Pointed out that this trio were all appointed before Jimmy Stynes came into office and if people want to blame Stynes/McLardy/Schwab for what they did, then it should be acknowledged that they in fact, inherited some of the perpetrators.

Irrelevant and indeed meaningless.

The Stynes Board did not like Paul McNamee as CEO and terminated him soon after they came to power.

They became responsible for Connolly from the day they took charge and could have done similarly with him but they didn't...twice.

McNamee was totally unsuited to the role. Connolly did a lot of good work for the club. No comparison.

McNamee was totally unsuited to the role. Connolly did a lot of good work for the club. No comparison.

.......And now we are reaping the rewards of his labour whilst he enjoys a 2 year paid holiday.

McNamee was totally unsuited to the role. Connolly did a lot of good work for the club. No comparison.

Yeah its paying off well.

I've not seen any evidence of CC doing ANY good work at the club.

He was a good spruiker at events, but it wasn't really important to his role at all.

The club seemed to realise that after Bailey's sacking, as he was moved into more of that role & kept away from the footy dept.

Missed the point entirely and in all probability, you didn't even bother to read my post.

Pointed out that this trio were all appointed before Jimmy Stynes came into office and if people want to blame Stynes/McLardy/Schwab for what they did, then it should be acknowledged that they in fact, inherited some of the perpetrators.

I disagree that we we were ruderless most of the time. We got ourselves out of debt and into the black. Had the old board remained, we'd probably be on the Gold Coast or in liquidation by now anyway.

While it was crucial the debt was cleared it was done by selling good will without the expected onfield improvements. Had the club been ran competently over the past 5 years we would not been in the situation we find ourselves.

Gillon McLachlan made it clear (I can't find the quote but I distinctly remember hearing it) that the only evidence the AFL had against Melbourne were the comments made by Connolly.

As rubbish as the decision was, it still stands that if he wasn't stupid enough to say it Melbourne wouldn't have been punished.

I don't think there has been any definitive statement by the AFL or any of its executive giving opinion on the strength of the evidence of the AFL Tanking report. They're too sage to do other than let the report stand as it is between the AFL and the MFC. McGillin would have been crucified for making such an allegation.

The compromised decision reached b/w the AFL and MFC hid the more damaging disposition that MFC tanked and the accountabilities extended higher than Connolly. As head of the FD he was involved but clearly not the lone wolf. Many of other responsible parties are no longer for various reasons involved with MFC.

Anyway what's been done has been done but the efforts to exonerate the parties that were culpable for the disaster are misguided.

Edited August 5, 201311 yr by Rhino Richards

I don't think there has been any definitive statement by the AFL or any of its executive giving opinion on the strength of the evidence of the AFL Tanking report. They're too sage to do other than let the report stand as it is between the AFL and the MFC. McGillin would have been crucified for making such an allegation.

The compromised decision reached b/w the AFL and MFC hid the more damaging disposition that MFC tanked and the accountabilities extended higher than Connolly. As head of the FD he was involved but clearly not the lone wolf. Many of other responsible parties are no longer for various reasons involved with MFC.

Anyway what's been done has been done but the efforts to exonerate the parties that were culpable for the disaster are misguided.

The tanking saga was a red herring from day 1. The AFL used us as the fall guys, because they wanted to stop the practice, which was undertaken by number of clubs under various guises for a number of years. The fact that we were sanctioned was simply because the AFL knew there would be little protest about, unlike there would have been if Richmond or Carlton had copped it.

As for Connolly, at the relevant press conference, McLachlan said this:

Melbourne FC then-general manager of football operations Chris Connolly during the 2009 premiership season had acted in a manner concerning pre-game planning, comprising comments to a football department meeting, which was prejudicial to the interests of the AFL.

· Melbourne FC then-senior coach Dean Bailey, having regard to Mr Connolly's comments, during the 2009 premiership season had acted in a manner which was prejudicial to the interests of the AFL.

I don't think there has been any definitive statement by the AFL or any of its executive giving opinion on the strength of the evidence of the AFL Tanking report. They're too sage to do other than let the report stand as it is between the AFL and the MFC. McGillin would have been crucified for making such an allegation.

The compromised decision reached b/w the AFL and MFC hid the more damaging disposition that MFC tanked and the accountabilities extended higher than Connolly. As head of the FD he was involved but clearly not the lone wolf. Many of other responsible parties are no longer for various reasons involved with MFC.

Anyway what's been done has been done but the efforts to exonerate the parties that were culpable for the disaster are misguided.

I can't find the quote as it may have been in a radio interview but I'm almost 100% positive he said this, or words to that effect.

I can't find the quote as it may have been in a radio interview but I'm almost 100% positive he said this, or words to that effect.

I gave the quote above. McLachlan said this at the press conference, which announced the sanctions.

I gave the quote above. McLachlan said this at the press conference, which announced the sanctions.

Thanks, but he said at one point that the only evidence they had was the comments made by Connolly.

Thanks, but he said at one point that the only evidence they had was the comments made by Connolly.

Yes CB and to quote McLachlan again:

Mr McLachlan said the basis of the AFL's findings was the testimony received from current and former players [unnamed], coaches, administrators and officials.

He also said, in my view in a totally contradictory manner:

There had not been a directive from the Melbourne FC board or executive management that the team should deliberately lose matches in any game during the 2009 premiership season.

Edited August 5, 201311 yr by iv'a worn smith

We got ourselves out of debt and into the black.

The Stynes Board were magnificent at raising money from members. Jimmy's charisma raised in the order of $5 million for the club over about a 4 or 5 year period. In that time the MFC would have had total revenues of something in the order of $150 million so in reality the fund raising added about 3% to the bottom line. It's interesting to reflect now on how much of that money has gone into paying out McNamee, Connolly, Schwab and Neeld. It's also sad that that money, which if my understanding is correct, was set aside for the FD was wasted on a flawed structure and resulted in the club being at rock bottom on field.

The Gardner Board inherited a debt of about $5 million, had 4 years of profit and a terrible financial year in 2007. At the end of the 2007 financial year the club again found itself in a position of about $5 million in debt but that included the payout to McNamee who Stynes dismissed quickly. So Gardner broke about even. Stynes/McLardy Board raised money but at the end of this year we will find ourselves firmly in the red again and requiring the AFL to bail us out to the tune of $2.5 million.

The reality is that neither Stynes/McLardy nor Gardner nor any Board before them in AFL history have been able to establish a sustainable business model to allow us to be consistently competitive.

Great Pretender you were the one that brought up Gardner so don't blame me for responding to your barb and false criticism. Very little of what you say is factually correct and if it was I wouldn't feel the need to respond to your posts. Get it right and you won't have a problem with my responses.

The tanking saga was a red herring from day 1.

It actually wasn't and if you think we didn't play for draft picks you've misread the situation badly.

The tanking investigation was a white wash because to find us guilty of tanking would have put our poker machine revenue at risk and that wasn't in anybody's interest. Anyway it's old news and if people are happier believing we were innocent in 2009 that's fine.

The Stynes Board were magnificent at raising money from members. Jimmy's charisma raised in the order of $5 million for the club over about a 4 or 5 year period. In that time the MFC would have had total revenues of something in the order of $150 million so in reality the fund raising added about 3% to the bottom line. It's interesting to reflect now on how much of that money has gone into paying out McNamee, Connolly, Schwab and Neeld. It's also sad that that money, which if my understanding is correct, was set aside for the FD was wasted on a flawed structure and resulted in the club being at rock bottom on field.

The Gardner Board inherited a debt of about $5 million, had 4 years of profit and a terrible financial year in 2007. At the end of the 2007 financial year the club again found itself in a position of about $5 million in debt but that included the payout to McNamee who Stynes dismissed quickly. So Gardner broke about even. Stynes/McLardy Board raised money but at the end of this year we will find ourselves firmly in the red again and requiring the AFL to bail us out to the tune of $2.5 million.

The reality is that neither Stynes/McLardy nor Gardner nor any Board before them in AFL history have been able to establish a sustainable business model to allow us to be consistently competitive.

Great Pretender you were the one that brought up Gardner so don't blame me for responding to your barb and false criticism. Very little of what you say is factually correct and if it was I wouldn't feel the need to respond to your posts. Get it right and you won't have a problem with my responses.

It actually wasn't and if you think we didn't play for draft picks you've misread the situation badly.

The tanking investigation was a white wash because to find us guilty of tanking would have put our poker machine revenue at risk and that wasn't in anybody's interest. Anyway it's old news and if people are happier believing we were innocent in 2009 that's fine.

Thank you for selectively quoting me. I did not say we didn't tank, I said the investigation itself was a red herring. McLachlan was damned by his own words at the press conference. He had a bet each way and the two bets contradicted each other. Just read the quotes again. We were the fall guys for a practice which had been going on pre-2009 and subsequent to that year by a number of other clubs. We were seen as the softest targets. What makes this is even more a travesty is the AFL is seen to take from us with one hand and less than 12 months later, give back substantially more with the other.

It was never going to happen of course, but just to fantasise a little, I would have loved to have seen the matter go to court. Based on McLachlan's own words, any judge would summarily dismiss the defendant's evidence and award substantial costs to the plaintiff.

All that said, I was responding to Clint's question about "quotes" attributable to the AFL, re Connolly. The rest was obiter.

The tanking saga was a red herring from day 1. The AFL used us as the fall guys, because they wanted to stop the practice, which was undertaken by number of clubs under various guises for a number of years. The fact that we were sanctioned was simply because the AFL knew there would be little protest about, unlike there would have been if Richmond or Carlton had copped it.

As for Connolly, at the relevant press conference, McLachlan said this:

Thanks Iva. Good research on the quotes.

I think your view on the tanking is your own and do be it. It was hardly a "red herring" as as you have said the AFL wanted to stop the practice.

It's a victim excuse to call us the fall guy. Given the public comments made by Vlad about tanking, there was no keenness on the AFLs part to investigate this. As was shown there was no winners out of this. As the AFL had removed the mandatory PP, it was in their interest to have the issue go away.

But it didn't. The extent of MFCs action in 2009 and the ongoing speculation thereafter culminating in the McLean disclosures left the AFL with no option but to formally investigate. I understand the investigation brought up more than the AFL had hoped for.

We all know the implications of an adverse finding on the club. A convenient and illogical enquiry outcome was concocted where Connolly and Bailey took the fall and executive management (Schwab) and the Board were blissfully and ignorantly unaware of the strategy.......even though the media and football public thought otherwise.

The sad thing about Connolly (and Bailey) taking the hit is those they sought to "protect" are either no longer alive or have been deposed for other issues.

IMO, it's contrived expediency for the AFLs sake that the enquiry ended like it did. The real issue again IMO is the rest of the football world including many of our supporters believed we tanked. And for various reasons depending on where you sit recognise the outcome as a sham.

Edited August 5, 201311 yr by Rhino Richards

I did not say we didn't tank, I said the investigation itself was a red herring.

.......

We were the fall guys for a practice which had been going on pre-2009 and subsequent to that year by a number of other clubs. We were seen as the softest targets. What makes this is even more a travesty is the AFL is seen to take from us with one hand and less than 12 months later, give back substantially more with the other.

It was never going to happen of course, but just to fantasise a little, I would have loved to have seen the matter go to court. Based on McLachlan's own words, any judge would summarily dismiss the defendant's evidence and award substantial costs to the plaintiff.

All that said, I was responding to Clint's question about "quotes" attributable to the AFL, re Connolly. The rest was obiter.

To be fair Iva you referred to the tanking saga rather than the tanking investigation.

Your belief that we were fall guy and a soft target does not make sense. It was not in the AFLs interest in formally investigate this matter. They had stuck their heads in the sand for so long hoping it would fall away.

The AFL were well aware that any penalty would weaken an already weak club. They and the MFC Board would be smart enough to realise that to go to Court would have made all but the lawyers losers.

And given we are practically under Administration by the AFL they would be funding both arms of the legal action. Ouch!

Conolly took the hit because he knew a fat redundancy was in the air.

Not one word have we heard from Conolly about his beloved Demons.

Not one statement to the members.

He raised a lot of $$$ for the club, but a lot of that now resides in his pocket.

How about a statement to the shareholders Chris??

(And some people on here are still prepared to forgive and forget, and allow him back. Astounding. No wonder this club is a shell right now. )

To be fair Iva you referred to the tanking saga rather than the tanking investigation.

Your belief that we were fall guy and a soft target does not make sense. It was not in the AFLs interest in formally investigate this matter. They had stuck their heads in the sand for so long hoping it would fall away.

The AFL were well aware that any penalty would weaken an already weak club. They and the MFC Board would be smart enough to realise that to go to Court would have made all but the lawyers losers.

And given we are practically under Administration by the AFL they would be funding both arms of the legal action. Ouch!

And when did that "saga" begin? 3 years after the alleged offences took place. The catalyst for the saga was by dent of a number of spurious articles written by one Caroline Wilson. Until that time, the "saga" - read investigation - was not in anyone's line of sight, including the AFL. The so-called practice of tanking came about directly as a result of the construct of the AFL's own drafting framework. The fact that the AFL stuck their collective heads in the sand for so long, makes the whole process even more of a travesty.

Like I said, based on their contradictory findings, the AFL took from us with one hand and less than 12 months later have given us back substantially more with the other. That is the biggest red herring in football that I can think of in living memory.

And when did that "saga" begin? 3 years after the alleged offences took place. The catalyst for the saga was by dent of a number of spurious articles written by one Caroline Wilson. Until that time, the "saga" - read investigation - was not in anyone's line of sight, including the AFL. The so-called practice of tanking came about directly as a result of the construct of the AFL's own drafting framework. The fact that the AFL stuck their collective heads in the sand for so long, makes the whole process even more of a travesty.

Like I said, based on their contradictory findings, the AFL took from us with one hand and less than 12 months later have given us back substantially more with the other. That is the biggest red herring in football that I can think of in living memory.

Good point Iva.

Considering the state of our finances when the AFL findings came down. I am amazed they didn't finger Schwab as well.

We the members were unaware of our financial plight at that stage, but the AFL would have known.

Fascinating that they allowed CS to continue as CEO, even if it was only for 7-8 weeks.

Good point Iva.

Considering the state of our finances when the AFL findings came down. I am amazed they didn't finger Schwab as well.

We the members were unaware of our financial plight at that stage, but the AFL would have known.

Fascinating that they allowed CS to continue as CEO, even if it was only for 7-8 weeks.

WYL, far be it for me to hypothesise, as some on here already had, but perhaps the AFL's 'sanction' deal, was contingent on CS's demise shortly thereafter. The AFL could hardly finger CS, after McLachlan publicly stated:

There had not been a directive from the Melbourne FC board or executive management that the team should deliberately lose matches in any game during the 2009 premiership season.

The fact that the AFL could make such a contradictory finding makes the whole saga, nothing but a sham.

WYL, far be it for me to hypothesise, as some on here already had, but perhaps the AFL's 'sanction' deal, was contingent on CS's demise shortly thereafter. The AFL could hardly finger CS, after McLachlan publicly stated:

There had not been a directive from the Melbourne FC board or executive management that the team should deliberately lose matches in any game during the 2009 premiership season.

The fact that the AFL could make such a contradictory finding makes the whole saga, nothing but a sham.

I agree 100% but considering how poorly the club was obviously being run i have always been intriuged by it.

Maybe the demise was already in place.

I consider CS's exit speech as a great piece of stand up comedy now we know more about our situation.

There is no way he could be serious.

An insightful thread proving that the CLUELESS'S natural progression graduates them into the ALL KNOWING.

Thank you for selectively quoting me.

Sorry iv'a, didn't mean to selectively quote, just didn't interpret your comments in the way you meant them.

I don't think the tanking investigation would ever have happened if Bailey hadn't made his comments at his farewell presser and I don't think he'd have made those comments if we'd handled his situation better. McLean's comments on their own would have amounted to little although Schwab's feud with Wilson was not helpful.

Anyway it's all over now and the reality is we've not been punished. The fine has been made meaningless and those that were involved are largely gone as befits their performance.

Bailey is the biggest victim.

An insightful thread proving that the CLUELESS'S natural progression graduates them into the ALL KNOWING.

Now that comment adds some efficacy to the debate.