Leaderboard

Caroline Wilson is a journalist whose sources are usually impeccable and, unlike many others in her trade, she is unlikely to rush into print without having a good handle on her story. That would raise some concerns for Melbourne but it still leaves the question open of what is required to make the activity in question in breach of AFL rules. This is particularly so in view of the past pronouncements by people like Demetriou and other investigations that have been carried out by the league. The other thing is the question of what weight do you put on the evidence of coaches and players, some of who are now former employees who might not have left the club in happy circumstances? Were their actions sanctioned by clear instructions from club officials or were they acting off their own bats in the belief that they were seeking the best outcome? I note while the article says "league investigators re-interviewed several players and coaches", it does not indicate whether club officials or administrators have been interviewed. Whichever way this plays out, I suspect that heads will roll including possibly some high up and some of the witnesses themselves might also be in a spot of bother. If any of the coaches have admitted to involvement in tanking, I think they can kiss goodbye to their careers. One also can't dismiss the possibility of this playing itself out in a court of law if Melbourne finds itself punished hard for something that might have happened 3½ years ago. What I do find unsavoury about this is the possibility that Wilson's information was leaked by the investigators themselves which, while not unusual where sporting bodies are concerned, would be outrageous in these circumstances. Moreover, Wilson's work is unusually sloppy for her. Apart from the gaffe about the wrong year in which alleged conversations took place, her version of Brock McLean's comments on Fox Footy's On the Couch that "tanking" prompted him to leave the club is not quite right. McLean, did insist that "tanking" wasn't the right word and he preferred to call it "experimenting". A number of people (including AFL officials) have gone on record as endorsing experimentation when applied for the long term good of a club. Finally, you don't have to be "Blind Freddie" to work out that Wilson has been consistently pushing an agenda against the current club administration for some time now. This sort of thing is not only prevalent in journalism but it seems it's now also acceptable.

The one thing that annoys me about the current administration is their reticence to get on the front foot and defend the honour of the club. Now that the article is in print and its contents are being discussed on the airwaves I want them to categorically deny that tanking ever took place and that Melbourne will vigourously defend any suggestion to the contrary. Some will say that they can't comment because it's a current investigation, or that it won't matter anyway, but they can most certainly declare the club's innocence and willingness to fight these suggestions. I'm absolutely certain that Kennett or Maguire would be denying these suggestions and defending thie club to the hilt in the same circumstances. Get on the front foot and defend your club. And do it now.

No big deal - that will upgrade our pick 49 to 48.

Melbourne v Carlton - round 22, 2007 is the clearest example of tanking in any game in which I've ever seen the MFC participate. Pity it was Carlton that tanked it though. As a result, we got Cale Morton with pick 4. Carlton managed to get Kreuzer AND Judd. Straighten up Ms Wilson - you strike me as not particularly astute. Bring some balance to your reporting - at present, it's far too inductive. People may say she's an okay AFL journalist, but let's face it - sports journalism in this country sets a pretty low bar. In fact, I find the standard of all journalism to be depressingly bad in this country, but AFL journalism sets lows that make the weather systems over New York at the moment look like they might bring reasonably clear skies.

Lolz... Yeah I'm sick of MacDonalds bravery, toughness, and hard work... Why can't we just bring back Morton and his "silky skills"... FFS, catch up to what Neeld values mate.

If sanctions are imposed on the MFC over this it would be an absolute travesty. This may have already been spoken about, but who can forget the so-called "Kreuzer Cup". Now don't get me wrong, as I know Trapper had some talent, but from memory Trapper had 48 possessions that day/night. The on-field moves made by Carlton were breathtaking and I remember making comment to my mates that night that it may as well have been a training session, with witches hats being the only obstacles to the Dees. Then there is Terry Wallace. Wallace is on the record about a game the Tigers played at the end of one season. He commented years later that he was confronted with a terrible "Sophie's Choice", in that if they had won that game, they would have lost precious draft picks. On SEN, Wallace went on to comment that the investigation into the MFC's supposed tanking was a non-issue and what was problematic was a system implemented by the AFL itself, which rewarded mediocrity with priority picks. He went on to say that if any tanking is perceived, then it is a symptom of a problem of the AFL's own making. Tanking is the result, not the cause of the problem. Both Paul Roos and Robert Shaw have echoed these sentiments. Their view is that the system is in bad need of an overhaul and should be fixed. Don't punish clubs which operated within the rules as they existed at that time. Seems some have very short memories in football and the worst miscreants are journos, who love to fling dung, in the hope that it will stick and give their grubby stories more legs. Any sanction handed down to the MFC over this, would be summarily dismissed in the relevant jurisdiction, which upholds relevant Law. Oh, and a message to Brock. You now play for a team that is recidivist in its flaunting of the laws. Pots and Kettles Brock, Pots and Kettles.

The truth about tanking is there is NO tanking. There are practices to benefit your list, there are practices and strategies to 'experiment' and expose your weaknesses, but this can be argued as a legitimate fact finding exercise. if you arent up for a September gig there are no rules,. There is NO one way to play the game. Of all people even Vlad understands the vagaries implied and utilised to further your position. its called tactics. People simply fail to want to understand the game is a season, indeed seasons, not just a singularity in isolation. BOOKIES might think that way but personally f#*k them !! its not about them. There are far too many subtleties to the game that unless there is a clear directive, an unmistakable instruction or clear cut ruse then the reality is its all fair game. There is but one real goal..The premiership and youre surely entitled to do what you can and must to position yourself for the best shot at it. Some people just dont get so much is sometimes scares me.

And surely you'd have to be worried about the prospects of winning any case in which Brock McLean was your key witness. He'd be doing doughnuts in his Maloo outside the court house just before being called to give evidence.

Just my take on it Demonlanders and no inside knowledge of any kind, but looking at this from an investigators background Adrian ANDERSON & DEMETRIOU in response to Mcleans comments re-opening the tanking saga Look this keep rearing it's head with every comment or inference relating to tanking of draft picks We need to conduct a thorough investigation and put the matter to bed once and for all so we can move on The investigator Reviews the available evidence/allegations and forms an investigation plan with numerous avenues of inquiry You obtain lists of witness who must be interviewed You interview all these witnesses and put various questions to them about their role and in what forum they discussed performance and meeting KPI'S You establish the FD has meetings every so often to ascertain where they are and how they can move forward You have further avenues of inquiry to interview every person who was at those meetings, thereby identifying further witnesses You ask questions about each and every meeting and who was present At some stage common knowledge all clubs out of the finals race do it FD'S hold meetings with boards to look to the following season and what they should do for the rest of the season. During that meeting the following matters are discussed Dean Bailey look we are on a certain amount of wins and I have two choices we keep playing our best side and win this many more games we move up the ladder but can't make finals Board put forward look Dean we can't make the finals but are looking toward the future so lets start focussing on 2010 Bailey wants to win he is a coach so he may ask for assurances on his position The board says Dean if we could make the finals I agree with playing players under duress until we are mathematically out of the hunt, don't worry about you position play the kids for now winning is not the most important thing, we must focus on 2010 and however you perform for the rest of the season will have no bearing on your coaching future Okay so you assure me that if I play the kids and try players in different positions and we lose all our games my position is not under threat Board - whilst it wouldn't look good on the bright side we will get the first two picks in the draft, so you do what you have to do If you are the investigator and you interview 4 people and establish this you now have to interview every one who sat in that meeting and establish what was said. I can tell you from experience I have interviewed people for numerous incidents and if you have 10 people who witnessed the crime all 10 will give you a differing account. Some points will be the same but every account will be different. IMO and it is just that, this is where we are currently at The AFL want to put this to bed once and for all. Some kind of meeting was held and everyone present needs to be interviewed and establish what exactly transpired. So I believe Clothier is following further avenues of inquiry and Caro may have touched base with a source for any update on the investigation and been told they have established a meeting took place because 4 witnesses have told them there was a meeting. Caro has written her story with a bit of poetic licence and we have this story today. It is also my experience these matters take a fair bit of time to investigate review and complete your report so will still be some time However the AFL is on a knifes edge here because Massive implications effectively into match fixing Bailey if he deliberately went out to lose and anyone else is open to Criminal Charges as it is tantamount to Fraud - "Causing a detriment by Deceit" Detriment is to the punters who bet on games and the deceit is not trying to win Bailey and any other FD, coaching staff who participated in this is out of the game for good If we are talking match fixing we wont be the only ones hit, the media and other will demand a Commission into the Kruezar Cup and other games in question In closing everyone potting the club for making no comment, Good decision best form of defence is built around the disclosure of the prosecution case, review their evidence and pull it apart piece by piece. Sit tight brace yourself for more stories as they will dig and dig, Denham will be like the court jester tomorrow and we will get more kicks. At this stage think Pick 4 and others are safe for 2012

You have to wonder wtf they were thinking. It won't be the end for me, but for the first time I feel sick in the guts about this issue and what might happen. It never ends with this club. Blue sky lasts for about 6 minutes.

phew - I thought it said AFL footballer being stalked I love you Jack Viney

Welcome. Have you been in another country for the last three weeks? We have just acquired a 194cm/105kg FF/CHF in Chris Dawes, a 193cm/100kg FP/Back-up ruck in Cameron Pedersen, and a 194cm/97kg 17 year old FF/CHF in Jesse Hogan to accompany our 200cm/100kg FF/back-up ruck in Mitch Clark. Grundy wouldn't get a game in our forward line and while he may become an excellent ruckman - Jamar has another three years on his contract, ruckmen take ages to mature, the best ruckmen in the game (Sandilands, Cox, Jolly) came from the rookie list, and we need midfielders. Pick 4 should be spent on the best midfielder in the draft.

This club is run by astute people who have got the club out of a $5 mil debt.......Have new sponsers in hugely difficult situation.....Have a FD which is funded as well as anyone else in the AFL.......When Schwab was at Freo he got them financial and out of debt(Don't know how much).......Schwab and Connolly got Freo to their first final series......I know the reasons Schwab was told to concentrate on the running of the club instead of putting his nose in the FD,a job that he does very very well.......As I stated in another thread the club in in the best position I have seen it for 20 years......As for Connolly he does his job very very well....Entertaining sponsers and bringing new community involvement to the club.........These are the facts......Either get over it or put in for the jobsAnd while I'm at it, Jim started the revival but was too sick to see it through....The above two and the board has turned this Footy club around......If you don't want to be here....welll.....See Ya....

Agreed and as this subject has been well and truly covered to excess over time and the OP refers to nothing news, this thread is closed.

Just quietly, how boring must it be to follow anyone other than Melbourne? And people call us irrelevant!

More than ever now is not the time for the club to say anything. You only make comment when you know all the cards that hAve been dealt. Adelaide is looking pretty silly now as their denials from adelaide heavy's on the Tippett affair were nothing but lies as more and more was revealed. McLardy has llittle idea of what the likes of Bailey, Prendergast and others no longer at the club but at the infamous meeting have said to investigators. If the AFL make specific accusations then tackle them but noisily defending charges not yet laid can bite on the bum when you havent seen the evidence against you.

It's people like you who lurk behind the scenes who have an agenda with the current administration and undermine things. The same type who are feeding the media with tainted versions of events which fester and affect the stability of the board and the club as a whole. We are meant to be united at times like this, seriously do us all a favour and F-off I will gladly but two extra memberships in 2012 to make up for your loss. If you are a supporter as opposed to a troll we are better off without you

Agreed! MacDonald is not the most skilled guy going around But he has guts and he tries his heart out. In my mind that puts him above a number of his team mates - although that number is being thinned out.

This whole thing reeks of an over zealous AFL media with too many journalists and not enough genuine stories to cover. It's the biggest little story I've ever seen in any sport. If Melbourne is going down for this, it must go down like Tony Montana. While I will be disgusted to the brink of conjuring up repugnant tweets to the AFL that will have ASIO knocking at my door if we are sanctioned, I would be even more livid if we just copped it on the chin. This is not an issue specific to Melbourne.

Interesting, found guilty and sanctioned, without the investigation concluding and without the Court challenge that would clearly follow such an event.

A few months ago you wanted us 'to take our punishment and get on with it' and now it can't be proved? We didn't tank. We experimented with players, we sent them off early for surgery, and we culled seasoned pros in an attempt to better position ourselves in the future. The AFL know that any allegations of tanking is frought - which is why AD says that tanking is only when plaeyrs are instructed to lose. Being instructed to experiment isn't tanking. Being instructed to send players off for season ending surgeries isn't tanking. Being instructed to replace Whelan, Wheatley, Brown with Martin, McNamara, and Cheney isn't tanking. We did not tank.

There is your major contradiction in one. Without defining the word then how can you can determine guilt or innocence. Did our coaching staff put a higher price on experimentation than on winning - yes Did the players try to lose games - no Did the coaching staff try to lose games - ahhhh - try and prove that one and therein lies your problem

There is a difference between tanking and winning not being your top priority.

The opening paragraph which, of itself suggests that Melbourne is guilty as charged and the faux pas about the year in which the alleged tanking game took place, attests not only to her shoddy journalism but also to the malicious intent behind her article. It was reported recently that Junior told the inquiry there was no tanking. So what is she saying now? That he wasn't telling the truth to investigators? Like many clubs before it, Melbourne came into a game late in a season where nothing could be gained by winning or losing and shuffled its team around. Call it what you liked but the experiment would have produced a winning result but for the intervention of a 50 metre kick after the siren from a Richmond player. Unlike the 2007 fiasco in round 22 which the AFL continues to choose to ignore when Carlton players missed simple shots from 20 metres out and Travis Johnstone was prolific in his possession gathering and went all day untagged. Give me a break!

That may be so but the AFL allowed precedents to be set by clubs as to the sort of behaviour that was frowned upon and by allowing clubs like Carlton to repeatedly "experiment" in games that led to them losing and picking up better draft picks, it set the standards that applied and therefore defined any improper behaviour in this area. If Melbourne is guilty of anything as a result of this investigation them the AFL leadership would have to go. Doubly so for discriminating in this wider investigation against Melbourne and in failing to go after other clubs like Carlton. Where was the investigation after Fevola virtually admitted why he was left out of the Carlton team in the latter stages of 2007 including the disgraceful "Kreuzer Cup".

Ok so lets say we are found 'guilty'. The only punishment should be to the people that were responsible - Dean Bailey and whoever else. They should be terminated from their current position with the league (if they are still employed) and never be allowed to work in the AFL again. If we are stripped of pick 4, we should sue the AFL into submission. ps. If I ever run into Brock McLean in the street, he is going to wish he never went On The Couch

Two things are very clear Caro enjoys throwing dirt at the MFC ( especially Cameron Schwab); Whatever we did or didn't do in 2009 to help our draft picks - other clubs had done in prior years It would be a stunning injustice if we were singled out for a penalty

Hands up who doesn't count the days between one epic Melbourne disaster and the next? It's just a joke that at every turn there is a little man hiding in the bushes waiting to punch us in the nuts. Never wishes an injury on anyone, but Brock McLean, I hope you break both your thumbs Twittering. Knobhead.

In a magical world of best outcomes. The AFL could come out and say the rules they had in place were faulty and here are the penalties for future indescretions. Amnesty for ALL the clubs involved in the past. That would be the "just" action...but there's blue cheese on the moon too and pigs flying up to eat it.

Carlton were penalised for breaching strict AFL rules. The Demons have broken no rules.

In my opinion the AFL have completely lost the plot on this issue. I've said it before and I'll say it again - it is the prerogative of any club's administration and/or coaching staff to implement any tactics they see fit within the rules of the competition in order to do what they feel is the best way for the club to achieve future success. Don't blame the journos. Blame the people who feel the need to make some kind of response to appease the journos, and to the ex-players (Brock McLean) who make statements that actually revealed nothing the whole football world didn't already know. The whole thing is absolutely laughable in my opinion.

To suggest we "cheated"is ludicrous. We were confronted by a system that was fundamentally flawed and the simple fact is, precedents, as far as so-called 'tanking' is concerned, had long been set. If Carro's article has any veracity and the AFL place any kudos on evidence which can be best described as spurious, then Mr. Demetriou, et al, will need to be consistent and punish all those who went before us.

Yes, it's called a penalty.

The ability of some past and present people at the Club to keep their mouths shut.....

Has anyone else thought that perhaps it was a smart move to have already traded most our picks for players. Could this have been a planned way to already get people signed up so they can't be taken off us.

I have never been more intrigued about a situation and hereby seek the judgement of better footy watchers: Spencer. Why?

We can't afford to lose pick 4. A player played in the GF years ago by taking out an injunction against the AFL due to a suspension he and his club disputed and Melbourne must do something similar should the need arise so that nothing happens prior to this draft. Surely we can get any penalty put off until next year's draft at a minimum. The club must fight any penalty in the courts. Even Stynes' legacy demands such an action.

If this vault garbage turns out to be true then you can't say we don't deserve punishment. To have a big round table on how to lose games is beyond belief in the stupidity and integrity stakes..

F___ that. This is circle the wagons time. There are a number of people attempting to use us as the 'cleanser' of the AFLs era of tanking. From Franklin and Roughhead, Pedlebury and Thomas, Kreuzer and Judd, and NikNat - clubs have punished themselves for the 'greater good.' We punished ourselves and I for one won't stand for the club to be a sacrificial lamb on this.

I'm petrified of losing pick 4

What's more how unbelievably dumb is it to give the whole thing a code name: The Vault. Its a Club not a 007 production set! Dumb as...! Bewildering!!

If the story is accurate as written - then we have a football department that made a plan to actively lose games of football. If the story is accurate as written..... (if the story is accurate as written then how stupid are we to have a meeting including 10 members of the FD discussing how to lose games of football)

Please have something to do with Kim Duthie, I miss that classy lady.

Sorry if this is repeating what has already been said -too many pages to read. But I note that some have said that we can't use as a defence the fact that other clubs should also be investigated. They use the analogy of getting caught speeding etc. But there is a difference. MFC is in competition with other clubs under the AFL's system. My bush lawyer instincts suggest that we would have cause to claim we were being unfairly disadvantaged if they failed to investigate other clubs.

We absolutely designed our playing list and game day strategies to lessen the likelihood of winning. That isn't tanking. Tanking is telling players to lose. Because that is the only thing that can be proven to be tanking: EXPERIMENTATION Miller in midfield. Pfft. What about Garland in the forward line? Dunn in the backline? Bennell on the ground? We we tanking this season? Experimentation is not tanking. LIST MANAGEMENT Retiring players and removing seasoned pros has a devastating effect on immediate playing ability. But it also allows McDonald to be placed on the list at 53 and Jurrah (eyes roll) in the PSD. List management is not tanking. SEASON ENDING SURGERY/REHAB Player welfare is paramount and takes on significant importance in losing years. Protecting investments in losing years is perfectly fine. Season ending surgeries/rehab is not tanking. So please tell me again how we tanked and why I am wrong? And why those in charge are culpable for something that is not prosecutable.

Have you been interviewed recently?

I don't see why they're is any angst against Caro here. As some posters have already posted when writes on a situation/issue she usually has a pretty good handle on it and has some facts on it. We all know we tanked. Everyone knows we tanked! We all know Carlton, Collingwood etc tanked. The only reason why we're being investigated is because we have past players/coaches/admin staff that might have been burnt at the Club therefore have no reason to stick fat by us. They couldn't care less if they put us in the shite..

I would plead guilty on the terms that we would be stripped of our Pick number 4 in the 2007 draft.

There was an AGM last night?

She is horrid.