Whispering_Jack

Good grief! There's not a hope in hell those views were "personal" views. He's the AFL CEO. When he's introduced by reporters, on radio, TV or as a guest at a function, he's doing it in his official capacity. When he discusses matters in house with clubs he's not delivering personal messages.

Whichever way it's done I don't quite see them shooting the chairman, CEO and at least one if not more constituent clubs in the foot as well as render the position of the CEO untenable for the future.

Graham Osborne

This thread is about the "Tanking Issue" which predates 186 by two years.

It's possible that the AFL could ignore Demetriou's public and private advice to clubs and the fact that he hasn't investigated or sanctioned the other clubs which by the redefining of tanking would also now be guilty of offending against the new laws. However, I could only see it happening in conjunction with a negotiated solution between the parties. Otherwise, my "hypothetical" defence might get a life of its own together with several others in a court of law and I'd be backing my side in those circumstances. Time will tell.

It's not for me to do better, it's for those advocating for the club. In any event, as we keep getting reminded on this site it's getting closer to decision time every day.

I see you're skeptical but if the explanations proffered above don't help you, I certainly can't.However, are you seriously suggesting that what Demetriou said publicly on numerous occasions by way of the AFL's interpretation of its rules was any different to what the clubs and their officials were told in private? Moreover, on the question whether Melbourne did or did not at all times perform on its merits, would this not depend on the club's understanding of what was meritorious? And if it could not depend on the advice of the CEO as to what was and what was not meritorious, then surely there is a problem with the law?

If you're talking about a single off the cuff interview, the answer is no.However, there was nothing informal or glib about Demetriou's pronouncements. He repeated them often and in detail. I have heard him set out his interpretation in radio and TV interviews, twice at functions where he was guest speaker and there's nothing glib in what he says here. Our friend Fan will tell you that the author of that article is an impeccable source.

It goes to the very heart of what this is about.It means that there is a difference between the legal interpretation of tanking and its popularly held meaning. The AFL has a rule that defines tanking and the rule has been explained from time to time by the AFL and more particularly by Andrew Demetriou himself as having a narrow meaning which excludes such things as list management and experimental positioning of players. That is what I consider to be the AFL's law regarding tanking . That law can't be retrospectively changed in 2013 to apply to a set of circumstances that prevailed in 2009, 2007 or any other year. On that basis, I don't believe we can be charged unless the coach instructed his players to do things during a game which would minimise our chances of winning. Quite apart from the questionable investigation techniques applied by the AFL's people, this would ultimately see any case against us, thrown out by a court of law (if it ever came to that). In fact, there is only one instance of tanking that I believe can be proven and that is against Richmond, which by Terry Wallace's admission, gained a priority draft pick as a result of him not making moves to win a game against St. Kilda in 2007 i.e he did not allow his team to play on its merits. The AFL however, has failed to investigate or charge either the Tigers or Wallace. There have been other claims of tanking against several other clubs over the past decade or so but the AFL hasn't taken these seriously either and, as a result, it's my view that the AFL's tanking rules are bad law and need to be reviewed. There is a disconnect between the L-A-W (where have I heard that before?) and the public perception of tanking which is what 99% of the population (including you) consider tanking to be - that is the much wider view which included experimenting with player positioning, unusual tactics and dropping players or sending them off for early surgery. If that's your definition of "tanking" then a dozen clubs including us have tanked in one way or another going back to Fremantle in 1999 all the way to the AFL love child GWS in 2012. Back in 2009, I supported the idea that we should do whatever was in our power to collect the priority draft pick. I still found it repugnant that the AFL put the temptation in front of us but, we're all mortals and we ate the forbidden (but very legal) fruit.

Anyone ever taken what they call a "reflex" catch? I have twice in my less than illustrious cricket career. I've always written them off as complete flukes because I have no idea how I took them. On one of those occasions, all I remember is the ball being bowled and the next second it was in my hands. Probably looked like a good catch but I'm certain it had absolutely nothing to do with any skill I possessed for catching the ball. Anyway, the next ball was faced by a different batsman. At least Mark Taylor was known as a decent slips fieldsman and regularly took spectacular catches.

I've tried to stay out of this because the idea of copying something directly out of American culture is more than somewhat cringeworthy. However, it came to mind that soccer crowds in the UK seem to stir their teams up with some good old numbers like this one - Only problem is that it sounds good when you've got a packed house at the G but might be a bit flat in front of a few dozen at Skilled Stadium or the Blacktown Showgrounds.

It doesn't matter how others perceive of us and we of them because it's what the team does on the field that matters in the end. However, to those of us (like me) walking around wearing rose coloured glasses after reading those glowing pre season reports, the fact that other supporters think we're a "Crapola club", whilst not particularly traumatic, is a good way of bringing us back down to earth. I remember feeling pretty good about the club's future this time 12 months ago and rather ecstatic when we knocked off Collingwood in the NAB Cup. How did things turn out after that?

More mischievous misreporting from Age hack writer Pierik in Agent calls for player protection on tanking - McLean never alleged outright tanking. His words were "[T]hey don't call it tanking; we would call it 'experimenting' or whatever it was." "Experimenting" is exactly what the AFL's boss was condoning in this article back in 2009 - AFL boss backs Dees after loss. So if the head honcho of the competition says it's in order to "experiment" then it's in order not only to do so but for your officials and coaches to discuss "experimentation" irrespective of their motive - just as long as the coaches don't instruct players not to try to win games, something about which there is apparently no evidence in the current tanking enquiry and which Pierik himself virtually concedes in today's article. Pierik's comment above is therefore mischievous and probably defamatory. But that's not all. The sheer stupidity of his nonsensical final paragraph is testament to the pathetic standard of reporting we've been exposed to by Fairfax Media since the very start of the tanking shenanigans . The article states that Chris Connolly he is "the victim of a conspiracy despite an overwhelming number of witness statements detailing the now infamous 'vault meeting'" but the conspiracy is not in the number of statements but rather than in their content and the way in which the meeting has been detailed and interpreted. The subtlety of that difference is possibly a little bit over this bloke's head.

I think you're being a little unfair to Neale Daniher in that during the early years of his stint as coach, his style was generally what was required to get a taste of the finals but we were short in personnel to go all the way. However, as the game evolved Daniher's game plan and style didn't keep pace with the development of the game. At the same time he tended to give too much latitude to his more established players, some of who became lazy and selfish, thereby laying the foundation for many of the problems we continue to face today. The framework of the side became emaciated and by the Bailey era, we simply didn't have the quality and we needed to go into an extensive rebuild. In hindsight, I think Bailey's lot was made harder because he took over a team that needed possibly six years to develop and ... on top of that ... he never managed to catch up in terms of the best practicrs and the modern trends in the game. Now, the question is whether Mark Neeld can coach successfully at the elite level. I think he has it right in theory with the much greater emphasis on defence but do we have what it takes to match it with the big boys? Time will tell. Thanks to all those who took the time to report on Friday's session. Thanks to the tennis, we're back at Casey Fields on Monday.

Which would make him the third best satirist at the Age behind Wilson and Pierik.

Draft tampering was one of the charges recently brought against Adelaide and Kurt Tippett along with salary cap breaches but that was a case where the Crows admitted to hanky panky over Tippett's contract negotiations. The AFL does issue the odd threat about draft tampering but, a few years ago, it ignored Luke Ball's refusal to talk to clubs other than the one he wanted to go to and even his medical files were not made available for assessment by any other club. They should have thrown the book at him but Collingwood was involved and, these days, you don't want to upset the stronger teams, do you? You do have to go back a long way to find any meaningful action from the AFL on draft tampering. In 1989, Brett Chalmers of Port Adelaide (SANFL) was drafted by Richmond but he remained in SA (MFC draftees from around that time who did the same were Darren Jarman and Paul Rouvray). Three years later, the Tigers tried to trade Chalmers to Collingwood as their hold on him was about to expire. The Pies offered peanuts in return and Chalmers subsequently went into the 1992 draft a hot favourite to be selected in the top three. Collingwood was investigated at Richmond's request but there was no evidence of any breach by the Pies and they were exonerated. On draft day, the clubs were reluctant to select Chalmers who finally went to Collingwood at 10. Melbourne selected Martin Pike at 9 although its recruiters had been keen to select Chalmers. It transpired that, on the night before the draft, Chalmers faxed a letter to the clubs with picks 1 to 9 indicating that he would be staying with Port Adelaide in 1993 and following that wanted to go to his chosen club, the AFL Magpies. In May 1993, Chalmers was one of three Port Adelaide Magpie players brought up on draft tampering charges (Andrew McKay and Robert Pyman were the others). All were adamant they only wanted to play for Collingwood. McKay and Pyman were subsequently fined $10k each for refusing to speak to any other club but Chalmers had gone a step further with his fax saying he wanted only to play for Collingwood. He was fined $30k and banned from playing for the AFL Magpies for 3 years. Later, he had a stint with each of the AFL's SA teams. Of course, the draft tampering in that case was far different to that which has now been apparently raised against Melbourne, but given Dean Bailey's vehement denial of allegations that he instructed his players to lose, one wonders about the validity of such a charge? How could this "tampering" have affected any other club or any players involved in the draft if nothing was actually done on the field to influence any of the results which ultimately determine the team placings upon which the draft is dependent?

We're in heated agreement on that. I posted an explanation at the end of the AFL Investigation thread as to why it was closed. That thread had degenerated and veered so far off topic that it reached the point where it was almost unreadable. This is an attempt to continue discussion on a rational basis and, to achieve that, the level of moderation will be stricter. Posts involving personal abuse, bullying and flaming will be deleted and repeat offenders will be given holidays and ultimately banned. Hopefully, it won't come to that and people will get the message.

Could posters please stay on topic and refrain from abusing others. Hazy is right - it does nothing to add to the topic. Thanks Edit: I forgot to mention that as much as is humanly possible, I will endeavour to remove posts that offend against the above until people get the message.

The tanking debate will continue for some weeks to come and I think it will continue beyond the time of the resolution of the current investigation. Watching the Oprah interview of Lance Armstrong, I couldn't help but wonder why cycling authorities the world over allowed their sport to degenerate to its current low point. Lou Sweeney sums it up in The Lance and Oprah Show: "I pretty much knew already you couldn't ride a bike up a mountain at full tilt for three weeks on just a muesli bar and Jesus." We knew the evils that beset the sport and cycling authorities took on and conquered some offenders but Armstrong, who was suspected of drug cheating by some commentators, was given free rein for too long a time. There are some who are now suggesting that cycling be removed from the Olympics. It's also a bit reminiscent of prohibition and marihuana laws. They were brought in for a reason but they didn't quite work and the way in which they were enforced led to accusations of corruption by authorities. Now we have this investigation where one club has been chosen as the target for investigation when we know that the relevant rule has been and continues to be breached by other clubs whose activities have been ignored. GWS dropped 10 players one week in 2012 and were rewarded with Lauchie Whitfield but this was OK; the coach apparently played the game on its merits. There are those who will say that the MFC invited it because its officials mishandled the situation by talking out of school or by being too obvious in the way they conducted their list management. If that is the case it still begs the question why other clubs weren't investigated. In 2007, a Carlton board member boasted to me about Fevola being rested to allow his club to snare pick #1 and a "big fish". They did that after winning losing the Kreuzer Cup. A closer look at some other late 2007 Carlton games really indicates how obvious the Blues were in their attempts. None of this absolves Melbourne if it really "tanked" but the AFL CEO had previously defined tanking and list management and, based on his narrow definition of the act of tanking, I can't see how Melbourne tanked on the basis of what I've read to date*. Moreover, I believe that the rule against tanking is inadequate for what the AFL is apparently trying to achieve. To my mind, the existing rule is bad law and it's lack of execution against a succession of others before Melbourne makes the current investigation a farce. The AFL has to find a way out of this and then make new and better laws for the future. This selective attack on one club alone will leave it open to further claims of incompetence at best and possibly corruption at worst. * I maintain that the issue of defining "tanking" is not the same as whether a club wants to win games or whether a particular club's actions are morally defensible. In Melbourne's case I covered those matters back in 2009. For the record, I supported us not winning more than 5 games but still found the idea repulsive.

This thread has degenerated to the point where it no longer serves any purpose. It's closed. That is not to say that threads regarding the tanking issue are now banned; to the contrary, we will continue to encourage discussion and a wide range of views. However, in future we will endeavour to moderation political and other sensitive threads more strictly to prevent abuse, bullying, flaming and excessive and unreasonable posting. Thanks to deegirl for raising the issue in the opening post. It made for some interesting debate and discussion but inevitably has run its course for the reasons I gave above. PS: No offence to anyone who posted here on the last page. My observation is a general one.

Brian Wilson.

Great to see Austin Wonaeamirri get among the goals in the end. I think Anthony Tipungwuti is the Tiwi player who came to Gippsland to play with the Power and was considered a draft chance. Has trained with the Scorpions but I don't know if he's going to come back this way.

Junior McDonald - yet another comeback?

I don't think we recruited Rodan to fulfil the role of a champion. Hopefully our early draft picks of the last few years will come to the fore and provide that. Rodan's there for a purpose however, and I believe that is to add some maturity to a list that is very much lacking in experience and games played. From what I'm told, he's already making a contribution at training and it's the little one per centers that someone like him can add to the group on and off the ground that helps you develop a strong and cohesive group with a decent culture.

Can you recall how he "belittled everyone"?