felixdacat

CW and others say that we tanked because there is a large part of the footy public that think so, and we only won four games and we lost one game by playing players out of position. I would say that you should never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

CW is full of sh!t, again another article which says nothing concrete Lots of we understand/it is likely/ appears to all code for I have NFI. This is another of The Age's rumours masquerading as breaking news. Chuck in a couple of informed guesses and rehash points that have already been written and voila. Lucky they covered themselves by saying "allegedly" isn't it, seem their legal team is switched on.

http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/1304635/no-draft-penalties-likely-for-melbourne/?cs=12 Disclaimer This information unofficially is subject to change, dependant on a moving feast of an outcome that officially is unofficial and increasing difficult to predict.

Thanks for the link wyl OMG what a great video, seems to me that someone can dish it out, but when questioned or called on it can't string a logical argument together. You think she would have been better prepared, although if you write an emotive, illogical opinion piece then that's what happens when someone pulls on the threads it all unravels and falls on the floor. She has no clue of what's happening. Still calling, no charges to answer..oh and Error, no keyboard -- press F1 to continue.

I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

I am calling it, we will have no case to answer. DB and CC and MFC will not be charged or penalised because there is little or no substantiated evidence that could lead to any hope of the AFL making a case to the commission. In relation to the comments CC made in jest at an internal meeting, The irony is that they only started bringing the game into disrepute when they were made public by a Journalist who was fed information from a disgruntled MFC former employee. The AFL are investigating said Journalist and former employee for bringing the game into disrepute. That's my position and I am sticking with it regardless, you can try and disagree with me but my answer to all replies will alternate between I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. and, Error, no keyboard -- press F1 to continue. Felix Out!

Securing Sponsorship is a theme of every CEO's tenure in every AFL Club. Certainly the Buck stops at the CEO but you do not throw the baby out with the bath water. Any other CEO you hire would still be faced with the issue of securing sponsors in this current economical and political (tanking) climate. So changing your CEO may not fix that issue. Nonetheless when it is time to consider continuing contracts or ceasing I would hope the board does it due diligence and consider the CEO and his positives and negatives in its entirety and not down to whether sponsors are signed or not.

Well done to the President, good to see a reply to the rubbish being published.

My theory in relation to her unofficial evidence is that she reads Demonland. Because regarding this issue we all know that the Club has been tight lipped and refuse to comment. So she has read a through our tanking post and has taken it from here. If you look back over the posts the defences she talks about have all been discussed and debated in this forum ad nauseum. When faced with a wall of confidentiality from the AFL and MFC the next best thing is to Google it and then jerry rig together an article like the one she has posted. I don't think the AFL would be leaking any info because it will taint any result they are aiming for and be child's play for any Lawyer worth their salt to use to the advantage of the MFC. The article is a cry for attention by a Journalist who has missed breaking all the good stories this pre season and has hitched her wagon to this donkey of an issue that no matter how much you [censored] it will not move. I have some advice if she does read these forums Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

Lazy Sunday surfing the web uncovered something I was not aware of. http://m.theage.com.au/executive-style/culture/buddy-franklin-talks-footy-and-the-spotlight-20090604-bwew.html Franklin was a smallish kid, always shorter than his sisters who used to monitor growth spurts on a wall at home in Texta. And it was due to his size that Franklin was initially rejected by his local junior league. It wasn't until he was 17 and a fully-fledged Melbourne supporter that he sprouted. By then the family had relocated to Perth, where Franklin was attending Wesley College, a school that has cultivated many a burgeoning AFL star. As a teenager, Franklin played ruck more than forward and he insists he can't remember his biggest haul of goals as a junior. "I'm not too sure, but there were probably a lot of points," he says, poking fun at his goal-kicking accuracy, the only obvious flaw in his game to date. If we could get him then that would be great. This will be a very interesting year for Buddy especially because he is holding off talks until the end of the year.

Actually ASADA can test any AFL player 365 days of the year. They have access both off season and during season. Page 10 of the brochure lays out some of the highlights of their testing regime. Also the AFL publish the results every year, not in great detail, mind you, but numbers tested and number of positive results found by ASADA.

I believe the 3 strike policy relates to illicit drugs and not doping. The doping rule is first strike could be up to 2 years suspension. Source

I don't know Jordan Gysberts getting a bit of coverage in the training thread and he keeps popping up in other random threads with Moloney which is strange because I am sure I read somewhere that they both have moved to other clubs. Oh and Dom Barry is going to be a exciting to watch this season...I hear (Just to restore some balance and to ensure I stay on topic)

Was Jordan Gysberts @ MFC training on Friday WTF.

I agree we should be okay and not go to court. But even if they did find us guilty of what they accuse and we did take them to court I am pretty sure that the club could prove on the balance of probabilities that the AFL is more likely than not guilty of not providing a process that afforded natural justice and utilized investigation methods that were not reasonable or just. You could even prove that they are guilty of creating an environment that made it beneficial to Tank maybe even a negligence tort or similar anyway. That's if I am correct on the points I raised in my previous post which I was hoping to find someone who has any knowledge around this type of litigation. The other thing is that if that is true from the little research I have done, then you can be pretty certain that the Legal team that advises the AFL would be providing advice along those lines also. which take me back to the reason I believe we are not going to be punished. Others have said that we are safe because we would take them to court and win, I am just trying to see if that was actually true or not. Civil Litigations is a very intricate business and there are no guarantees in law. So I am wondering if any one can verify that my reading of the basics of the onus/balance of proof in Civil law is correct. Oh and my missus is always right especially when she is within seeing and hearing distance.

I would love to see Barry get a few games this season, some of the training reports have really got me excited to see how he travels playing AFL footy.

The 3 strike rule IMO is the best way of addressing this issue. Players are counselled and educated through all three processes, Suspended fines and Games Suspensions activate after the 3rd failed test. The club doctors is notified at the first and any subsequent failure of tests so they can be involved in any treatment. The CEO Is informed after there is a pattern of failed tests. The identity of the players is kept confidential. Sure it may not be perfect and it may need tweaking as more and more different drugs are created but its a good system in that it gives the opportunities to the players who want to change and supports them to do so. The importance of counselling and education of players about illicit drugs and their danger is what is needed. I understand that people have a black and white attitude to illicit drugs but the reality is its not a strait forward issue that can be solved by punishing people. All that does is exacerbate the issue and people will either rebel or try to cope by taking more drugs What is known about the rehabilitation of people is that education and counselling is proven to be the most successful way of getting people to make the right choice in regards to illicit drugs. What I would ask is within the public arena who is making the loudest hue and cry and what do you think motivates them.

OMG get a room you two, lol So I'm guessing that's a No on a Training Report, Anyone...Anyone...Anyone.

Just to change tack does anyone know the answers to the following. If we need to take it to the courts then what type of civil case would we bring? Some new Tort or one that already exists. If we bring a civil case then is it true that we have the Burden of Proof as the Plaintiff? If so would the proof required be a Balance of Probabilities and not Beyond Reasonable Doubt? and if so then we would only have to prove that the AFL are probably guilty of doing whatever we are suing them for? Correct? Hoping there are some lawyers out there?

Any journo I read :-. ( and this applies across the board - not only on MFC articles) 1/ We the reader need to be savvy enough to distinguish between opinion and fact however I will judge the journo's standing in my eyes based on their presentation and whether they forward their opinions masqueraded as fact. CW has let herself down on this issue badly by her constant forwarding of her opinion and stating it as fact 2/ Accuracy - I (we) are probably more sensative on MFC issue to accuracy as we have more insight but it is simple journalist philosophy - "check your facts before publishing" 3/ Opinion - I seek balanced opinions from journalists I read. I have no idea whether some of the journalists on this issue are agenda driven or not but there has been an appalling lack of balance by most journalists. A good example of balance in my eyes is the last Gerard Healy piece - he states we tanked ( I disagree as there is no clear definition of tanking in my eyes) , he also comments on AFL induced incentive to do so and a practice that other clubs have done with tacit approval from the AFL. 4/ conclusion - (and logic) - I have been astounded that hardly one journo has taken this whole debate to its logical conclusion. There are a lot of ifs but if Melbourne are charged and if Melbourne, true to their word, take the AFL on in court there is little chance that other clubs who have done much the same will not be dragged into this. Whilst some may not agree with this, it is a very valid line of thought and I am again astounded that so few journo's have at least forwarded this scenario. So many on here have commented on here that the last thing the AFL wants is to have to have a tanking investigation into another 5 clubs yet the majority of journo's have not ventured into this at all. ( I believe if we were the only club to have "tanked" then the AFL would have little hesitation in going us boots and all) Nutbean the fact that that logic can be extended to most subjects that are close to our hearts is what saddens me. To be informed about issues and ideas is a wonderful product of the media, but when opinion is constantly masked by Fact then news articles become as reliable as an internet forum post. If you read a news article and it treated like an other post by GerardRocks72 or Carrorageagainsthedees then I am sure that it would be held to the most severe litmus test of accuracy. I am a cynical ba$tard and reckon the Journo's and their editors are aware of where this could lead in fact giving it a nudge only means more "news" to sell to the masses. But I am digressing yet again. I agree that the AFL will look at all the possible consequences of any actions they take in this matter. Their response should undergo a vigorous Legal and Risk assessment, if the advice they get is thorough then this issue will die a quick death. But hey depends on who is giving the advice if its lawyers well??...nah not even going there.

Yes it does seem like that sometimes on here especially in regards to MFC and alleged Tanking. Unfortunately Journalists since the beginning have numbered more towards imbalance views and propaganda than balanced truth. Yes the invention of the printing press enable many good causes and the sharing of ideas that changed peoples life for the good, but unfortunately it was also used to spread unsavoury messages that hurt many innocent people. Journalism today is like everything else a business and it is also unregulated and protected by the idea of a free press. But to have a regulated press that was controlled and run by government would just be a form of tyranny. So we are left with a system that means that people right stuff to make money and sell papers, these days trying to sift through the mass media for unbiased, non-sponsored and balanced information is a challenging task that people just don't have the time and energy to waste on. Sometimes you gotta just find the article that you agree with and ignore the rest. Is that the right thing to do? IDK you tell me! FWIW I think that what's right, is a hell of a lot harder to do then what is easy. I reckon Journo's and D'landers like me are guilty of it on occasions. Does that mean that they and I are wrong? Who knows, Who cares. But now that I have written all this I have realised that like a fluffy cloud on a spring day this post meanders across the sky going no where in particular seen by some and missed by others. I stop and think an ponder the question if words are written and remain unread by others do they exist....... I think there is something in that for none of us Ba Ha Ha Ha!

My 6 HF: Davey Clark Barry FF: Pedersen Dawes Byrnes

Interesting read there H_T. Seems the Journo's may have shot themselves in the foot.

So I am still unclear on all this, please can any one help me by defining Tanking for me. I just think there is just not enough info out there for people. If this is not the right forum please can some one direct me to a more appropriate one.

Is it true that AD as the CEO will have a say in any discussion, but will not have a vote in any decision? I am sure I have read that somewhere. If it is then AD can only influence the outcome in terms of his only views on tanking and the benefits and risks of any decisions. The vote will still come down to the commissioners. I remember seeing somewhere that the only Veto in play would be if 13 or 14 of the clubs decided they did not like the decision. If only we could wrangle a veto from 13 other clubs!