Glen Jakovich v Chris Connolly

[Uncle Fester 2,848]

Crap team gets no AA's...

 

Well spank my arse and call me auntie surprised

[Gator 17,332]

14 hours ago, faultydet said:

and brought up the past to back it up, including a huge slight on our club.

 

What annoyed me the most was him sticking the boots into our club going back to Connolly's playing days.  

I'm less concerned by his personal attack, as Connolly can look after himself, but the slight on our club dating back to the 80's was unnecessary and out of line. 

He'll be reminded of this barb at the appropriate time. 

[faultydet 7,594]

7 minutes ago, ProDee said:

What annoyed me the most was him sticking the boots into our club going back to Connolly's playing days.  

I'm less concerned by his personal attack, as Connolly can look after himself, but the slight on our club dating back to the 80's was unnecessary and out of line. 

He'll be reminded of this barb at the appropriate time. 

Not a bright man, but at least he can lift heavy fings.

[wisedog 352]

10 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

The urban mythology in this thread about what Chris Connolly was supposed to have done whilst at the club is mind boggling. 

Chris was quite entitled to have his say and G Jakovich was channeling his brother at his weirdest in response.

Yes, and I think if you went back to the threads from that time, quite a few posters would find it awkward to see what they were posting back then.

You might for instance, find an interesting response from supporters after an unexpected win against Port Adelaide in round 15 2009. And a similarly interesting response after losing from a kick after the siren against Richmond in round 18.

What happened, wasn't some evil plan devised by few crooked high-ups. There was a significant push from the supporter base in favour of the policy in order to set ourselves for the best chance at long term success.

Edited September 5, 2016 by wisedog

[wisedog 352]

On a side note, 'tanking', prior to our experience was not quite seen as the evil as it is now. The AFL were wilfully blind to the practice after Collingwood and Carlton's efforts. I even remember commentators urging us to take to take full advantage of our position. As alluded to above, most supporters were also in favour of it. Then after Brock McLean's comments, the situation changed and the football world discovered their collective outrage.

Edited September 5, 2016 by wisedog

[The Chazz 4,077]

11 minutes ago, wisedog said:

On a side note, 'tanking', prior to our experience was not quite seen as the evil as it is now. The AFL were wilfully blind to the practice after Collingwood and Carlton's efforts. I even remember commentators urging us to take to take full advantage of our position. As alluded to above, most supporters were also in favour of it. Then after Brock McLean's comments, the situation changed and the football world discovered their collective outrage.

No, the issue was that we had some "high-ups" that were stupid enough to get caught out.

Some were made to look amateurish in something that should be easy to do, which ended up costing the club half a mill.

 

[hemingway 7,627]

its like so many news items today. There are so many people out there looking for publicity and relevance. Jako who is one of them. A past footballer looking to get himself into the headlines with rubbish commentary that will be noticed and get publicity. So much of footy news is like it these days. Like lots of news stories we have to learn to ignore and see it for what it is.  Its just sheer unadulterated crap. There are plenty of more important things to be outraged about. 

[daisycutter 29,613]

30 minutes ago, hemingway said:

its like so many news items today. There are so many people out there looking for publicity and relevance. Jako who is one of them. A past footballer looking to get himself into the headlines with rubbish commentary that will be noticed and get publicity. So much of footy news is like it these days. Like lots of news stories we have to learn to ignore and see it for what it is.  Its just sheer unadulterated crap. There are plenty of more important things to be outraged about. 

ernest, i really doubt he has the grey matter to think that far ahead

he was just undisciplined, hasty and let his emotions take over

and he has plenty of similar role models in the sports media to think it was just par for the course

[wisedog 352]

50 minutes ago, billy2803 said:

No, the issue was that we had some "high-ups" that were stupid enough to get caught out.

Some were made to look amateurish in something that should be easy to do, which ended up costing the club half a mill.

 

I wasn't referring to people who believe the only crime was getting caught.

I was referring to the people who retrospectively condemn individuals within the club for pursuing a policy they had themselves supported.

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

19 minutes ago, wisedog said:

I wasn't referring to people who believe the only crime was getting caught.

I was referring to the people who retrospectively condemn individuals within the club for pursuing a policy they had themselves supported.

No some may have thought it was the right thing to do. 

But People within the club not only made it abundantly clear to the AFL world what we were doing. The recruiting of players at that time was apalling. Ripping the heart out of the place

we were being run by a bunch of clowns. 

[Ricky P 757]

2 hours ago, wisedog said:

Yes, and I think if you went back to the threads from that time, quite a few posters would find it awkward to see what they were posting back then.

You might for instance, find an interesting response from supporters after an unexpected win against Port Adelaide in round 15 2009. And a similarly interesting response after losing from a kick after the siren against Richmond in round 18.

What happened, wasn't some evil plan devised by few crooked high-ups. There was a significant push from the supporter base in favour of the policy in order to set ourselves for the best chance at long term success.

This is true. Tanking was in vogue back in then. A lot of clubs did it and Melbourne fans were in favour of it.

The trade forum on this site was named after Jordan McMahon from memory.

[Scoop Junior 3,471]

4 hours ago, wisedog said:

On a side note, 'tanking', prior to our experience was not quite seen as the evil as it is now. The AFL were wilfully blind to the practice after Collingwood and Carlton's efforts. I even remember commentators urging us to take to take full advantage of our position. As alluded to above, most supporters were also in favour of it. Then after Brock McLean's comments, the situation changed and the football world discovered their collective outrage.

Exactly right. You cannot re-write history by applying today's thinking to the public sentiment back in the mid 2000s. Not only was tanking not seen as evil, it was actually described by many to be the only logical course of action for clubs in that position.

I remember reading newspaper articles containing comments such as "it would be bordering on negligence for [relevant Club] to win an irrelevant end of season game and miss out on another top 5 pick" and "it is in the best interests of [relevant club] to lose its remaining few games and help set up their future with elite young talent".

Ironically these same journalists then condemned us a few years down the track for doing exactly what they were telling us to do.

Not only did the AFL set up the inducement through the priority pick system, but they allowed "tanking" by failing to address it when clubs started taking advantage of the system. Instead, we were told by the AFL that tanking does not exist and that it is okay to send players in for season-ending surgeries halfway through the year (Collingwood), play players out of position (Fremantle) and drag your match-winning full forward from the ground when he looked set to win you the match (Carlton).

It could have all been dealt with by a simple change to the rules to remove the inducement as well as an acknowledgement that there was a strong perception of tanking that the AFL did not want and the rule changes would help remove this. But the AFL did nothing.

To allow it to go on and then selectively investigate (and punish certain officials from) one of the clubs that did it is nothing short of disgraceful.

[TeamPlayedFine39 8,503]

First (small) outrage regarding tanking that I can recall was the Fremantle v Geelong 'Haselby game'.

http://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/story/703360/tanking-didnt-happen-drum/

StKilda played a few years of absolute stinkers after that and no one batted an eyelid.  It was some of Carlton's results in the mid 2000s that really turned the public around on tanking.   

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

54 minutes ago, Scoop Junior said:

Exactly right. You cannot re-write history by applying today's thinking to the public sentiment back in the mid 2000s. Not only was tanking not seen as evil, it was actually described by many to be the only logical course of action for clubs in that position.

I remember reading newspaper articles containing comments such as "it would be bordering on negligence for [relevant Club] to win an irrelevant end of season game and miss out on another top 5 pick" and "it is in the best interests of [relevant club] to lose its remaining few games and help set up their future with elite young talent".

Ironically these same journalists then condemned us a few years down the track for doing exactly what they were telling us to do.

Not only did the AFL set up the inducement through the priority pick system, but they allowed "tanking" by failing to address it when clubs started taking advantage of the system. Instead, we were told by the AFL that tanking does not exist and that it is okay to send players in for season-ending surgeries halfway through the year (Collingwood), play players out of position (Fremantle) and drag your match-winning full forward from the ground when he looked set to win you the match (Carlton).

It could have all been dealt with by a simple change to the rules to remove the inducement as well as an acknowledgement that there was a strong perception of tanking that the AFL did not want and the rule changes would help remove this. But the AFL did nothing.

To allow it to go on and then selectively investigate (and punish certain officials from) one of the clubs that did it is nothing short of disgraceful.

That's all well and good & i don't disagree. But the previous admin actually botched the tactic of tanking so badly that the club nearly died. 

I always believed and still do That if you are going to Tank you simply must get it right 100% no margin for error. 

Our errors were huge and we all saw the results, which we are still recovering from. 

[Gator 17,332]

1 hour ago, Scoop Junior said:

Exactly right. You cannot re-write history by applying today's thinking to the public sentiment back in the mid 2000s. Not only was tanking not seen as evil, it was actually described by many to be the only logical course of action for clubs in that position.

I remember reading newspaper articles containing comments such as "it would be bordering on negligence for [relevant Club] to win an irrelevant end of season game and miss out on another top 5 pick" and "it is in the best interests of [relevant club] to lose its remaining few games and help set up their future with elite young talent".

Ironically these same journalists then condemned us a few years down the track for doing exactly what they were telling us to do.

Not only did the AFL set up the inducement through the priority pick system, but they allowed "tanking" by failing to address it when clubs started taking advantage of the system. Instead, we were told by the AFL that tanking does not exist and that it is okay to send players in for season-ending surgeries halfway through the year (Collingwood), play players out of position (Fremantle) and drag your match-winning full forward from the ground when he looked set to win you the match (Carlton).

It could have all been dealt with by a simple change to the rules to remove the inducement as well as an acknowledgement that there was a strong perception of tanking that the AFL did not want and the rule changes would help remove this. But the AFL did nothing.

To allow it to go on and then selectively investigate (and punish certain officials from) one of the clubs that did it is nothing short of disgraceful.

There's tanking and then there's tanking.  We took it to comical levels.  

When current players can sense a toxic culture you're damaging your club from within. 

Like most things in that period, we couldn't even get tanking right.

I agree with the thrust of your comments. 

[daisycutter 29,613]

3 minutes ago, ProDee said:

There's tanking and then there's tanking.  We took it to comical levels.  

When current players can sense a toxic culture you're damaging your club from within. 

Like most things in that period, we couldn't even get tanking right.

I agree with the thrust of your comments. 

really? more comical than carlscum.....or is your memory failing you

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

11 minutes ago, ProDee said:

There's tanking and then there's tanking.  We took it to comical levels.  

When current players can sense a toxic culture you're damaging your club from within. 

Like most things in that period, we couldn't even get tanking right.

I agree with the thrust of your comments. 

We actually needed investigation after 2013!! $500,000 was a small  price to pay. I was all for the MFC going to court and fighting until it was revealed that we were once again $5 Mill in the Red. 

After that it was "Open The Doors" find out everything...

imagine if nothing had been done....

[Gator 17,332]

46 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

really? more comical than carlscum.....or is your memory failing you

Yes, more comical, although they too were inept.

No point using clubs like Carlton as a measuring stick.

Look at your own navel. 

[daisycutter 29,613]

38 minutes ago, ProDee said:

Yes, more comical, although they too were inept.

No point using clubs like Carlton as a measuring stick.

Look at your own navel. 

you said we took it to comical levels. i pointed out that it was already at comical levels (e.g. carlton). no need to revise history.

my navel is fine, thank you pd

[Redleg 40,906]

I wasn't going to post this, but it is what I learned, so here it is.

A few weeks ago I spoke to an ex AFL Official, who was the head of the AFL Department, that launched the inquiry and penalized us.

I asked him, with all the public evidence from Libba and others, admitting to tanking by their clubs, why were we the only club investigated.

His answer was simple, we had some evidence against Melbourne.

Apparently the pressure was put on all club informers and they recanted, their memories suddenly failing them and their public statements now incorrect.

The evidence against us, was from a whistle blower. In street terms, a dog or a rat.

We had an ex employee do the dirty on the club and even though his evidence of the CC joke was equivocal and couldn't found a tanking finding, we were hung out to dry, for an offence we weren't even being investigated for. That is called a stitch up.

No rat, no fine. Brock was not the rat.

[daisycutter 29,613]

2 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I wasn't going to post this, but it is what I learned, so here it is.

A few weeks ago I spoke to an ex AFL Official, who was the head of the AFL Department, that launched the inquiry and penalized us.

I asked him, with all the public evidence from Libba and others, admitting to tanking by their clubs, why were we the only club investigated.

His answer was simple, we had some evidence against Melbourne.

Apparently the pressure was put on all club informers and they recanted, their memories suddenly failing them and their public statements now incorrect.

The evidence against us, was from a whistle blower. In street terms, a dog or a rat.

We had an ex employee do the dirty on the club and even though his evidence of the CC joke was equivocal and couldn't found a tanking finding, we were hung out to dry, for an offence we weren't even being investigated for. That is called a stitch up.

No rat, no fine. Brock was not the rat.

an ex employee in the footy dept or in admin, redleg?

[Macca 16,965]

What a system we have ... at least a dozen clubs have tanked at least 30 times for the rights to a prized pick number (or pick numbers) in a flawed drafting system (the teenage high school lottery) - which in turn can be a recipe for disaster or it can even be a ticket for a future premiership (or premierships)

• As recently as 2013 GWS tanked their last game in order to secure the no.1 pick (they rested 6 or 7 of their starters in that game against the GCS) 
• Brisbane have a history of tanking too (late 90's) but more recently in 2011 when they tanked for a 2nd round draft pick
• The Tigers lost their last 14 games of season 2004 after starting 4 & 4 - hey presto, priority pick and a top order pick.  Danny Frawley coached out that season and left them with a couple of nice parting gifts.
• The Pies sat on 5 wins after 14 rounds of the 2005 season and then tanked the rest of the season (lost their last 8) ... result - Thomas & Pendlebury.  Malthouse & McGuire were in charge
• 9 clubs tanked for 18 picks (priority & top end pick) in the years 2003, 2004 & 2005 (the tanking years)
• Carlton have tanked at least 5 times ... Ratten took over in 2007 when they were in full tank mode.
• The Sheedy led Bombers tanked in 2006 (Bryce Gibbs cup) ... ironically, that match against Carlton was a draw (the twin-tank)
• The Hawks tanked in '04 & '05 - Clarko's first year as coach was '05 - nice intro.
• The Eagles tanked the 2008 season and finished on 4 wins - that's a big fall from a premiership in '06
• Their was zero betting on the Kruezer cup game - no odds were fielded.  Another forgotten gem
• The Saints tanked at least twice - in came Rooey, Kosy & Ball
• Chris Judd was tanked for twice (tank fatigue)
• The Bulldogs tanked for Griffen & Cooney (in separate years)
• The Tigers tanked their last game of the 2007 where Wallace admitted that he didn't make any coaching moves in that game against the Saints (they lost of course) ... everyone had their eye on the Kruezer cup though - played the following day. 
• Libba attempted to blow the whistle on the Blues but that got shut down.

Vlad ... "There is no such thing as tanking"

And then we got investigated. 

[Redleg 40,906]

8 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

an ex employee in the footy dept or in admin, redleg?

The boss of one of them.

[Redleg 40,906]

3 minutes ago, Macca said:

 

Vlad ... "There is no such thing as tanking"

And then we got investigated. 

And he was as [censored] as hell that it happened while he was overseas.

Somebody also left the AFL after it was over.

[Gator 17,332]

58 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

you said we took it to comical levels. i pointed out that it was already at comical levels (e.g. carlton). no need to revise history.

my navel is fine, thank you pd

I was discussing our club, not Carlton.

You brought up Carlton.  

Carlton is irrelevant to me.  Why would I reference Carlton to mitigate Melbourne's embarrassing efforts ?  

You can, but it's just a lazy deflection.