2013: THE YEAR THAT WAS

[old dee 23,256]

Apologies, I almost forgot which thread I was posting on.

How about a gin and tonic?

With a lemon twist.

Done, enjoy

[Sir Why You Little 35,321]

Oh i had way too many G & T's last night..

[P-man 13,353]

And to top it off, according to Champion Data we are the only club heading into next season without having a single player in the "elite" category.

Keeping in mind that according to CD, Monfries at Port can be considered elite, it is still a damning and embarrassing reflection on this club to be the only one in the competition not to produce any player in this category. Let's hope that is about to change, some potential realised, and the beast awoken.

2013, [censored] you.

2014, you are very welcome.

[rumpole 483]

I don't want to get into the tanking debate but as a point of interest I would have thought if three people gave the same evidence under examination that could hardly be called "thin". The fact they were former employees might just as easily have released them from any sense of loyalty to the club and their work colleagues that could easily have tainted versions offered by those still involved. Six of one and half a dozen of another I'd say.

I think it was in both the AFL's and the MFC's interest not to go to court because 1. the AFL would have been faced with other clubs "tanking" episodes which would have damaged the game immeasurably as well as having other direct ramifications and 2. MFC didn't want to go to court as under oath all the dirty laundry would have come out and we would not have been painted in a good light. I can assure you that the tanking investigation involved more than one comment by Connolly, flippant or not.

It has to be remembered that the legal opinions held by both the AFL and MFC related to the evidence gathered by the Clothier investigation which was considered to be insufficient to enable a conclusion to be reached that the club breached any AFL rule.

A challenge in court would involve an examination only of the evidence gathered by the AFL and in all likelihood this would prevent examination of witnesses to obtain new evidence. Members of the commission (including Demetriou) and the investigators would have been open to questioning because, among other things, the tactics of the investigators would have been very much an issue as well as how any decision was arrived at by the Commission.

Edited January 1, 2014 by rumpole

[mjt 640]

Two words for 2013.. FK OFF!

You forgot the proper 2 words or should it be 4 FO Cameron Schwab .

[Slartibartfast 16,124]

It has to be remembered that the legal opinions held by both the AFL and MFC related to the evidence gathered by the Clothier investigation which was considered to be insufficient to enable a conclusion to be reached that the club breached any AFL rule.

A challenge in court would involve an examination only of the evidence gathered by the AFL and in all likelihood this would prevent examination of witnesses to obtain new evidence. Members of the commission (including Demetriou) and the investigators would have been open to questioning because, among other things, the tactics of the investigators would have been very much an issue as well as how any decision was arrived at by the Commission.

Leaving aside the fact we were found guilty of bring the game into disrepute which is a breach of an AFL rule would a court challenge be limited to the "written" Clothier report or would any information that was gathered during their investigation but not documented or reported be open to investigation?

There were probably a whole raft of things which both the AFL and MFC did not want in the public arena because it would have been a hornets nest of disclosures and in the end I reckon the main beneficiaries were the lawyers who played both sides knowing there was no chance of court action. I find WJ admission that the legal profession knew of the contents of confidential information of both parties disturbing and does nothing for the reputation of a profession which has a the highest responsibility for confidentiality and honesty. That some would seek that information is unfortunate but that it would be freely given a grave breach of confidentiality and professional behaviour.

But it would seem the information was available without regard to those being represented.

[Whispering_Jack 28,118]

Correct me if I'm wrong Bob but we weren't found guilty of anything, let alone bringing the game into disrepute. That would surely have been a harder matter to prove than failing to try to win a game on its merits.

I also made no admission as to the knowledge of the legal profession but rather on opinions of people about the matter in general based presumably on information available to the public. My understanding is that a great deal of information was leaked from all sides, the AFL, the investigation and the MFC. When the "vault" news was made public, journalists like Caroline Wilson claimed to be presenting knowledge of and evidence to pronounce Melbourne, Schwab and Connolly guilty (all of something to do with tanking) and others did as well. Wilson pronounced Carlton not guilty. And that was on about 30 October, 2012, more than three months before the final compromise was reached.

From that point onward, I don't think any logical outcome was possible but IMO the most illogical aspect of the whole fiasco was the punishment meted out to Dean Bailey which, on reflection after all this time, was pathetic. The Commission had it within itself to come to a better thought out conclusion than that which it did which by any measure, ended up bringing itself into disrepute.

But then, that was just practice for what it did with Essendon, Dr. Reid and more recently, it's pathetic backdown over James Hird and the 2014 salary that won't be paid this year.

[Slartibartfast 16,124]

I also made no admission as to the knowledge of the legal profession

Sorry Jack, must have misunderstood what you meant when you said " It's also reasonably well known in legal circles".

Why didn't you just say "reasonably well know". Oh well. And I still can't find a published statement that it was well known that "although both Melbourne and the AFL had legal opinion that a "tanking" case could not be sustained".

And thanks for the clarification on our "crime". We just had employees that just acted in a way that was "prejudical to the interests of the AFL". No biggie.

[Whispering_Jack 28,118]

Bob - you claimed "I find WJ admission that the legal profession knew of the contents of confidential information of both parties disturbing".

Where did I make this alleged "admission"?

Why do you have a problem with knowledge and information about the case being out there when it was made known to chief football writer of the Age months ahead of the final report of the investigation team?

You can draw your own conclusions as to how Melbourne acted but my interpretation after re-reading Andrew Demetriou's remarks to Caroline Wilson after the Jordie McMahon game as well as the words I heard from the same person 2 years earlier speaking at the Athenaeum Club (about Carlton tanking) is that the club was acting in a manner sanctioned by the AFL at the time. If people think that's prejudicial, then the person responsible was the AFL CEO who should have acted to put an end to the practice in 2007 after the Kreuzer Cup and after Terry Wallace admitted he didn't coach his team on its merits.

There's no doubt that integrity was an issue with regard to the tanking debate - the problem is that the ruling body didn't cover itself in glory at any time and this should have been acknowledged a long time ago.

[McQueen 17,864]

Can't wait for the footy to start.

[Whispering_Jack 28,118]

And I still can't find a published statement that it was well known that "although both Melbourne and the AFL had legal opinion that a "tanking" case could not be sustained".

Being in a holiday apartment in beautiful Frankston on the beach, I don't have the benefit of a computer or my own records but a brief search between innings in the BBL, I discovered this piece from Caroline Wilson and I quote her words below from this article:- Demons cleared, guilty, fined

Demetriou defended his late withdrawal from Tuesday's public announcement saying it had been McLachlan's investigation, not his.

He said the evidence and findings had been put before an independent Queen's Counsel who had agreed the investigation had no sufficient evidence against any other officials or board members.

So the Demons won the legal argument that they did not tank. McLachlan admitted he wasn't even sure what tanking meant. Nor could the AFL prove, despite significant evidence played out before its very eyes in games such as rounds 17 and 18 against Sydney and Richmond respectively, that any on-field moves made in 2009 constituted deliberate attempts to lose.

It was also reported elsewhere that both the AFL and MFC had similar legal advice and that Melbourne's (as you would expect) was even stronger but you now know what the AFL's QC advised his client and given your trenchant support of Wilson's journalistic style, I trust you're not about to question her information (even if it's scandalous that a mere reporter should be privy to the AFL's no doubt confidential legal advice)?

I also had a brief look through some of the threads on Demonland and there are some interesting posts from Redleg, a long-serving member of the bar about discussions he had concerning the legal aspects of the case against the MFC. It shouldn't be too hard to find them but nevertheless, the above confirms what I stated in my report and in response to your queries about the legal opinion on the case against Melbourne.

That is quite apart from the wider topic of the ethics and morality of "list management/tanking" debate and the integrity of the AFL in ignoring the case against other clubs and individuals. Those are philosophical arguments now consigned to history's waste basket.

[Bedraggled Dee 336]

Thanks WJ, depressing read but a good summary of the events.

Terrible terrible year. Best not dwelled on but also best not forgotten. I think adversity can sometimes be the makng of a person especialy those with character. I think we have a couple who will emerge from this period players and people they would not be without it. Garland and Jones come to mind. These hard times will stand them in good stead in the good times. They will be tougher harder and more resiliant.

I will enjoy the good times more coming out the misery we have just endured.

[Guest]

2013... The year that nearly caused me and many a good Demon to throw in the towel.
I can't wait till the footy starts again. From that point on, hopefully we won't have to have the same old arguments that have clogged up this board for the last two years and we can actually focus on the product produced on the field.