Now that is what you call a one sided beatdown.

Andy D, sitting there and taking Roos, Healy and Mike to school, very smart man Andy D.

For those who watched it, a lot was said about our tanking saga, Andy explained it right in detail.

So he's a good bloke again? I'll need him to adopt a few kittens before I believe it.

He just does not answer the questions properly or clearly and then waffles more until they give up.

Now that is what you call a one sided beatdown.

Andy D, sitting there and taking Roos, Healy and Mike to school, very smart man Andy D.

For those who watched it, a lot was said about our tanking saga, Andy explained it right in detail.

That trio were putty in the maestro's hands. Loved it but still think he compromised himself over the course of this saga.

If clubs can be fined and punished for the actions of the people they employ....

Essendon could be [censored].

It was a very good interview, but still came out unclear about a number of issues. He just waffled his way through every question but was strangely satisfying!

He just does not answer the questions properly or clearly and then waffles more until they give up.

He's a lawyer, that's what they do.

Apologies to Redleg and WJ.

He's a lawyer, that's what they do.

Apologies to Redleg and WJ.

No need to apologise.

That's not only what we do but we also get paid handsomely for doing it.

I thought he was a teacher not a lawyer. But teachers are just as adept at talking BS.

He'll do something to completely screw us soon (worse than the tanking stuff) and I'll hate him again but my current thoughts on Demetriou is he's started to listen to his own preaching about how the game is good and stopped stuffing with it. He's let the rules clowns out of the box again but I think now he's got the new teams up and running and a good TV deal he's mainly pushing a status quo style. It's why I prefer the devil we know than someone else.

I like the Mark Evans appointment.

I like that they've tackled concussion, illicit drugs, got roped into performance enhancing drugs and are at least thinking about equalisation. They are 4 issues that could derail the AFL if not dealt with promptly. We wont have much of a league if half the players are on drugs of one sort or the other, half the clubs are broke and can't win and all the players are suing the league.

No need to apologise.

That's not only what we do but we also get paid handsomely for doing it.

I know, I've been involved in many PI claims where the costs have exceeded the settlement by ten fold.

I thought he was a teacher not a lawyer. But teachers are just as adept at talking BS.

Thank a teacher you can write such an opinion.

Thank a teacher you can write such an opinion.

My teaches was the best

His explanation of the tanking decision still insults the intelligence to be honest, and not one of them was buying what he was selling. Anyhow, it's over now.

AD seemed quite clear in relation to Melbourne what I got from it is;

1. Tanking is not punishible by the AFL rules

2. There was not enough evidence to charge MFC within the rule of the AFL

3. CC and DB both pleaded guilty and where punished for what they confessed

4. MFC was punished for employing these men.

FWIW MS was confounded so much that he forgot how to ask a question, GH was getting upset because the above 4 points did not meet with his innate sense of justice in that MFC did bad and they must be punished. But as AD has said the AFL could not prove that MFC breached it rules. You can't find a club guilty of something that is not an offence no matter how you try.

They had no answer for him.

When he left Roos said that coaches can now do whatever they want, but the silly man doesn't realise, thats whats been happening since the game started, and there is no law against resting players, or moving players to different positions.

How that guy ever won a premiership is beyond me, dumb as they come.

However, what people are struggling to accept is this idea that tanking, or in the context of AFL rules, not coaching on merits, is purely restricted to game day. The ruling seems to hinge on this concept, in spite of the fact that Bailey was found guilty of purposely failing to prepare the team adequately to win certain matches, as a result of "pressure" felt from Connolly.

It's not a ruling that's easily digested, but I don't want to open up this can of worms. We've copped our whack for something countless other clubs have done under a flawed system inviting such decisions, and we move on.

I thought Healy was spot on with the FD cap and it was good he pushed the issue...the only reason the big clubs are pushing for other measures is because they know the money they spend is to their advantage and they don't want to give it up no matter what airy fairy BS Eddie was talking the other day about how the clubs are united for the health of the game, every supporter deserves to see their club with an even chance of winning...blah, blah, blah.....

The reason a commission was put in place is because the clubs and their self interest were sending the competition to the wall. So it will be interesting to see whether AD has the balls to take them on with this issue. His talk of a cap on the employees in the FD is a total croc but it seems to be his preferred outcome. It's like saying we won't have a salary cap but we will restrict each club to 40 players, like that's going to work.

As far as the "T" word goes, it's over as far as I'm concerned, nothing to see here.

I thought Vlad's argument that a cap on FD spending would stifle innovation is not without merit, but is not sufficient reasoning on its own. Without some sort of cap on spending, it's difficult not to see the gap widening, or at best, remaining as it is.

Thank a teacher you can write such an opinion.

You are welcome.

I thought Vlad's argument that a cap on FD spending would stifle innovation is not without merit, but is not sufficient reasoning on its own. Without some sort of cap on spending, it's difficult not to see the gap widening, or at best, remaining as it is.

I'm not sure what the great innovations are that have come from AFL football departments, but if there were any wouldn't they come from the sports science (phys edders) that he seems to have a problem with.

I think that innovations argument is really a furphy.

I thought Vlad's argument that a cap on FD spending would stifle innovation is not without merit, but is not sufficient reasoning on its own. Without some sort of cap on spending, it's difficult not to see the gap widening, or at best, remaining as it is.

i disagree. with andy d.

only having a set amount of $ would FORCE teams to innovate. it would be about spending that money wisely and efficiently, doing the most you can with those dollars.

personally id set the cap at say $20 million and include the footy dept and the players in it. want to top up hard to go for a flag? get rid of some coaching staff. want the best coaches to develop your (cheap/young) players? get rid of a star player.

He just does not answer the questions properly or clearly and then waffles more until they give up.

No wonder the ALP was (allegedly) keen on trying to get him into Parliament.