Dr. Gonzo

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

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.