1858

_{Now this in the age with the chest beating comment}

_{Demons president Don McLardy referred to Fairfax Media reports of the investigation in a statement on the club's website on Friday in which he called for the club to be treated fairly by the AFL.}

_{Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/treat-us-fairly-and-properly-with-tanking-probe-demons-20121102-28ogs.html#ixzz2B1uZHm6C}

_{Um don't see any mention of fairfax in the statement , I've lost all respect for the big paper}

What a joke, they just don't give up. Now they're playing God in all of this. McLardy made the simplest of statements about current events and they twist it into a direct reference to their "enterprise". How important do these media outlets have to feel FFS? Bigger than the game it seems.

If she has that correct we are in the clear on Rule 19A as that only deals with Coaches or Players actually tanking. Maybe this has something to do with the coercion applied to witnesses, so that they put the club in, but not themselves and therefore are not punished.

This result would allow the AFl to not penalize us if there is no finding of actual tanking but rather being told to by officials.

Another side to this is, can you actually tank, if your best is not good enough to win anyway and the players all do their best to win, despite what is happening off the field.

It also covers the AFL which is their primary concern.

Have any of you guys met CC before?

I'd say its highly likely that he said to the room that they'd be fired if we didn't get a priority pick.

That's his sense of humour down to a tee.

Problem is, how does that look to investigators?

Surely the club couldn't be sanctioned over a flippant comment??

So it was the vault of jokes, a bit like the chamber of farts?

It's a tough pitch but heck let's go with it.

Wilson is getting drip-fed information here and there and referring to "sources" as she always does. The Connolly article on the AFL website is referring to The Age news as its source lol. There are a lot of wheels in motion here, they're all referring to each other, it's a circle-jerk.

This is not to say some proven solid revelations will not come out of all of this in due course but there is no integrity in the way the AFL is going about this.

Perhaps we need to get a Dees supporter appointed as Chairman of the AFL commission, it seems to have worked for another club.

Respectfully, I will wait until the end of due-process (assuming it exists) before I judge from my key-board.

Heard McLaughlan just before and he said they had already looked in to Carlton and there was no further action there despite Libbs coming out again today.

The AFL's ability to apply the blow-torch at their convenience is a very disturbing facet of the game's governance. They simply want the Carlton fiasco to go away - too big a kid in the play ground.

IMO they are corrupt to the highest degree.

Collingwood / Hawthorn / West Coast all took advantage of bottoming out.

Port, in the words of Mark Williams "put the queue in the rack"

Carlton are the godfathers of tanking and even made jokes about it.

Wallace admitted to not trying to win during a game at Richmond.

None of the journos want to go there. It's as if the harder they go on Melbourne the more innocent the other clubs are and they can serve theirs and the AFLs agenda of sweeping it under the carpet.

Wilson, Barrett and many more are the cogs.

The thing with Gys is that if Neeld didn't like the way he went about it then how likely was he to succeed if we kept him? I realise nobody has a crystal ball but Neeld has been emphasising the fundamentals for 12 months now and we don't have the time nor the inclination to keep players who aren't on board or capable of playing in the required manner.

For every player Neeld let's go he will find the required replacement. Gysberts is far from irreplaceable.

You've nailed it on the head there!

He has actually.

Port did well .....hmmmmm...

They were very close to getting Russell under FA but held off for this exact reason. Watch them snare him as a delisted FA.

So with 40 on the primary list a club can have 4 category A rookies & 2 category B rookies. Can someone clarify the difference between cat A & cat B? Is it simply that they've played an AFL level game?

Not a bad crowd too.

29,661

Dawes for 26 is reasonable.

Wellingham plus Dawes for 14 plus a player like Martin Is reasonable.

Anything more in favour of the pies than those scenarios and you start to think about walking away. Steak knives fine but no more.

This is disappointing news.

He can't get the footy. He hovers around packs and jumps around like an albino orangutan but doesn't actually do anything. Can't see any case for getting him.

Byrnes as a FA is a good get.

Plenty of cash and cap space to use in the trade season proper.

The chances of getting Petterd on to our rookie list are quite remote.

The main concern to me is the ability of some clubs to significantly look after players after their footy careers. This isn't under the cap and will certainly separate the haves and the have nots. Apart from that I'm not against the concept of FA.

So what is the most likely way of getting him? Trade, wait for delisted player FA window or PSD?

I would then offer pick 120 to Cats for Byrnes so as not to upset the compo process. Yes they can trade him if he agrees.

I doubt Geelong would jeopardise a possible FA compo for pick 120. If they have no potential FA deficit then they may oblige though.

Silly season is here at last.

Why would clubs trade for players they could pick up for nothing as free agents?

I think he may be implying that we should match the FA offers to force trades not realising though that Rivers is unrestricted. I may be wrong.

Not all of the players mentioned have been rejected by their clubs, some are rejecting their clubs and moving on.

Am I right in reading that 2 year minimum pertaining to RFA only?

Another north player Ben Warren is a target of the dees.

lol I hope this one never leaves this thread.