sue

I'd lay off McLean who appears to be just a bit naive. You don't want him to recant his recantation.

Very likely. I'd probably put money on it. But unless you actually know, it would be better to make it clear that you are speculating. Do you know?

If he has retracted I think we just have to assume he (and we) were a victim of his own naivety on OTC. Can't be too hard on him for that.

You've got to hand it to those journos. Love the pic of Bailey confessing his sins. And they wonder why a lot of us hold them in contempt.

I don't doubt we 'list-managed' and were happy to lose that match. But you just pop me in a box and blast away as usual and didn't respond to the point I was making other than putting me down as someone whose opinion are of low or no value. I was making the point that is was not sufficient for you to say Richmond played like 'sh!t' to explain how we almost won that game. I suggested serious tanking would have got us 'under the line' that day. I asked 'Did I miss something', ie where is the evidence of dramatic moves to lose in the last few minutes. Ie. maybe I was wrong. I don't recall you covering that in any of your previous posts. Please 'waste some more of your time' and point us to those posts if they exist.

No one has contemplated the AFL could have good reasons to suspect we tanked????!!! If there is groupthink on this forum, it is saying yes we did, but so did lots of others.

I don't think that is a satisfactory rejoinder. If a club is seriously tanking and is in danger of winning with the siren approaching then there is plenty a coach could do to lose the game. I don't recall any ludicrous moves being made in the last few minutes of the game. Did I miss something? (An example - who forgot to ensure McMahon got a 50 metre penalty - or was the over-the-top interchange rule not in in 2009 . That's a good match fixer without really involving players)? (That said, I don't doubt that winning every game played was a low priority for the MFC, as it had been for numerous clubs before and since.) Edit to add that my example above was just being a bit silly. I really mean things like leaving loose players in the oppo's forward line. Or not putting anyone on Travis J for a whole match.

I don't see much evidence of group think here. Amongst those who take a different position than BH and Fan there is quite a bit of divergence of views. I've seen as much unwarranted abuse from those on the 'outer' as I have seen their motives and loyalty questioned. Which came first? Where do I find the 'original work by Janis' you referred to? In any case, I don't see much problem with people questioning the motives/hidden agendas of others. They can respond and refute any allegation. I don't see it as serious personal abuse though I can see it might offend a genuine supporter who is accused of it. But after all, it is an anonymous forum and there could be people lurking with nasty intent. So posters should be free to question other's motives which with any response is of interest to forum members. Just everyone cut the mindless abuse, calling people idiots etc. because there can be no excuse for that (and no benefit to the forum.) In any case, we are not running the MFC. So there are no real dangerous consequences from groupthink by a bunch of anonymous supporters.

Is it true you are a moderator? (A genuine question, but if the answer is yes, then you can take it as a criticism.)

Some of us believe that part of 'dealing with it and moving forward' is to use the fact that it is we are not being treated fairly to our advantage. That is not 'playing the victim'. Standing up to this is important in winning respect. Winning games would also help!

I don't think BH's and other posters, including myself, are all that far apart on all this. One man's "playing the victim" is another man's "fighting back". But it would reduce the temperature and the number of posts if BH didn't insult others in a lot of his posts. If he defends his last para in #854 as some sort of ironic joke, he needs to think again. If he means it, he has been reading too many articles by Bolt.

That again is where we differ. I do not see why McLean's comments would force their hand more than the earlier ones about other clubs. I'm no spin doctor, but I can think of responses the AFL could have made to his comments which would have defused the matter. They could even have announced a sham investigation which would review their earlier investigation and quickly confirm their earlier conclusion of no tanking. I do not see why 'new information' which is actually less damming than 'old information' about other clubs would force their hand. So to argue "the AFL had to" I think you have to rely on the effect of pressure from the press. If a certain journalist put continual pressure on them they could have suggested to her that they'd be happy to widen the investigation to include Richmond too. For starters, how did they almost lose to a club that was blatantly tanking?

You misunderstand me at least. I never said we are a scapegoat. Yes, the AFL would have not wanted to open this can of worms. The AFL could have ignored McClean's comments. He didn't even use the 'tanking' word. But for some reason (theories about AA sound plausible) they did decide to investigate. Stupid decision. But at that point it is perfectly reasonable to ask why the investigation wasn't widened to other clubs about whom similar allegations had been made. The AFL could have announced that since a large number of similar allegations had arisen over recent years, they would start a wide-ranging 'royal commission' to put this to bed for once and for all. Maybe that would have been an even stupider decision. But it would have been fairer. I can see that the AFL may have dug themselves into a hole, but that does not change the position that it is unfair to only investigate MFC. Do you think it is fair? OK, so life's not fair.... But I expect if you were personally singled out for something nasty, you'd be inclined to rely on the concept of 'fairness' in your defense and in mitigating penalties etc. I've been arguing that the MFC can threaten to raise the lack of AFL action about tanking by our competitors in mitigation. I may be wrong but I actually feel pretty thin, not thick, nor shallow. No need to be rude BH, just make your arguments please.

Those most keen to suggest all conspiracies and claims of corruption are rubbish often have self-interested reasons for pushing that view - usually because they support the status quo. A more balanced view is that there are many true examples as history often reveals, but clearly not as many as conspiracy crazies believe. Claims can only be judged on the evidence available. That includes lack of action as well as actions taken.

I tentatively hang my hat on it helping. If they plan to clobber us heavily we may threaten to take them to court where their lack of investigation of other clubs could be raised. They neither want to answer that or investigate other clubs, so it could do us some good in negotiatios over penalties. And if they clobber other clubs you ask again 'what good does that do us'. Well first we won't be bitter and self-destructive about being singled out for the next 20 years; and less importantly, if they also penalize other clubs we are in competition with, then it evens things somewhat.

OldDee, as I've posted earlier, that is true if, for example, you get pinged for speeding and the next car does not. You have no relationship to the other driver. But the situation is significantly different in the AFL where we directly compete with other clubs under the AFL's system. The AFL cannot investigate and punish us (severely) without investigating other breaches which have as much initial evidence as McLean provided. My hope is that they give us a slap on the wrists so that we (or any real journalist if there are any) won't feel tempted to demand a widening of their investigation to other clubs.

When people say 'we should be told who gave evidence against the MFC' it is sometimes unclear who the 'we' is. Surely the AFL must tell the MFC or accused individuals who has accused whom of what. Anything else is entirely contrary to natural justice. Whether that should be made public is another question and may depend on the nature of the evidence, though I suspect that information would leak in any case. I won't form an opinion on whether "we need to put all this behind us and move on" until we see what the AFL's case is, the MFC's response and the level of any penalties, if any. Then I can judge whether we should fight, demand an extension to other clubs etc. or just acquiesce. Not before.

The truest thing I have read about her. No need to say much more either.

I love the increasing use of the phase "up to" as in "up to a dozen people". Can I add that up to 35,000 MFC supporters always take the most pessimistic view. Of course, I may mean the one or two who boldly state things like "the entire 2009 coaching team has rolled over". The other 34,998 supporters may prefer to wait for real evidence.

Too right. And if those clubs were penalized by the AFL, they could readily go to court fearing fewer consequences than the MFC would. To avoid this sort of thing in future we have to get stronger; which means winning games and getting more members. I doubt the AFL would ever change its spots.

I agree. It very much matters that the other clubs with which we compete may have infringed AND the AFL has investigated only the MFC in depth. If my bush lawyer opinion is correct, then the MFC would be able to raise the issue in court of the unfair failure to investigate infringements by competing clubs - a box the AFL won't want opened. So the AFL can't afford to impose such tough penalties on the MFC that the MFC is tempted to go to court. On the other hand, because the MFC is dependent on the AFL in too many ways, we would also be reluctant to go to court. So the penalty would be some sort of compromise aimed at avoiding court. Hopefully this would be at a level which had no real impact on the club. In any case, on the 'evidence' made public to date, we shouldn't be penalized at all.

I too would not like to see this go to court unless we are really screwed. We are always at the AFL's mercy. However, a threat to go to court can help. Some people are saying it doesn't matter that other clubs may have infringed, if we are guilty, we are guilty. Just like if you get pinged for speeding but the car next to you does not. However there is a fundamental difference between the AFL tanking enquiry and speeding fines. Basically, you are not in direct competition with the other car drivers. But the MFC is directly competing with 17 other clubs under the AFL's regime. This is a significant difference. Therefore as a bush lawyer, I would have thought we'd have grounds for raising in court procedural fairness, pointing to the statements by LIb , Fev etc and the lack of resulting AFL action (plus all the other examples of AFL silence on tanking examples which posters have mentioned). The AFL's only response could be, 'Yes, we'll get on with those investigations as soon as this one is finished'. But they won't want to do that. I think this holds even if we have been more negligent than others in hiding our tanking efforts or leaking (which has caused some anger against the club's admin on this forum). Maybe the other clubs have been more discreet. But the AFL would have to show that they have investigated the other cases closely and found them clean. But clearly they have not investigated them closely. They would be torn apart in court if they claimed they had done so. So their only response in court would again be that they'll investigate the other cases next. So if I'm correct about the admissibility of the 'why pick only on us competitive fairness' argument, then the AFL can't allow this to go to court. Therefore they can't penalize us at a level which could tip us into pursuing litigation.

consistent + AFL ..... doesn't compute

Thanks for agreeing but that's not quite what I meant. I like the idea of a new thread to draw our attention to breaking news, but I'd prefer that thread to be closed or merged as soon as it starts to duplicate the original one on the topic. Alternatively I'm happy if the new thread takes over and people stop posting to the original one. That probably won't happen and the former suggestion is probably too much work for the mods. But I'd prefer not to follow the same theme in 2 threads.

I agree that is the most plausible explanation of the question in post #69.