sue

I assume the punishment you wish to take is that outlined by CW (though that seems to be subject to change). I agree the public perception will be that we tanked regardless - it is also the public perception that Carlton et al tanked. The question is how and how long it will stick in the public mind that we were somehow specially bad and how this might effect future sponsors. (I don't personally know how significant $500K is). I think the most significant thing is how the 'crime' is finally portrayed by the AFL and how it might affect sponsors. We await this. Then I'll form an amateur-legal personal opinion on whether we should take it further or just take it on the chin and get on with it. But not till then.

Maybe, but we can still disagree about how the current club should react now. Hopefully we can discuss that more usefully when the AFL rather than CW announces a decision.

I think you miss the point of the reference to what Vlad said. It is not to say 'tanking' (as defined by some) did not take place.

No it doesn't lessen our guilt. But why accept it and whatever we 'deserve' when it is patently discriminatory. To make the world fairer, it is necessary for those who have been treated badly to complain. Just sucking it up won't improve things, either for themselves or the world. I wrote an analogy a while back about 2 cafe owners, one who covers the footpath with tables without council permission and is ignored by the authorities, and starts to take customers away from the other cafe. But when the owner of the other cafe does the same, perhaps being more blatant by advertising he was about to do it, he gets clobbered 4 years later for infringing the council rules. I asked readers, as the owner of the second cafe, how they would react. I haven't heard anyone say that as owner of the second cafe they'd be content with the result. While it is true that some posters are hairy-chested about taking on the AFL regardless of any risks, there are also some who seem to take unjustified pride in being able to 'take their punishment like a man'.

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?

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.

Find any un-biased journo - is probably the hard part. Anyway, the degree of blatantness (new word) should not be the justification for a prosecution. So what if others tanked more secretly. You investigate the murder committed by a cunning murderer as well as the one committed by a fool. But we know there is no justice here, just the AFL diven by some in the media to look righteous.

Golly - North won 2 flags during the 90's when they whinged about 'everyone being against them'. More whinging here please if that is the result.

Bad rules set the sporting tone

It's presented as a bad thing when you want to cast a nasty slur on your opponent. After all, in many circles you can't say anything nastier about someone than say they are 'clever'. If anyone wanted proof of CW's malicious intent, that remark of hers would be the clincher. I expect this is obvious to all other commentators but for some reason they have held back from jumping on her. Absolutely - it is amazing how much attention is given to penalties and not to the charges. Typical in-depth analysis by the media.

Just to be clear when I mentioned CW was talking about vault-like evidence I wasn't quoting her words, just the thrust of her remarks.

Very true. But since us Demonlanders are not involved in those negotiations, all we can do is argue around the periphery. Hopefully for only a few more days at most

Just watched Offsiders on iView. CW will soon win a gold medal for reverse cycling. At bottom she is now saying that others tanked but you won't find evidence that others had a 'vault'-like meeting (which seems to be the only evidence she knows of). Maybe you won't find it, but if you don't look, with or without coercive powers, you certainly won't find it.

Why are you guys assuming the comments of some random SEN caller have any significance with respect to defining what is bullying and any sexist overtones?

A great article in my view would be one which revealed the exact charges, the main evidence against MFC and the MFC's defence (sorry I meant excuses) rather than the alleged penalties.

Yet another example of 'tanking'. I recall someone made the argument that 'tanking' within a season is OK (eg Freo), but not across seasons (eg us). Now we have an example within a season but in a different competition. It is a mess and the AFL has to quietly acknowledge that teams will not try to win every match (even if the players do). If they weren't such a bunch of egotists the AFL would admit all the naughty tanking (us) that has taken place was entirely due to their drafting formula and fix that to stop it ever happening again rather than crucify us. And make no mistake we have been crucified even if some think the rumoured penalties are small and even if we got off scot free now.

Maurie, I wasn't asking you personally and my question is independent of knowing the official charges. We are all speculating. But it was argued that DB wouldn't be charged with trying to lose but with draft tampering, I asked that those who argue for that to speculate as to how he could draft tamper without losing games. (I excluded the sort of tampering that can be done in rigged trades etc.) I just don't see how. The alternative suggestion that he could be charged with not reporting bad behaviour by CC seems weak. So I await with interest to see what the AFL comes up with if anything.

How do you tamper (in a way relevant to the MFC's case) without trying to lose games?

I agree we probably aren't going to get charged with match fixing. I'd have thought not reporting illegal behaviour should be covered by some specific rule. Bringing the game into disrepute is a very broad thing - the tool of dictators. Surely everyone with an official position in one of the many rooms where CC is alleged to have sad naughty things would also have to be charged if DB is.

Surely match fixing can be done by other means than the players deliberately throwing a game. What actual charge do you think DB might be facing? Bringing the game into disrepute? What can he have done to bring the game into disrepute other than doing things to deliberately lose games?

I'm not sure why I get mentioned. I haven't said go to court. I just raised some issues about putting your faith in Bigfooty as a guage of public perceptions. I recall you yourself mocked posters here as being unrepresentative of wider Demonic opinion. Surprised that Bigfooty is more reliable. I repeat, potential sponsors are likely to do their own research on public perceptions of MFC.

Gosh, I didn't know it was possible to patent the word reining. How much do I owe you for usage rights? I just hope you are joking.

I won't disagree with those who say the general footy public is not all that interested, dunno myself. But I wouldn't rely on bigfooty or even hits on websites in deciding. Maybe they don't bother to read the articles because they have already decided we are tankers and are bored with the details. Since articles about Cwood etc always get a large number of hits no matter how boring because of their membership base, that would probably drown the hits on an announcement that the MFC had demolished the MCG. And if they are interested, I don't personally care what they label us as. But I am concerned about sponsors. They may well do some serious market research of their own which could indicate it could endanger their image to be associated with us. In the long term it won't matter as long as we start winning. But there might be short-term problems and even longer term ones if we don't improve much on the field. A long period of mediocre performance (which despite the depressives around here, we could survive) would probably hurt us more if sponsors think they would be putting their image in jeopardy because of a perceived tanking stain.

I wasn't referring to you or I would have been able to spell reining-in correctly. Sorry 55 to deflate your tyres.

I like performance scientist idea - minimise those in the know. It really irks me that CW and some of our regular contrarian posters think it is acceptable to not be investigated if you commit a crime more secretly than someone else. Of course the wily criminal is more likely to get away with it, but you do expect the cops to investigate when there is a dead body on the floor regardless of whether the murderer appears to be a dill or not.