when you have a picture of Kate Upton as your avatar. hero

You'd have to be a Labor voter with that type of logic (oxymoron).

Jeez a lot of Melbourne supporters are flogs.

As melbourne supporters are a not for profit organisation.......Can we sue you for that last remark????????

Edited February 14, 201312 yr by Bossdog

Announcement from the AFL on the outcome of the investigation this afternoon I believe.

As melbourne supporters are a not for profit organisation.......Can we sue you for that last remark????????

For the last 4 years I believe we have been a "not for pleasure" organisation

Announcement from the AFL on the outcome of the investigation this afternoon I believe.

Given that it is Valentine's Day today, Mrs Billy could be in for an extra special evening if it is good news.