Bringing the Game into Disrepute

[Deefender 231]

The Dees are more or less in the hands of the receivers.

These guys don't make irrational decisions.

They will look at the bottom line and see what needs to be done to restore

a once great club. It is in everyone's interest to have the Melb F. C.

up and running on all cylinders.

We carry the name Melbourne. It is the city that is the home of the AFL which has at it's centre

the Melbourne Cricket Ground.

If a priority pick is part of the receivers toolkit then it will be given.

[Machsy 2,858]

One pick? ONE pick is going to do that?

It will remove the last skerrick of dignity this club has. We'll be hated alright, but there'll be absolutely no respect attached to it.

Whatever floats your boat.

Trent Cotchin would do that.

A young Chris Judd would do that.

Luke Hodge would do that.

Nay Fyfe would do that.

Should I go on..?

And what dignity do you really think we have left, that would be lost by accepting another priority pick?

That ship has already sailed.

You want to cut off our nose to spite our face.

I want to take any advantage available to us within the rules for future success, like any ruthless club would.

[daisycutter 29,605]

We have 5 sons to have played for 62 total games an average of 12 per player. Other clubs have had 8-10 sons averaging around 100 games per player. Geelong has 850 games and growing to our 62 and with JV growing.

I saw that 62 games total and couldn't believe it

Barass was the first father/son and he certainly played more than 62 games

What gives.......more professional journalism?

[T-34 409]

Trent Cotchin would do that.

A young Chris Judd would do that.

Luke Hodge would do that.

Nay Fyfe would do that.

Should I go on..?

And what dignity do you really think we have left, that would be lost by accepting another priority pick?

That ship has already sailed.

You want to cut off our nose to spite our face.

I want to take any advantage available to us within the rules for future success, like any ruthless club would.

Can't agree more.

As far as my memory goes we did not get found guilty of tanking anyway, and to deny us a PP based on the fact we did would just confirm what a farce that investigation and it's outcome was.I wouldn't expect the AFL to show such double standards, on one hand saying we didn't tank yet on the other saying you can't have a PP because you did tank.

The way the current rules are re PP's we definitely qualify and I would think the noise coming from every other club in regards to it merely confirms the fact they think so as well.

[Slartibartfast 17,223]

I saw that 62 games total and couldn't believe it

Barass was the first father/son and he certainly played more than 62 games

What gives.......more professional journalism?

Barassi didn't come to us under the father son system.

[P-man 13,366]

I wasn't aware that it was ever in doubt that the outcome of the investigation was a complete farce. Watching McLachlan trying to explain the decision was a comedy act. The non-guilty verdict was pretty much a finding of, "we know you did it, but so did numerous other clubs, so we'll go easy on you. p.s. if betting agencies or anyone else asks, tanking does not exist. Wink."

[John Dee 445]

Barassi didn't come to us under the father son system.

Really? I think that he was the first Father/Son; the rule was invented for him.

[daisycutter 29,605]

Barassi didn't come to us under the father son system.

from wikipedia

Father-son rule[edit source | editbeta]

To ensure he played with the Demons, Melbourne went to the VFL and successfully lobbied for the creation of a Father-Son Rule. When the time came for Barassi to be signed up, Melbourne picked him up from Preston Scouts in 1952 and he became only the second player signed under the new rule. This rule, with some modifications and adapted to the drafting system created in 1986, endures to the present day in the AFL.^[1]

The club had gone to great lengths to recruit the young Barassi, and coach Norm Smith took him under his wing after his mother moved to Tasmania. Smith offered the sixteen year-old use of his backyard bungalow. Looking back on the experience, Barassi believes that living with the man who was voted as the coach of the AFL's team of the century had a profound impact on his development. On his website, Barassi had this to say: “Norm Smith loved his footy. That suited me fine. “His ability with young people, his strength of character, his ethics and values, came into my life at the right time.”^[8]

[loges 6,767]

Can't agree more.

As far as my memory goes we did not get found guilty of tanking anyway, and to deny us a PP based on the fact we did would just confirm what a farce that investigation and it's outcome was.I wouldn't expect the AFL to show such double standards, on one hand saying we didn't tank yet on the other saying you can't have a PP because you did tank.

The way the current rules are re PP's we definitely qualify and I would think the noise coming from every other club in regards to it merely confirms the fact they think so as well.

Anyway the clubs punishment has been handed down, anything else sort of alludes that the punishment should be ongoing.which it shouldn't and completely negates the argument that we shouldn't get a pp

[Slartibartfast 17,223]

Spot on and I might add that if the result of that inquisition is then allowed to be used to punish us a second time by depriving us of the right to draft assistance that we eminently qualify for, then it would demonstrate how corrupt the AFL has been in selectively singling out Melbourne for a detailed investigation into tanking when the world knows that at least half a dozen others should also have been looked at. That being the case, we would be looking at something far more serious than the AFL bringing the game into disrepute.

I can understand that view. On one level it's right but in my view only if you look at our performance in isolation. Trouble is we aren't isolated from our past.

I'll try and explain my position. I believe we tanked to get draft picks, that's the basis I come from. I believe the AFL know that, I believe the public believes it and I believe that the finding of "bringing the game into disrepute" was designed to save everyone a huge amount of grief. The finding of the AFL was pragmatic and from that POV correct.

But given that we bought the game into disrepute in order to improve our draft position the most obvious penalty is the loss of draft picks. You cheat to get draft picks you should logically be penalized with draft picks. Now there are numerous reasons we retained our picks and high among them was that the club is on its knees and draft pick penalties would nearly put us out the back door and hurt all clubs. No Jackson, no Roos, no hope. Our penalty has been nothing from our cheating. Connolly gone, Schwab gone, McLardy gone. the fine offset by the $2.7 million grant and an AFL appointed CEO who has won us tattslotto with Roos. You could raise an argument that tanking was the best thing for us. Not for draft picks but to restructure the Club and save us from our own incompetence.

IMO in the last 12 months we've had so many get out of jail free cards expecting another is improper. If we get PP's then we've been overpaid for our crime many time over. We've benefited on nearly every front.

From a neutral persons position we've broken the rules, had our administration fixed, our coach replaced and a divisive figure in Connolly removed all funded by the AFL, given a lifeline to employ competent people and now we are asking for a PP. I think most of the footy world is sick of us not paying our own way and I reckon the AFL will probably think the same. The AFL are not interested in us being successful, they just don't want us to fail.

So in isolation we should get a pick but I reckon given everything that's happened it's hypocritical of the AFL to give more. "You broke the rules, now have a PP".

Edited September 13, 2013 by Baghdad Bob

[Slartibartfast 17,223]

from wikipedia

Father-son rule[edit source | editbeta]

To ensure he played with the Demons, Melbourne went to the VFL and successfully lobbied for the creation of a Father-Son Rule. When the time came for Barassi to be signed up, Melbourne picked him up from Preston Scouts in 1952 and he became only the second player signed under the new rule. This rule, with some modifications and adapted to the drafting system created in 1986, endures to the present day in the AFL.^[1]

The club had gone to great lengths to recruit the young Barassi, and coach Norm Smith took him under his wing after his mother moved to Tasmania. Smith offered the sixteen year-old use of his backyard bungalow. Looking back on the experience, Barassi believes that living with the man who was voted as the coach of the AFL's team of the century had a profound impact on his development. On his website, Barassi had this to say: “Norm Smith loved his footy. That suited me fine. “His ability with young people, his strength of character, his ethics and values, came into my life at the right time.”^[8]

Fair enough, I didn't know that.

[H_T 3,043]

I'm of the view that it would be hypocritical of the AFL to sanction us for bringing the game into disrepute in the way we did and then give us draft picks. For that reason I find it hard to see us getting them. If you're not of that view it's much easier to see us getting them.

Justice must seen to be done, therefore I doubt we'll get one. But it's just a stab in the dark really.

So you don't think justice was done earlier this year when the AFL handed out the punishment to the MFC and its representatives of the time?

[rpfc 28,275]

I wasn't aware that it was ever in doubt that the outcome of the investigation was a complete farce. Watching McLachlan trying to explain the decision was a comedy act. The non-guilty verdict was pretty much a finding of, "we know you did it, but so did numerous other clubs, so we'll go easy on you. p.s. if betting agencies or anyone else asks, tanking does not exist. Wink."

I interpreted it as "we can't prove anything but we fear the public outcry over the entire tanking issue so we are coming down hard on a joke from your FD head about it."

We paid for our 'sins' in that one game and the sins of Carlton (lose 11 straight to get Kreuzer and Judd), Collingwood (lose 8 straight to get Thomas and Pendlebury), and back-to-back PP years from Hawthorn after having 5 years of 10+ win seasons.

[Slartibartfast 17,223]

So you don't think justice was done earlier this year when the AFL handed out the punishment to the MFC and its representatives of the time?

See above. I think we have ultimately been rewarded for bringing the game into disrepute.

[rpfc 28,275]

IMO in the last 12 months we've had so many get out of jail free cards expecting another is improper.

So in isolation we should get a pick but I reckon given everything that's happened it's hypocritical of the AFL to give more. "You broke the rules, now have a PP".

Since when are we out of jail?

And the AFL gives out these cards because occassionally, clubs need them to keep the sport from degenerating into an EPL-like experience where only a few rich clubs can win.

We got a lenient judgement in your view - so did the Bombers. We got emergency funding - so have countless others. Now we look for draft assistance - that has been given, again, a number of times.

How about if the AFL say "You broke the rules 4 years ago. Now have draft assistance because these are the rules of the a game that wishes to even up the competition."

I find it difficult to stomach the idea that the AFL was right not to punish us with draft penalties because it would be a disservice to the competition and then argue we don't deserve the draft assistance that would be given to a club that is a disservice to the competition.

[H_T 3,043]

See above. I think we have ultimately been rewarded for bringing the game into disrepute.

I see.

So "Peter, here's your punishment back in Feb for not tanking but bringing the game into disrepute, but lets ignore the/your worst season on record (2013) never happened - so no, you can't have the PP you formally requested. Mighty strong argument though."

[Slartibartfast 17,223]

I find it difficult to stomach the idea that the AFL was right not to punish us with draft penalties because it would be a disservice to the competition and then argue we don't deserve the draft assistance that would be given to a club that is a disservice to the competition.

The AFL want to see us competitive. They don't care if we don't win many games but they don't want us with a percentage of 54.

They may believe that with Roos and a competent administration we will achieve that. I think they may argue that having been given what we've been given we won't be a disservice to the competition and they've no interest in giving us a further leg up.

I think that those that believe it is as simple as "number of games won" are not looking at the whole picture.

[P-man 13,366]

I interpreted it as "we can't prove anything but we fear the public outcry over the entire tanking issue so we are coming down hard on a joke from your FD head about it."

We paid for our 'sins' in that one game and the sins of Carlton (lose 11 straight to get Kreuzer and Judd), Collingwood (lose 8 straight to get Thomas and Pendlebury), and back-to-back PP years from Hawthorn after having 5 years of 10+ win seasons.

i know you held tight to "we never tanked", but you can't seriously believe that punishments were handed out because of a misinterpreted joke. The whole thing was smoke and mirrors to cover the AFL's arse for creating such a flawed system, and ours for munching on the poisoned carrot.

I'm not sure why you would defend the fools that have driven this club into the dirt. They don't deserve it.

[rpfc 28,275]

The AFL want to see us competitive. They don't care if we don't win many games but they don't want us with a percentage of 54.

They may believe that with Roos and a competent administration we will achieve that. I think they may argue that having been given what we've been given we won't be a disservice to the competition and they've no interest in giving us a further leg up.

I think that those that believe it is as simple as "number of games won" are not looking at the whole picture.

It really does not matter, games won, it all comes down to perception. And from what I can tell from Jackson - he will attempt to get some help from the Commission.

I think we will be awarded something, but only as much as to not cause too much of a stir.

Basically enough for Barrett to smugly say "I never thought they deserved a PP, and the AFL agreed with that premise."

But also enough for Barrett to smugly say "the MFC can't say that the AFL hasn't helped them out - they have been given Jackson, Roos, and Pick(s) X - those first two funded out of AFL house."

I really don't care what these awful journos say, but the AFL unfortunately does. They like winning their PR game each week.

[P-man 13,366]

It's also not going to be a great look for the AFL if Melbourne shoot up the ladder next year after being awarded a PP for being uncompetitive. If indeed, a club's success is determined by the quality of the people off the field, as much as on it.

I'm willing to bet that the AFL will give the club a season under Roos to see what he can do. Another dismal season and the case goes from compelling to undeniable, enough that even the other clubs won't be able to whinge about it.

[sue 9,099]

While I disagree with BB, there is some merit in his argument in post #60.

But surely the AFL would have predicted that we were very likely to end the year having an excellent case for a PP (leaving aside tanking issues - if performance was the only issue). So if they didn't want us to get a PP at year's end for all the reasons BB lists, then they should have included a 'no PP' or some other draft pick penalty at the time. They didn't, so I think they will have trouble making an argument why they should now.

That sad, I don't underestimate their ability to come out with odd justifications for whatever they just want to do.

Edited September 13, 2013 by sue

[P-man 13,366]

I can understand that view. On one level it's right but in my view only if you look at our performance in isolation. Trouble is we aren't isolated from our past.

I'll try and explain my position. I believe we tanked to get draft picks, that's the basis I come from. I believe the AFL know that, I believe the public believes it and I believe that the finding of "bringing the game into disrepute" was designed to save everyone a huge amount of grief. The finding of the AFL was pragmatic and from that POV correct.

But given that we bought the game into disrepute in order to improve our draft position the most obvious penalty is the loss of draft picks. You cheat to get draft picks you should logically be penalized with draft picks. Now there are numerous reasons we retained our picks and high among them was that the club is on its knees and draft pick penalties would nearly put us out the back door and hurt all clubs. No Jackson, no Roos, no hope. Our penalty has been nothing from our cheating. Connolly gone, Schwab gone, McLardy gone. the fine offset by the $2.7 million grant and an AFL appointed CEO who has won us tattslotto with Roos. You could raise an argument that tanking was the best thing for us. Not for draft picks but to restructure the Club and save us from our own incompetence.

IMO in the last 12 months we've had so many get out of jail free cards expecting another is improper. If we get PP's then we've been overpaid for our crime many time over. We've benefited on nearly every front.

From a neutral persons position we've broken the rules, had our administration fixed, our coach replaced and a divisive figure in Connolly removed all funded by the AFL, given a lifeline to employ competent people and now we are asking for a PP. I think most of the footy world is sick of us not paying our own way and I reckon the AFL will probably think the same. The AFL are not interested in us being successful, they just don't want us to fail.

So in isolation we should get a pick but I reckon given everything that's happened it's hypocritical of the AFL to give more. "You broke the rules, now have a PP".

Agree with all of the above.

[Webber 10,454]

Since when are we out of jail? And the AFL gives out these cards because occassionally, clubs need them to keep the sport from degenerating into an EPL-like experience where only a few rich clubs can win. We got a lenient judgement in your view - so did the Bombers. We got emergency funding - so have countless others. Now we look for draft assistance - that has been given, again, a number of times. How about if the AFL say "You broke the rules 4 years ago. Now have draft assistance because these are the rules of the a game that wishes to even up the competition." I find it difficult to stomach the idea that the AFL was right not to punish us with draft penalties because it would be a disservice to the competition and then argue we don't deserve the draft assistance that would be given to a club that is a disservice to the competition.

Essentially rpfc your last sentence is the logical pivot of the argument.

* Our recent on field history makes us the most compelling recipient of a PP in its history.

* By finding us NOT guilty of tanking, and leaving our draft status as unpenalised, our slate is clean when it comes to equalisation compensation, i.e. priority pick.

From every conceivable logical standpoint of governance, the AFL simply must give us a PP. To NOT do so is equivalent to a punitive measure for a crime that certain people in the media and from other clubs are claiming we have committed.

Remember it is in the primary interests of all clubs to see their opposition diminished. The health of the competition comes a distant second as regards their personal responsibility.

[old dee 23,782]

Essendrug are suing Carlton's Swan for saying they che-ted.

On that basis the MFC should sue anyone and everyone who says we tanked!

Talk about bringing the game into disrepute.

[Slartibartfast 17,223]

It really does not matter, games won, it all comes down to perception. And from what I can tell from Jackson - he will attempt to get some help from the Commission.

I think we will be awarded something, but only as much as to not cause too much of a stir.

Basically enough for Barrett to smugly say "I never thought they deserved a PP, and the AFL agreed with that premise."

But also enough for Barrett to smugly say "the MFC can't say that the AFL hasn't helped them out - they have been given Jackson, Roos, and Pick(s) X - those first two funded out of AFL house."

I really don't care what these awful journos say, but the AFL unfortunately does. They like winning their PR game each week.

Don't disagree with this view. It's quite likely, we'll find out soon.