"It can be seen in numerous “tanking” allegations, most of which were ignored, other’s swept under the carpet, until finally culminating in the harsh punishments dealt to a scapegoat.

It can be seen in the “priority pick” system which encouraged the above. A system that was quietly abandoned without an admission of fault, or even an acknowledgement that the issues might be related."

(From the Article referred to above.)

More comfort for those with the victim mentality, like myself.

When one revisits the Evans decision not to award us a PP of any position at all, in the last ND, one tends to wonder how could that decision be logically arrived at.

IMO logic had nothing to do with it.

The MFC clearly beyond any doubt, deserved a PP under the existing criteria. We were crap for 7 years and everyone agreed. We experienced some of the worst thrashings in the history of the game. One media pundit described us as "pathetic and disgusting". He actually is a supporter of the MFC. Imagine what the others thought of us.

IMO the reason it wasn't awarded was because on the overseas jaunt, some of the heavy hitters railed against it and continued in the local media, when back in Oz. The AFL was embarrassed because we had just been punished for "tanking" and lastly because we got what was seen as very good compo for the number 1 pick who took the money and ran. None of those matters are within the criteria for awarding a PP. One of the reasons given by Evans for refusing our request for a PP was because we had a good "community relations" program. Really, that helps us on the field in what way?

IMO that can be seen therefore, as a corrupt decision, based not on the AFL's own criteria, but rather pandering to a few powerful clubs. A high PP could have cost the Pies Scharenberg for example. The powerful clubs got what they wanted once again at the expense of a weak club and the AFL was complicit.

This IMO can be seen as a form of corruption and unfortunately it is not an isolated example.

Not disagreeing Leg but the MFC was never going to recieve a PP the same year that we got done for tanking. It was just not going to happen.

If it was another club nobody on here would want that to happen.

We got Jackson & Roos which is a better deal anyway.

But i agree there is corruption at the top without doubt.

When one revisits the Evans decision not to award us a PP of any position at all, in the last ND, one tends to wonder how could that decision be logically arrived at.

IMO logic had nothing to do with it.

The MFC clearly beyond any doubt, deserved a PP under the existing criteria. We were crap for 7 years and everyone agreed. We experienced some of the worst thrashings in the history of the game. One media pundit described us as "pathetic and disgusting". He actually is a supporter of the MFC. Imagine what the others thought of us.

IMO the reason it wasn't awarded was because on the overseas jaunt, some of the heavy hitters railed against it and continued in the local media, when back in Oz. The AFL was embarrassed because we had just been punished for "tanking" and lastly because we got what was seen as very good compo for the number 1 pick who took the money and ran. None of those matters came into the advertised criteria for awarding a PP.

IMO that can be seen therefore, as a corrupt decision, based not on the AFL's own criteria, but rather pandering to a few powerful clubs. A high PP could have cost the Pies Scharenberg for example. The powerful clubs got what they wanted once again at the expense of a weak club and the AFL was complicit.

This IMO is a pure example of corruption and unfortunately it is not an isolated example.

no doubt about it redleg

unfortunately very few are listening and less seem to care

as usual the afl make the rules on-the-run to satisfy large stakeholders and of course revenue, instead of their advertised rules

its chicago city hall circa 1900

Not disagreeing Leg but the MFC was never going to recieve a PP the same year that we got done for tanking. It was just not going to happen.

If it was another club nobody on here would want that to happen.

We got Jackson & Roos which is a better deal anyway.

But i agree there is corruption at the top without doubt.

you mean the year we got done for bringing the game into disrepute

we were given punishment and it didn't include loss of possible PPs for 2013

when they didn't give us a PP they didn't give your reason

another example of rules on-the-run?

Edited December 9, 201311 yr by daisycutter

you mean the year we got done for bringing the game into disrepute

we were given punishment and it didn't include loss of possible PPs for 2013

when they didn't give us a PP they didn't give your reason

another example of rules on-the-run?

The words were changed for legal reasons, but we got done.

Rules on the run, yes but i knew we were going to get caught. We made it to public.

Almost teenage excitement.

But we came out of it alright.

PJ & Roos are far better value than another skinny kid.

That is how i view it anyway.

The words were changed for legal reasons, but we got done.

Rules on the run, yes but i knew we were going to get caught. We made it to public.

Almost teenage excitement.

But we came out of it alright.

PJ & Roos are far better value than another skinny kid.

That is how i view it anyway.

i don't doubt we didn't get a PP for that (unstated) reason (call it tanking or disrepute)

i just point out (as redleg says) the dishonest process (and non transparent way) that the afl handled it

Dimwit will only have himself to blame if he is forced out (though he's not the only one to blame in afl house)

Dimwit will only have himself to blame if he is forced out (though he's not the only one to blame in afl house)

What is the mechanism for forcing his resignation? I assume it would require substantial agreement between the clubs. As an AFL subsidiary, MFC's vote is decided. Essendon, GWS, maybe Gold Coast also in the bag. Can't see where the push would come from.

What is the mechanism for forcing his resignation? I assume it would require substantial agreement between the clubs. As an AFL subsidiary, MFC's vote is decided. Essendon, GWS, maybe Gold Coast also in the bag. Can't see where the push would come from.

i imagine it would come more from outside pressures including the media

i don't think the clubs vote on it, nor would it be allowed to be so blatant

it would be an afl commission decision and i doubt it would be a sacking

more a case of an engineered resignation, then dressed up as moving on to new challenges etc

of course he could always jump before being asked to

whichever, he is definitely getting on the nose and there could be more "embarrassments" to follow

Edited December 9, 201311 yr by daisycutter

i don't doubt we didn't get a PP for that (unstated) reason (call it tanking or disrepute)

i just point out (as redleg says) the dishonest process (and non transparent way) that the afl handled it

Dimwit will only have himself to blame if he is forced out (though he's not the only one to blame in afl house)

Agree totally dc, i am angry that other clubs got away with doing the same thing. But we were too public about the whole process. That is what killed us.

But we were never going to get a PP in the same year as we were penalized.

Vlad is on very thin ice...or is he??

WADA may give the answer.

of course, none of the afl officials injected or took illegal performance enhancing drugs...

"It can be seen in numerous “tanking” allegations, most of which were ignored, other’s swept under the carpet, until finally culminating in the harsh punishments dealt to a scapegoat.

It can be seen in the “priority pick” system which encouraged the above. A system that was quietly abandoned without an admission of fault, or even an acknowledgement that the issues might be related."

(From the Article referred to above.)

More comfort for those with the victim mentality, like myself.

Victim, or just plain inconsistency and rules on the run?

But we were never going to get a PP in the same year as we were penalized.

Since it wasn't included in the original penalties, I don't see how you can say we were never going to get one. It would have been easy enough for the AFL to have included a no PP penalty at the time if they wanted to.

Whatever you think of it, the AFL's processes are deplorable. You don't add penalties on the run because of a campaign by newspapers, other clubs or even the public. The behaviour of the AFL with the drug issue is similarly poor.

Rhino - I wish you would 'get over' the fact that many of us will continue to 'play the victim' by daring to refer to the tanking issue as an example of the AFL's inconsistencies. We have 'got over it' and are happy with Roos etc, but that doesn't mean we should forget. It would be nice if people could comment on it without you instantly responding 'get over it'.

Edited December 9, 201311 yr by sue

Since it wasn't included in the original penalties, I don't see how you can say we were never going to get one. It would have been easy enough for the AFL to have included a no PP penalty at the time if they wanted to.

If we had been given a PP at the end of 2013 all other clubs would have gone balistic. With pretty good reason.

The MFC did the wrong thing (yes i know the carrot was there) and we got a wack.

But the AFL realized that a completely shattered MFC was no use to anyone so PJ was encouraged to join as the "interim" CEO.

We have done fine. 2013 was not the year to push too hard on the PP agenda.

Right now we swim under the surface keep quiet in the media and strengthen internally on field and business wise.

If we had been given a PP at the end of 2013 all other clubs would have gone balistic. With pretty good reason.

The MFC did the wrong thing (yes i know the carrot was there) and we got a wack.

But the AFL realized that a completely shattered MFC was no use to anyone so PJ was encouraged to join as the "interim" CEO.

We have done fine. 2013 was not the year to push too hard on the PP agenda.

Right now we swim under the surface keep quiet in the media and strengthen internally on field and business wise.

I don't disagree with anything you wrote above except how do you explain the AFL not including a 'no PP' penalty at the time of the original (and only formal) penalties. Presumably they didn't think think we would never get a PP then. Did they think we'd suddenly start winning matches and it wouldn't be an issue at the end of the year. Ha!

They were either incompetent at judging likely reactions at the time, or easily leant on later. Neither do them any credit.

I don't disagree with anything you wrote above except how do you explain the AFL not including a 'no PP' penalty at the time of the original (and only formal) penalties. Presumably they didn't think think we would never get a PP then. Did they think we'd suddenly start winning matches and it wouldn't be an issue at the end of the year. Ha!

They were either incompetent at judging likely reactions at the time, or easily leant on later. Neither do them any credit.

I don't know the answer Sue. But i would put $$ on the fact that the PP was never on the table. Instead PJ was encouraged.

That's my take. But who would know really!!

Hey i wanted to take the buggers to court for our shabby treatment.

But i was sated with PJ coming on board. He is a class act.

Well under their precedent of this year, we won't be discussing a PP for any other team than us, for at least 7 years. If we have another shocker it will be 8 years of failure and we might be looked at.

We will then have to look at our communal programs, to see if by fixing them we can make the 8.

Rhino - I wish you would 'get over' the fact that many of us will continue to 'play the victim' by daring to refer to the tanking issue as an example of the AFL's inconsistencies. We have 'got over it' and are happy with Roos etc, but that doesn't mean we should forget. It would be nice if people could comment on it without you instantly responding 'get over it'.

Thats good Sue. You get the therapy you need.....

And for good measure, you might also want to spout the same logic to some of those in your therapy group to do likewise when similarly aggrieved supporters wanted to hold those responsible for the debacle at the MFC were to told to move on.

Good luck in getting over it Sue. Its clearly a daunting task.

I don't disagree with anything you wrote above except how do you explain the AFL not including a 'no PP' penalty at the time of the original (and only formal) penalties. Presumably they didn't think think we would never get a PP then. Did they think we'd suddenly start winning matches and it wouldn't be an issue at the end of the year. Ha!

They were either incompetent at judging likely reactions at the time, or easily leant on later. Neither do them any credit.

I only wish those at the AFL could have just dollop of foresight to match your sharp skills of hindsight.

I am not sure the AFL or indeed many of the experts on Dland expected MFC to fall further in 2013 than it did in 2012. There was an abundance of sock sniffers that thought Neeld was the right stuff 12 months ago....

And its a dangerous message for a governing body to deny the PP up front on any club. I am sure such a potentially damning statement would have had a stellar impact on members, sponsors and supporters.

I don't know the answer Sue. But i would put $$ on the fact that the PP was never on the table. Instead PJ was encouraged.

That's my take. But who would know really!!

Hey i wanted to take the buggers to court for our shabby treatment.

But i was sated with PJ coming on board. He is a class act.

Well it is an interesting speculation that a private part of our 'deal' was 'no PP' but 'you can have PJ. Personally having seen the AFL in operation, unlike you, I would not put money on it. I'd go for incompetence.

Well it is an interesting speculation that a private part of our 'deal' was 'no PP' but 'you can have PJ. Personally having seen the AFL in operation, unlike you, I would not put money on it. I'd go for incompetence.

Mclardy was out of bargaining chips when the verdict came down that was obvious.

We got wacked and then given a chance.

That is how i see it.

Thats good Sue. You get the therapy you need.....

And for good measure, you might also want to spout the same logic to some of those in your therapy group to do likewise when similarly aggrieved supporters wanted to hold those responsible for the debacle at the MFC were to told to move on.

Good luck in getting over it Sue. Its clearly a daunting task.

I only wish those at the AFL could have just dollop of foresight to match your sharp skills of hindsight.

I am not sure the AFL or indeed many of the experts on Dland expected MFC to fall further in 2013 than it did in 2012. There was an abundance of sock sniffers that thought Neeld was the right stuff 12 months ago....

And its a dangerous message for a governing body to deny the PP up front on any club. I am sure such a potentially damning statement would have had a stellar impact on members, sponsors and supporters.

True, I did forget that the tanking penalties were announced in February, so the AFL may not have expected us to be so abysmal. But any decent governing body has to think of all possibilities; and us not improving after ~6 bad years was not beyond the bounds of possibilities.

As for your last sentence, on the contrary, announcing 'no PP' would be just the right sort of kick in the pants for a club which tanked. When you make appropriate penalties, you may well have an impact of members etc. So what.

Thanks for your therapy. But I'd rather you addressed the substance of my remarks. Until then I wait for you to 'get over' your endless demands that others get over their desire to mention the tanking affair in the context of AFL governance.

Sue: Like

me too

True, I did forget that the tanking penalties were announced in February, so the AFL may not have expected us to be so abysmal. But any decent governing body has to think of all possibilities; and us not improving after ~6 bad years was not beyond the bounds of possibilities.

As for your last sentence, on the contrary, announcing 'no PP' would be just the right sort of kick in the pants for a club which tanked. When you make appropriate penalties, you may well have an impact of members etc. So what.

Thanks for your therapy. But I'd rather you addressed the substance of my remarks. Until then I wait for you to 'get over' your endless demands that others get over their desire to mention the tanking affair in the context of AFL governance.

They may have well thought of more possibilities than you realise given the precariousness of the MFC position. And to your point it was not a case of us not improving but getting far far worse. And no did or could have reasonably predicted that.

The AFL could have given MFC are far smarter kick in the pants than publicly undermining the Club's season ahead. Given our membership numbers have plummetted i am surprise I dont get more than "so what".

And when the season did fall in a hole early the AFL were quick to move in and install Jackson and jettison those that were apparently running. And dont worry I will always look hard for the substance in your posts amongst all the hyperbole its camouflaged in.

They may have well thought of more possibilities than you realise given the precariousness of the MFC position. And to your point it was not a case of us not improving but getting far far worse. And no did or could have reasonably predicted that.

The AFL could have given MFC are far smarter kick in the pants than publicly undermining the Club's season ahead. Given our membership numbers have plummetted i am surprise I dont get more than "so what".

And when the season did fall in a hole early the AFL were quick to move in and install Jackson and jettison those that were apparently running. And dont worry I will always look hard for the substance in your posts amongst all the hyperbole its camouflaged in.

Where is your evidence for the statement that "our membership numbers have plummetted"?