On 19/02/2013 at 04:46, billy2803 said:

Sue, I will give your post the respect and respond, but probably won't answer your initial question, and apologies in advance. From memory, Geelong did the "Freo" thing when they played Brisbane at Brisbane a few seasons back. The only solution I can offer is that the AFL look at the end result of such actions, and no doubt believe aiming to win better draft picks is far worse than aiming to "win" a home final. Not a great response, but I don't work for the AFL, so that's all you're getting!

In regards to the fine, the McDonald's food poisoning example was far btter than the "employee murdering someone" example. But, you can come up with any examples like that for the sake of your argument.

Thank you Billy. Yes it would seem that the AFL have implicitly decided 'tanking' for a home final is not as serious as for a PP. I personally don't see how they could justify that and I was disappointed that McLachlan wasn't asked that.

The McDonald's example is better in the sense that their processes should normally take responsibility for food poisoning by an employee. But I can see cases even there where they should not be held responsible (eg. an employee breaks the H&S rules in some ways that no reasonable person would say his company could have reasonably forseen to deliberately poison his personal enemy). I invoke the legal 'reasonable person' argument and I'm sure we could all think fo scenarios where no employee could be help responsible unless they ran a Stalinist workplace.

I don't see what processes the MFC could have been lacking to eb responsible. If the case was that CC made these 'threats' many times and wasn't brought into line, then yes, they'd be a case against us. But the evidence mentioned by McLachlan was only the single occasion (even though posters here claim he made the joke many times. On that, it is perfectly possible he said it seriously in the 'Vault' and jokingly at club functions.)

  On 19/02/2013 at 04:32, iv said:

Hardly a relevant comparison. The facts as they stand are that, none of the executive or the board were found culpable in relation to bringing the game into disrepute, that Dean Bailey coached to the best of his ability on game day. The finding, if distilled, comes down to a supposed directive, given by Chris Connolly, in what the AFL claim to be an earnest manner and thereby, DB felt pressure.

Simply put, the findings contradict themselves. Whether people on here like them or not, 2 peoples' careers have been destroyed and I would respectfully suggest, such a punishment is not commensurate with the "crime". Unlike your McDonalds food poisoning analogy, the only people to suffer here are DB and CC.

This is no more than a face saving exercise by the AFL, for which the end result was manufactured.

[edited for typos]

Given that the entire thing had more than an air of being a media beat up and personal vendetta by one journo, was there any other way out ?

Time to focus 100% on how we are going to rise up this year and beyond to once again become a major force in the AFL...come to think of it, the last time we werew a "major force" was back in the VFL.

There are bigger fish to fry than squaring the ledger on this.

GO DEES

  On 19/02/2013 at 04:58, Demon Stalwart said:

THERE will be no investigation by the AFL into a series of allegations against

the Brisbane Lions involving drugs and match-fixing until they have

substantiated evidence to do so.

Stories run by The Courier Mail

over the past two days have alleged a number of behavioural issues at the Lions

including illicit drug taking, illegal gambling and match fixing between 2002

and 2009.

The newspaper alleges Jason McGrath, a self confessed drug

dealer and cousin of Lions' premiership player Ashley McGrath, claims to have

supplied six players with speed, ecstasy and marijuana during that

period.

It also alleges the reason for a Lions' player's absence from the

team was fabricated to cover up an issue with the illicit drug

policy.

The AFL will not be investigating at this stage,

however.

"The AFL and its integrity unit are aware of recent claims made

to the media regarding the Brisbane Lions between 2002 and 2009," an AFL

statement said.

"These claims are unsubstantiated and no evidence has

been produced to support them.

"No formal AFL investigation will be

undertaken in the absence of credible information or evidence."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-02-19/afl-to-leave-lions-untouched

I have but one Question Why ??

Based on the above I can only assume Melbourne must have done a real sweetheart deal with the AFL regarding the payment of the $500,000.00

Otherwise surely they would Rally against this fine in light of this report ?

Why does it seem are we always the bunny !

So it is OK to investigate comments made by Brock McLean but not Jason McGrath and confirmed by a past employee of the Lions. One law for us an another for the rest. GMc comments to the question reqarding Freo picking half a team against Hawthorn were "absolutely ridiculous".

  On 19/02/2013 at 04:19, billy2803 said:

Probably won't come out and say that his employment will be terminated at the end of his suspension...

Geez, you must really hate CC. If that was the plan, DM would have said all those positive things about CC but left out saying we'd re-employ him.

Prior to the AFL press conference, The AFL indicated that both Gil McLaughlin and Andrew Demetriou would attend.

Gil faces the media, yet the CEO of the AFL on an important and significant day in delivering the handing down the verdict based on "tanking" doesn't attend because he is involved in "meetings."

Strange one that....

I feel let down....I understand that it is good to get this crap out the way before the start of the season but I cant help but feel we rolled over.

The things we did badly

1/ Chris Connelly being so blatant in a meeting AND

2/ Having enough people hear him that either became disgruntled later and rolled over on him or were weak livered and rolled over on him OR

3/ there was documentary proof.

Thats where we went wrong.

The reason I feel sick is the sheer hypocracy of the proceedings, the precedents, and GM presser regarding what he considered manipulation (CC's comments) and the other example given of Freo resting players for a home final.

Its a con job and not a very good one.

  On 19/02/2013 at 04:51, McQueen said:

So the question is has Cameron Schwab been 'defamed' by Caro in her relentless diatribe about this issue enough to constitute a case???

Any legal eagles out there think there is a case?

  On 19/02/2013 at 04:02, stuie said:

In the words of the great Smokey Robinson... "the tears of a clown"

  On 19/02/2013 at 04:52, billy2803 said:

Would Workplace Bullying in the form of a manager saying "do this or you're sacked" count as a potential fine for an employer as well as sanctions for said manager?

Once again you are talking about laws, not "rules of a competition". If Bailey wanted to take action against the club he could and they would, presumably, have cover under a Directors and Officers or Management Liability, insurance policy. There is also Fair Work Australia who would respond to complaints of this nature.

I'm still confused about the "official" reason for the $500k fine...MFC were found not guilty, but its employees were (for some reason other than tanking)...so the club is responsible for it's employees comments and actions. Ergo, the fine is for employing the wrong people? Bit harsh...As a poster says above, Goodbye Essendon...

  On 19/02/2013 at 04:38, maurie said:

You would have to think from the outcome that this is not correct. People keep referring to Connolly's input as a 'joke', but I think it was more than that. It seems to me that the 'staying the course' comment was indicative of a more concerted course of action over time than one flippant remark in a single meeting.

Maybe you're right , but I would hope that our representatives are half smart and operate with high discretion at all times. Notwithstanding the key points of ridiculous fine and complete blindfold re other clubs activities, the two blokes in the gun here, couldn't exactly be accused of helping our cause. I assume we won't be paying CC after March when his current contract expires and when the time comes for his re hire salary negotiation, that a much lower number is on the table.

Whole resolution is on the nose.

I thought that Don Mclardy handled the press conference extremely well. He answered all questions and never lost his cool; well done Don.

So ends the greatest farce of an investigation ever perpetrated on an AFL/VFL club

I almost fell off my chair when Caro asked GM if the AFL accepted some responsibility themselves for creating a flawed system and doing nothing. I thought a Caro impersonator must have snuck in.

Since I have bored you all on this subject, a summary of my feelings now we actually know the charges and penalties (if not the evidence):

1. The Board has decided to accept the outcome. We don't know what we were initially threatened with, nor the evidence, so I assume they made a wise decision to not pursue things further. Who knows, maybe the AFL will help pay the fine as part of the deal.

2. The AFL has left a lot of questions unanswered about acceptable practices. There will probably be pressure from other clubs to get them to enunciate a formal policy. If not, the AFL will continue to look incapable of running a [censored]-up in a brewery.

3. MFC=scapegoat for AFL integrity = true, but we'll just have to cop it because we know they won't chase anyone else now, especially with the drug issue hanging over their heads.

4. On the courageous (al la Sir Humphrey) assumption that the AFL will be vaguely consistent, Essendon may be facing a very large fine - perhaps that will help fund our fine...

  On 19/02/2013 at 05:11, nutbean said:

I feel let down....I understand that it is good to get this crap out the way before the start of the season but I cant help but feel we rolled over.

The things we did badly

1/ Chris Connelly being so blatant in a meeting AND

2/ Having enough people hear him that either became disgruntled later and rolled over on him or were weak livered and rolled over on him OR

3/ there was documentary proof.

Thats where we went wrong.

The reason I feel sick is the sheer hypocracy of the proceedings, the precedents, and GM presser regarding what he considered manipulation (CC's comments) and the other example given of Freo resting players for a home final.

Its a con job and not a very good one.

What about the positives though.

We have now officially been cleared of being tankers.

Carlton on the other hand....!

I can't believe the AFL have distinguished between resting players and playing players out of position. Tanking just got easier, you don't have to be so obvious about it by playing your ruckman in the back pocket.

  On 19/02/2013 at 05:33, GM11 said:

What about the positives though.

We have now officially been cleared of being tankers.

Carlton on the other hand....!

Carlton's investigation will have to wait until Brock decides that the time has come.

All in all a good outcome for the club.

We obviously did enough wrong for the AFL to proceed, but you could tell the AFL
saw the greater picture and thus orchestrated an outcome that wouldn't kill us
off. Unfortunately it still left a lot of questions unsatisfactorily answered.

Many people from the media and general public will say we got off extremely lightly,
but there will be others that think we are the scape goat.

I have always felt:-

- Wanting to lose is very different to not caring if you lose.

- We were wrong to tank, despite what others would say and what many perceive other clubs have got away with.

- It would and did take a high toll on our club.

I am now hoping that we get our heads down, work hard and become the club we all hope we can be.

Go Dees

  On 19/02/2013 at 03:13, iv said:

We have accepted the fine. Question. How do we get fined for "employing" someone?

This is a Kangaroo Court. I feel very sorry for CC, but in particular Dean Bailey. This has been constructed to suit.

DB dropped the hand grenade when he had his sacking presser. Possibly wasn't thinking clearly but I bet we all wish he never said what he did.

Deserves it for that.

  On 19/02/2013 at 04:59, pitchfork said:

Anyone notice that round 23 is the likely "number 1 pick" cup...GCS vs GWS?

The league just can't help itself

It was in 2012 as well. The Whitfield Shield.

GWS rested 8 players. Oh and they happened to get the No 1 pick after that. Go figure.

Don't hold your breath for that investigation

The REAL culprit here is disgruntled ex-employees and no matter what CW or Denham or Smith have said, none of this would be possible if we didn't have rats in the ranks (well ex ranks). We have some blood on our hands by the way we have treated employees. Not everyone leaves a job happy but e seem to have made a lot of enemies along the way.

Along with CC's 'conspiracy within the club' line there is a serious issue that needs to be addressed by the club.

We must move on from this shiite and focus on unity and winning games of footy,

Who really believes that a giant Club like Essendon is really going to get cluncked over the head like we did. They are so much more powerful than us and we do not have the sway that David Evans as President has and dont forget GMc has said that Essendon came to the AFL and asked them to investigate. Ah, so Essendon gets lighter sanctions because they approached the AFL. Give me a break. Don't forget the effect the golden boy will have.

The AFL has shown that they are a law amongst themselves and so what GMc said that the fine we got was as an employer and that we should have control over our employees. They will find a way to water down sanctions.

As Ox just said the AFL had the chance to make a very hard decision but took the easy option. Just beat up on the easy beats and protect the remainder of the Clubs.

Marco just said that he witnessed Coll games which they lost so they could get their two draft picks which resulted in them playing in the GF's. This just grates on me that everyone knows who did it and when they did it but the AFL will not investigate unless they get concrete evidence. Obviously more concrete than they had on us.

I just want the supporters to rally around now and forget whether they were for or against the Club trying to position themselves to win draft picks. Buy an extra membership, childrens, pets, adults anything - lets show our passion for our Club. Be there on Friday night.

How amateurish was McLachlan!! So many "ums" and "ahs"!

Pre-prepared stock answer to whatever question was thrown at him. Unconvincing in the extreme. Sent to face the music that Anderson("the lishp") created, and deserted by Demetriou.

McLachlan had impressed me until today.

Draconian fine , which I only think MFC accepted because there was no time limit mentioned(perhaps $20,000 a year for 13 years, but "keep it quiet"). As a financial donor to the club, I'm not happy with the outcome, and I'm sure many others aren't.

Of course, I'll continue with my meagre contributions, though!

surely the goings on over the last 12 - 18 months if you include the Scully issue, Jim Stynes, loss of sponsors and now the witch-hunt - we can concentrate on the field... was a deal done between solicitors, with all parties being consulted.

The issue that I have is that there was a leak in the AFL and I bet that this will not be investigated. Total lack of professionalism but then again, have to come to expect it.

  On 19/02/2013 at 05:53, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

How amateurish was McLachlan!! So many "ums" and "ahs"!

Pre-prepared stock answer to whatever question was thrown at him. Unconvincing in the extreme. Sent to face the music that Anderson("the lishp") created, and deserted by Demetriou.

McLachlan had impressed me until today.

Draconian fine , which I only think MFC accepted because there was no time limit mentioned(perhaps $20,000 a year for 13 years, but "keep it quiet"). As a financial donor to the club, I'm not happy with the outcome, and I'm sure many others aren't.

Of course, I'll continue with my meagre contributions, though!

In GM's defence, this was AA's mess, not his. He was left to clean up what was a total farce with more holes than plugs. The verdict and resulting presser was alway going to be a circus with some bizarre jumps in logic.