GAMBLING PROBE [update MFC cleared]

[binman 43,056]

A person in a managerial position at a club making comments to employees that, although taken out of context, were perceived to have been of a bullying/threatening nature. That is the crux of it. Regardless of the intent of Connolly's comments someone in a managerial position needs to take ownership for them regardless of the intent. If a manager at a bank, for example, makes a light-hearted comment in a meeting that staff should charge extra fees in order to meet monthly targets or face the sack and a couple of people in the meeting take it seriously the manager will be held to account because being in a position of authority they need to be aware that their comments, although of a joking nature, could be misinterpreted or taken out of context and acted upon by people who may feel threatened or bullied by those comments. It's pretty simple yet the media and the public seem unable to comprehend this concept which is unsurprising considering the way McLachlin butchered his press conference yesterday.

An excellent analogy doc. However one point that is worth considering that in your analogy in order for more senior management to address the the managers comments they would have to be made aware of them. Which means that one of the staff present (or the manager themself ) would need to have reported the comments. Whilst the bank is ultimately responsible for its employees and how they are selected, trained, supervised, performance managed etc etc it would be difficult to criticize them for not responding to comments made in a one off meeting if no one came forward to raise it as an issue.

By all accounts there were at least 17 people at the now infamous meeting and it would appear that not one thought the comments concerning enough to bring to the attention of senior management - or did have concerns but yet still elected not to advise anyone. Bit hard then for the CEO or board to counsel CC about his performance in the meeting

Edited February 20, 2013 by binman

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

If anyone thinks the MFC and it's lawyers didn't have this at the forefront of their thinking during the whole process then they've got rocks in their head. Everything done, agreed upon and the wording/language used was to ensure that there would be no issue or evidence upon which the gaming commission could mount a case or remove our license.

It was almost the sole reason McLardy fought so hard to ensure there was no evidence that the board of directors influenced games and therefore were not fit and proper people to hold the licenses.

Take a breath. They were all over this issue a long time ago...

if Bailey and CC were not serving time i would believe the above.

This event has left us potentially wide open.

A manipulation of results has been acted on,whether its right or wrong. It is in the final (AFl) judgement.

[demoniac 1,333]

I am quite suprised at the apparnet lack of concern on this forum for the latest developments. I think we are potentially in a world of trouble. as Sue said , the commission wont differentiate between motives but will determine whether or not actions were taken which could be perceived as tilting match day or attempting to tilt match day results. If their findings reflect this then they are free to act as they wish and will be well within their powers to remove or at the very least, suspend our gaming license. And that, my fellow Demon lovers, could set a course of events in motion that will result in the club no longer existing in its current entity. This is a VERY grave development.

The gambling regulator is pretty much in reality an ineffective toothless tiger. I doubt we have much to fear. Still gives the 'Rooned' lot something to worry about. For mine the Board achieved a pragmatic commercial settlement which avoided a finding of tanking and ringfenced draft picks and the CEO.

[Scoop Junior 3,472]

Beat me too it 'Sue'. It reminds me a bit of the old Alan Jeans sausage story. You can fry em, you can bbq em, you can grill em and you can bake em but in the end they are still sausages.

No matter what words you like to use in the end we have been found guilty of tanking, not doing our best to win, conduct prejudicial to the AFL....

Yeah but you can call a duck a pig if you want, you're entitled to do that. The fact remains it is a duck.

And the fact remains that we have been found not guilty of deliberately trying to lose.

So if you want to say we have been found guilty of tanking, please enlighten us as to what this word means. Because the generally accepted definition of the term is deliberately trying to lose and we have been found not guilty of this.

'Not doing our best to win' is not an offence and 'conduct prejudicial to the AFL' is not tanking.

So I fail to grasp your assertion that we have been found guilty of tanking.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,227]

An excellent analogy doc. However one point that is worth considering that in your analogy in order for more senior management to address the the managers comments they would have to be made aware of them. Which means that one of the staff present (or the manager themself ) would need to have reported the comments. Whilst the bank is ultimately responsible for its employees and how they are selected, trained, supervised, performance managed etc etc it would be difficult to criticize them for not responding to comments made in a one off meeting if no one came forward to raise it as an issue.

By all accounts there were at least 17 people at the now infamous meeting and it would appear that not one thought the comments concerning enough to bring to the attention of senior management - or did have concerns but yet still elected not to advise anyone. Bit hard then for the CEO or board to counsel CC about his performance in the meeting

Which is why the club were not given any more significant sanctions other than a fine for the conduct of one of their managers. Although they were not aware of it they are still accountable for the actions of their managers to an extent especially if some/one staff member felt threatened/bullied to the extent that they undertook actions prejudicial to the interests of the AFL although not to the extent that it could be said their misconduct specifically violated one of the laws of the game.

[Outside fifty 967]

We have not been cleared, we have been SHAFTED big time

We are guilty in the eyes of everyone despite the afl's pathetic effort of incomprehendable spin

It has cost us a min of $1M in fines and legal costs and who knows what in sponsorship and membership

It has derailed the club for 8 months and its not over

We have had the most appalling media coverage

We have been scapegoated for what others pioneered before us and will never be brought to account

Two careers have been severely damaged

We have been made a laughing stock in the football world

We are still a fractured club internally if reports are to be believed

It may not be fair and balanced but we have been SHAFTED big time

And I am so pizzed off at our current position i couldn't begin to explain

Couldn't agree more DC. Over the last couple of decades of supporting the MFC I have come to the conclusion that it's not easy supporting such a spineless club. I was really hoping that this would be our line in the sand moment , a chance to really define ourselves, but alas we rolled over yet again. You only have to read the posts on these forums to realise that their are a lot of MFC supporters who baulk at the prospect of a fight and then try to disguise their retreat as pragmatism. I saw the same type of pragmatism at work in the merger vote in 1996. Pragmatism is the ultimate weak arse response.

[dee-luded 2,959]

This will start now. There is guilt, so the Gamers are ready to circle.

this would have already been discussed WYL as the AFL would be well aware of the ramifications of this spreading to Car'ton, the Pies, Hawks, Tige's, etc.

This is probably where AA's tenure got out of control. the media boffins like the couch & Kero's articles will head this all the way through the whole AFL.

the bushfire has started unless the outcome is already ascertained.

[Longsufferingnomore 1,631]

Thinking it through the Club holds the gaming licence and the Club (Board) were cleared of any charges. The fine was as an employer and the employees are no longer at the Club. I would think the licence is fairly safe. Then again I wouldnt be a MFC supporter without having a little doubt always in the back of my mind. As someone else pointed out we seem to be the bunny for everything (except the current drug broohaha) so I will never say never until CW hits the headlines with Dees Cleared.

[old55 23,613]

An excellent analogy doc. However one point that is worth considering that in your analogy in order for more senior management to address the the managers comments they would have to be made aware of them. Which means that one of the staff present (or the manager themself ) would need to have reported the comments. Whilst the bank is ultimately responsible for its employees and how they are selected, trained, supervised, performance managed etc etc it would be difficult to criticize them for not responding to comments made in a one off meeting if no one came forward to raise it as an issue.

By all accounts there were at least 17 people at the now infamous meeting and it would appear that not one thought the comments concerning enough to bring to the attention of senior management - or did have concerns but yet still elected not to advise anyone. Bit hard then for the CEO or board to counsel CC about his performance in the meeting

Well that's what Dean Bailey didn't do - as Senior Coach he was senior member at that meeting he didn't report Connolly to management - that's why he was penalised.

The club remains responsible for their employees - not knowing is not an excuse (eh Jimmy?)

[Longsufferingnomore 1,631]

Couldn't agree more DC. Over the last couple of decades of supporting the MFC I have come to the conclusion that it's not easy supporting such a spineless club. I was really hoping that this would be our line in the sand moment , a chance to really define ourselves, but alas we rolled over yet again. You only have to read the posts on these forums to realise that their are a lot of MFC supporters who baulk at the prospect of a fight and then try to disguise their retreat as pragmatism. I saw the same type of pragmatism at work in the merger vote in 1996. Pragmatism is the ultimate weak arse response.

I think you are being harsh on this occasion as we dont know what was the ticking time bomb in that report. Don and the Board would have taken legal advice as how far we could go with this. I think the Board have done well. They have been arguing with the AFL for over a week trying to dilute the sanctions so it was fairly obvious that they had to accept sanctions but endeavour to water them down as best that they could. There is more to this than what most of us know about.

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

this would have already been discussed WYL as the AFL would be well aware of the ramifications of this spreading to Car'ton, the Pies, Hawks, Tige's, etc.

This is probably where AA's tenure got out of control. the media boffins like the couch & Kero's articles will head this all the way through the whole AFL.

the bushfire has started unless the outcome is already ascertained.

i am well aware of all that DL. But the VCGLR is an independant body to the AFL, just because the AFL signed off on all this yesterday it is not mandatory for the VCGLR to follow suit. The social clubs have been a concern of mine since Brock opened his trap.

[old55 23,613]

... as normal i shall be concerned.

No kidding!!!

I said it before the findings were anounced - we won't be losing our liquor and gaming licenses and Webjet and Opel won't be jumping off.

[dee-luded 2,959]

i am well aware of all that DL. But the VCGLR is an independant body to the AFL, just because the AFL signed off on all this yesterday it is not mandatory for the VCGLR to follow suit. The social clubs have been a concern of mine since Brock opened his trap.

No, I'm saying they would have all unofficially have met, before all this hit the fan yesterday.

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

No kidding!!!

I said it before the findings were anounced - we won't be losing our liquor and gaming licenses and Webjet and Opel won't be jumping off.

do you mind not editing my comments for your own form of ordinary humour.

I know what you said...i shall wait for official confirmation.

[mjt 640]

do you mind not editing my comments for your own form of ordinary humour.

I know what you said...i shall wait for official confirmation.

AD was on 3aw this morning, said the club had nothing to fear about losing pokie venues.

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

AD was on 3aw this morning, said the club had nothing to fear about losing pokie venues.

How nice of him. I hope he is right, but i will never trust a word AD says again.

[Return to Glory 8,443]

There are a number of ways this article can be interpreted. The clearest one, however, is that the AFL,s open door policy to gambling organizations is changing not just the vernacular in terms of the actual commentary of the game I.e pick the losing margin etc but is all pervasive and all corrosive. But its just another example of the actions of the AFL's corporate honchos that are alienating a number of supporters.So forgive me for my quick rant.

This is not the game that it was not so many years ago, it's the plaything of big interests. Players are faster, stronger, fitter.........and the game has never been more on the nose as it is now not just in terms of drugs and/ or gambling but in the way in which it no longer brings us together but divides us into the haves and have nots. And by God Im sick of the coverage now needing to be one of crisis to crisis. Where have all the characters gone? Not just on the field but all those off it. The reason we loved the game in the first place. Where has all the fun gone from our game? It's as the game I loved has gradually been eroding and is in mortal danger of disappearing completely.

More to the point, we are continually told that our clubs are either failing or succeeding....and if they're failing its as if we must as supporters be in a perpetually gloomy state. Why? The media demands it of us. It's become tedious and if this is the way it's going the regular supporters ( of which Im one) will just switch off. [censored] off!!!I go to the footy to enjoy the on field theatre and, to be honest, to leave the stresses of work behind. I may well be living in the past but I'm not convinced its not a better place than what we have today.

[old55 23,613]

do you mind not editing my comments for your own form of ordinary humour.

I know what you said...i shall wait for official confirmation.

You'd have to be the biggest doomsayer and sook I've ever come across. I thought you were out of here if we didn't take it to court but apparently a hollow threat?

Look I'll make a deal with you - if any of those 4 things happen (losing our liquor and gaming licenses and Webjet and Opel jumping off) as a direct result of yesterday's findings I'll never post here again and if none of them happen you'll never post here again?

[H_T 3,049]

You'd have to be the biggest doomsayer and sook I've ever come across. I thought you were out of here if we didn't take it to court but apparently a hollow threat?

Look I'll make a deal with you - if any of those 4 things happen (losing our liquor and gaming licenses and Webjet and Opel jumping off) as a direct result of yesterday's findings I'll never post here again and if none of them happen you'll never post here again?

You once advised "Why do you feed him (more)?"

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

You'd have to be the biggest doomsayer and sook I've ever come across. I thought you were out of here if we didn't take it to court but apparently a hollow threat?

Look I'll make a deal with you - if any of those 4 things happen (losing our liquor and gaming licenses and Webjet and Opel jumping off) as a direct result of yesterday's findings I'll never post here again and if none of them happen you'll never post here again?

i said i would not buy another membership after this year if we did not go to court and instead rolled over.

Well guess what???

If the FD and players show some fight this year i could be persuaded, but another showing like 2012...i stand by what i say.

As for the rest of your post....you can do whatever you like, calling me a sook??

That's a stretch, considering what this club has put us all through since i started this journey in 1971.

I wanted to go to court. See this dam club STAND UP for once....But we meekly sat down(again).

Like DC i am pizzed off today & if the VCGLR have a crack at us as well that will just top it right off.

[Pennant St Dee 13,204]

I think you are being harsh on this occasion as we dont know what was the ticking time bomb in that report. Don and the Board would have taken legal advice as how far we could go with this. I think the Board have done well. They have been arguing with the AFL for over a week trying to dilute the sanctions so it was fairly obvious that they had to accept sanctions but endeavour to water them down as best that they could. There is more to this than what most of us know about.

Please don't talk common sense on this thread, to many victims on this site who need to harden up and can't see beyond media hype and illogical scenarios.

The proof in this case is not in the pudding but in the wording of the findings, they just need to look

[binman 43,056]

Which is why the club were not given any more significant sanctions other than a fine for the conduct of one of their managers. Although they were not aware of it they are still accountable for the actions of their managers to an extent especially if some/one staff member felt threatened/bullied to the extent that they undertook actions prejudicial to the interests of the AFL although not to the extent that it could be said their misconduct specifically violated one of the laws of the game.

Yes, true 'nuff

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Interesting that the day after the AFL announce we are in the clear the Gaming Board announce they will start their own inquiry.

Maybe some jumped up little public servant wants to get his name in the paper. He's probably in Wilson's office gathering the dirt she's been fed by Fanbob's mates.

[rjay 24,943]

Yeah but you can call a duck a pig if you want, you're entitled to do that. The fact remains it is a duck.

And the fact remains that we have been found not guilty of deliberately trying to lose.

So if you want to say we have been found guilty of tanking, please enlighten us as to what this word means. Because the generally accepted definition of the term is deliberately trying to lose and we have been found not guilty of this.

'Not doing our best to win' is not an offence and 'conduct prejudicial to the AFL' is not tanking.

So I fail to grasp your assertion that we have been found guilty of tanking.

I think you are kidding yourself.

[DemonOX 8,791]

I said it before the findings were anounced - we won't be losing our liquor and gaming licenses and Webjet and Opel won't be jumping off.

Good to hear 55