sue

GM11, do you know when in the match they went off? If it was early on, a very low rate of rotations is to be expected. Less so if they went off in Q4.

Yes you could. Give away a 50m penalty by 'accident'. Strangely that didn't happen. Fumbling or anything else the players themselves are alleged to have done is clearly rubbish.

I see we are still talking at cross-purposes to some extent. I'm sorry I have not read your numerous posts over the years on this topic, and therefore did not realise it was futile to ask you to suggest non-tanking rationales for a low rate of rotations. Once again, my reference to throwing in the towel was solely to your dismissive response to a rationale proffered on that particular issue. I was asking if you could suggest possible rationales for low rotations rate since people tell me you have a deep knowledge of football. I was not asking you to change your view. Nor to imply you were prone to throwing in the towel generally. Getting back to the rationale I did proffer (which you did not address - yes, I know it is not compulsory for you to do so): I think an analysis of rotation rates by many clubs in matches where there are injuries or notoriously ill-conditioned players (like Jurrah) might be interesting in the defence of our low rate in that match. It may turn out 40 is not outrageously low, Even if we did it in order to 'tank' as you believe, a low rate in itself may not then be evidence that we did. Then again, maybe 40 is off any scale.

You'll have to improve your output too because you as usual miss my point. I wasn't referring to whether your supported tanking. Nor was I saying you don't want the club to go to court if need be. My reference to throwing in the towel was referring to your recent post where you knocked on the head any defense of the rotations rather than think of some points in our defense. Now you may think there are none. Fair enough. Being so sure I am an idiot, you misinterpret what I wrote so you can get on your high horse. Please dismount.

BH, how about playing defense lawyer yourself rather than throwing in the towel. What about the lack of players on the bench. If you only have 1 player on the bench for the entire game, you'd expect your rotations to be down by a factor of 4 to say 25 for the game and so on. Of course 3 didn't get injured in the first minute of the game, so the reasonable (not-experimenting or tanking) number of rotations to have had will be a time weighted average of the number available on the bench through the game. I personally have no idea of the numbers. It would be interesting to see the calculation done.

A cunning ploy. They raise deliberate fumbling (by what was clearly the best team in the league) to take our attention away from defending any serious accusations. (No, I'm not serious).

And lack of rotations? You can argue that we were trying to see what sort of tank the players really had. Jurrah confirmed he didn't have much of a tank at all, so he was taken off stuffed. If all that is all the AFL has, it sounds like they just want MFC to make a list of responses which isn't entirely farcical and then put it all to bed. Let's hope so.

yes indeed, so I'm a bit concerned about what this supposed press conference is about. I only read these forums so I can worry .... Anyone got any ideas to stop me worrying. (Either on the press conference or humorous.)

hmm, that seemed the most reasonable thing at first, but now I'm wondering why, with all the bad publicity we have had, the MFC wouldn't just issue a terse press release on penalties and avoid a press conference. Making a bold statement in a conference about how that sort of behaviour is not part of the new MFC might be the plan, but seems a bit unnecessary, especially as it seems there was not much to it.

If the club has it mind to drag these other clubs into the fray, I hope they first talk to those clubs. Maybe then those clubs will be motivated to tell the AFL to back off.

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.

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.

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.

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.