On 19/02/2013 at 03:16, Good Times Grimes said:

If McDonald's employed somebody who was charged with murder, would McDonald's be punished? I don't think so.

if mcdonalds employed someone who was terribly unclean and gave mcdonalds customers food poisoning they would be punished. same thing here. time to cop it.

questions need to be made as to why carlton and richmond have not been charged though.

  On 19/02/2013 at 03:49, Kojak said:

I have a feeling that fine will never be paid in full...The AFL will not pursue it...

or they may pay our legal bills in exchange.

  On 19/02/2013 at 03:47, dworship said:

Well the other way to look at this is; if he hadn't made that comment no experimenting would have gone on and we wouldn't have got that extra draft pick.

I think if you asked most clubs if they would pay 500k for a number one draft pick they wouldn't be able to get the cheque book out quick enough.

Good one!

WE got rid of T. $ for nuttin but

we got Jesse Hogan for $500k. What a bargain!

If people think its over and move on, i got news for you, we will always be known as the 'tankers' by everyone else. So sick of us being walked all over, if Collingwood or Hawthorn had this happen to them and were found not guilty of tanking then no fine would have been dished out to them, FFS a Carlton coach and former came out and said they tanked and no investigation ever took place! Eff the AFL.

  On 19/02/2013 at 03:49, Bossdog said:

I see what you are saying Billy.......but if you are playing to lose,it doesn't matter the reason,does it???? You are not trying your best to win which is the rule Loseing to get a better finals outcome is no different to getting a draft pick......Playing to lose is PLAYING TO LOSE....

Playing to lose, to get a favourable finals position is Worse!!!

It does effect the real end of the competition, & the betting.

  On 19/02/2013 at 03:50, Still Waiting said:

Maybe a $ donation plee to the members, backers, supporters, sponsors etc would see this $500K wiped out in 24 hours! That would jam it up the A wful F ri66ing L ogheads nicely.

I would happily of forked out for the legal battle but the MFC has rolled over once again. After all this hard talking from Mclardy we again look weak.

The payment will be made slowly with the AFL increasing our handout to cover it. Besides both AFL and MFC looking stupid no one loses face as we cope a whack but are found not guilty.

  On 19/02/2013 at 03:51, Satyriconhome said:

Good grief Old Dee we agree on something, wasting your breath I'm afraid, the queue for the spleens that need venting starts on the left I think....me I'm looking fwd to Friday...........no other comment on this,

IT'S OVER...MOVE ON...

Yes I was fairly confident I would get nowhere mate.

But hell i had to try.

I will comment when I am calm and have a considered opinion.

  On 19/02/2013 at 03:57, dee-luded said:

Playing to lose, to get a favourable finals position is Worse!!!

It does effect the real end of the competition, & the betting.

Very valid point Deeluded. Can I ask you to call Mark Harvey and get him to call the Herald Sun and explain what was discussed at the selection table that night?

  On 19/02/2013 at 03:39, billy2803 said:

They were playing (losing) to get a home final. They weren't losing to have an impact of the draft order. There is a difference if you want to see it, but most won't, and I can appreciate that.

One of the dumbest arguments I have ever seen here.

  On 19/02/2013 at 03:30, 7-UP said:

We at least has to make sure Mclean get the Scully treatment in the match against blues

Reckon he'll get a game?

I don't.

  On 19/02/2013 at 03:49, Bossdog said:

I see what you are saying Billy.......but if you are playing to lose,it doesn't matter the reason,does it???? You are not trying your best to win which is the rule Loseing to get a better finals outcome is no different to getting a draft pick......Playing to lose is PLAYING TO LOSE....

they are drawing a distinction between pre-game decisions and in-game decisions. Tanking only refers to in-game decisions/actions in the world of the AFL

they are effectively saying bailey's pre-game decisions (under perceived pressure from connolly) were "conduct unbecoming" (= draft tampering)

its city hall remember and i'm not happy jan. but.......it could have been worse because the club itself (board/exec mgmt) was not found guilty

  On 19/02/2013 at 03:53, maurie said:

Maybe all along it wasn't a joke.

As others have said and anyone who has spoken to him will tell you, CC's style is joking but authoritative. It's a moot point, because Bailey thought he was serious and played along, everyone else looked away until the AFL investigators came knocking.

  On 19/02/2013 at 03:30, 7-UP said:

We at least has to make sure Mclean get the Scully treatment in the match against blues

McLean has little or nothing to do with the whole saga. His comments were less damning than Fev's and they are both bogans.

The AFL received substantiated evidence elsewhere (CW? multiple ex-MFC people, who knows) and acted on it. McLean may have given them the fog to get the investigation happening.

Unless something similar happens with Carlton or the filth, or whoever, this is where it will stop. (Perhaps Whispering_jack, as an officer to the court will come forward re Carlton board member's? comments to him. If he did, then the Carlton board could be directly implicated. Now that would be something!!)

  On 19/02/2013 at 03:51, farmerwiz said:

well done dees, great result.....not guilty and no draft picks

wahoo

I'd rather you'd written "...not guilty and no draft picks lost"

  On 19/02/2013 at 03:57, Wolfmother said:

I would happily of forked out for the legal battle but the MFC has rolled over once again. After all this hard talking from Mclardy we again look weak.

The payment will be made slowly with the AFL increasing our handout to cover it. Besides both AFL and MFC looking stupid no one loses face as we cope a whack but are found not guilty.

Perhaps McLardy got advice from our legal team that we wouldn't win, regardless of how high we took it?

Nah, that wouldn't be the case would it? I'm too "dim" to come up with that sort of solution.

The penalties on DB and CC are too harsh, IMHO. A year out of football for a misinterpreted joke? Even if it is loose lips, it seems to be very harsh for one comment at one meeting, even if some did misinterpret it (I don't believe that, but it seems some in the media do). The penalty on DB is way too harsh --- if we didn't tank, why is he being punished at all? What exactly did he do? The comments at his final presser after being sacked? How do you spell scapegoat? Why is DB punished more harshly than Trigg? (ironically at the same club!).

If I were DB, I would probably take this to court ...

  On 19/02/2013 at 04:00, Rod Grinter Riot Squad said:

One of the dumbest arguments I have ever seen here.

Thanks Rod, I appreciate your input. Might have got this one wrong, but the rest I'm spot on if you'd care to read my other posts.

DB has accepted his penalty

All supporters should be pumped with this result

  On 19/02/2013 at 04:02, stuie said:

Pure genius

If a club can be fined for the conduct of specific individuals within their employment, even if action took place without the board or executive's knowledge, and that fine can be imparted even on the basis of comments leading to a perception of pressure, rather than actual actions contravening the laws and spirit of the game...

Essendon are totally, totally splattered, for a start.

Don's statement. Looks like no challenge, as expected.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/melbourne/news/2013-02-19/from-the-president.workstation

Caroline Wilson owes the club as an entity, and Cameron Schwab in particular, an apology. Here's her statements on the issue:

In the article 'Secrets from the Vault' (Oct 31, 2012):

Cameron Schwab was ultimately resurrected at Melbourne despite his past association with salary-cap cheating. The belief is he did not attend the pivotal meeting addressed by Chris Connolly but could still be incriminated, as could both Jim Stynes and Don McLardy, who - it could yet be established - knew and approved of the blatant strategy.

In 'Senior Demons drove tanking' (Oct 31, 2012):

Chief executive Cameron Schwab, who was not present at the Connolly meeting in question, is also being investigated for alleged incriminating conversations with coaches.

In 'Demons: Shock and Awful' (Nov 3, 2012):

The indication is still that Melbourne will fight this, but it looks shocking for all concerned ... Melbourne will be harshly punished. Cameron Schwab and Chris Connolly will be finished at the club.

In 'Demon's lame duck excuses' (Feb 13, 2013)

Melbourne manipulated football results in 2009 ... 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.

Will they auction off the gold buttons sliced off by sword from CC's uniform at the branding ceremony?

But seriously, if CC does a sportsmans night, count me in!

  On 19/02/2013 at 04:05, Little Goffy said:

If a club can be fined for the conduct of specific individuals within their employment, even if action took place without the board or executive's knowledge, and that fine can be imparted even on the basis of comments leading to a perception of pressure, rather than actual actions contravening the laws and spirit of the game...

Essendon are totally, totally splattered, for a start.

Nailed it.