Redleg

No that's the Agenda. Get rid of the people who got rid of him. It's called revenge.

In order to prove that, a Coach or Assistant Coach needs to say straight out that he tanked. Whether or not he was asked or directed to do so under the rule is irrelevant. Knowing that it was wrong, that Coach must say he chose to tank. That would then according to Demetriou see him banned from the AFL for life. If it was proved he was asked or directed to do so is another matter, but has nothing to do with this rule. If an employee is asked to break the law by his employer he has a choice, either to do so or refuse. He could not be sacked for refusing, as the reason would come out. Have the Coach or his Assistants said they tanked? If they have said they did we face a problem. So will the tankers.

48 years of failure, yet still we support and hope. What will the AFL do to us next?

Kiss this year's draft goodbye if pick 4 is taken off us, without a full hearing according to the rules of natural justice. This has been a selective inquiry without any right of testing the statements by the victim and the ability to call its own evidence. An injunction will stop the draft. Can't see it happening. I can however see us getting fined in a messy situation where no other club is then examined. The whole workings of the AFL would be up for examination in a Court case.

Another interesting day.

So assistant coach Libba saying that the Blues tanked and confirmed by Fev is nothing.

If he was going because of tanking, why was his agent negotiating a new contract with us? I'll say it, he lied.

Lucky I don't.

Fair enough. I just re read that part.

We may have been told to say nothing.

You better believe it. Not to mention every other thing the AFL does that is not absolutely equal to every team. Fixturing. Draft concessions. Approval of contract breaking, Scully etc. Allowing 3rd party deals for Blues on Judd but not others, like us to keep Scully. Salary cap increases for some clubs. Larger lists for some clubs. Interfering in games after the result, Freo/Saints. Putting AFL officials into clubs. etc, etc, etc.

That was said in the article. Said they would fight any sanctions and bring the other clubs over the last 10 years into it.

Good post.

You left out Freo who dropped half their team to lose and get Haselby in the last round. You also left out the Dogs who dropped Croft for the last game after kicking 5 goals the week before to get a lower draft pick. Need I keep going. A Court challenge would destroy the AFL and go on for weeks, airing more dirty laundry than the game could stand.

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

That is the point. A dozen other clubs have done the same thing and the AFL knowing that, have said that tanking doesn't exist in AFL and that it is list management and have condoned it. As Patrick Smith said today, if the AFL condones something, then the clubs can feel confident that what they are doing is ok.

Agree.

I sometimes wonder if the peripheral football matters get more media than the actual games.

What did he say?

Maybe someone has told them not to.

And what exactly is "evidence"? Usually it is a version given on oath or affirmation, that is then tested by the other side. That usually happens in a hearing, not an investigation. If one is unhappy with the reuslts of an investigation that lead to sanctions, one has the right to a Court hearing.

What would Demonland be without you sticking the boots into the club at every opportunity? Who the hell are you, clearly not a MFC supporter?

No, there is a rule that a club, player or official must not bring the game into disrepute, whatever that is.

Good summary.

Mick Malthouse has started already. He is claiming Carlton has a bad draw as they play some good sides early on, however it is rumoured that they will play only 1 final 8 side twice.