titan_uranus

You, rpfc, CB, and anyone else who has this narrow definition, are just far too close-minded. Stynes, McLardy, Bailey and Schwab all meeting. They decide that the best thing to do in 2009 is to finish with 4 wins, so that we get the priority pick. They debate how to do this, and decide that by resting players and playing them out of position, we could achieve this without actually telling our players to lose. So that's what we do. We play weird players in weird positions, we don't make player movements during a game that we might otherwise have done, we rest players, etc. But we don't tell them to lose. And you think that is not tanking? We're all banging on about the law. The law likes substance, not form. Call it what you want. If the board had the intent of us finishing with 4 wins or fewer, and they did things in pursuit of this goal, then it doesn't matter whether they told the players to lose. We're not concerned with the players tanking, we're concerned with the club tanking. See above. That's too narrow a definition of tanking. I don't think that kind of proof is required to show that a football club tanked. Now this I agree with. The evidence is flakey, the charge (if there even is one) is undefined, and the penalty is exorbitant. Not to mention the potential lack of a proper hearing and an expedited investigation to ensure it's done before the draft. We may well have tanked. But the AFL has to be able to show it. Properly. With no doubt. And I don't think they can do that. Not fairly, anyway. Another salient point: the AFL gave us pick 4. They give the draft picks to the clubs based on ladder positions. It's their call as to who gets what pick. Why'd they give us pick 4? Because we sucked in 2012. To take it back off us for what was done in 2009 then becomes questionable.

Let's be honest. This draw is just what we need. We've got one finalist twice. Just one. And it's Fremantle. We play them well in Melbourne. We've got double games against GC, GWS and WB. Straight up that affords us the chance in six games. No Friday night games is bad for a lack of exposure and sponsorship and stuff, but we get four Saturday night games, which is good (and we seem to play well in them), we avoid the embarrassment of being insipid on a Friday night, and we get plenty of Saturday day games anyway. The home game against North Melbourne is a disgrace, but to offset it in some way, St Kilda hosts us at the G. So those two could be flipped home/away and then no one would complain. So it's OK I guess. No surprise that we don't host Essendon. I yearn for the year where we don't go down to Geelong. But I note this year that Richmond has avoided it, whilst St Kilda is off to Geelong. Tides turn. If/when we get good, we won't be sent down there.

Herald Sun weighs into the debate: http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/second-melbourne-player-comes-forward-to-reveal-coach-dean-bailey-was-under-pressure-to-lose-matches/story-fndv7pj3-1226506978308 And also: http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/toxic-culture-blamed-as-the-afls-tanking-probe-into-the-melbourne-demons-deepens/story-fndv7pj3-1226507008112 Caro's article tomorrow: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/secrets-from-the-vault-20121030-28hpt.html

There is a difference between 'let's do X/Y/Z to begin preparing for the 2013 season' and 'let's do X/Y/Z to deliberately attempt to get a priority draft pick'. The AFL can't stop the former, but it doesn't like, and will try to stop, the latter. But it can't do that unless there is proof that a club actually is trying to do that. If we've had a meeting where we've sat down and looked at ways we can try to lose games (or be less competitive) to get a priority pick in that year, then that's tanking, and the AFL will punish us for it. it's insanely dumb of us, but it's tanking. If they can't find evidence of that, then we're going to be able to hide behind the shield that all clubs use, which is the legitimate purpose of preparing for future seasons. There is a difference, though, and the reason why this investigation is back open and going full steam ahead again is, supposedly, because evidence to suggest the latter of the two approaches has been found.

Very glad re: Bail. Indifferent re: Spencer. But good on him. No one would have picked that at the start of this year. Surprised re: Strauss. But again, good for him. I don't necessarily think he'll end up a part of our best 22, or our next premiership, but maybe with the injury behind him he'll be OK.

OK. I tried this before but people haven't seemed to have cottoned on, so I'll try again. The reason why the AFL isn't currently looking at Fremantle resting it's players, or Carlton, or any other club so far, even though they all did the same things we did, is because there is one thing about us that is different. This meeting and evidence stuff. As I've said before, the experimentation, the list management and the rehab, all that on-field stuff, is not tanking. The AFL 'investigated' it earlier, and agreed. So that is not what they care about, and that's why there aren't any other investigations into other clubs. The reason why this is all happening is because there is, apparently, evidence to suggest that we did those things not simply because we wanted to experiment with player positions or rest players for the benefit of their health, but that we did them all with a goal to lower our competitiveness and try to end the year with a priority pick. Whether this is true or not remains to be seen. But if the investigation concludes that we did in fact have a meeting in 2009 where senior people sat down and said 'what can we do to get the priority pick', and then we went out and did those things, then that is probably tanking. And until there is evidence about the same thing going on at Fremantle/Hawthorn/Carlton/Hawthorn/WB/Richmond, there won't be any stories about them.

I believe that the club has said it won't comment until the investigation is concluded. Not sure I agree with a total lack of comment, but I guess there are ramifications associated with saying things. A simple denial wouldn't hurt, I suppose.

Just because it's a 'penalty' doesn't mean the AFL can ignore concepts of reasonableness and appropriateness when applying it. Taking pick 4 off us is the easy option, it makes a statement, and it looks tough. I'm sure they'll in fact do more than this. But I don't agree with it, not because I am a Melbourne supporter who really wants pick 4, but because I don't believe that taking it off us is an appropriate penalty for what was done 3 years ago by (potentially) people who are no longer affiliated with us.

Unlike you, I don't close my mind to differing opinions, options, circumstances, or outcomes. I personally don't believe that we tanked. But I might be wrong. If I am, and we did tank, then those were my opinions on what may/will/should happen. Is that so hard to understand?

On this discussion of stripping us of pick 4 - I fail to see how that is an adequate penalty or punishment. The offence was committed by the club in 2009 (if at all). That has no reflection whatsoever on our performance in 2012 (in fact it goes against it, in that, we didn't get pick 4 because we tanked, clearly, as if we'd successfully tanked, we'd be on top of the ladder now). To take a current pick off us causes us more harm than it does fix the issue. Whilst a fine might not be the preferred option, it is more appropriate than taking pick 4 off us. A personal fine/suspension against any person who is still at the club and can be proved to be involved in taking would also be appropriate (e.g. Schwab, Connolly, McLardy). However, I do not believe we tanked, so I don't think this will arise.

My guess is that that is poor wording from Caro (wouldn't be the only instance of it in this article). Benefit of the doubt here, but I'm assuming what she means is that the witnesses have chosen to come forward or offer more information after the AFL made it clearer how serious the investigation was, or what the penalty could be for withholding information, or something like that. I don't think the AFL has been coercing witnesses.

Weak argument. If the AFL can prove that our board, or coaches, or anyone at the club, made a decision that we would engage in the conduct you stated (list management, player rehab, experimentation), and that we did this because we thought that by doing so it would mean we'd end up with a priority pick, then that is tanking. The question is whether or not our actions can be linked to an actual desire for us to finish with less than 4 wins. Proving that intention, and that link, is the key. We will win if they can't prove we had that intention, and we will also win if all they can show is those actions but can't link them to a purpose of finishing with 4 wins or less.

If you haven't noticed, the story has developed in the last half an hour. Caro's article has increased in volume. http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/tanking-affair-afl-to-lift-the-lid-on-melbournes-vault-20121030-28h3c.html She now opens with this: The AFL has uncovered a secret meeting involving at least 10 members of the Melbourne football department in which coaches were reminded of the importance of forfeiting matches in order to gain early draft picks. Unsurprisingly, this is a change in tack from her original opening paragraph: The AFL investigation into the Melbourne tanking affair has escalated with several key witnesses coming forward with fresh evidence, including repeated versions of at least one football meeting in 2009, the season in which the club was trying to win no more than four games. There is defamation potential in that statement. But I digress. This post is all good. However, if, as Caro claims, the AFL can prove that there was a meeting in which the board, senior members of the MFC, or anyone at all involved with the administration and management of the club, discussed and agreed to lose games, or undertake strategies which would lower our competitiveness for the purpose of lowering our competitiveness, then we are in trouble. In other words, if all they can pin their hat on is the externally visible actions of what we did, we can't be guilty of anything, for your reasons. But if they can trace those actions to an overarching objective to attempt to lose games, then that's where the guilt will come from.

Not that I'm advocating either of them, but Kyle Reimers and Sam Lonergan have been delisted by Essendon too.

Well identified HT.

Caroline Wilson is reporting that the AFL's investigation into our 2010 season has 'escalated': Tanking affair darkens for Dees She says there is 'fresh evidence' and that people are talking about some sort of meeting in 2010. It just goes on and on. Edit: She must mean 2009, not 2010. Good one Caro.

All I saw of him in the VFL and at North Melbourne was a weak forward with few strings to his bow. Given we now have Clark, Dawes and Pederson, I don't see where he fits into our plan. Or our team. Or the AFL, to be perfectly honest.

This is possibly the worst post I've ever laid eyes on. I can't even believe I'm bothering to respond to it. You actually, seriously, legitimately think that the number we give a player not only influences how they play, but reflects the extent to which our football club understands what it is doing? PLEASE, PLEASE don't ever post again. He played one or two good games as a first ruck. More importantly, his future was not as first ruck. That's for Gawn. Yep, because we've never tried this before, and we're not doing it right now either. When I read this, I just sat there and imagined it over and over again. So good.

I'm upset that we're not getting any Friday night games, but it's to be expected. Seven paid a lot of money for those games and they don't want crap games. If we play decent football in 2013 then we'll get them back in 2014. We really aren't in much of a position to whinge about timeslots. We get QB each year, despite it frequently being a mismatch/non contest, with no real significance (unlike ANZAC day). We'll get better, and then we'll get given timeslots that reflect our standing in the AFL world.

It won't happen. I think if there's anything we can learn from our list management this last month, it's that Neeld used 2012 to suss out which players he liked and which he didn't. There's no coincidence that the players who have been moved on struggled to get games. In contrast, Bail played regularly, and was out due to injury, not being dropped. Neeld likes him. He'll stay.

I say this a lot, so apologies for harping on, but... WHY?!?! I just hate this idea that a player should start high and 'earn' a lower number. What is wrong with a player coming to the club, getting a number, whether it's 1 or 51, and making that his own number? What has the number got to do with the player, or his ability, or his time at the club, or his popularity, or anything? Why does Howe have to move from 38? Where does the line get drawn between 'high' and 'low'? Howe should stay with 38. All our players from 2012 should stay with their current numbers, and the new players should fill the gaps. By all means, fill the lower numbers first, if that's what we want to do, but when lower numbers are available, that should not give grounds to move someone who already has a number into it.

Ah yes, the old 'they can't get a game at their club, which leads to the conclusion that they are duds and we shouldn't take them'. You must be right. I mean, look at Sydney. They took Josh Kennedy (couldn't get a game at Hawthorn), Ben McGlynn (couldn't get a game at Hawthorn), Mitch Morton (couldn't get a game at Richmond), Ted Richards (couldn't get a game at Essendon). That turned out so badly for them. You must be right.

This has been well known to many for a long time. I regard both as flogs of the highest order.

To be fair, if this ends his career, it will be via a retirement, not a delisting. But I get your point. Tru, dis. Really? Do you think Petterd et al want their deficiencies broadcast to the entire AFL world? 'Hey, other 17 clubs, I got delisted because I was lazy and didn't train hard enough. Get around me!' Let the players ride off into the sunset, or better yet, try to get a new gig somewhere else, without shaming them. They didn't fit at MFC, for whatever reason, and that's all that matters. The club doesn't owe you, or me, or any other supporter, an obligation to tell us about each and every decision it makes.

Agreed. LOL. Gysberts played one game all year. He couldn't crack into the 16th worst side in the competition. Pederson didn't play because at North they have Petrie, Hansen and Tarrant. They had no room for him. Just relax. If you stop and think for a moment, you'll realise you've attached undue weight and praise to a player who never gave us anything outside of those first two games, and if you think even harder (I'm talking like for 30 seconds here), you may realise that, if you weigh up who's come in vs who's gone out, we've done fairly well for ourselves.