Feel sorry for all concerned here.

The AFL obviously threatened all MFC staff with potential life bans from the game.  With that hanging over their heads, of course they spilled the beans on each other.  Also, those giving evidence would have been assured of confidentiality of their evidence.

Who was the biggest crook?  IMO, Demetriou and daylight second.

Demetriou was in denial.  The biggest carrot was dangling and it was too good.  The footy world knew it.  Tanking wasn't invented the year Melbourne did it.  Fault here is completely with the architects of the rules.  The footy world might be all shock horror, but decent people would definitely has contemplated it....even in hindsight.

9 minutes ago, Garbo said:

The bigger story is how Melbourne was not found guilty of tanking and simply bringing the game into disrepute given the evidence at hand which the AFL had the whole time. Clearly there was and are bigger things at play. If they lied on this you can just imagine what went on with the Essendon drugs saga 

Jake Niall's article above states the reasons:

• the parlous state of the club
• Melbourne lawyered up and disputed the charges. Their resistance, which ended in negotiation, discouraged a "tanking'' conviction, which isn't as easy to prove as the all-purpose, "bringing the game into disrepute''.
• the problem of the AFL's and Melbourne's relationship with gambling. Arguably, a conviction for tanking would cause fall-out with betting agencies, with whom the AFL was increasingly enmeshed.
• could impact on Melbourne's own lucrative gaming operations
• there was a widespread view that the Demons weren't the only club that had tied one hand behind their back in an effort to minimise victories

Glad someone printed the last item.  That article should be sent to Warner so he can see how to present the facts and write a balanced story.

Edited April 5, 20196 yr by Lucifer's Hero

8 minutes ago, The Chazz said:

No.  That's my point - they couldn't GAF because they have the silverware.

And my point is further supported by the amount of times in this thread alone that there is mention of these clubs doing it themselves, which helped lead to premierships.

The amount of top end picks that we had should've seen us have a team of champions.  Instead, we picked Watts, Scully and Trengove.  FMD. 

correction: morton, grimes, watts, maric, blease, strauss, $cully, trengove, gysberts, tapscott

ten top 30 picks in three years - not a genuine star among em!

Given the timing it’s almost as if Robinson goes for Essendon and he’s attempting to take the heat off them. 

 

7 minutes ago, TGR said:

Feel sorry for all concerned here.

The AFL obviously threatened all MFC staff with potential life bans from the game.  With that hanging over their heads, of course they spilled the beans on each other.  Also, those giving evidence would have been assured of confidentiality of their evidence.

Who was the biggest crook?  IMO, Demetriou and daylight second.

Demetriou was in denial.  The biggest carrot was dangling and it was too good.  The footy world knew it.  Tanking wasn't invented the year Melbourne did it.  Fault here is completely with the architects of the rules.  The footy world might be all shock horror, but decent people would definitely has contemplated it....even in hindsight.

Not sure what you mean by crook but it wasn't Demetriou who created this.  It was Andrew Anderson who decided to investigate while Demetrious was overseas. 

Had AD been here the case would never have got off the ground.  He knew where all the skeletons were in the media and at the clubs so would have shut it down quick smart. 

But Anderson decided to make a name for himself as he was being touted as AD's successor.  Instead, the investigation cost him his job at the AFL.

.

Edited April 5, 20196 yr by Lucifer's Hero

24 minutes ago, Garbo said:

The bigger story is how Melbourne was not found guilty of tanking and simply bringing the game into disrepute given the evidence at hand which the AFL had the whole time. Clearly there was and are bigger things at play. If they lied on this you can just imagine what went on with the Essendon drugs saga 

There was no such rule for “tanking” at the time that’s why. 

The carrot ? of free draft picks was there for over 10 years

27 minutes ago, Garbo said:

The bigger story is how Melbourne was not found guilty of tanking and simply bringing the game into disrepute given the evidence at hand which the AFL had the whole time. Clearly there was and are bigger things at play. If they lied on this you can just imagine what went on with the Essendon drugs saga 

I think there's a hint in the Herald Sun story where it says that at the time Gillon McLachlan claimed he didn't know what "tanking" meant. I imagine the AFL decided that "tanking" could be defined to mean that the players who were on the field didn't try (or, didn't try hard enough). The AFL may have concluded the players did try to win and therefore didn't "tank". That the club did other things (players in for surgery, playing players out of position, etc) may not have been considered to be "tanking" but "list management decisions". 

It's not dissimilar to President Clinton's argument as to why he claims he didn't lie when talking about what he did and didn't do with "that woman, Monica Lewinsky".

Poor showing by Mark Robinson.  Why  tolerate with this lump of animosity like Robbo? Full of censored and always has been.

Get a life,  Think of their Families of Jimmy's and Dean's  Rest there sole's.

You could of written more about the Druggy Bummmmers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Robbo and Warner.....Shame on you!

Edited April 5, 20196 yr by nosoupforme
.

23 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

.

Spot on. 

18 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

Isnt it great we had to go through all that while a tanking Carlton got away scot free.

Another example of the uneven surface of the AFL playing field. Well raised.

1 hour ago, The Chazz said:

No.  That's my point - they couldn't GAF because they have the silverware.

And my point is further supported by the amount of times in this thread alone that there is mention of these clubs doing it themselves, which helped lead to premierships.

The amount of top end picks that we had should've seen us have a team of champions.  Instead, we picked Watts, Scully and Trengove.  FMD. 

At the time the whole football community thought it was either Watts or Nik Nat for picks 1 & 2.
Scully and Trengove for 1 & 2.
Could rewrite history and say they were bad picks but no-one thought so at the time.
IMO we just lucked out with poor draft years for top end talent.
And FWIW ..... I see Watts and Nik Nat as par picks due mainly to NN injuries.

We did however fail dismally with all the picks further down.

Edited April 5, 20196 yr by Fork 'em

23 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I think there's a hint in the Herald Sun story where it says that at the time Gillon McLachlan claimed he didn't know what "tanking" meant. I imagine the AFL decided that "tanking" could be defined to mean that the players who were on the field didn't try (or, didn't try hard enough). The AFL may have concluded the players did try to win and therefore didn't "tank". That the club did other things (players in for surgery, playing players out of position, etc) may not have been considered to be "tanking" but "list management decisions". 

It's not dissimilar to President Clinton's argument as to why he claims he didn't lie when talking about what he did and didn't do with "that woman, Monica Lewinsky".

Poor old Bill Clinton. Lewinsky was an administrative aide. After a horrible dinner in which food poisoning was experienced by his guests, Clinton found the first aide he could that night, and yelled: 'Sack my cook! Immediately!' ......and that's how the whole thing started ... watch out Robbo, could be your turn, next.

1 hour ago, brendan said:

Geez Gary Lyon gives me the [censored], as if he wasn’t upto his eyeballs with all that was going on 

Lyon has zero credibility. He’s trying hard to get it back but he has a long road ahead. 

2 minutes ago, Deemania since 56 said:

Poor old Bill Clinton. Lewinsky was an administrative aide. After a horrible dinner in which food poisoning was experienced by his guests, Clinton found the first aide he could that night, and yelled: 'Sack my cook! Immediately!' ......and that's how the whole thing started ... watch out Robbo, could be your turn, next.

And hold my calls?

And my cigar......

 

5 hours ago, willmoy said:

Take solace from the fact that the Media of Today in OZ will have a new Boss by the end of the year according to the whispers in the States....

Don't get too solaced up. Other whispers have it that the son is every bit as bad as the father.

 

(On the other hand, he's manifestly not as good at business, so maybe there's hope yet.)

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Jake Niall's article above states the reasons:

• the parlous state of the club
• Melbourne lawyered up and disputed the charges. Their resistance, which ended in negotiation, discouraged a "tanking'' conviction, which isn't as easy to prove as the all-purpose, "bringing the game into disrepute''.
• the problem of the AFL's and Melbourne's relationship with gambling. Arguably, a conviction for tanking would cause fall-out with betting agencies, with whom the AFL was increasingly enmeshed.
• could impact on Melbourne's own lucrative gaming operations
• there was a widespread view that the Demons weren't the only club that had tied one hand behind their back in an effort to minimise victories

Glad someone printed the last item.  That article should be sent to Warner so he can see how to present the facts and write a balanced story.

Old news  just not interested. carltank were the same  remember the embarrassing   twlight game  versus carlton  when Carlton fans were cheering for them to lose.       I think all have learned  from the experience  no point in tanking

As long as draft picks are allocated to where you finish on the ladder tanking will be a thing.
As I stated somewhere earlier.
I remember a year or 2 ago seeing Slobbo himself stating that it would be unwise for the Lions to win another game.

 

Edited April 5, 20196 yr by Fork 'em

Ten goals will do me.....

Talk about spitting on a mans grave.

What is the point of all of this? Because we play the other cheats tonight?

Jimmy Bartel on the news tonight sounds like a little squealing brat. "It's match fixing. Blah Blah I'm no longer relevant, It's purely match fixing".

3 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

The transcripts. Up until now it's all been conjecture. The Herald Sun (somehow - and that's something that the AFL should be worried about) has got transcripts which definitively tell us what Bailey and others said in their interviews. 

 

The MFC and Rupert Murdoch and his lackeys sit at the exact opposite ends of my love scale in life - in fact I still have Demonland warning points from a couple of years ago for saying that I wished he would die.

Despite that, I'm emotionally detached from this story and its surrounding intrigues and just want the information - which is difficult to get to, obscured by a Hun paywall and all the arms up in the air on here.

You seem to be on the same page. If you have a means of access to them I'd be grateful if you could share.

My heart breaks for poor Bailey. I think he was a good coach who was put in an untenable situation. 

Connolly and Schwab should rot in hell for what they put our club thru. So called Melbourne supporters. 

The negative karma that has followed the likes of us and Carlton since we deliberately tried tanking, proves that such a calculating ploy to lose games is never worth it in the long term. Sure you can experiment and send players off early to have surgeries, but to be disappointed with winning games is disgusting. 

Karma is garbage.

so @La Dee-vina Comedia

What did Murdoch press run in Sydney and Brisbane ?