sue

Did anyone try to use the new AFL Live app to watch the match tonight? I have it on an iPad with a Telstra SIM. The quality went from OK to poor (fuzzy, can't read player's numbers o the score) to a blank screen wit audio, then no audio, for minutes at a time. For this they want $15/month? Or was it just me? Also their web site and the article in the Age (may a curse be on it until they sack CW) said it would also work on WiFi but it doesn't. Any ideas?

Like WJ, I had only seen or heard of a tiny part of Libba's interview before. Staggering. Absolutely outrageous that that wasn't re-investigated when MFC was. Were those posters on this forum who claim to know-it-all and took the "we tanked, we must cop it alone" line, unaware of the full Libba stuff? Sorry to open old wounds that are now better healed, but I am ropeable. I am totally disgusted with the AFL. If the AFL doesn't quietly refund our $500k and compensate DB and CC likewise they will rot in hell (the other one, not the Demon's one) . My favorite moment in FC was when Richmond's tanking was raised and Kennet said something like 'Richmond?' and he pulled out his pen and muttered "Richmond" as he wrote something down. Best watched rather than described.

With CW not there it would be a perfect opportunity for Gary to list all the things she got wrong and highlight her malicious agenda without interruption.

It is logically possible that you are correct and so is Redleg. Do you really think CWood would have been subject to an 8 month drawn out investigation in the same circumstances? I don't - sadly a large supporter base means lots of $ and that is what motivates the AFL.

To quote you (re Parkin's confession being investigated): Ha Ha

Couldn't make a more direct confession than that. He's not even saying he 'heard' something - he says he did it. Will he AFL act? Will CW run with it?

I don't feel particularly Henny Pennyish, but that begs the question that anyone would then ask: What was the conduct that was prejudicial to the AFL?

Wouldn't the AFL have a lot to worry about with a gambling probe, at least if it was wider than just the current case. The AFL's line appears to be that positional changes etc are fine as long as it is not done to gain a better draft pick. But from a gambling perspective, what difference does the motive for the positions changes etc make if you do it to increase the probability of losing a game to get a home final or a draft pick

I know I'll get little sympathy for this, but stuff gambling. If gamblers are so smart, let them take into account pressures on a club to lose as well as form etc in making their damned bets. The only time they can whinge that something was fixed is when someone manufactures a surprising result from secret information.

From CW's article: Or the political context in which this whole saga has been played out. The Demons also fought for Cameron Schwab not to be charged and in the end McLachlan admitted there was not sufficient evidence to do so despite some strong opinion to the contrary. What a low piece of work she is. Written to imply he said all that, even including the bit in bold! He didn't even say anything about not enough evidence that I can recall. Just said there was NO evidence or somesuch words.

Quiet you fool. People might realise that our $500K fine is in HK dollars.

Since we don't know what the evidence was, nor what penalties/charges the AFL initially intended to make, isn't it more likely that DB, CC and MFC mutually agreed to the outcome. For all we know MFC went into bat strongly for DB. Indeed it would be wise policy to do so regardless of loyalty issues,

Since I have bored you all on this subject, a summary of my feelings now we actually know the charges and penalties (if not the evidence): 1. The Board has decided to accept the outcome. We don't know what we were initially threatened with, nor the evidence, so I assume they made a wise decision to not pursue things further. Who knows, maybe the AFL will help pay the fine as part of the deal. 2. The AFL has left a lot of questions unanswered about acceptable practices. There will probably be pressure from other clubs to get them to enunciate a formal policy. If not, the AFL will continue to look incapable of running a [censored]-up in a brewery. 3. MFC=scapegoat for AFL integrity = true, but we'll just have to cop it because we know they won't chase anyone else now, especially with the drug issue hanging over their heads. 4. On the courageous (al la Sir Humphrey) assumption that the AFL will be vaguely consistent, Essendon may be facing a very large fine - perhaps that will help fund our fine...

Any legal eagles out there think there is a case?

Geez, you must really hate CC. If that was the plan, DM would have said all those positive things about CC but left out saying we'd re-employ him.

Thank you Billy. Yes it would seem that the AFL have implicitly decided 'tanking' for a home final is not as serious as for a PP. I personally don't see how they could justify that and I was disappointed that McLachlan wasn't asked that. The McDonald's example is better in the sense that their processes should normally take responsibility for food poisoning by an employee. But I can see cases even there where they should not be held responsible (eg. an employee breaks the H&S rules in some ways that no reasonable person would say his company could have reasonably forseen to deliberately poison his personal enemy). I invoke the legal 'reasonable person' argument and I'm sure we could all think fo scenarios where no employee could be help responsible unless they ran a Stalinist workplace. I don't see what processes the MFC could have been lacking to eb responsible. If the case was that CC made these 'threats' many times and wasn't brought into line, then yes, they'd be a case against us. But the evidence mentioned by McLachlan was only the single occasion (even though posters here claim he made the joke many times. On that, it is perfectly possible he said it seriously in the 'Vault' and jokingly at club functions.)

Brilliant - we do see the difference. But could you explain why the draft order is holier than getting a home final? I can understand McLachlan's distinction between what we 'did' and resting players, experimenting with no draft pick in mind, but not how what Freo did is OK. Unfortunately he wasn't pressed on that. So the fine against MFC is because we are responsible for our employees. Clearly we just accepted that garbage to close the issue, hopefully with a few extra $ to help pay the fine. But if one of my staff murders someone I don't see why my organization should be in the poo UNLESS my company was negligent in some way that contributed to the murder.

It is indeed hard to think what Bailey could be charged for that is not match fixing. And what if he decides to fight things in court? That may force our hand to join him (which may be the ethical thing to do anyway). To keep us from joining him, we'd need an assurance from the AFL that no matter what arises in Bailey;s court case they would not penalise us further.

I can't believe you meant to write something as naive as that highlighted above. So DM saying tanking didn't exist did not influence us in our behaviour? The AFL's neglect of earlier cases didn't either?

While one may be able make an argument to blame the people running the club, if you think they are solely to blame for this you really are into self-flagellation. Clearly the AFL are to blame to some extent at least. In my own view, very much so.

By giving us some faith that there is some justice in the world. I'm cynical enough already thank you. (Not to mention, we wouldn't be solely labelled tankers for the next x years with possible sponsorship ramifications.)

IF the reports on penalties are true (forget about the charges, they are irrelevant apparently) surely Bailey will go to court. In which case it could rebound on us. We may have no choice but to join him in going to court.

Sorry to be cynical, but would any of us be surprised if the penalties applied to a second+tier player turn out to be heavier than that applied to the top level?

I expect that's been the sticking point for some time. How to justify/word a charge of "not-tanking, jut waving", but still do enough to MFC to justify 8 months of investigating.

Depends on what the charge is. What if the AFL says we didn't 'tank', but some officials made comments that were liable to misinterpretation and this had the potential to bring the game into disrepute? (Of course, far less disrepute than this stinking 8 month investigation.)