Has the AFL traditionally penalised us Melbourne FC the hardest?

[pm24 451]

I've just read an article on the Age which centres around the Essendon drug scandal, but what really caught my eye was the listing at the end of the article of the penalties handed out to clubs for various breaches of the AFL rules.

What stood out is that the two highest financial penalties imposed on a club since 1996, were imposed on Melbourne FC. One for the salary cap breaches in 1999, and the other for the "tanking" allegations recently.

Other like breaches by other clubs have been met with much lower financial penalties.

If the Essendon drug scandal does not result in a fine greater than the one we received for the salary cap breaches in 1999 or for the "tanking" saga, I think it really brings into question the integrity of the AFL. How can one club be so harshly penalised compared to other clubs with like breaches of the rules?

Check out the list here: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/draft-picks-must-be-the-holy-grail-20130814-2rwxf.html

[Crompton's the man 659]

Can we take it to the Equal Opportunities Commission ?

I am prepared to give evidence

[Good Times Grimes 2,396]

I've just read an article on the Age which centres around the Essendon drug scandal, but what really caught my eye was the listing at the end of the article of the penalties handed out to clubs for various breaches of the AFL rules.

What stood out is that the two highest financial penalties imposed on a club since 1996, were imposed on Melbourne FC. One for the salary cap breaches in 1999, and the other for the "tanking" allegations recently.

Other like breaches by other clubs have been met with much lower financial penalties.

If the Essendon drug scandal does not result in a fine greater than the one we received for the salary cap breaches in 1999 or for the "tanking" saga, I think it really brings into question the integrity of the AFL. How can one club be so harshly penalised compared to other clubs with like breaches of the rules?

Check out the list here: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/draft-picks-must-be-the-holy-grail-20130814-2rwxf.html

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,909]

More concerning is the number of times we've been caught. And in a similar vein, interesting how many repeat offenders there have been.

Corporate governance is important and we've had a poor history in that regard.

[PJ_12345 1,098]

I've just read an article on the Age which centres around the Essendon drug scandal, but what really caught my eye was the listing at the end of the article of the penalties handed out to clubs for various breaches of the AFL rules.

What stood out is that the two highest financial penalties imposed on a club since 1996, were imposed on Melbourne FC. One for the salary cap breaches in 1999, and the other for the "tanking" allegations recently.

Other like breaches by other clubs have been met with much lower financial penalties.

If the Essendon drug scandal does not result in a fine greater than the one we received for the salary cap breaches in 1999 or for the "tanking" saga, I think it really brings into question the integrity of the AFL. How can one club be so harshly penalised compared to other clubs with like breaches of the rules?

Check out the list here: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/draft-picks-must-be-the-holy-grail-20130814-2rwxf.html

Edit: could one of the mods correct the title to change it to say "traditionally" rather than "traditional"

Don't know if I miss-read you but don't you mean the second and third highest fine?

2002 - Carlton $930,000

1999 - Melbourne $650,000

2013 - Melbourne $500,000

BTW, I don't know how accurate the article is about our draft fines in 2000 because I swear we got Thompson for a first round at #16...

[pm24 451]

Don't know if I miss-read you but don't you mean the second and third highest fine?

2002 - Carlton $930,000

1999 - Melbourne $650,000

2013 - Melbourne $500,000

BTW, I don't know how accurate the article is about our draft fines in 2000 because I swear we got Thompson for a first round at #16...

Whoops, I must have misread the Carlton fine, because when I first read the article it only said $93,000, so they might have corrected a typo or I just misread it.

Either way, it appears that aside from Carlton's salary cap breaches, it appears that we've been fined quiet harshly when caught out compared to most other clubs.

[pantaloons 2,019]

Don't know if I miss-read you but don't you mean the second and third highest fine?

2002 - Carlton $930,000

1999 - Melbourne $650,000

2013 - Melbourne $500,000

BTW, I don't know how accurate the article is about our draft fines in 2000 because I swear we got Thompson for a first round at #16...

You're right. It was the first rounder in 1999 and our second and third rounders in 2000.

[PJ_12345 1,098]

Whoops, I must have misread the Carlton fine, because when I first read the article it only said $93,000, so they might have corrected a typo or I just misread it.

Either way, it appears that aside from Carlton's salary cap breaches, it appears that we've been fined quiet harshly when caught out compared to most other clubs.

I agree in a sense.

Essendon will put it all into perspective. I say that because with Adelaide fines were more orientated to the staff, not the club in our case, and the penalties were fairly severe but ultimately reduced by the AFL because they tried to set a positive example of when a club pleads guilty early and turn in when they feel the heat...

[TheoX 1,222]

If the Essendon drug scandal does not result in a fine greater than the one we received for the salary cap breaches in 1999 or for the "tanking" saga, I think it really brings into question the integrity of the AFL.

Looks like the AFL won't even investigate Carlton for tanking after Libba's interview. The AFL have no integrity if they don't.

[jazza 1,323]

Looks like the AFL won't even investigate Carlton for tanking after Libba's interview. The AFL have no integrity if they don't.

maybe fox should've got DARC to do the interview

say that again

and you were in the room with him

[DemonFrog 1,356]

If we breach the Salary CAP then the fine was deserved.

However the fine for NOT Tanking was a Joke. But the BIGGEST joke was the MFC response to this insult from the AFL.

IMO the then President of the MFC could not have bent over any further for the AFL.

This action had set the tone for the MFC's entire 2013 season. Give up, don't try and generally be sub standard.

However look at the Essendon FC, their Club was also run by a bunch of DH but they will not go down without a fight.

[Pink Freud 370]

There is nothing that the AFL hasn't already done in its handling of the various crises that have afflicted it over the past few years that could further damage its integrity which at the moment is non existent.

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

I've just read an article on the Age which centres around the Essendon drug scandal, but what really caught my eye was the listing at the end of the article of the penalties handed out to clubs for various breaches of the AFL rules.

What stood out is that the two highest financial penalties imposed on a club since 1996, were imposed on Melbourne FC. One for the salary cap breaches in 1999, and the other for the "tanking" allegations recently.

Other like breaches by other clubs have been met with much lower financial penalties.

If the Essendon drug scandal does not result in a fine greater than the one we received for the salary cap breaches in 1999 or for the "tanking" saga, I think it really brings into question the integrity of the AFL. How can one club be so harshly penalised compared to other clubs with like breaches of the rules?

Check out the list here: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/draft-picks-must-be-the-holy-grail-20130814-2rwxf.html

Edit: could one of the mods correct the title to change it to say "traditionally" rather than "traditional"

In short, the answer has to be 'yes'.

We have been soft, easy targets and the AFL, in tandem with several lazy, sleazy journos, have taken maximum advantage of this.

The 'tanking' investigation, the lack of credible evidence in support of it, the ridiculous hysteria in the media about it/the way in which it was reported, the fact that all other clubs escaped any proper/meaningful analysis in similar, if not worse circumstances (eg, Carlton), all add up to the conclusion that the AFL could make a statement to the competition through victimising the club with no teeth (ie, the MFC).

We essentially still got slotted because of an AFL sanctioned rule. And yet, the AFL is now considering funding us and giving us a priority pick. Beggars belief really.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,909]

If we breach the Salary CAP then the fine was deserved.

However the fine for NOT Tanking was a Joke. But the BIGGEST joke was the MFC response to this insult from the AFL.

IMO the then President of the MFC could not have bent over any further for the AFL.

This action had set the tone for the MFC's entire 2013 season. Give up, don't try and generally be sub standard.

However look at the Essendon FC, their Club was also run by a bunch of DH but they will not go down without a fight.

You might want to wait to see what actually happens to Essendon before advocating which strategy was better.

[thaipantsman 180]

Excuses, excuses!! Melbourne have made shokas! Bad decisions. Tanked to get Trengove and Scully and imported 6 huge duds the past two years. Melbourne should be punished otherwise will continue to make further shokas. Melbourne's board is and has been an absolute disgrace. Mark Neeld as Coach?? Absolute joke! He was always going to be a shoka. Blind Freddy could see Round one V Brisbane.