So to back up WJ and rumpole - did we tank in 2007?

We did everything we did in 2009 except we were in front when the final siren went in a crucial game...

(Winking emoticon)

So to back up WJ and rumpole - did we tank in 2007?

We did everything we did in 2009 except we were in front when the final siren went in a crucial game...

(Winking emoticon)

We just beat a better tanker on the day.

Incidentally, when we beat Carlton about 7 or 8 weeks earlier that year, Fevola was dropped from the side for disciplinary reasons after an incident the week before against Fremantle. It was probably the first and only time in their history that they meted out such discipline on one of their leading players so swiftly.

(More winking emoticon)

From my POV, Carlton didn't do anything differently to what Melbourne did and I don't agree that it's different because it involved us. .

So, did they tank?

Have you ever called them Carltank?

So, did they tank?

Have you ever called them Carltank?

Yeah, but not many called them 'Carl-legislatively-punishable-tank'...

Didn't roll off the tongue...

So, did they tank?

Have you ever called them Carltank?

It's extraordinary isn't it ? We tanked more blatantly than any other club, yet supporters want to argue over the definition of tanking, as well as claiming victimization. And as you correctly point out, if this investigation was about Carlton MOST of the same supporters would be saying "throw the book at them".

Do these posters ever intellectualize situations, or are they only capable of seeing things from their own biased perspective ?

We tanked. Pure and simple. I was for it at the time. But it's not easy to prove and we should fight tooth and nail claiming our innocence.

Do these posters ever intellectualize situations, or are they only capable of seeing things from their own bias perspective ?

Do you expect the 'average' supporter to intellectualise situations? I think you're giving it a depth of thought that many footy supporters couldn't be bothered with (not speaking for myself btw - I agree with you).

I stated in the post match torture thread against Port Adelaide (last year), that I thought we tanked in that game. After that, we didn't need to..

Activating our draft picks had just as much do do with the draft quality of 2012 versus 2013 as it did with a reasonable forecast of our likely ladder position (given the diminishing faith in our list plus fitness issues). As the year of horrors progressed and the and the draft picture started to crystallise, I can see a teencie inclination to finish 16th v 14th or 15th, but not as quite blatant as GWS's player rest-fest.

Do you expect the 'average' supporter to intellectualise situations? I think you're giving it a depth of thought that many footy supporters couldn't be bothered with (not speaking for myself btw - I agree with you).

You're anything but "average" Nasher and the reason I asked is because I don't consider WJ "average" either.

BTW, did you get my PM?

It's extraordinary isn't it ? We tanked more blatantly than any other club, yet supporters want to argue over the definition of tanking, as well as claiming victimization. And as you correctly point out, if this investigation was about Carlton MOST of the same supporters would be saying "throw the book at them".

I want the above every each way

Yes - you could argue we "tanked" more blatantly than any other club - but I think it is a photo finish with some other fine exponents

Yes - I want to claim victimization as the media has gone hard into us and ignored all other clubs and the AFL has focused their investigation solely on the MFC

No - at the time and now I never suggested that the book be thrown at Carlton - I'm too pragmatic for that

A BIG YES - I want to argue the definition of tanking as that is what this is all about. As stated previously, the current tanking law is like a traffic law saying that speeding is wrong yet offers no insight to what constitutes speeding. There is such blurring of the line between list managment and tanking that there has to be definitive statements as to what actions constitute tanking. AD who does speak as head of the AFL has condoned some practices that could be called tanking and labelled them list management. If the AFL is doing a retrospective investigation, if other clubs have done similar/same as we have, if the likes of Carlton have got an all clear for their actions in the Kruezer cup, then certain actions that we may think are tanking, do not constitute tanking in the AFL's eyes. There needs to be clarity.

It's extraordinary isn't it ? We tanked more blatantly than any other club, yet supporters want to argue over the definition of tanking, as well as claiming victimization. And as you correctly point out, if this investigation was about Carlton MOST of the same supporters would be saying "throw the book at them".

Do these posters ever intellectualize situations, or are they only capable of seeing things from their own bias perspective ?

We tanked. Pure and simple. I was for it at the time. But it's not easy to prove and we should fight tooth and nail claiming our innocence.

you are really stressing my boredom meter ben

give it a break

you are now OVER intellectualising it

Regardless of who tanked worse and when, the core issue is that there was a system in place that rewarded failure = losing. It was AD's system and he vehemently defended it, denying any rorting took place, when the weight of evidence was overwhelmingly against his articulated position.

The issue is, when losing had such a valuable prize at the end of it, what was a coach to do? If we committed any crime, it was about the selections we took and the management of those selections.

Other than that, we have nothing to answer to. Hopefully, next week, or very soon thereafter will tell, but frankly, I am getting tired of the over hypeing of the issue and the inane hypotheses being offered up.

Bring on the NAB Cup, cos anything beats this tripe.

Edited January 24, 201312 yr by iv'a worn smith

you are really stressing my boredom meter ben

give it a break

you are now OVER intellectualising it

Yes, he is the one attaching more to it.

I think I have to spell it out:

The rpfc Position on Tanking

1. Tanking has to have meaningful definition as to be legislated against.

2. It must have specific outlawed actions or intent must be corroborated with proof.

3. Therefore, unless you have evidence of intent the only action that can be solely and wholly considered tanking is telling players to lose.

4. Experimentation, reduced roatations, early surgeries, youth, and jettisoning older players is not solely and wholly an intention to lose.

5. Therefore, we may have vigorously 'bottomed-out' if tanking is punishable - WE DID NOT TANK.

Why is this so hard to follow?

Can I make my own arrogant asides and snide remarks like a few others? I am very good at them...

Edited January 25, 201312 yr by Whispering_Jack

Yes, he is the one attaching more to it.

I think I have to spell it for the slow and those that willingly don't want to understand:

The rpfc Position on Tanking

1. Tanking has to have meaningful definition as to be legislated against.

2. It must have specific outlawed actions or intent must be corroborated with proof.

3. Therefore, unless you have evidence of intent the only action that can be solely and wholly considered tanking is telling players to lose.

4. Experimentation, reduced roatations, early surgeries, youth, and jettisoning older players is not solely and wholly an intendion to lose.

5. Therefore, we may have vigorously 'bottomed-out' if tanking is punishable - WE DID NOT TANK.

Why is this so hard to follow?

Can I make my own arrogant asides and snide remarks like a few others? I am very good at them...

and you are doing the same

anyone now not understanding the different points of view and definitions must be on a life support system

the repetition is just spinning wheels

and you are doing the same

anyone now not understanding the different points of view and definitions must be on a life support system

the repetition is just spinning wheels

It's repetitious alright, but questions were asked by Fan over what we see as tanking.

He meant them to be rhetorical but to me they have a legitimate answer.

We are all arguing in the threads of our positions here and we are talking past each other most of the time but this was always headed this way - we are heavily invested in this situation.

So, did they tank?

Have you ever called them Carltank?

Did they tank? I have seen no evidence of Carlton tanking just as I have seen no evidence of Melbourne tanking?

Do I believe they did certain things during 2005, 6 and 7 which ensured the best possible draft picks for their club short of instructing their players to lose matches - yes (and so did we in 2009 and other years) but it doesn't come under what I call a proper definition of the offence of tanking under AFL rules.

[ii] Yes, I called them Carltank occasionally to rile their supporters because I believe that we Demon fans are sent on this earth to p1zz off fans of clubs like Carlton and Collingwood.

So, did we tank in 2003 and 2007?

So, did we tank in 2003 and 2007?

I don't know and I don't care but I doubt it.

They reckon CS is gone over at big footy, Cowboy from Hell seems to know about it.

Did they tank? I have seen no evidence of Carlton tanking just as I have seen no evidence of Melbourne tanking?

Do I believe they did certain things during 2005, 6 and 7 which ensured the best possible draft picks for their club short of instructing their players to lose matches - yes (and so did we in 2009 and other years) but it doesn't come under what I call a proper definition of the offence of tanking under AFL rules.

[ii] Yes, I called them Carltank occasionally to rile their supporters because I believe that we Demon fans are sent on this earth to p1zz off fans of clubs like Carlton and Collingwood.

So, did we tank in 2003 and 2007?

Well written IMO. It shows a very good level of logic, intelligence and bias that makes this game what it should be. What is tanking? Most ppl know it when they see it. Carltank, Collingwood, West Coast, (currently) Bulldogs and the MFC can be accussed of tanking. Other clubs too. Why win a game of football when the prize is first (or better) options to pick up a player in the youth leagues the club wants. This is a very logical view on how to best position your club. Its very logical from what ever position you sit!

Intellectually you may view this as 'wrong', but your bias says do it for what all see as the ultimate prize, a premiership. Your bias goes as far to attack other clubs for what your own club did. Some may disagree that this was the best way to position the club for a premiership.You may be right, who knows! the club has not won a premiership in decades, so I believe no-one knows. If they did the club would have been more successful.

When I say this is what makes this game what it should be, I mean, this is what many on this site shoulb be rather than a self serving point of view that only looks at one point of view. I'm tired of some posters self serving themselves to prove a point. I also hate that this site represents the stereo type of the club. Posters using spelling, grammer or literacy skills to attack others, or some beleiving they have the intellectual property in a game that lives mostly on subjectivity (as supporters/members). Those ppl are elitists. The club stereo type. Unfortunatley stereo types are there for everyone to see but in this case the vocal speak for the club too often.

How good is Barry? How good is Dawes? Did we tank? Did other clubs Tank? Is CW good or bad?

Some posters need to get in their 4WD and f**k off to the ski and let the majority view our club in this game with bias and passion, right or wrong!!

I don't know and I don't care but I doubt it.

It was a rhetorical question and didn't need an answer.

Anyway, I didn't ask you. I asked the poster called Fan and not Saddam Hussein's Information Minister ( محمد سعيد الصحاف‎).

It's extraordinary isn't it ? We tanked more blatantly than any other club, yet supporters want to argue over the definition of tanking, as well as claiming victimization. And as you correctly point out, if this investigation was about Carlton MOST of the same supporters would be saying "throw the book at them".

Do these posters ever intellectualize situations, or are they only capable of seeing things from their own biased perspective ?

We tanked. Pure and simple. I was for it at the time. But it's not easy to prove and we should fight tooth and nail claiming our innocence.

It's the same kind of thinking that gives Libba and Fev a pass for saying Carlton tanked but Brock is a dog if he said we did.

It's extraordinary isn't it ? We tanked more blatantly than any other club, yet supporters want to argue over the definition of tanking, as well as claiming victimization. And as you correctly point out, if this investigation was about Carlton MOST of the same supporters would be saying "throw the book at them".

I can say with hand on heart that I would not be reaching for the pitchfork if it was Carlton or any other club in our position, by virtue of the fact it would be hypocritical to do so.

The history of tanking, or at least the extent to which we are guilty, is precisely what makes the witch hunt so farcical.

see Topic

just read this crap post , not funny , , your are a sdcfu . we all [censored] and complain and moan about crap in the papers and well what do you do . ? flamer , BAN THIS POST , NOW , !

They reckon CS is gone over at big footy, Cowboy from Hell seems to know about it.

I don't think you are that comfortable navigating over at BF because I had a quick look and CFH is sceptical to say the least...

He, and everyone except for a couple, think it is BS.

And if your 'mail' is right about there being no case to answer for us - why would we fire Schwab?

PS. Wasn't your 'mail' saying the exact opposite at one point a few weeks ago? I would get a spam filter...

It's the same kind of thinking that gives Libba and Fev a pass for saying Carlton tanked but Brock is a dog if he said we did.

Except Libba and Fev said they (CFC) did, and young Einstein McLean said we didn't !!

Wallace said RFC did.

We led at the final siren.

And we, as far as I know, are the only team to have won, so failed, that vital fifth game, and furthermore did it twice!!

Am I paranoid, or are we actually being treated differently??

I don't think you are that comfortable navigating over at BF because I had a quick look and CFH is sceptical to say the least...

He, and everyone except for a couple, think it is BS.

And if your 'mail' is right about there being no case to answer for us - why would we fire Schwab?

PS. Wasn't your 'mail' saying the exact opposite at one point a few weeks ago? I would get a spam filter...

MY mails the same as was a few weeks ago, CS is gone, there not going to penalise the club, to many ramifications, pokies and alcohol licences.