Leaderboard

Cant help myself - Jay Clark just tweeted the same piece of HS footage on twitter with the following message "Watch the faces of the Melbourne coaching staff when Ricky Petterd almost pinches the Dees the win over Richmond" I tweeted back at him "by Jove - your right ! The smoking gun ! you've found it ! Go and collect your Walkley right now."

From Tuesday afternoon until early afternoon today I've been at sea and out of range of Demonland and the football media. After reading the hundreds of messages that have been posted on this and other threads, I'm staggered about two things:- 1. There is still total confusion as to the appropriate definition of "tanking". My understanding of the word is that it was defined on numerous occasions by the AFL's CEO and on his definition, neither Melbourne nor several other AFL clubs "tanked". However, if you want to apply the wider definition of "tanking", its clear that a number of AFL clubs "tanked" between the late 1990's right through to mid 2012 when Sheedy rang in the changes to ensure GWS won the Whitfield Cup. I believe the MFC submission will concentrate heavily on the fact that the MFC conducted itself in accordance with what Demetriou himself, laid out as being acceptable. Therefore, most of the speculation and brouhaha in the media and some of it here is utter bullsh1t. 2. There is on that basis, enough evidence available to charge large segments of the media with tanking.

Let us not forget Maxy Gawns' Legendary Yawn as our cultural attache in China. The spew that got us two top picks for a dud with bad knees. We are forever in your debt ,Big Max.

Jay Clark hosted MFC game day lunches this year. Nice that he is biting one of the hands that feeds him. I would imagine he will lose those gigs this year.

not until the mcg improve their crap audio systems

Things go quickly when you're fired up. I should've been doing my real job as well...Media scratching the surface for Dees tanking evidence I've just slapped it on my blog as a draft. Need to read through it all and finish it off with another par, but want to send this on tomorrow. Feedback (some of it) welcome.

How about nit-picking these so-called journalists rather than nit-piking supporter's posts. Clearly JB was rightly [censored] off by the quality of the 'report' and just expressed his anger in that way. Any journo who ends a story with that quote from Jim about the agony the AFL's policy was causing, yet neglects to include the quote saying Bailey was not told to tank deserves no defence from MFC supporters. Edit: grammar to avoid being nit-picked.

Killing in the Name of... RAGE..

BBP, your statement begs the question, if "we are not 100% innocent in this", then of what are we guilty? The AFL is simply tilting at windmills here. If the AFL is at all serious and in the interests of procedural fairness and equity, they would need to launch investigations into a number of other clubs, if they claim our supposed actions set the precedent. The AFL simply do not want to go down this path. If the "system", as it was then, has been exploited, then it is the fault of the system, not the participants. Very simple premise really.

The AFL has given a easy please explain to some positional changes and some games lost. Legally, we can argue this very easily.Perhaps the AFL want the investigation to end with no sanctions passed. They do however need to be perceived to have conducted a extensive investigation to save face. I believe they have deliberately bowled a half tracker and want us to hit it for six.

Hi everyone, I forgot to mention in my report. I had a good chat with Col Garland and he was very serious when he said "It will be very hard to get a game in the back-line this year". I understood what he was saying, because they are (1) a tight group, (2) They are all very fit, and (3) They are all very competitive. IMO our back-line was always our strongest on the ground. I honestly think it has gotten stronger. FNQ Demon

There are many posters who have moments of being reactive and/or negative. I am one of the most guilty. But you RR stand alone for being ridiculously obtuse. You arrive out of the ether with multiple quotes that you apparently think "cleverly" attack other posters. I wouldn't mind this, but you are supposed to be a moderator. You are in fact a flamer. The very opposite of your supossed role. You are a pathetic disgrace. A hypocrite.

I think Neil Craig is a great asset for our football club.

Nothing.

Its pumps, its modern and it isn't old man crap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TziyOcb96q0

Do you really want to compare what this jerk has said to the accusations raised by Wilson? I couldn't, and I'm sure most on here don't care about the sex of the journalist it's more the accusatory tone and the vile things she said, plus the outright lies she put out about us. Of course some of which she later retracted, although by that time the damage had been done.

Bloody Hell.......I'm so sick of this crap hanging over our heads.....59 pages of we'll be right......No we won't.....The AFL will do this....The MFC will do that.........I just want it to come to a head and be finished with it all....so we can get on discussing the footy....Who played well....who didn't.......Who's a dud (After 1 game).....Who's a champion (Ater 1 game).... You know.....the normal stuff.....

Tanks for the memories ?

I think everyone needs to remind themselves that the AFL , whilst not only the designers and instigators of this mess, are so because they simply arent quite as clever as many would make them out to be ( especially themselves..lol ) A lot of good things are done by the league. A lot of seemingly idiotic things are also managed by same said people. Often i feel its a case if you stand in one spot and throw enough seed far and wide eventually something will take and grow. When this happens they trumpet it for all to see. When the rest amounts to little it simple is forgotten/disregarded/ or re-invented as something else entirely. The AFL have all but painted themselves into a corner. There's very little manoeuvrability left now. All roads (bar one ) lead to the abyss. Only common sense will avert this happening. I think even they ( AFL ) are fully recognizant of this now. It took them a while and only after their preferred avenues of reaction were well and truly slammed in their face. if we were to draw this out as a flowchart ( too lazy to .lol ) you would find each and every occasion of choice would eventually lead back to a no-foul decision (after exhaustive investigation ) Its actually the only one whereby the AFL can put tanking to bed and close the door on it. Whilst the media is an interested onlooker its not actually party to the inquisition. It may not like a not guilty finding but it can go jump. The AFL wasnt very clever in allowing this to unfold. This is entirely their mess. Had they had clearer and more comprehensive thinkers they could have forseen such things occurring and tightened up the loose ends before it unravelled. They didnt. Vlad is not so silly to allow any reproach to this subject once finalised. His cohorts will not want this to arise again either lest their "interests' come under focus. Contrary to some media pundits i cant see this going beyond the next AFL meeting. the NAB season looms and Vlad and his imperial army will want THAT , and that alone as the shining beacon for all to see. To summise: This will finish soon - The AFL can not afford this to go to court , they lose control. The AFL will rule No foul / no penalty The AFL will tidy up any remaining abiguities. Tanking will be officially dead.

tanking just can't be as simple as "not doing everything possible to win" take Mike Hussey as an example. he retires from the Test scene but not the one day series to be played this summer. he is clearly in the best 11 for the one dayers and is avalable to play CA drop him because they want to blood new players for the next world cup Isn't this tanking? Isn't this similar to mfc trying to get games into the younger and future players when there is no chance of making the finals Of course it's not tanking but it just goes to demonstrate how impossible it is to clearly define what actions constitute tanking

Accepting a token penalty means admitting guilt. Are they then going to pursue the other tanking clubs? Unlikely in that scenario. So their integrity remains intact while ours is in tatters. I have real trouble accepting that as an outcome.

David Neitz should be there, he is a great Demon. Record games, record goals, record games as captain. Not only that he passed up on a final year career ending injury payment of well in excess of $100,000 because he knew the club couldn't afford it. Well ahead of Garry Lyon in terms of a great club man. FWIW I agree the focus should be on our future. For young supporters Smith, Barassi and the like are just names from our past who hold no real connection to the present. If they are going to be noted surely we should have Tom Wills, perhaps our most famous identity.

So it's the journalists fault for being asked to cover the story ? He may be a poor journalist, so ridicule him for the quality of his reporting, or lack thereof, but not for filing a report.

It's a controlled leak from the club to make the AFL's case look silly. It's working strongly in our favour. What it's not doing is telling us what the AFL's strong points are and until we know that we'll not know where we stand.

I'm actually relieved to hear that. the game has become too stressful for a sane person to not let the hair down every so often. if they can't de-stress we'll just lose them one way or another.

I can't work out which is worse fumbling or ashen-faced officials thank god we have the afl integrity commission to help us out F M D

Stop your stumbling...bumbling......crumbling....fumbling beannut!....god,..... this thing is bloody contagious...... mumbling..? arggh.

Because Bailey was always a laughing clown ? , jumping up and down ?? he was the king of Stoney faces. Hardly proof of anything. It was a tense part of the game, finger biting stuff. No one was going to celebrate too prematurely I would think.

Yep..thats your opinion ( as entitled ) Its not the Clubs. I'm with the club.

No nitpicking at all, Sue. I just disagree that the journalist has some kind of vendetta, which was the accusation. Or what did you think the inference was when a poster questions a journalists motivation ? We tanked. Plain and simple. Will it be easy to prove ? No. Should we fight it all the way ? Yes. Was Stynes pro tanking ? Of course. You can try and come up with all the cute defences you like, but anyone with half a clue knows we tanked, but the good news is we'll vehemently defend the charges and the clubs honour. As we should. Back to your persecution complexes...

My question was very much tongue in cheek :-))))

Can anyone with greater technological savvy than I please post those "disgraceful three minutes" of the Richmond game. I would love to make a fumble count, and see again just who kicked that 50+ meter after siren goal. My recollection was that is was a Tiger player, not one of ours, but apparently I could be wrong. On the terrible fumbling issue. I just watched highlights of the 2012 GF: I ask when will the AFL integrity guys start investigating poor Young's critical game changing fumble towards the end of the game? Imagine tanking in a GF. Disreputable stuff that. The bookies must have cringed if they had their $$ on the Hawks.

shouldn't bother Opel mac, they used to make tank parts during the 1940s - LOL

So I picked up the paper today, read Jon Pierik's latest piece of drivel, and I actually stopped and re-read one sentence again. And again. And again. And even now, I'm lost for words: "As revealed by Fairfax Media on Tuesday, the round-21 loss to Carlton has also emerged as a focus of investigators, plus losses against Richmond, Sydney and St Kilda and a win over Port Adelaide. It's understood questions have been asked over why they fielded three ruckmen, with Mark Jamar, Paul Johnson and Jake Spencer all playing. Jamar and Spencer were two of four inclusions." Yes, that's right. The AFL is now questioning us for winning. What are they going to say? Why did you make 4 changes to this side? Maybe because we thought it would help us win. Which it did! Seriously. This is a joke. Disagree entirely. We're innocent. We have nothing to settle, and we do not want to settle.

Its in the Age in the article written by Jon Pierik. Seriously..three ruckman...Hille, Bellchambers and Ryder all in the same team. Jamar has been tried as a forward, Martin as a back and forward. I have maintained all along that the AFL is orchestrating this investigation to come to the conclusion that they did a thorough investigation and there is "insufficient or inconclusive evidence" to bring charges. Some of the evidence that journo's have put forward as being forwarded to the club is highly subjective and also well intrenched past practice ( list management and experimentation). There is a modicum of sense in them asking questions relating to Connolly's words and what Schwab may or may not have said and i can even stretch to low rotations or keeping players on the bench too long - but when the investigation is questioning 3 ruckmen being selected and players fumbling then the attempt to dress up this charade as thorough investigation has become a farce of the highest order.

I can assure you that the going hasn't been all that easy since we left Adelaide. We were on the high seas and out of communication with the rest of the world for almost 48 hours as the ship headed first south and then in an easterly direction across the treacherous Bass Strait. Our own independent investigation into the tanking affair was seemingly over, so Redleg and I reconciled ourselves about the events of the past two days by visiting the upper deck where we sat by the swimming pool sipping on banana daiquiris admiring the young Brazilian guests in their skimpy swimsuits. It was a hard life ... until the seas became angry and we had to go below decks. Redleg noticed the envelope first. It had been slipped under his stateroom door and contained a not too subtle message, "Here is an invitation you've been waiting for - an opportunity to meet and listen to the one and the only Dean Bailey this evening at 7.00 pm. Starlight Room, 5th deck." I received a similar note under my door and we spent most of the afternoon discussing this new and intriguing development. It was clear that while we were back in the city of churches, Bailey had been avoiding us but here, on the high seas out of the world's gaze and with not a reporter or AFL official in sight, he was willing to talk. Would he spill the beans on the long running scandal or were the events of 2009 as stale as the snapper we had consumed in the Demetriou family fish and chip shop we visited before the start of our investigation? We wore the obligatory dinner suits (we thought they would act as an effective disguise) and made it to the Starlight Room at exactly 7.00pm but noticed that quite a crowd had gathered inside. They were listing to an American crooner playing songs on a grand piano. "I get my kicks from champagne ..." Bailey was nowhere to be seen and we became really worried when we realised that we were back on eastern standard daylight savings time and hadn't reset our watches. It was really 7.35pm and it suddenly dawned upon us that we had missed our assignation. "I get a kick ... yes I get a kick outa ... you ... " The entertainment director came out onto the stage and announced, "Ladies and gentlemen, put your hands together for a wonderful performance for the velvet voice of grammy award winner, Dean Bailey, tonight's act direct from Chicago in the US of A." So he wasn't "the one and the only Dean Bailey" after all and we had reached yet another dead end. As we trudged out of the Starlight Room in disappointment we noticed a sign advertising tomorrow's main activity. Accompanying a photograph of an extremely obese man was the topic of his lecture: "Phil's fabulous fifty bananas a day diet".

'Ben' of course it's not his fault, my issue with him is the unnamed source as a method to bring Jim Stynes into the story. I mean if there really was one I would be surprised, you don't need a source to tell you that Jim Stynes was the President in 2009 and if the board has a case to answer then it reflects on his leadership. It is a pretty weak effort from Pierik and if he wants to bring Stynes into the story then he should do it under his name not some mystery person. ...and 'Fan' the AFL case is looking pretty silly, let's hope that's all they have. At the moment I would think we are ahead in the PR war.

This is another example of misleading journalism by The Age. I'm certain the word 'Tanking' is not defined by anything in the AFL regulations. There is a regulation 19 (A5) which says the above, but even this regulation does not define the term 'perform on their merits'. I'd hate to be a prosecutor here. Q. Why did you play big slow Paul Johnson on Nathan Brown in THAT match? A. 'Cos big slow Paul Johnson was the second fastest person in our side!'.

Think of the repercussions if by some absolute miracle the charge of fumbling sticks ! The mind boggles with the permutations Tribunal nights could be a tad busy if 'fumbling' is somehow 'outlawed' Suspensions could be as follows ... I week for an accidental fumble 2 weeks for a reckless fumble 4 weeks for an intentional fumble 1 full season for a 'Lairising' fumble

This is what happens when Stuie is not around to keep us on track.

MFC should kick in and assist DB with his legal defense and costs, he is only incurring these because he was our coach at the time, so is the only reason he requires a lawyer. The failure to protect employees (he was at the time) will make others wonder if MFC will look after them if they have problems. As for the article, interesting there are leaks and of the 800 page report the best the can come up with is referring to secret (weekly) meetings in the VAULT!!!! and 3 minutes of a game we almost won. The number of rotations I find interesting in that the investigators must have asked about injuries etc so should have factored that into the number of rotations, leaking it means the press can have a bit of a field day on it until the MFC responds with the details on injuries etc. How many of these other 800 pages is devoted to the Richmond game. I love the bit where they could not get anyone to confirm that players deliberately fumbled... how can someone make such a stupid statement to believe in the heat of battle where you are just ahead on the scoreboard someone says to themselves that they better fumble so that we can loose. Does anyone really expect that highly competitive players would rollover for what, so MFC can get another pick, does anyone really think players playing for their spot on next years roster thinks that. If the AFL is going to take the last 3 minutes of the Melbourne Richmond game as a benchmark then how would the Carlton/Melbourne game the year before stand scrutiny, surely there must be 30seconds or more of inappropriate activity there. The AFL only opens itself up to further scrutiny taking this approach. sadly melbourne cannot win this, sure we might beat the AFL and not loose draft picks, but other areas where we have received financial assistance will eventually suffer. End of the day someone from the club needs to write up a credible defense and sit down the with AFL and do a deal to close this out before it goes to court, as neither of us wins if that is the case. And if the truth be told no one cares except Caro and a few journo's who have nothing better to do with their time.

Glad to hear you keep yourself fit . I dont know if BBO is looking for that sort of thing. but you should private message him just in case . The City Slicker /the fresh faced country kid It's just like Midnight Cowboy!

Thanks for the sage advice Biffo. However, bars of soap have particular concerns and I'll be avoiding them. Truth to tell - I'm hoping to get a glimpse of BH - I guessing he will have a bright aura and 1000's of disciples at his feet.

It seems a good chunder is more successful than tanking. Wonder if it breaches any AFL rules?

2-3 seasons ago i would have told you that jones was an average kick, with poor awareness and terrible decision making ability. Now days i'd say he has all 3 under control. AFL players train alot; its not unrealistic to expect a player to be able to improve their kicking.

Totally agree. An experienced and sophisticated administrator (and the AFL has those) does not conduct an investigation such as this without first knowing the result. The leaks are absolutely strategic and designed to give the micro-message that everything is being looked at (800 pages!!!!!!) and the macro-message that the AFL has integrity. The fact is, the AFL has an integrity problem to fix. They tried the "head in the sand", they tried changing the system at times, but the issue would not go away. The next best option was an investigation. Further, if what we read in the papers about the substance of the allegations in the report are true, it appears that the case is largely circumstantial. I have been involved in many investigations, and I suggest that the length of time taken and the number of people interviewed and re-interveiwed very much supports a circumstantial case. I have read the relevant rules, and I believe that they are shockingly drafted and ambiguous. That makes them hard to enforce. I further think that the rules have to be interpreted in such a way as to only allow a charge to stick if there is direct evidence, and I can't see how they would have enough direct evidence. If they do, then we are idiots and we deserve what we get. My reading of how this will pan out is that there is too much at stake for tanking claims to be made out. The AFL is complicit, the persons involved would have no choice but to go to court, and the odds that one of Bailey, Connolly, Schwab or the MFC would challenge the process in the Supreme Court are too high for the AFL to gamble with. There is too big a chance that the AFL would lose in Court, and the consequences of that would be potentially catastrophic for the AFL from an interity, publicity and legal viewpoint. Therefore, this is the AFL press conference: "The AFL takes the integrity of the game extremely seriously and considers integrity of our sport to be the most important asset we have. As a result of various comments made by players and coaches, as you are aware, the AFL commenced an investigation into allegations that the Melbourne Football Club breached the AFL's integrity rules. We have thoroughly and painstakingly investigated this issue, and we make no apology for the amount of time that this investigation has taken, because it is fundamental that we get this right. The AFL, through its independent intergity officers Haddad and Clothier, who I congratulate for doing an outstanding job, presented the Melbourne Football Club conducted over X interviews with current and former players, coaches and administrators. As a result of this thorough and robust process, the AFL presented the Melbourne Football Club with a report that was over 1,000 pages long. The report contained circumstances arising from the investigation relating to the 2009 Toyota AFL Premiership season in particular. The Melbourne Football Club formally responded to the matters contained in the report. The AFL has taken the report, together with the response of the Melbourne Football Club, to our Commission for consideration. Following this comprehensive investigation, the AFL has found that the Melbourne Football Club did not breach the AFL integrity rules. I will say that the AFL was concerned that some of the conduct of Officers of the Melbourne Football Club skated very close to the edge, and the Melbourne Football Club should very seriously consider the type of culture it wishes to create in order to be successful on-field. The AFL further notes that we have made substantial changes to the draft system between 2009 and today, including most importantly to compensation picks to ensure that incentives align with the integrity of the same. I would like to again congratulate all parties, in particular Haddad and Clothier, for this exhaustive investigation. The integrity of the AFL draft and system is the single most important priority, and the AFL remains absolutely steadfast to ensure the continued protection of the integrity of the game." There.... how did I go?!

Kind of what i thought. Interesting manner of approach. The old bumbling buffoonery of a club ( This is my take on how many might have seen the club in not so olden times , espc the AFL ) might have made a mess of all of this but there seems to be much wiser and more capable thinkers at the club presently. The AFL might have instigated the 'fight' but they might well have misconstrued their opponents. The Club seems intent on doing things on 'their ' terms and not the template others would prefer. This is interesting, pleasing as well.

If I said it was soapy water going down a plug hole, would that make it more palatable for you?

Today was our last day in Adelaide and Redleg and I were determined to track down the man who held the key to the tanking conundrum, Dean Bailey. However, we weren't going to make the same mistake as yesterday so we looked up the telephone number for the Crows and dialled ... "Welcome to the Adelaide Football Club. Home of the Camry Crows. If you are enquiring about club membership packages, press one ... if you wish to make a purchase from our range of club merchandise, press two ... if you want to contribute to our special Kurt Tippett clawback fund to help us pay the AFL's disgraceful salary cap breach fine (all donations are tax deductible), press three." We finally reached a number that allowed us to speak with a human being and I asked the young lady at the other end to put me through to Stephen Trigg. There was hesitation before the voice responded, "Mr. Trigg isn't working here at the present time ... " "But it says here in the AFL Guide 2012 that he's the CEO; we need to speak with him urgently about one of your coaches ... " "Oh, that's OK sir, they should all be in their offices this morning. To which of our coaches do you wish to speak?" I gave her the name and thought I could hear her rifling through a long list of numbers before she finally got back to me. "Mr. Bailey. That would be extension one, eight, six ... I'll put you through now ... A familiar voice responded but it wasn't that of the former Demon coach. "Clarrie, is that you? We're the two blokes you met at Alberton yesterday. What are you doing at Crows HQ? "Ah, on Tuesdays, I'm working at the Adelaide Football Club. Mr. Bailey's not here but perhaps there's something I can do to help you?" "Clarrie, there is. You can empty the contents of every bin in his office and hold it for us. Don't throw anything away. We'll meet you at the club in 15 minutes ..." We spent the better part of another hot Adelaide day sifting through the contents of Dean Bailey's garbage but alas, we found nothing. Not a single scrap of evidence to suggest that Bailey was planning to impart any of the tactics and strategies he used with the Demons in 2009 on the Crows in 2013. We did find the remnants of two folders containing 800 pages of fol de rol over which someone had scribbled child-like cartoon characters resembling Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck but there was nothing of substance in either volume and given where their custodian had dumped them, he thought so as well. The closest we came to finding anything suspicious was a banana peel but we quickly dismissed that as a red herring. So for the second day running, we had come up against a dead end. Our investigation was going nowhere ...