Dr. Gonzo

Just hurry the f*** up about it.

I understand the sentiment and don't doubt you guys think fighting this is in the best long term interests of the club. However I just don't think being branded "tankers" will stick first of all (assuming the charges are as light as it seems they may be) and second of all I don't think it will be as detrimental as you do. I dont believe for a second or will negatively impact our ability to land sponsors; what may is a protracted court case costing is hundreds of thousands if not millions in fees, salaries and bad publicity. Sometimes you have to be pragmatic about these things. I won't be happy if we are the only club to get stung on this when others were blatantly doing it but the fact is we were the ones who, for whatever reason, got caught with our hands in the cookie jar. It's not fair but prolonging this by taking it to court, airing dirty laundry, negative publicity with the chance for the media to keep sticking their boots in again and again, legal fees and court costs plus the possibility of getting an even harsher penalty at the end of it all is just too much to gamble. I'm not too worried about others perceptions of us lets just focus on the footy instead of being about "anything but" as Malthouse indicated Neeld commented upon arrival here. Lets just let Neeld the new FD and players who have nothing to do with 2009 get on with doing what they're paid to do. That's my opinion on it and what I think is in the best long term interests of the MFC.

Again (and I don't mean to single you out, this is a response to all on here who think similarly) who gives a stuff about what Eddie would or wouldn't do - we are our own club and our own men. You admit we tanked and then complain because we may get some (very light) sanctions? What good is pride when you have no money to feed your family? I'll be glad if we can just move on from this whole sordid affair without the club being crippled. It's not fair if we get done and Carlton, Collingwood etc get away with it but life isn't fair that's just the way it is. Taking this to court when we could get off pretty much scot-free would be not only stupid but irresponsible.

Who gives a stuff what other people think of us? Carlton are known as the brown paper baggers, do you think that hurts them or they give a stuff. The mentality on here is ridiculous. If we get away with a minor fine for the club and minimal suspensions for CC & DB we should be absolutely laughing and thankful we can put this entire sordid mess behind us and focus on building towards the future with Neeld and the players/FD we have now instead of wallowing about in months/years of legal arguments in court about stuff that happened 4 bloody years ago. By the way having some sort of fines/suspensions handed out doesn't make us guilty of tanking - it will depend on what the findings/charges are but it is not a black & white issue.

Yep - I generally like Lloyd as a commentator but he seems out of his depth on this show. He looked like a school kid being told off when CW responded to his assertion Hird should get a $5k fine or suspension that he would have to go.

You familiar with the saying "you can't have your cake and eat it too"? If the sanctions described on FC come to fruition (suspensions for CC, DB & a fine) I would be doing cartwheels as we would have dodged a nuclear bomb.

That's OK I have Fox EDIT - found out I can't go anyway as it's the mother-in-laws birthday so we're going out for dinner so will IQ it and watch when I get home.

I agree but it's still going to be a large component (balancing the books, expanding revenue) of how he is measured.

Hopefully there's some announcement today (though I won't hold my breath) I'm sick of the speculation.

Pretty sure it's free for AFL members.

Was looking forward to going along next Friday to watch some actual footy - but $22 for GA (3rd level?) with no free access for club members for a couple of Mickey Mouse half-games? The AFL and Docklands can get f*****.

If that was the case you'd have to weigh it up and we'd probably have little choice - however I think it was just more media sensationalism rather than any real threat though of course we'd have to seek some counsel on that.

If we wanted to live and die by our principles we shouldn't have tanked games of football. Bit late now to start going on about standing for something and putting on all this false bravado about protecting our name and integrity when in 2009 we were perfectly happy to cheat (for the record I supported the tanking and still would put in the same position again - but then I don't go on about taking the AFL to court to preserve some intangible "pride").

You'd be pretty dumb to reject anything outright without even knowing what is being discussed. Regardless of the outcome I doubt we'll lose the pokies. I also doubt it will have many long term ramifications. The best thing to do is get this entire situation behind us and get some wins on the board, that will help our long term future far greater than wasting months/years and dollars in the courts will.

Not saying it's not true, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Yeah that's a fair argument however we may end up cutting off our nose to spite our face. It's not an easy decision. When I say "clearly guilty" I don't mean in the context of the evidence gathered by the investigation proving we tanked; I mean to me it is clear watching those games at the time we did not want to win to disqualify ourselves from a PP. if any supporters are honest with themselves they'll know that is the case. Proving it is another thing altogether though as most of the evidence is circumstantial and easily argued against. As a Melbourne supporter I agree with you - looking at it somewhat objectively though I'd say that all that is really irrelevant to whether or not we are found guilty. And it doesn't change the fact that Demetriou's defence to accusations of approving of tanking at the time will be that there was no evidence at the time that it was occurring. I've made the same arguments others have made on here when arguing with the riff-raff and trolls on BigFooty however I'm trying to be a bit more realistic on here. I'm a lifelong Melbourne supporter and don't want to see the club punished. It kills me we have to go through this and makes me angry we have been singled out when other clubs have tanked in some cases worse than while the AFL basically gave tacit approval to the strategy yet we are the one likely to be dragged over the coals for it. It is rubbish but at the end of the day none of that is really any defence from an objective point of view. Now list the specific allegations of tanking against us one by one and I feel we could make a convincing argument for each as they are mostly based on observation (player positioning, rotations, player selection etc) and interpretation of comments made in meetings (or one specific meeting) which were interpreted differently by the different attendees. But that doesn't alter the fact that you, I and every other footy supporter knows we tanked in 2009 as the Blues did in 2006-07 as the Pies did in 2005 as the Hawks did in 2004 as Richmond did in 2007 and as West Coast likely did in 2008. Pointing out others guilt doesn't exonerate us though and I don't think it would be a wise argument to rely on even if it weren't the only one as it is one easily countered by the AFL.

The fact is this has been a theme of the current admins tenure though. I think it's fair to hold the CEO to account for that. I'm not a Schwab "hater" by any means but there has to be some accountability for the role. Whether he is directly involved in sourcing sponsors is irrelevant as the buck stops with him as the CEO. It's not about just wanting to see him gone for the sake of it but how long does he get when we continue to face the same issues year in, year out. Our on-field situation doesn't help of course but you can't keep using that as a cop-out.

They've resorted to sending out emails to Foundation Heroes in the hope some supporters may be able to bail them out with sponsors as they have previously so I'm not too confident of their abilities to attract even lower level sponsors let alone retain them. If that is the case this year and we make a loss Schwab has to go regardless of the external factors which may have made his job difficult.

The powers that be will merely state they didn't condone anything because there was never any evidence of other clubs enacting a strategy of deliberately losing games. Whether you or I believe that or not is one thing (and I definitely agree the AFL gave tacit approval of the strategy) but this is what the response will be if we try and rely on that argument before the Commission or in court. If we go down it will be an injustice but that's the way the world is sometimes. Our best chance of getting off (should we be charged) would be to argue each allegation against us which I feel any half competent lawyer could smash out of the park for 6. But if we are punished by the Commission I don't think we should waste out time or money in court as it will not only be difficult to prove our innocence (because we are clearly guilty of having a strategy of winning no more than 4.5 games in 2009) but we may also have some dirty laundry aired in public testimonies and evidence that we may have wished was kept under wraps. I don't want to see anyone punished for the actions I feel the board/MFC had to take in 2009 but if its the difference between draft sanctions/fine and a guilty verdict and taking them to court or offering up someone (CC) as a scapegoat, well, you know how these things go...

If that's the argument you're planning on taking to court I think you'd lose. All they'd have to say is that the distinguishing factor between those examples and ours is that in ours key figures in the admin and Football Department undertook those actions with the explicit intent of gaining a PP whereas there is nothing to prove that is the case in the others (though everyone knows it was). They will just say at the time of those other examples they had no evidence clubs were list managing with the intent to lose games and now that thy have evidence of it happening at Melbourne we will be punished. I sincerely hope this isn't the case and can see all your arguments to the contrary however I'm just explaining what I think the response will be. It will be about the intent of the actions rather than the actions themselves. Intent is hard to prove but if they have enough people saying it was openly discussed in team/FD meetings then they will probably punish us.

If this goes to court am I right in thinking we would be arguing the legitimacy of the AFL's investigation and investigation techniques rather than whether or not we tanked? I have a feeling if it goes to court we would be arguing about process rather than outcome as the AFL as a governing body of the league has the right to govern its own laws as it sees fit therefore we would only be able to argue some kind of prejudice due to investigation techniques etc rather than arguing "putting Frawley and Warnock up forward is not tanking and here's why..."

I agree but the fact is that was one comment by Demetriou and we all know he can backflip. It is clear they are looking at off-field stuff to prove draft tampering and bringing the game into disrepute. There is no definition of tanking in the rules and no specific rule against it other than the one talking about players and coaches acting on their merits. But the AFL is clearly going after Schwab, Connolly and the MFC with draft tampering and bringing the game into disrepute and an added charge against Bailey of not coaching on his merits. Arguing the definition of tanking in this sense may not mean a damn thing.

No worries DC. That's fair enough and I understand the sentiment but it really is all or nothing at that point. We'll either be acquitted or the club will be close to oblivion. And our brand is damaged now - look at the Bombers they're tarnished as drug cheats now no matter what happens.

Insufficient evidence to penalise is not the same as not guilty. Been busy mate, trying very hard not to get in trouble surfing the web at work today