Dees should seek AFL Exoneration of Tanking fiasco.

[KingDingAling 3,758]

That North has been able to rest players and effectively manipulate the final 8, guaranteeing themselves a final in Victoria is staggering and against the AFL's clear cut rules is absolutely staggering.

That the AFL have let them break their rules is not at all surprising

No one seems to be complaining either. Adelaide supporters maybe, that is about it. What a joke this is. We were fined 500k for less than this IMO. If we were bringing the game into disrepute then what do we call North/Freo resting players? North have manipulated the outcome in order to avoid a final in Adelaide. That is worse than what we did. I want our club ask some questions and at least force the AFL to come out and justify their stance, then we should take them to court, get our 500k back.

[Wadda We Sing 10,685]

I only raised the issue as a discussion point, as it is in the spotlight. I know nothing will come of it, but you must admit that it stinks. Different rules for some, when it suits.

Agreed, perhaps we should ask the AFL for clarification on when its ok to tank and for what reasons....

[ijbfossil 77]

It's a fine and important point. When I saw the thread title I just thought 'sour grapes thread', but when looked at from the position that our penalties and humiliation came because of conversations had about the desirability of not winning, there's something that sticks.

What chance a few Freo players or coaches have read Titus O'Reiley's article 'Boss gives half of staff week off, sends rest to Adelaide', and made it a little running joke? Calling the players who do get sent over 'the Punishment Battallion'.

What are the chances that the property steward and travel planner at North started asking about what might needed for the potential trip to Adelaide, and there were a few jokes about 'oh, I don't think you'll need to worry about that'.

It's a funny thing, but Richmond have now been the 'victim' of an opponent tanking several times. I think each of Collingwood, Hawthorn, Melbourne, Carlton and now North have 'failed to fully compete' against Richmond. Coincidentally, Richmond are the only club of the 5-game-line era (other than Melbourne following the Kreuzer Cup) which have missed out on a top priority pick by just 1 game. I'm sure it is just a statistical blip and that tanking was not a normal occurrance...

There was nothing wrong with Melbourne "winning" the Kreuzer Cup - where they mucked it up was in beating the Doggies in Round 19 that same season (Mark Riley trying to get the coaching job permanently). Coincidently that win against the Doggies was the last win at Colonial/Telstra Dome/Etihad stadium.

[Pirlo 813]

Only relevant point there is exonerating Dean, but even he is now seen as having been a nice bloke whose hand was forced and that narrative is fine by me.

[Redleg 40,976]

There are lots of things that frustrate me. One is Sunday. I'm not sure we're playing our best team.

Of course it's moot. I'm sick of losing and I'm sick of complaining and I'm sick of excuses.

I'm just sick.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

our penalties and humiliation came because of conversations had about the desirability of not winning

Let's not kid ourselves. We were done for tanking. The AFL finessed it so we were technically done for bringing the game into disrepute.

If they had really done us for tanking, they would have opened themselves up for pain from statutory bodies for running a corrupt competition.

But let's not revisit the past. It's as ancient as the emperor Nero now. It was unfair to single us out but no-one cares but us.

Let's get on with the business of winning.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,235]

North and Freo didn't try to lose.

[Macca 17,009]

North and Freo didn't try to lose.

Motives, repercussions, rewards and consequences aside, it all comes under the one banner ... 'Clubs not doing everything to win.'

The competition ends up being compromised - AFL approved.

Fixing it requires a zero tolerance attitude - but governance is not a strong point with the AFL ... it's all about the money for that lot.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

North and Freo were setting themselves up for their best chance at winning the flag.

A world of difference from setting yourself up to win the spoon.

[markc 975]

North and Freo didn't try to lose.

yes true but they didn't give 100% to win either

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,816]

North and Freo were setting themselves up for their best chance at winning the flag.

A world of difference from setting yourself up to win the spoon.

Not when you're arguing about a team's performance in an individual game. It might be for an ultimately different prize, but if a team isn't trying its hardest to win...it isn't trying it's hardest to win.

There's a different question to be answered, though, whether it matters as much if a team's actions impact on the fairness of the finals competition by (1) potentially changing the finals mix and where teams play and (2) giving some players in some teams a rest when other players in other teams do not benefit from this same advantage. In my view, what Freo and North have done is significantly worse than any team attempting to improve their position in the draft. There are eight teams with a chance of winning a Premiership and two of them have been granted an AFL-endorsed advantage. That's an immediate reward. With the time period between drafting and a team at the bottom becoming a finals contender, any advantage of an improved draft position is reduced by a whole suite of other factors.

[rpfc 28,541]

Can those that say "we just need to move on it's in the past" stop prefacing or finishing that with "but we did tank" or "we got our right whack"? - that isn't 'moving on' and that isn't 'leaving it in the past.'

You have your view on that saga, how it unfolded, and the definition of tanking and other Demons have theirs.

If you want to "Move On and Stop Talking About It" then do that yourself.

[rjay 24,993]

North and Freo didn't try to lose.

Even if we tried to win or lose....we just weren't good enough to win.

I think we would feel a bit better about the whole tanking saga if other clubs, Carlton in particular were investigated fully.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

Let's not kid ourselves. We were done for tanking. The AFL finessed it so we were technically done for bringing the game into disrepute.

If they had really done us for tanking, they would have opened themselves up for pain from statutory bodies for running a corrupt competition.

But let's not revisit the past. It's as ancient as the emperor Nero now. It was unfair to single us out but no-one cares but us.

Let's get on with the business of winning.

Where does the AFL hold the record of us doing what you say?

[Demon trucker 1,800]

The media are hypocrites, many in the media are saying Brisbane are stupid for beating the dogs, and losing the first pick, most in the media are of the opinion that Brisbane should not have done everything to win, now does anyone see the hypocrites there, then the same media people will whack the team if they did tank, this is what i can't take over the whole tanking fiasco

,, everyone in the AFL media want it both ways, they will whack you for not tanking, then whack when you do tank.

Edited September 7, 2015 by not angry anymore

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

The media are hypocrites, many in the media are saying Brisbane are stupid for beating the dogs, and losing the first pick, most in the media are of the opinion that Brisbane should not have done everything to win, now does anyone see the hypocrites there, then the same media people will whack the team if they did tank, this is what i can't take over the whole tanking fiasco

,, everyone in the AFL media want it both ways, they will whack you for not tanking, then whack when you do tank.

they are a bunch of paraistes looking to generate page clicks on the back of slagging off whoever is available

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

Where does the AFL hold the record of us doing what you say?

All right then. Kid yourself.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

Can those that say "we just need to move on it's in the past" stop prefacing or finishing that with "but we did tank" or "we got our right whack"? - that isn't 'moving on' and that isn't 'leaving it in the past.'

You have your view on that saga, how it unfolded, and the definition of tanking and other Demons have theirs.

If you want to "Move On and Stop Talking About It" then do that yourself.

It's real and it happened.

"Not moving on" means trying to revisit it and redefine what happened and trying to get the AFL to do something about it.

[rpfc 28,541]

It's real and it happened.

"Not moving on" means trying to revisit it and redefine what happened and trying to get the AFL to do something about it.

You have your opinion on what happened and I have mine, you have your definition of tanking and I have mine.

Move on for real and stop trying to tell me my opinion.

Much like the fine, the suspensions, and the verdict of Not Guilty - It isn't changing.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

Much like the fine, the suspensions, and the verdict of Not Guilty - It isn't changing.

Now you're getting it.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

Move on for real and stop trying to tell me my opinion.

I have moved on.

I now promise to exit the discussion and let you keep on moving on, continuously.

[rpfc 28,541]

[rjay 24,993]

The media are hypocrites, many in the media are saying Brisbane are stupid for beating the dogs, and losing the first pick, most in the media are of the opinion that Brisbane should not have done everything to win, now does anyone see the hypocrites there, then the same media people will whack the team if they did tank, this is what i can't take over the whole tanking fiasco

,, everyone in the AFL media want it both ways, they will whack you for not tanking, then whack when you do tank.

That's the way it works, pretty amusing if you ask me.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

All right then. Kid yourself.

You can't have it both ways. The record stands, we were found not guilty of tanking. You can editorialise all you like, but it does not change the facts. As others have said on here, DB was made the fall guy in all of this and took the hit along with Connolly. In my view DB was extremely hardly done by. The point being, if we "brought the game into disrepute", then we were not alone. The AFL realised that they had made a rod for their own backs, by having a draft system that rewarded mediocrity. They had to put a stop to it and used the softly, softly approach to send a message to the entire competition. As late as yesterday, there were those commentators lamenting Brisbane's win on the weekend, as they are now likely not to get the cream of the this year's draft or have as much trade bait, as they might otherwise have done.

Kidding myself? Quite the opposite really. I understand the 'political' realities of today's AFL industry. We were used as the example for punishment, but were not found guilty of anything, other than employing people who brought the game into disrepute. By doing what they did, the AFL put a shot across the bows of all AFL clubs. The AFL knew they had to and at the time, we were seen by them as the softest target. Hence they, by default, paid the fine for us. But in the memory of DB, I truly believe he was treated very poorly through all of this charade. If he had a name like Buckley, Malthouse or Sheedy, it would not have happened to him.

Edited September 7, 2015 by iv'a worn smith

[P-man 13,366]

It honestly staggers me that someone could complain about a slap on the wrist fine that the AFL paid for themselves.

It's done. It's over. Finished. We're a new club.

Freo and North are about to compete for finals and placing themselves in the best position to compete in September. It's quite a different scenario and I have no problem with it.