The Chazz

B59, the way I see it unfolding is that the AFL will come out and say "that after months of thorough investigations, it has been established that the MFC did NOT tank. However, the actions of senior members of the MFC administration have acted, at various times throughout 2009, in a manner that is against everything the AFL stand for, and as a result, CC and CS will be charged with bringing the game in to disrepute, based on our findings that they did/said x, y & z, and we have sufficent sources to prove this". That's how I see it playing out, without knowing one word of the 800-odd pages of reports presented to the MFC. I hope I'm incorrect, and as my opinion is in the minority, I expect a public flogging. Be careful though, that could excite...!

Totally agree DC. Soft tissue injuries are the best ones to report as there are a number that can go undetected in medical tests - just ask any Work Cover doctor! I wouldn't think the medical records provided to the AFL are made public, and I wouldn't think we would risk doing the wrong thing when submitting them. We have seen ex-players try and get compo from clubs for ongoing issues with concussion, etc. The clubs would need to be 100% confident that what they are submitting won't bite them in the future. As I said, if the reason for our rotations being down is due to injury, we should have sufficient evidence to close the case on this example. The fact that the AFL would have access to our medical records, and for the matter, are still pressing our buttons regarding it, is going to make it a bit harder in court for us to stand up and say "yeah, that player only played 30 mins because he had hamstring tightness". I'm all for taking it to court, but I'm just concerned that the so called "evidence" that the AFL has, will mean that any charges laid will be based on that, therefore will make it bloody hard for us to fight and win the charges. The fact that the potential charges appear to be "game in to disrepute", they (the AFL) can mould this charge to whatever they see fit (which will be based on evidence they have), therefore, it will take a good legal team from our side to win. But, as always, I have faith in the club and will support them til their end or mine.

Sue (and others) - I keep reading about how we only had one player, etc, which would automatically ensure our rotations are down, however, can I ask if you, or anyone else on here for that matter, has seen the club's medical report from that game? I am of the view that clubs need to submit medical reports at the conclusion of each game. I would imagine these records would need to be kept on file, and would take an educated guess that these reports, from this particular game, would be among the 800-1000 pages presented to the MFC. If it's true that we had 3 "genuine" injuries that day, then we should have sufficient evidence to close the case on this game. I don't see how any of us can be so sure that we do though, given that we have no idea what the AFL has presented us, and prior to that, what we presented to the AFL.

PJ, at this stage, and obviously not knowing what evidence the AFL has found, I am expecting we will be cleared of tanking. CC may get done for the game into disrepute rule for the remarks about staff geting sacked if we win games. Which could lead to CS getting a slap over the wrists, which could lead to the Club facing "something" under this category where we allowed prominent figures within the Club to act in such a fashion. Even from what we've been fed from the media, I don't think the AFL can afford to let all off. Equally, I don't think they can afford to get us for tanking mainly becasue of the clarity of the definition of the tanking rule, but also the fact the Dimwit won't eat humble pie, and the domino effect it will have on income streams such as sports betting. It also appears that while the "he said she said" rubbish talked about tanking, at the end of the day, Dean Bailey or any of his assistants never instructed the players to lose, and the players never played to lose. I don't think it's looking flash for CC. Regardless of if it was meant to be a joke, the AFL won't appreciate higher management at a club coming out on an alledged number of occasions, talking about processes being in place to ensure we secure priority draft picks. With all this talk of us taking them to court, if the AFL have got witnesses that are echoing the same story, and willing to do so in a court of law, I'm not sure how that will go. Just my opinion, hope I'm wrong and that we do get off. Time will tell.

I'm not sure if I've said this Paul...?

Reminds me of a photo of Caro, [censored] Barrett, Denham, and other media "personalities" waiting out the front of AFL house...

Jnr, just because the AFL are investigating tanking allegations doesn't mean that if they uncover other wrongdoings that they will turn a blind eye. If they can't prove tanking, they will want to get something out of this ongoing investigation. Hopefully this will be the last I say on this topic (hold the applause!); You are exactly right Outside Fifty. This could be a defining moment for the Club. IF the AFL have spent months investigating us, and all they've got to go us with is a "he said, she said" argument, then absolutely, we dig our heels in, we fight like possessed men, and women, and we take as many sculps as we can, inc Caro, [censored] Barrett, and anyone else you want to add to that list (they are the first 2 I will have in my sights!). IF someone/s at the Club were stupid enough to put something on paper in the form on an email, or whatever other for of evidence that MAY be presented to the MFC from the AFL (As per this week's reports), then we may need to get on the front foot and try and control the damage.

Connolly is/was not a player, coach or assistant coach, nor Schwab for that matter. If they have evidence against him, he would likely be charged for a different offence. The reports of Bailey and the players saying they did not set out to lose games will probably save the career of DB, as well as hopefully limit the penalty awrded to the MFC, if it gets to that stage.

This would be a better outcome for the AFL, and a lot easier to prove, than laying chrages for tanking wouldn't it? You know, the thing that Vlad said doesn't happen in the AFL? I think I know what egg he'd prefer of his face.

We do "got to deal with what's in front of us". From the supporters point of view, there is nothing in front of us that has me concerned. It's what's about to be dropped off at the MFC office from sender AFL that I'm cautious of.

RP, stop worrying about what the greater public know, and starting wondering what the AFL know. Still be confident that we are fine, but just be prepared. Why would Wilson apologise for something that she is yet to be proven wrong about? Yuck, I feel so dirty for even potentially sticking up for the drag(on) queen. If she is proved wrong, I'll happily waltz in to The Age offices with you with my pitchfork and demand she resigns. I don't trust the AFL, and I don't trust the media. I also don't have great confidence that some in our happy band of idiots (<---brilliant!) haven't slipped up.

Good post McQueen (I know that it has been mentioned before by other posters). The interesting part will be, if there are charges, is what those charges are actually for. I'm more inclined to think that the likes of CC will be done for bringing the game into disrepute.

I don't think anyone is saying we wave the white flag Nut. The posters that are suggesting this are doing so under the impression that the AFL does in fact have evidence. There are 2 sides of this argument on here; 1. If they AFL only have the evidence we have been privvy to through media outlets, then we can sleep easy. or 2. If the AFL have solid evidence, we're in strife. A number of posters have put their eggs in basket 1, and are promoting it with such cinfidence. I will continue to question how this can be, but at the same time, admire them for being so hopeful. Reality is, regardless of the side you are on, it's pure guess work, but that won't stop the masses from the standard "I told you so" should things go our way!

S_T, what you are posting is exactly how it stands. Where you are fighting a losing battle on here is because a number of posters don't want to think about what could be, they would rather draw their own conclusions based on what the media are telling them. I'm not criticising anyone for this BTW. As it stands, we don't know if the AFL have evidence, and this is based on the fact that the media haven't told us that they do. With what has been reported, we should be fine. But in this case, we simply have no idea if the media are on the mark or not. The fact that they keep digging and digging suggests to me that they are getting bugger all from the AFL, so their guess is as good as ours. I still don't understand the need for people to continually say "if CC's tounge-in-cheek comment is all that the AFL has got, then we're fine". I don't know anyone on here that is saying differently. There is a small group that are saying "if that is all that they have got, then yes, we are fine, but if they have more that we don't know about, then...". It really isn't that difficult. But one thing is for sure, if I'm relying on what Caro and [censored] Barrett are reporting to make my mind up, I'm not in a great place. I'd prefer to hear what Deegirl has got more than Dumb and Dumber.

Barrett is a [censored] that is reporting on nothing new. At least Deegirl's OP yesterday was actually current information, which was backed up by the fact that the AFL made an announcement yesterday afternoon.

Well said Nutbean, and I thank you for showing respect in regards to your post. I'm over the disrespectful posts on here, especially when someone voices an opinion that is different to the masses. On the otherhand, this bit I have bolded is just speculation on your behalf. I hope you're right, I hope to hell that it is subjective evidence that the AFL has in their hands. But, as Loges highlighted above, even the journo's no nothing. Is this because that's the point, that there is nothing? Or is it becasue the AFL has managed to keep a tight hold of what they have and are giving the journo's nothing? Let's face it, the people Caro contacted to fuel her argument are most likely punters that the AFL wouldn't even bother interviewing. I do admire the confidence that some have regarding the fact that the evidence is weak and that we will be fine. At this stage, I haven't seen anything, so I'd love to know what they have, or more to the point, what they don't have. Until then, I await the MFC's response to the recent statement made by the people that know, the AFL.

I didn't word that well hey?! I'm sure you knew what I meant!!

Excellent post PStD. The last paragraph in particular shows that it is possible to have the opinion that you do (ie believe the evidence that the AFL has got is very minimal and unlikely to damage us too much), without the need to carry on when someone thinks the opposite. We don't know what the AFL have, we don't know what the AFL want. We don't know if some at the MFC were stupid enough to document somewhere what our intentions were (ie in the form of an email or other hard evidence). The AFL are obivously tracking one of two paths, a) that they have been told there is physical evidence, other than alledged tounge-in-cheek comments made by CC, or b) they have got bugger all and are desperate to find something. The Adelaide fiasco needed immediate attention, as salary cap breaches can go on for years (see Melbourne Storm). Our 2009 season had great incentives for poor performance. While we have been crap every year since then, and leading up to it, what we alledgedly did in 2009 hasn't had a significant impact on results in 2010, 2011 and 2012 (ie us tanking in 2009 hasn't seen us win a premiership shortly thereafter). The events of 2008/2009 only damaged the MFC's brand and culture, which both are only starting to be repaired. This has only had a negative impact on us as a club, rather than the AFL competition.

I'm hoping I will get a "moderator" title for Christmas, and just trying to make the "nice" list of WJ.

Reading through what the minority had to put up with, I think "clowns" was a very polite reaction. I have one main issue RP, or as you call it, one storm in a teacup. It was the way that a number of posters ganged up on a small few posters for sharing an opinion. And well done on speaking on behalf of Deegirl - you "doubt she would have any problem with the few dozen questioning posts"? Her replies weren't full of joy if you ask me. But, I guess the bullies that hunted in packs had no doubt that the kids they were beating up on had no problem with it either. Given the fact that some people "liked" my post, I don't see the issue with my post. Off-season on Demonland is getting worse each year, and is no different to society in general. The decline in disrespect for others each year is worrying.

RP, you have turned it in to this storm. You have highlighted one point from my post of several points.

Pates, do what I do and sit on the fence and try not to give it any space in your mind! We are relying on the media circles to provide us with evidence, which we are then using in the fight with against AFL. All this when we have no idea what artillery they have!

Cheers mate, explained perfectly! At the risk of opening a can of worms, how has Watts been going with it? I'm just looking for improvement. Nb I am a supporter of JW.

I have seen this mentioned a few times throughout the reports, and it has got me a litle bit buggered as to what it means. Can someone please explain? Is it meaning that when we tackle the opposition, and they raise their hands/arms so that the tackle slips over their shoulders, a la Joel Selwood style, is this what we are trying to eliminate? Cheers.

As far as this matter goes, Dr, my opinion is very neutral. With that, my post isn't aimed at people that I don't agree with, becasue at this stage, I don't disagree with them. In this instance, I am taking issue with the way that some people are responding to others. The "guilty believers" are copping sh!t on here, but they aren't giving it back, they are just stating their opinions. The :"not guilty believers" are doing nothing other than attacking the opposing opinions. Actually, I should clarify "guilty believers". If you have a read through the posts of people that are considered the sky-fallers, a number of their posts aren't actually saying "WE ARE GUILTY". Most of them are offering potential sanctions IF we are found guilty. RP, I can understand that you want to know where a random poster is getting their material from, it's human nature, or as you appropriately said, it's the reflex question. It's just hard for some people to reveal sources, especially given that flogs like Barrett use these sites to get stories. You've been around here long enough to know which posters have a genuine source, and which posters to take with a grain of salt. Ok, Deegirl had only posted 3 times prior to yesterday, but there were enough people backing her to suggest that her story should be listened to. I will sit back with interest to see if her original comment about charges being laid eventuate. But your last sentence is spot on. All we can do is wait for "actual" news from the AFL and/or the MFC. This investigation has been going on far too long, and many $$$ have been spent by the AFL for them to leak like a sieve, so I sit and wait, and until charges are or are not laid, I will sit on the fence and wait, hoping that the majority on here are right (which is far from an educated guess).