My problem with a fine of that sort is that is just screams "massive case of match forfeiting/fixing" even without it being explicitly said.

I am more than happy to swallow pride for the right deal but, if this is the deal at hand, it is not the right deal.

We are not just doing this to 'get this over and done with' for our sake - we have stakeholders and sponsors who would have a keen eye on what the AFL say we have done AND what we agree that we have done.

This is not a clear-cut 'No Fine' position. But we should push for the right deal for our future.

  On 15/02/2013 at 09:06, Felix da Dee said:

http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/1304635/no-draft-penalties-likely-for-melbourne/?cs=12

Disclaimer

This information unofficially is subject to change, dependant on a moving feast of an outcome that officially is unofficial and increasing difficult to predict.

Same as Age article, no?

  On 15/02/2013 at 08:55, sue said:

I know this is getting ahead of the facts, but what the hell I only have CW to inspire me:

but I can imagine a $500K fine which is quietly compensated by an extra $500K from the AFL's save-the-poorer-club fund. Anyway, here's hoping that if there is such a fine and it is accepted by the club, something like that occurs.

This would bring the direct financial penalty ( including legal fees) to over $1m. In our financial situation , that is a huge penalty which threatens our FD spend ( including our TPP). How dare she imply that this would be a light penalty !!

For what - the disrepute thing that defies logic - or draft tampering after the siren?

  On 15/02/2013 at 09:00, hardtack said:

The worst thing to come out of that scenario is the fact that CW will be able to gloat over our misfortune and her impeccable sources and unquestionable worth as a sports journo... please don't let it be so!

Yeah - whatever way they do it - up or down - let's hope the AFL come up with something different( even if that means changing it over the weekend!)

I give up, you are actually debating something that hasn't even happened.

Will log back in on Monday or if anything real happens, have a good weekend everyone.

...this is doing my head in.

Seems fair. Cop it on the chin and move on.

A good lesson learnt by nearly all of us.

You can't lose to win.

Only winners win!

  On 15/02/2013 at 09:24, rjay said:

I give up, you are actually debating something that hasn't even happened.

Will log back in on Monday or if anything real happens, have a good weekend everyone.

...this is doing my head in.

Correct! Let's not get hysterical just yet.

  On 15/02/2013 at 08:45, Blinkybill said:

CW is guessing, but if this is the penalty, take it.

Where?

  On 15/02/2013 at 09:27, tonatopia said:

Seems fair. Cop it on the chin and move on.

A good lesson learnt by nearly all of us.

You can't lose to win.

Only winners win!

Except all the teams that have won premierships and championships on the back of similar behaviour in major sporting leagues around the world, and right here in the AFL.

Relax folks.

Wilson's story is based on the unofficial outcome of the tanking investigation as discussed around the water cooler by the receptionists, PA's and cleaning staff in the building four doors to the south of AFL House.

Ashen Faced!

Not really.

If thats what we cop then the Board has done a good job.

The no draft penalties is the key. PRICELESS..

  On 15/02/2013 at 09:28, dee-luded said:

Where?

Seriously?

Accept it. Move on. No more distractions.

  On 15/02/2013 at 09:12, hoopla said:

This would bring the direct financial penalty ( including legal fees) to over $1m. In our financial situation , that is a huge penalty which threatens our FD spend ( including our TPP). How dare she imply that this would be a light penalty !!

For what - the disrepute thing that defies logic - or draft tampering after the siren?

Yeah - whatever way they do it - up or down - let's hope the AFL come up with something different( even if that means changing it over the weekend!)

I think your reading comprehension needs some work. 500k -500k = $0

Im just wrapt its all over.....no draft penalties.

Move on and look to the future.

I reckon the deal was, dont fight it and we wont give you any penalties.

We can pay off the fine over a few years..

Now i can look forward to FOOTY!

  On 15/02/2013 at 09:31, Blinkybill said:

Seriously?

Accept it. Move on. No more distractions.

F^*k that.

the reason she's fired a salvo over the bow is so her sources can see if we're in a fightin' mood or a bend over mood.

If we put it out there we are going to take it, they will give it as prescribed,

Just as caro said, its a fluid feast.

they will hit us with what we are prepared to accept.

they're reading the boards now as we write.

AFL making their media minds up on what will stop us taking them to court.

Why is CW being treated like Moses? I can't understand how another media outlet can give her tweet the time of day. If the sanctions are true the afl can shove it. See you in court [censored]. If I were working in the football world I wouldn't want to come work at a organization that throws its employees under the bus. Show some strength and integrity MFC.

I'd accept a fine for being uncooperative (like North copped for Hansen) but nothing that will say we're in any way guilty of tanking.

A bit more balanced report on the Hun:

"Despite speculation the Demons could accept a fines of several hundred thousand dollars and a short ban, possibly suspended, against former coach Dean Bailey, no agreement has been made."

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/demons-appear-likely-to-dodge-draft-ban-despite-seven-month-investigation-into-tanking-claims/story-e6frf9jf-1226579121328?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HeraldSunAfl+%28Herald+Sun+%7C+AFL%29

  On 15/02/2013 at 09:36, dee-luded said:

F^*k that.

the reason she's fired a salvo over the bow is so her sources can see if we're in a fightin' mood or a bend over mood.

If we put it out there we are going to take it, they will give it as prescribed,

Just as caro said, its a fluid feast.

they will hit us with what we are prepared to accept.

they're reading the boards now as we write.

AFL making their media minds up on what will stop us taking them to court.

Haha "dee-luded" how very apt.

  Quote

MELBOURNE looks set to dodge serious charges and any draft penalties from the AFL despite an exhaustive seven-month investigation into tanking claims.

The Demons expect to be handed official penalties early next week that will see a heavy fine and sanctions for some officials, but no draft picks stripped from Mark Neeld's side.

Melbourne has been extremely confident for several months that the draft picks would remain intact and chief executive Cameron Schwab would not be charged.

Insiders said yesterday that Schwab was hardly mentioned in the 1000-page dossier which detailed allegations over a stretch of games from late in 2009.

But while a negotiated settlement still looks a likely outcome, Melbourne sources were defiant last night about accepting penalties.

The club was adamant it would not be bullied, and was determined to protect employees ''both past and present''.

Despite speculation the Demons could accept a fines of several hundred thousand dollars and a short ban, possibly suspended, against former coach Dean Bailey, no agreement has been made.

Chris Connolly also faces a likely ban from the football department, but he has worked away from football in a marketing role for 18 months.

While a heavy fine is likely, Melbourne is handed money from the AFL's disequalisation strategy so would have the league effectively funding their fine.

My god, a balanced article. I liked David S's comments, particulary:

"This is such a hard decision for the AFL. This would have gone to court. Melbourne doesn't have to pay for legal representatives, because it has more lawyers than supporters."

All done and dusted now. Oh, Adrian Anderson didn't quit other, he got sacked for stuffing up the whole tanking saga!

  On 15/02/2013 at 09:30, pantaloons said:

Except all the teams that have won premierships and championships on the back of similar behaviour in major sporting leagues around the world, and right here in the AFL.

Winners write history. Sadly we have been led by fools.

  On 15/02/2013 at 09:31, Blinkybill said:

Seriously?

Accept it. Move on. No more distractions.

This latest saga of mud-slinging by the media is actually baring it's heart to everyone.

1. They are not close to reporting they are desperately trying to influence.

2. This was pursued by AA for another beef.

3. AA was the leaky valve in the AFL feeding information to the media

4. CW hasn't had a source since AA left, GM has shut up shop to leaks (as mentioned in CW's article)

5. MFC wont' cop a punishment, because anything other than a full acquittal is an admission of guilt. Pokies are worth too much to allow that to happen. So, bang or bust. Even if the fine is less than the legal fees to contest it.

  On 15/02/2013 at 09:08, rpfc said:

My problem with a fine of that sort is that is just screams "massive case of match forfeiting/fixing" even without it being explicitly said.

I am more than happy to swallow pride for the right deal but, if this is the deal at hand, it is not the right deal.

We are not just doing this to 'get this over and done with' for our sake - we have stakeholders and sponsors who would have a keen eye on what the AFL say we have done AND what we agree that we have done.

This is not a clear-cut 'No Fine' position. But we should push for the right deal for our future.

A club cannot be fined or other penalties levied without it (or individuals) first being charged with something.

In this case is it 'attempted match-fixing' (or other words to same effect) or just simply the generic 'bringing the game into disrepute'.

Bringing the game into disrepute here would have the meaning that the club took (apparent) actions which invited public suspicion and discussion.

Seems to me that the whole thing singles our club out for punishment as a convenient bunny because historically the apparent offensive actions are freshest and 'evidence', whilst yet difficult to find, is more readily imagined.

Any charge whether settled through negotiated settlement or not necessarily comes with a nasty and permanent stain.

Evidence that a finding like the one reported would jeapordise polkie licences please?

I have a couple of questions.....

Is it a civil court case if we have a legal go at the afl's findings (as opposed to other types of courts)? If so and we win, do they pay our court costs?

I know SFA about legal systems.

If they don't pay our costs, the club would definitely weigh this up against any fine that might be imposed.