Vipercrunch

If as you say the board fixed the result to merge and not fight, isn't that an example of the club wanting to take the easy way out?

Nor anything to hang only us on.

OK, you concede 1club as equally blatant. So how many clubs would have to tank as blatantly as us before you would say the investigation should have been wider than just us?

I concede that one journo (Weatley) says that only one other club (Carlton) was equally as blatant (but less incompetent). Are there any other examples?

I don't have any deep knowledge of what and how Carlton went about it, just the general perception from a majority of the media that we were more blatant.

The AFL probably should go after Calrton and others too in a fair world, but it doesn't lessen our guilt if they don't.

So it's not about tanking, it's about how blatant it was? Does this sound a bit silly to you? Is it okay to tank if you cover it up well enough? FMD! Give me a break.

If you must comment, please read the posts leading up to it. It is a discussion about how blatant we were compared to others brought on because I suggested we were the most blatant of the lot.

I have always disliked tanking however blatant it is. I am however chosing to concern myself more with what we have done, rather what other clubs have.

Can you name a few other times when "we've wanted the easy way out" I'm not sure what you mean by that?

I'm not MFC history buff so i will just give you 2 off the top of my head

1. We (collectively as a membership - I was not a member at the time for whats it's worth) voted yes to merge with Hawthorn becuase we thought we could swallow them up, retain our identity and profit.

2. We treated Gutnick as our saviour because it would be easier than raising money other ways (rattling tins like other clubs or digging deep like Stynes was able to encourage to do).

Watch above link. Here's just one unbiased highly respected journo who doesn't think our club was anymore blatant.

PS. And the highly respected journalist is not Caroline Wilson.

He said we were definetely the most incompetent at doing it and but only AS (equal) blatant as Carlton. It puts us in a very short list and the most incompetent of the two. Hardly anything to hang our hats on.

Given the above and yet we still managed to be ahead at the siren, it would seem we were such a super team we should have been able to win the flag.

At the very least we were too good to deserve a priority pick.

IMO S_T you need to change one word Had.

I don't believe that is now part of our make up.

I hope you're correct, but we did still give 17 and 18 year old kids some of the more famous MFC jumper numbers. I would much prefer to hold those numbers back for 3rd and 4th year players who have truly become AFL players. Would it be a bad thing to give Toumpas and JV numbers in the mid 40's instead of 5 and 7?

This is what few posters here conveniently forget. They cannot recall the lengths other teams previously went to such as this instance ^ to obtain early pick(s), yet have this opinion as follows: -

Mostly because they have a better understanding of watching our team week in, week out and not others in the past because they couldn't care less what other teams did. ie. rose coloured glasses view.

I have brought this point up before, and it remained unchallenged.

Find any un-biased journo who suggests others were more blatant....

Perhaps you are correct, but while journos say others tanked, more often than not they go out their way to say we were the most blatant.

We haven't won anything for 48 years is because we seem to always want the easy way out.

Tank now and the priority pick will lead our club out for the football wilderness. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

We have a pathetic messiah complex.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I agree with most of your post, but the most blatant "list management" was indisputably Carlton losing the last 11 in a row.

To say we were more obvious is unnecessary self-flagellation which in no way adds to the credibility of your comments.

The win with a kick after the siren is really evidence suggesting we were not, in fact, trying to lose. That scenario could not possibly have been orchestrated.

Thats not the way I see it. For us to only just lose given the extreme list management we undertook is evidence that we really didn't deserve the priority pick the loss gave us. If we stuck to what I would deem normal list management, we would have won IMO.

I don't know what Carlton did for those 11 losses, but the wholesale and inexplicable positional changes that we used against Richmond would be hard to beat. PJ on Nathan Brown? Hard to rationalise that one (but I am sure people will lol).

mate if we roll over to those hollow charges we are dead. That is a victim.

The fight is not over.

Or should not be.

You are free to wave your white flag.

1. Each to their own, but given we undertook probably the most blatant and over the top "list management' in the games history in 2009 and then still only maganed to 'win" last place by a kick after the siren, I do not think we deserved the priority pick we received. IMO you can dance around with technicalities all you want, but it is no hollow charge.

2. IMO again here, but we did the wrong thing so we deserve to get punished. The back drop over precedence etc etc has and should mitigate the punishment but to continue to fight the likely outcome (we still await the officila verdict) is folly.

We are pretty much a joke witht the public, and the only way to gain respect is to start doing the right thing for a long period of time. Journalists will go us because we have made mistakes. Caro has gone at us hard in part because we are weak and we did something she finds particularly vile. Don't get me wrong, her methods and language in some cases has often made me angry, but there is no conspiracy. She is having a crack at a soft target for doing something she really doesn't like.

Heads down, work hard and let on and off field success do the talking.

I really liked the Jake Niall article too. Even down to his description of what we allegedly did wrong ('conspired to not win games'). I also liked that he put it all into some pespective against the current investigation into Essendon (Defcon one, in terms of potential fallout, compared with tanking's Defcon three).

I'm hoping that this can all get sorted in the next day or too and we can put the poor decisions of 2008-2009 behind us.

On a side note, I have HATED the sooking and complaining re: all this that has come from some of our supporters. If we keep playing the victim all the time we'll become like the Kangaroos in the 90's. Always went on and on about everyone being againts them. We did the wrong thing and we got punished. Now shut up and watch the football.

Not good. I hope whoever it is, is OK. Must be a serious one to bring an ambulance in though. Fingers crossed for a good outcome.

_{-Tappy completed the session. If he continues to build his tank I think he can useful as a high half forward.}

I think thats his best spot too. A game late-ish last year saw him playing that role particulary well, taking a lot of strong marks at full pace then delivering into the 50. Early Ryan O'Keefe kind of role.

Well call me 'silly', Billy, ouch, but what is it you & yours hide?

are you looking to challenge, or is it a part of the ruse of the clubs defense?

Because your 'not elaborating' just confuses the whole picture.

* I'll ask again a simple question, have you had any discussion with any of the MFC's defense team, about the AFL's 800 page document, & their strategies to fight it?

I haven't read all of the 90 pages of this thread, but surely it's a long bow to suggest someones comments here are part of a ruse of the clubs defense?

All this talk about activity in Demonland somehow being part of some board level power struggle or trying to out people from the club seems to me as ludicrous.

Can't wait for the footy to start....

I don't find it surprising at all that Jim and the Board are being implicated in some quarters. After all, it was suggested by some very early in the piece that forces opposed to the Board and some officials have been strongly involved in a campaign to denigrate and deligitimise them stretching back much further than the current tanking investigation. I think even Blind Freddie might have noticed this.

This bit made me lol.

Some of you blokes must check under your bed for the boogie man every night too.

6 weeks today to go before our first NAB appearance.

Looking forward to it to see if what we are gleaning from the training reports is as positive as some/most of us hope.

Last year - Fat bottomed Girls - Queen

This year - Come out and play - Offspring

I didnt miss it - of course if there is evidence that a court would find beyond doubt then ummm a sanction wouldnt be overturned.

But we are all working at this point from the same stuff printed ( rumoured) in the papers. The evidence that has been reported (rumoured) from what has been printed is subjective at best and yet there is still talk of being charges. If this is the case then in my opinion there is a difference between what the AFL considers actionable and what a court would uphold.

For what it is worth - I would think that AFL would have advice that if they charged a club under the rule you have quoted with the evidence they have that there would be strong possibility of it being overturned if challenged in court. ( unless as you say the evidence is that strong and we have not heard that this is the case)

I addressed the likely outcome if things were as leaked/reported in my post. If what we think we know already is all there is, then this will flitter away early next year with no charges to answer.

I was highlighting the folly of saying right now that we must fight all possible charges at all costs given we don't know 100% what evidence there may be. There is a possible outcome where the evidence is beyond doubt and that a court battle will do us no good at all.

The whole situation has been a mess and if this does all turn to nothing I hope a journalist has the balls and nouce to find out why it leaked so badly.

Two types of list management.

One where it is done not caring if you win or lose as a result.

The other is where it is done deliberatly to make losing the most likely outcome.

In the end it all comes down to what motives can be proven, which is what the investigation has been all about.

Everyone could see the list management that we undertook. The investigation is to find out what our motivation was and then the outcome will be based on what motivation can be proved.

Yeah, i'm with jnrmac. Wouldn't that be considered draft tampering?

The international rookies don't take the place of any home grown players do they? They fit outside the cap and the normal list numbers as they are very experimental? Any player that falls into this catogory almost by default has no AFL background.

The real factors are the cost ($$'s and time) to find and then develop them? I assume all clubs would do some looking (given how sometimes it can be successful), but I couldn't see melbourne in its current state putting too many resources towards it.

Below is a part of an email I received from a opp club recruiter on GWS passing on Toumpas and a couple of comments on the others. I heard separately that GWS tried to draft players that where already friends hoping on the fact that the friends will stick together and stay at GWS together. They drafted a lot of Vic kids. This may be some reason on why they passed on Toumpas and went O'Rourke and Plowman. Also Corr and Jaksch who they took later I know are good mates.

"I and many others have no idea why GWS passed on Toumpas and went with O'Rourke. Toumpas is 10 times the footballer. We had Toumpas at 3 and O'Rourke at 8. Toumas is just all class in everything he does. Neat, balanced and composed. And a great kid to boot."

Viney was the steal. Just what you needed. Hard as a cats head. I just hope he doesn't get injured to often the way he plays. Kind of a kamikaze Kirren Jack.

As for Kent, Jones and Terlich they are much of the same. Hard at it footballers who have a dip. I'm not sure they are world beaters but at leastthey have the right attitude and desire to start with, which is what your Coach wants."

Should forward this email to Denham. Might help him understand what we are doing given he thinks we are just randomly calling out names and trading for whoever we can get.

/sigh

I made the IF bold, italic AND underlined it and you still missed it. Only so much I can do.

So "solid evidence that shows something beyond doubt" is not enough proof for a court....

... he was carrying more condition than any other player.....

My new favourite term for being fat.