iv'a worn smith

Yes it most certainly did and that is precisely my point. 19 (A5) relates to "bringing the game into disrepute". Against the dichotomy I outlined in my previous post, the AFL itself, by introducing the priority pick system, has undermined its very own rules. The key phrase in 19 (A5) is "not to perform on their merits". Given the quality of our list in 2009, or lack thereof, what were our actual merits? You can only work with what you've got. That inescapable fact seems to be forgotten

Points well made Binman. Did we "tank" or didn't we? The debate is moot, for to have such a debate is to ignore the dichotomy which, to any reasonable mind, is patently obvious, in terms of the "rules" as they existed at the time in question. Again, we cannot be charged with "tanking". However, if we were to be charged with anything, it is clear that the AFL Rules, as constituted, mean we can be charged with bringing the "Game into disrepute". Given the construct of the rules which existed at that time, drafted and implemented by the AFL itself, it, at the very least, if not a legally flawed concept, is certainly counter intuitive, should the AFL seek to charge us, in relation to conduct in which we allegedly engaged, within a paradigm which was designed by the AFL Commission. As an analogy, Melbourne Cup horses are "handicapped" according to the perceptions, real or otherwise, of the handicapper. In this case, the AFL were in charge of rating the "handicaps" made available to all football clubs, based on their performance during the time in question. If the handicapper got it wrong, then it is not the beneficiary of such a flawed system, that ought to be punished. AFL, to thine ownself be true.

The problem is CBF, she can't articulate what she "sees", so that it is in terms of something that is sustainable and prosecutable. All her current article can be described as no more than a recycled crock

too much "sauce" by the sound of it. But I hope "there" not in "that match trouble". sic (hic; hic, hic)

I tend to think, anyone who takes on the job of running the AFL, is on a hiding to nothing, given the passions that run so deep with the majority of "shareholders", not to mention obvious vested interests of those "shareholders". That said, I can think of no other CEO, earning the salary that AD earns, of a similar size business to the AFL, who would not escape severe scrutiny, were that business to receive a similar level of negative publicity as the AFL has done recently. In fact, I can think of no other CEO, who would earn as much as AD, for running a similar size business as the AFL. Of course, I stand to be corrected on that score.

Under current AFL rules, we can only be charged with "bringing the game into disrepute". There is no "tanking rule". Under the AFL system that was in place at that time, there is no sustainable argument which could lead to a finding of guilt, based on that system.

Unequivocally, the answer is no, I do not think we "tanked". I believe we simply operated within a system which was conceived and had life breathed into it by the AFL itself. It was a system put in place that we and others AFL teams used to its greatest affect available at that time.

It's not the size of the infringement which is at issue.. What it is about is consistency of the application of the rules, supposedly being invoked in our case. Goose and gander stuff really. As for the now infamous Kruezer Cup, Travis Johnston got 43 possessions that night, not because he was a talented footballer, but because no-one went near him. May as well have had the witches hats out. Whitnall and Fevola being used in the most inopportune ways. As others have said, whether you believe we tanked or not, the inescapable fact is we were a woeful footy team in 2009 and "rotations" of players, through "unusual" positions, would not have mattered a jot back then. We simply were not good enough in the vast majority of games. A poor team = tanking? I don't think so.

Settle down RPFC. You're drawing a long bow now.

Which is a very equinanimous response

OK, I suppose that is why Lawyers are already involved in this process?

Oh, if only basic common sense prevailed in Law. As for your final comment, and so say all of us. I am just concerned that what appears to be in the interest of both parties may not transpire. What then?

And your basis for such a scenario occurring is? Of course, we will not go to Court if it will cripple us financially, but as I said on a previous post, no-one goes to Court, unless more than confident of the outcome, before the writs are even issued. The Lawyers already engaged will know the answer to this scenario. I doubt anyone on here - right now - does know. Alternatively, if we do not get the "no case to answer" verdict, we will be labelled as cheats in perpetuity, which will have far more and wider reaching negative affects on the club in the long term. Not forgetting that if we are found guilty and subsequently sanctioned, it will be done under the guise of bringing the "game into disrepute". If that does eventuate, it will have the potential of further ramifications for the operations of this football club.

If we were threatened with sanction by the AFL, a decision to go to Court and challenge would only be taken where there is a strong professional belief and opinion that the case has such significant merit, it would almost be impossible to lose it. You do not usually go to Court, unless you are charged with a criminal offence or you're more than confident of the outcome. We have enough legal talent within the clubs influential supporter base to make sure this would occur. Who knows, some altruistic Demon Legal Eagle may even offer to do it pro bono. That said, let's not jump at shadows just yet. I would surmise that the AFL is trying to come up with a well worded and rehearsed announcement so as not to lose face in the eyes of the football public. Once that is done, I think we will be reasonably comfortable.

Please explain??

Again, what seems to be forgotten in all of this is that in 2009, we were - plain and simple - a bloody awful footy side. At that time, it was a case of drastic measures, for drastic times. In 1948, Jack Mueller played just 2 home and away games and was coaching the 2nds, when he was recalled to the 1st's for the final series. He kicked 8 in the prelim final and 6 each in the grand final and subsequent replay. Smithy obviously wasn't "foxing" then, he must have been "tanking" for most of the 1948 season. Then there was Big Bob Johnson, who, although ostensibly a ruckman, formed a partnership with then full forward, Athol Webb, to be the "decoy". How would Wilson view such "decoys" at the Melbourne Football Club in the modern era? I guess, the difference being, back then we were winning flags. Still, the principle does not alter.

Sorry NB. Surely the media could not possibly have mis-reported this? Could they??????

The AFL mate, as reported in the Hun earlier this week.

Maurie,In an effort to add gravitas to her story, she spun it so the "vault" sounded like some sinister star chamber and her citing of a comment she attributes to Chris Connolly, failed to understand the underlying humour in it. Other than that, there was no substance to the story whatsoever. Her article, quinnellaed with Brock " Are your McLeans showing" OTC interview, precipitated this damn inquiry. That is why we are angry. A mere bagatelle, that is nothing more than a distraction to the main game. A pox on their houses I say.

A beautifully mixed metaphor Binman. Still, if they say it will be this week, then just get on with it...........pleasssssssse

So has the AFL announced a press conference yet? What are they waiting for?

That's the one. Occasionally on SEN as well

Perhaps another interesting topic starter on the forum, but this guy would have to be one of the most annoying people in radio, second only to possibly Jason Richardson

True, but a total lack of confidence will do that to almost any team. With what Neeld has injected into this squad, I truly believe our collective confidence will grow throughout the year and that will translate into much better on field performances.