Dr. Gonzo

So how did we "operate" within the system. If it was by ensuring we qualified for a PP by not winning more than 4.5 games then we tanked. I appreciate the sentiment and to some extent I agree but in the long run I think it will be even more detrimental to the club to try and fight this in court. That's where I sit at the moment. I think we should fight the charges fervently before the Commission (should we be charged) and rip the ridiculous arguments apart one by one. Although I'd probably lean mroe towards there being insufficient evidence rather than a mere "not guilty". Uh huh - OK whatever you want to think. I'm not happy with the whole situation, I think we've been scapegoated and have done nothing other clubs have not also done. I also think the AFL basically gave tacit approval of tanking in the years before we did it. But that doesn't mean we didn't do it. By the way I haven't commented on this thread until the last page or so so fail to see how I could be a "broken record". I'm hurting as much as we all are at the moment but I don't want to see the club crippled beyond repair by trying to fight this in the courts when at the end of the day everyone knows our goal in 2009 was to get the PP. I'm not going to hang the admin for doing that as if they didn't the supporters would have been furious especially after what had gone down in the years prior. But if we are exposed then we need to cop our medicine regardless of what happens to other clubs. It's not fair but life rarely is, all we can do is put all our focus into winning games of footy instead of fighting the AFL in the courts.

Bizarre question but no I'm not, why?

Do you think we tanked in 2009?

I don't doubt we've been scapegoated here but I think that's another matter. We are definitely not a strong club (recent years attest to that) but I think there are ways of mitigating the impact of any draft penalties especially with FA now in play. I'm not saying it won't hurt but taking this to court? That would be a far worse outcome for the footy club than just getting on with the job of trying to win games of footy. If we take it to court it is likely it will overshadow Neeld’s entire career and he will be sent packing without ever having a real chance to show his coaching skills unimpeded by these off-field issues. Then you have the ramifications of any adverse court finding against us. I don’t believe the AFL has a strong case and we should fight it fervently if it goes to the Commission but we need to weigh things up very carefully before deciding to take on City Hall in the courts. I think the arguments leaked as “evidence” of our tanking can be ripped to shreds but I’m not confident in the things I’ve heard coming out of the club which would seem we would try to argue the matter on technicalities (e.g. definition of tanking, precedent by other clubs). If we think we will get away with it by dragging others down with us we may want to rethink our strategy very carefully because it is very likely the minute we raise potential tanking by other clubs it will be dismissed. And even if it is not, investigations of other clubs won’t mean a damn thing for us. We can certainly use these arguments as deterrents to the AFL to press charges but if they call our bluff I think we need to determine what is in the best long term interests of the club and I don’t think a long, drawn-out court battle with dirty laundry being aired, negative media attention impacting our brand and FD (including coaches & players) and backlash from the AFL with a possibility of more severe penalties is really what we want. Now if we suffer further investigation from government bodies due to an adverse finding by the league we may have no other choice than to fight it but I don’t welcome the thought.

And you think going to court is going to solve that? Our brand has already been adversely impacted going to court won't repair that. At the very best we can hope for is an outcome of insufficient evidence to find we tanked, no way we would be cleared altogether.

Yeah next Commission meeting is 18th of Feb I think so will definitely be next week the sooner the better.

Let's be honest here - everyone knows we tanked, it's only whether it can be proven that is the issue. I don't think we really want to go to court with this at the end of the day and the consequences of a loss are far worse for us than they are for the AFL. If we go before the Commission and they strip us of a couple of draft picks for the next year or two cop it on the chin and move on. We already have enough top end draft picks to work with and have mitigated against any penalties somewhat by having Hogan up our sleeve and gaining Viney with F/S. FA will also mitigate any draft picks we lose. If we've learnt anything out of this whole debacle it should be that draft picks are not the panacea we thought they were. Sydney haven't had many high draft picks and they've won 2 flags in recent years (COL hasn't really played a factor either). Adelaide haven't had many high draft picks either and they've got a decent squad. Just get on with it and let this club get back to the business of playing footy instead of being about anything but.

Brilliant post. EDIT: Unfortunately this type of "muckraking" reporting which is generally opinion disguised as journalism isn't limited to football/sport. It is the current state of journalism across the board. Think it's time for another wave of new journalism.

But we let him pick our coaches...

I think a protracted court case would be a vastly worse outcome for us than it would be for the AFL.

Very very doubtful - they hold the Aces here, not us.

That's just what this club needs...

Any reports?

It's not 1956 anymore.

I've seen a few mentions that Stephen "The Pharmacist" Dank is currently at Melbourne but have seen nothing conclusive and am unable to scroll through the 15 page Bombers thread. Is anyone able to confirm or deny this guy is currently at the Demons? Would be worth asking tonight for those heading to the AGM if it is still unclear.

Ah no, it's asking questions of the admin of the football club that I am a paying member of. Emails, AGM, supporter forums are all methods of querying this. Whatever happened to CS coming on here anyway, maybe we should bump his last thread where he ridiculed the most loyal supporters of the club who care enough to come on here and waste there time discussing it. Or we could all just not give a damn and go back to our cucumber sandwhiches in the long room and schmooze with the good ol' boys from the top end of Collins Street, that's what this club is about anyway isn't it? It's certainly not about winning games of football it seems.

That is an alarming figure especially since it is probably weighted towards the older generations.

I don't have the expertise but there are others out there who do and as a paid up premium member of 24 years I'm entitled to query these things and hold the clubs employees to account. I don't have the expertise to coach or play either but I can commen on those too.

I don't care how easy or difficult it is. It's their job, if they can't do it move over and let someone else do it. Time for excuses is over, that goes for on-field and off. It's not like this is a one-off it's been endemic throughout the current admin.

Hmm on one hand it is good they are using every available resource to try and assist the club - on the other this screams amateur hour to me. There are still at least 5 sponsorship partners outstanding for a season which begins in 8 weeks (NAB Cup in 3 or so) and the club/CEO/board is unable to do their job and sign some up so they go cap in hand to the members hoping one of them may bail them out. Similar to what happened with Kaspersky, Webjet and to a lesser extent Hankook (long term MFC supporter now disenchanted from the club) - which sponsors (besides EnergyWatch) have the club actually managed to sign off their own bat in the last 4 years? Even sponsors like Opel seem to be have been acquired only through heavily discounted offers through desparation following the EnergyWatch saga.

FFS it's only January and already the "woe is me" types are out and writing off players seasons. To me it seems clear they have placed Gawn on the LTI at this stage as a pre-caution. If he doesn't come up by R1 they have the option of upgrading a rookie so we aren't a player down. If they wait any longer it will eat into the season considering the 8 week minimum a player must be on the LTI. If he comes up then they'll just take him off. I wouldn't be reading anything else into it.

I agree but the pressure is on the Board/CEO this year moreso than Neeld & the FD (who will certainly feel pressure as well if we chuck up the same rubbish as last year).

This is true but CD will (should?) rely solely on stats to paint the picture - they won't necessarily account for impact of changes in off-field roles unless as an explanation for changes in output (which haven't really been seen yet).

While that is all true the fact remains he is employed to do a job and securing sponsors is an integral part of that so if he fails to sign some to decent deals (dollars and years-wise) he probably will and should get the arse - especially considering the issues we have had with sponsors in the last few years under his management.

I'll just preface this by saying I don't have any affiliation one way or the other with any current or prior board other than being a 24 year MFC member & current Trident's Member; Schwab would want to sort out these sponsorship issues quicksmart (long term not just quick fixes) or he'll be looking for work before the years out regardless of the outcome fo the AFL investigation.