hoopla

KC and others, I do have to ask, how will this have such a big impact on us, in the immediate future that is?

The entire Melbourne list train together during preseason, and I'd imagine for most of the normal season's training sessions. How much do our "reserves players" have to do with the Casey team, other than on game day?

You'd have to think that all the decent coaches interested in a job next year have already been signed up - and even a gun new coach needs time to get to know his players.

The delay is a real concern - it must be working against Casey's recruiting and pre-season training plans vis a vis the other VFL clubs.

I want Jesse Hogan to play in a well coached competitive team next year. With every passing "coachless" day this becomes less and less likely.

Me thinks they're at loggerheads !!

Some little whiles ago just prior to the Scorps attempt at self immolation I recall reading that the MFC were negotiating the alliance going forward. A very big part of this though wad the insistance that Melbourne have a greatert say in how Casey went about , well everything lol as I seem to remember the tone of the article was even them Melb was worried about Casey and far from impressed by its ability to run itself let alone any alignment and as such the interests of Melb.

Then it went bang !!! Then Casey went for a chat with Vlads ppl and I belive we held their hand at that point (happy to be corrected)

Not much seems to have surfaced ,publicly, about the conditions of its bail out but one might suppose some of the overiding conditions probably didn't/don't sit well with dyed in the wool casey stalwarts-.

This sounds very much like the rucking of antlers. Casey won't win this and need to get on board the new reality.

It will be frustrating for some, humbling for others.

Build a bridge people.

Methinks - you are right

The reality is all that the stats ( champion ) can do is effectively evaluate was has BEEN.. its next to useless on identifying trends or collaborative changes the likes of which happen with list overhauls etc.

youd be a mug to place any coin on the basis of this Data's projections.

Lies, damn lies - and statistics ...... and nonsense.

It doesn't even get history right - the Swans won the flag last year.

............and then there is the small matter of 25% changes in team lists!

I reckon theyve just about run out of stones by now !!

..... yeah ..... but they've just gone back and turned the same stones over again ..... I thought Anderson said in his presser only last week that they were still turning over evidence?

Well, they may as well announce it on New Year's Eve, because once the new year is in and the 'journo's' and the wannabe's get back to their desks the re-hashing will most likely resume, and I wonder if the AFL will ever be comfortable with it's choosing.

New Year's day would be the go ..... nobody even tries to follow the news that day

You are giving me a small glow IWS.

Please be correct.

Beware of lawyers bearing gifts

(.... but yes you have put the possibility of a happy new year back into the melting pot)

I can imagine exactly that. Its what the AFL wants, Put to bed forever.

................ well they are going about it all wrong. The best way to do that is to stop looking !!

Two Captains and a Vice Captain is a bit messy - but I think Jonesy has earned some additional recognition.

Broke McUnclean's big mouth has cost the AFL a lot of money, let alone bad publicity.

Hard to imagine for comments that held no evidence whatsoever, just opinions.

I really do think the AFL has grounds to caution McLean. Three years after the fact ( and contrary to his own statements at the time) McLean has come and made damning public comments about the inside workings of his former employer. So what , you say, he has the right to say what he likes? Imagine what would happen to the AFL's reputation if every player with a grievance against his former club came out and had a crack. Members of other professional associations have to abide by codes of ethics in the interests of their professions as a whole. Isn't part of every AFLPA contract that you not bring the game into disrepute? Hasn't McUnclean done precisely that?

You can tell me that bias is affecting my judgment - and perhaps you'd be right - but you wouldn't want every unhappy player to follow his lead At the very least the AFL should make it clear that disgruntled players should take their concernsdirectly to the AFL and not to the media!

Last season the reaction of Melbourne supporters to Scully hit the headlines.I reckon our response to McLean next year might be even more colourful. Of course Malthouse may not give us the opportunity - by leaving him in the VFL where he belongs

Disagree. It is in fact the opposite. They can now say we did everything possible and used all available resources and couldn't find evidence of rule breaking by the MFC.

I know that's the other argument - and how I hope its the right one.

But I can't imagine the AFL coming out and saying that we have spent 6 months (plus!) chasing down every thing that moved at the MFC in 2009 and there is no evidence they tanked ( threw games or whatever).

"We wish to assure the doubters that we have subjected Melbourne to every interrogation technique known to mankind and found they have no case to answer. We ( I, Vlad) have been confident of this all the way through but after Brock McLean's claims felt that it was important for the integrity of the competition to devote considerable time and money to prove that absolutely. We appreciate the willing cooperation of the MFC"

"Yes Caroline you have a question?" ...... " Look I'm not going into detail this morning - but let's just say that individual statements can only be properly understood in context" ...... " No Caroline I'm not going to go into individual matches - but let's just say that some sound coaching moves don't look logical from the other side of the fence". "Yes Caroline, you might think that its possible to make judgments like this in 5 minutes - but you'll just have to take my word for it that these judgments involve dozens of variables and thousandsof pieces of evidence" "Yes Caroline, it may sound strange to you that we had to interview Dean Baileys four times (actually I think it was six) to decide this - that's just a measure of how complex it was .... besides we were in Adelaide anyway on the Tippett affair" ........ "No , at no stage did we involve legal counsel because at no stage during the entire investigation did we contemplate any findings that Melbourne would have sought to deny" ...." No .. the investigation never changed direction - it was just a systematic evidence-gathering process"

It can't be that hard to establish innocence - unless you are absolutely determined that you are going to establish some guilt - in which case you'll find it.

If you are right that the delay is because they want to demonstrate that they have been thorough - then all they are doing is demonstrating that they have been stupid ( and incredibly wasteful)

If there was a specific rule we'd broken, I'd be worried.

If there was a precedent of another club who'd been punished for similar behaviour, I'd be worried.

If there wasn't numerous other clubs who have done exactly the same thing, I'd be worried.

If the club hadn't rattled it's legal sabres, I'd be worried.

The question is how elegantly can the AFL shut it down, without a legal fight and it spreading to a whole of league investigation... and that's the AFL's problem not the MFC's.

McLardy's made it clear from Day One that we'll take a guilty verdict to court. The only way the AFL will avoid the court - is by shuttingit down before Clothier and Haddad find something damning in the rubbish bin. It will be the MFC's problem if it gets that far.

We have done nothing of the kind. Again we only maintained a practice thats been around since dot.

I will tell you who has brought the game into disrepute. The AFl itself through its self serving bullying practices. These have been ably aided by the shrews such as Wilson and Denham and trolls like Ralph. they brought all this upon the game, not us.

Actually the person who has really brought the game into disrepute by airing his whinges in public is Chris Judd's nemesis , Brock McLean

I call this the "my kids" approach by the AFL - with the media playing the part of my kids and me being the AFL.

kids - are we there yet ? me - not yet

kids - are we there yet ? me - not yet

kids - are we there yet ? me - not yet

kids - are we there yet ? me - not yet

When we do get there it has taken so long that my kids have lost interest and moved on to something else.

I like it

... but your kids have got a heck of a lot more commonsense than the AFL ( and C Wilson)

You're kidding yourselves if you think Caro will eat humble pie if we cop a slap on the wrist or less. She will merely sneer: "I'm not wrong - everyone knows what Melbourne really did."

Hate to say it ..................... but you are right.

It's not Wilson's fault we are where we are, it's ours. She is reporting on it and I want to know what's going on. She's the only one who is shedding any light on it.

She is also only reporting what she knows, not what the AFL knows which is a point I think many miss and really the only thing that matters. If Wilson doesn't report it doesn't mean it's not being investigated and if Wilson does report it doesn't mean the AFL agree with her position. I'm not spooked by Wilson at all. She's just a journalist.

She clearly doesn't like us but so what. I'm much more worried about what the AFL think. It's important to try and separate the wheat from the chaff with Caro and it's why I like her articles.

I can't believe that Fan is off again with his Wilson Worshipping.

Surely Fan you can concede two things

1. Wilson's information is not necessarily accurate and is not free from bias.She doesn't reliably separate the wheat from chaff - just as often she simply produces the chaff. If ( if) there was a time that she had influential and reliable contacts that time has passed.

2. By producing inflammatory headlines Wilson does influence the opinion of the casual observer. You acknowledge that she is against us - and so that influence is necessarily damaging to our brand.

By looking forward to her articles you are (1) looking forward to receiving potentially misleading information; and (2) seeing the public exposed to information damaging to the reputation of the MFC. Why is that?

Your views on Wilson may once have been justified - they are not anymore. You really need to rethink your position.

Who cares? If Neeld achieves a shift of culture, gets the club moving in the right direction and we start playing finals..

These decisions need to be looked at with a broader view, and the results judged on what happens at the MFC not elsewhere.

Yes ..... I agree with you

If we really start performing then its neither here nor there that our discards perform elsewhere.If Neeld's recruiting and training strategies produce a winning mix - then he's done the job.

Facile journalism.....

What Ralph has done is connect the two where no connection actually exists. It's like saying a police criminal investigation has to be completed before the Supreme Court rises for its summer break. What nonsense.

He's really struggling for copy isn't he? He probably wrote it a few weeks ago while sitting in front of his calendar planning his holidays - which seems to have already started

All of this reminds me very much of the adage "Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread "

There is a very good reason why the whole issue of "list management" had been let alone. Its quiksand. Wiser heads at the AFL ( not necessarily cleverer ones, just wise in this instance ) simply realised that once you set of down the path to Tanksville that you would invariably at some point become so immersed in the quagmire that extradition becomes near on impossible. For this reason it was left alone , ne denied for years. There's no problem ( well there is now and its really of our own creation , so no admission there..lol ) What was once a seemingly harmless exercise now had grown into serious use of the end of season ( or for some the whole season ) as a building block , a conduit to rebirthing a team. As with all cultures ( especially those of the Petrie dish variety ) they grow. This one morphed quietly into a monster.

Demteriou realised that the only real way to deal with this was to effectively starve it and let it die away of natural course. Eventually if all carrots were removed then with no attraction teams would move on to other avenues of recourse in reshaping teams and it ( the AFL) would have been spared the agony of dealing with the beast.......................

Of course it came as no surprise to Demetriou when Andersen tendered his recognition having fallen upon a sword as the sword was most conveniently left by Demetriou for him to do so.

The Crusade has now become not much more than a lost and riderless horse whose days are spent wandering aimlessly and ineffectually nibbling her..............

Great read BB

And I reckon your are on the money about Anderson.

What all this ignores of course is that every day the fiasco drags out, the MFC suffers. This thing is hanging over our heads - and as potential members and sponsors wait for the outcome - we lose money.

The club can't come out and criticize the delay ......... but you'd someone in the media might point it out.

We've been penalised already.The longer the thing goes the harder it will be for the AFL to justify a "not guilty" verdict. ... and if that's what they do find - they should give us compensation.

There is no need to make a disclosure about the AFL investigation as the directors dont believe there is any wrongdoing and it has no impact on the financial statements. Furthermore the AFL investigation is being held behind closed doors. What possible informed or knoweldgeable disclosure with reference to the financial statements could or should be made by the directors. They dont know the status or disposition anymore than the media. And its inappropriate to make a categorical statement of innocence when it has no bearing to the financial statements. And how can you deny liability (contingent or otherwise) when at the date the accounts would have been signed does not exist? Its not a matter of an option.

I dont think the disclosure of the loan is a notable positive given it was disclosed last year and the loan has not been repaid. I just hope its disclosure was initiated by the Directors and not the auditors. Its most bizarre that we make a loan to a CEO who is also a FH donor. I cant see why the loan was made in the first place

Disclosure of "events subsequent to balance date "with potentially significant effects on the reader's assessment of the financial health of the organisation is always an option.The directors have decided that nothing of financial significance will emerge from the investigation - and that the best way to convey that is to sign off the accounts without mentioning it. As I have said that's fine by me. They'll just answer the question if its asked.

I also struggle to comprehend the reason for the initial loan - but now that it has effectively been repaid I'm happy to move on.

Hoopla, did the full financial statement show that we paid 100% of the cap?

No Stinga ..........not that I picked up.

There is no requirement for them to provide that detail. They would probably argue that it is commercially sensitive information which ( to my knowledge) no club discloses in its financial statements

We should be offering concession price memberships for the unemployed ,offering free memberships to the Sudanese ,Vietnamese ,New Zealand immigrants ,etc and reaching out to senior citizens and the disabled on a regular basis .

Part of the problem with our club is the old school crap that we are known for .We need to change the private image and actually embrace some of wider societies needy to ever get something back or really stand for anything but tradition.

Not trying to be too radical ,but I do think we need to look at new markets and somehow subsidise their first year as new members just to get bums on seats .

Somebody's political correctness flag will probably shoot into the air - buts its a good idea, Biff.

Also Casey kids and their parents. Sydney has been filling the SCG with free passes for years.

Agree with the clarity of the accounts. I also agree with the need to get our on field issues rectified as soon as possible.

A major part of the going concern improvement at MFC has been the generousity of members (which the current admin mobilised but the member dug deep..real deep) and the Bentleigh Club asset (which was initiated by Gutnick and carried onto succesful closure by three further admins of Szondy, Gardiner and current Board).

I disagree that by any objective criteria the club has done well off the field. 2012 had been annus horribilus (which is saying something over the past 3 to 4 year). The off field issues have been a major derailment to the FD. .......... I am not sure what objective measure could find a positive outcome off the field this year but the criteria would be extremely selective and narrow.

But why would a Board make any contingent provision for a liability in the accounts for an AFL investigation when their stated position is that they have done nothing wrong? Firstly its the subject of an AFL investigation to which they are not party to all the facts and not litigation. Secondly, if a company were to have litigation they would be fools to capture an amount in the accounts if they were fighting the issue. It would be tantamount to admitting liability or guilt. There is no need to make any reference to the AFL investigation.

And FWIW, the sooner the Club get Schwab to repay the $7500 loan the better. The Board, if they knew about it at the time the loan was made, had a corporate governance brainfade. I cant believe Jelland and other corporate background directors would have allowed the loan in the first place. Its a small amount but its not a good look.

I should clarify. The club has had to deal with a number of debilitating off field issues.Given our on field struggles - and despite external events beyond our control - I believe that by any objective measure the club's finances have held up extremely well.

Under accounting standards there is no such thing as a "contingency provision". I am talking about a "contingency note" !.Disclosure of the fact that the investigation is taking place is far from tantamount to an admission of guilt. There is an argument which says that full disclosure of the "state of play' including a categorical statement of innocence would have constituted a stronger denial of liability than silence does. As I have said I am more than comfortable that they have taken "the silence" option.

Again the fact that the Schwab loan has been fully disclosed is a positive. I notice Schwab is a Foundation Hero. I'd agree with you that he probably should have knocked the $7500 on the head before making any donations.Its open to Wilson to bag him for that if she wants to!

Clearly Brock is running that club...

Yeah I was hoping he would continue - just to prove Brock wrong

Just really want to make sure this article is preserved for posterity - will Caro be genius or chump, time will tell ...

I shouldn't have re-read that - its' even more disgusting than I remembered ............. "Melbourne will be harshly punished. Cameron Schwab and Chris Connolly will be finished at the club. But football lives, young men who played no real active part in the treacherous football facade which took place at the club in 2009 were ruined or at the very least tarnished by their association with it"

You do wonder how the Age's lawyers could have passed that and - remembering that the Age is a sponsor of the club - how/why the editors said "print it!"

Thanks Fifty-5 - you've upset me all over again!!

It is strange - and encouraging (?) - that Wilson has gone quiet over the past several weeks

........ but equally puzzling - and worrying - is the fact that the AFL haven't yet got to the point of even forecasting a target end date.

The greater the scope for us to fight their findings - the longer the process will need to run.

Isn't that a river in Egypt ??

Wasn't a murder committed on it?

Perhaps, but this really is the only way I can see the AFL managing to save face. They have to take responsibility and sort things out properly, which actually gives them the most control on how to get things right.

They cannot sweep things under the carpet and hope no one notices.

They can't blame the clubs cos the clubs will come back at them, and likely to do so in a court of law, not the AFL tribunal.

But I think more importantly, I don't actually think they can come out and say MFC did nothing wrong and THEN do nothing themselves.

There is a lot of merit in what you say - I just hope the AFL is "big" enough to see it that way!

One other possibility is that the AFL will ultimately make its decision not so much in terms of what MFC did that brought the game into disrepute (clearly there was no rule that the MFC broke), but rather in terms of what McLean and Wilson were able to do bringing the game into disrepute.

Thorny problem, but now is when the AFL needs to have some response to THAT, in defence of the AFL brand.

However one views the behaviour of MFC several years ago, the behaviour of McLean and Wilson and other bandwaggoners in the past six months has been genuinely damaging to the AFL as well as to one of its licence-holders, and it is currently a very live issue. It has become a major news item about the AFL's competition and its integrity, and the AFL brand has surely been hurt. When the AFL determines that the tanking allegations were without substance, the AFL may want to address its vulnerability to what has actually been extended and destructive collateral damage sustained while individuals associated with the AFL pursued in public their own agendas.

As McLean is still under an AFL contract, they do have an opportunity to sanction him for "bringing the game into "disrepute" - but to dothat they may run into the AFLPA which will rattle on about rights of free speech etc,

They cannot get stuck into Wilson and Co - without first blowing her out of the water on the facts - and then they have to factor in the importance of media support to promoting its brand.

Whatever happens you'd have to think that the AFL has every reason to release its finding during the holiday period. New Years Day sounds good.

I don't see what's that difficult, if the report says that Melbourne just 'list managed' rather than tanked, for the AFL to say 'well anyway, we've removed the incentive to tank by removing priority picks'.

They could - and should - have done that months ( and months) ago. The problem with that now is that they will have to explain why it took all this time and all those resources to work out the "bleedin' obvious"

On that mate we are in 100% agreement.

Oh and probably most of the rest as well hoopla.

Go dees

Good stuff Old Dee. I just think of you as Long-time Dee - which makes you a gun!

(Just quietly I haven't been described as a spring chicken for a while !!)

Go Dees

At the risk of offending you hoopla

Have you read any of my posts over the last 6 months?

I have never said the following

- That any player was told not to try

- That we should be punished

- That we did any more or less than Carlton or a number of other clubs.

However what I have said and will continue to say is that the FD in 2009 and particularly the Richmond game made every effort to not win that day.

Now you can give it any name you like but that is the situation IMO.

What annoys me is the number of Dees supporters that are in denial on this subject.

Oh and just a parting shot hoopla Youth does not necessarily make you a genius any more than the ageing process make you a fool.

I don't disagree with any of that Old Dee ..... and I am pleased to hear you confirm that you don't think we should be punished.For that matter you might be pleased to know that I was not blind to the extraordinary inconsistencies that took place on McMahon day

I only referred to you as the "old guy" because that is the way you describe yourself ( and I certainly don't see an inverse correlation between age and wisdom!)

No, me and the "old guy" know that we didn't break any rules.

We are as enlightened as you are on the whole topic, but the old guy and I are a little less preachy and arrogant when we discuss it.

Thankyou Sloonie ............ I'll try to sound less less preachy and arrogant next time !

You are all talking past each other: OD is talking about 'tanking' in the broad sense of the word, and most of the rest of you have made the leap that I have outlined ad nauseum: that unless we have told players to not put in 100% - no-one can dictate, retroactively, how many manage (or mismanage) our own affairs.

In summary, we all think Wilson CGAF and Clothier won't find a thing.

That's fair enough by me - just wish the AFL would forget the niceties of Anderson's farewell - and hurry up and clear our name!!

The full Annual Financial Statements are now available through a link on the website. Perhaps other posters have known this for days - but Ihave only just picked it up.

From my point of view it is a good transparent set of accounts containing full disclosures of all of the various classes of income - allowing those who wish to consider profit net of the Foundation Heroes contributions for instance,to make their own assessments. For C Wilson's benefit , the loan to Cameron Schwab is noted - all $7500 of it !! The significance of the Bentleigh Club acquisition certainly stands out in the comparitive information.All our ongoing commitments to players, to Bemtleigh Club Creditors and to the Vic Comm for Gambling Reg are also well set out.

In stark contrast to the situation 3-5 years ago, the directors are entitled to maintain that the club can meet itsdebts as and when they fall due without having to cite AFL guarantees. Nonetheless they clearly - and correctly - point out that the clubs ongoing operation - and its future revenue streams are dependent on AFL support. As we are under competitive pressures to continue to increase our football dept spending - and as we have a small and ageing membership base ( which makes it difficult for us to attract sponsors esp in these tough economic times) we are notin a strong financial position. But I would suggest there is now a clear gap between our financial health and the financial ill-health of half a dozen other clubs.

One other thing I noticed was that there was no Contingency note in relation to the tanking investigations. Why would there be you ask ? Some ( like Wilson) might want to argue that the possibility of a $1m fine is relevant to a proper assessment of the financial health of the MFC - and that the club should have acknowledged this even if only to put it to bed. It is not uncommon for organisations subject to major litigation for instance to include contingency notes disclosing that the company is subject to major litigation - but the directors and their legal advisors believe that the litigation will not be successful and that no liability will arise. I would have expected the Boardto have discussed that possibility - though ( on what we know at present)I would have taken the silent option as well.

By any objective criteria, the club has done well off the field.For this to continue we just have to starting performing on the field almost immediately - which is just one of the reasons why I believe that the balance of our trading and recruiting strategy between maturity and youthful potential has been just right.

We just need this tanking fiasco out of the way - not just from a direct financial perspective ( re fines) - but from an on field perspective ( re draft access) as well ........................ (which will ultimately affect our finances...............etc etc

I don't think anybody can realistically say that we didn't "tank" as people are calling it. The question is whether we broke any rules doing it. The AFL can't retroactively declare that playing a substandard side is illegal and stick charges on us. For a start, this is something that has been done by teams repeatedly and for various reasons, such as Fremantle resting their best players on a road trip to Tassie at the end of the season. Clear tanking by the definitions given, and not a word said.

We have to be judged on the standards that were set out for us at the time. We named a side that may have been weaker than we could have fielded (I note Sheedy's comments on doing this winning him a flag). We listed that side at the appointed time, so there can be no outcry from betting agencies that they have been misled. The side on the park was clearly trying to win the games, as is clearly shown by the Richmond loss. We can even use Vlad's words that as long as the team on the park is trying to win it's fine. Indeed, we could use the words of Paul Roos as well, to paraphrase, "Go forward, but for God's sake don't kick a goal." In all of these areas we have behaved in accordance with the rules and guidelines set out for us by the AFL AT THAT TIME.

Anyway, enough about tanking, we're in this thread to celebrate the net gain of Anderson leaving.

You are of course quite correct.

Do those posters who maintain that we did tank ( like the old guy and shoonie the loonie) actually think we broke a rule and deserve punishment - or do they think ( as I do) that we worked within the framework established by the AFL just as other clubs had done before us ?

The ambiguous term "tank" describes Carlton's legal actions in 2007. If that is what they mean , then we don't have an issue.

( As for Anderson - yes I have no doubt that we wouldn't be where we are now - and the AFL wouldn't have dug themselves into this hole - if he hadn't been holding the reins during Demetriou's mid season holiday)

I was listening to SEN this morning and the panel which included Hutchy and a couple of others including Liam Pickering were having some fun at the cattish way Wilson tried to fob off Pickers during the week over his criticism of her Dane Swan comments. She's becoming an object of derision in the industry.

Logically Wilson's next article should be " The MFC Investigation finished Anderson"

I refuse to believe that the fact that Adrian Anderson is leaving in the midst of the MFC tanking investigation is purely a coincidence.He has said that he has nothing else in the pipeline. If you were confident of a clear "worthwhile" outcome wouldn't you want to finish what you have started ?.

As he has demonstrated with the tribunal, Anderson is driven by a desire to replace subjective judgment with black and white rules. To him, there is a point at which "tanking" crosses a clear line from 'list management' to 'result rigging' ....... and he has been driving the investigators to find that point ( even though no such point exists!). In doing so he has dug the AFL into a big hole - and put it into a position which will damage its reputation whatever it concludes about Melbourne.

I reckon Demetriou would have dismissed McLean's comments as the jaundiced view of a player whose future in the team was threatened by arrival of a group of young talented midfielders - but Demetriou was away and Anderson jumped in boots and all. I wouldn't be surprised if this drove a wedge between them ........... which was instrumental in Anderson moving on.

You'd think Caro would be on to this. But that would force her to admit that the investigation was always going to finish in 'no mans land' - that ' criminal tanking' can never be proved - and to do that would contradict the guilty verdict she pronounced all those weeks ago .Accordingly she has said nothing.

I have no inside information on any of this. I just can't believe that the timing of this surprise announcement is pure coincidence - and nothing else. I think Caro would have the same suspicions - but she can't pursue them because they shoot her own argument in the foot.

In response to Hoopla's comments where Anderson has dropped the AFL into it. I tend to agree on this, but I don't think it's true that there isn't an answer to how to get out of it from the AFL's perspective and not lose face.

The best way for the AFL to do this is admit that they created an environment that could lead to the perception of tanking, and to come up with a clear definition of tanking. In addition they need to take steps to fix things... the priority draft pick was one thing, the next bit would be to do the lottery for the first 5 picks in the draft for example.

The AFL will not come out of this well if they attempt to put the blame onto clubs for what was a scenario caused by the AFL itself. It would open a can of worms that might find itself in the courts which puts them on a much less secure footing.

I agree with your suggestion - but the AFL is not in the habit of admitting it was wrong - and it will find it difficult to acknowledge that the draft/priority picks system placed clubs in awkward positions - and to admit that the investigation was a waste a of time and money etc..

At least Anderson's personal stake in justifying the witch hunt is now out of the way

Good get binman.

I would suggest that it's not only Dean Bailey who believes this but also anyone with half a brain who has followed this sham of a farce of an inquisition from its very beginning when Healy, Sheahan an Roos sat looking like stunned mullets while Baby Blue made a fool of himself in front of the cameras to the weeks and months of stupid media reportage and speculation.

I think it would make an appropriate epitaph for the inquisition.

The club should give McLean back his $5k ( or $15? or whatever) and wipe his name from the Foundation Heroes list. He's forfeited the right to be a hero of this club in any sense of the word. In fact he's the one who should be charged with bringing the game into disrepute!