The Chazz

If it gets to court, would McLean and Moloney be more prepared than us as they know what happens in those sort of buildings?

I agree with this (apologies if I didn't communicate that to make it sound that I do!). The latter part of that paragraph is the bit that we all thought wasn't possible, but the last 24 hours events aren't filling us with as much confidence!

It's a lot better than what you've found RP! I'm trying to find a way for us to get away with this. If tanking = to tell a player/s to lose a game, then I think we're fine as I strongly believe this didn't happen. It is also my point that if "tanking" can't be used as the charge, then the AFL, if they want to, will find a different rule that we've broken. At this stage, and has been for a while, the ball is in Vlad's court. Sadly, I think he has racquet in hand and is about to serve. Let's hope he double faults!

GM, not having a go at you, but this is the shallow thought that a few posters have. Tanking isn't telling a player to lose. The true meaning of it is about failing, or suffering a sudden decline. Coaching moves can ensure this happens without the knowledge of the players (although some moves would be pretty obvious to them). It's up to the AFL to have enough evidence to prove that's what our intentions were. A few months back it looked almost impossible for them to find anything, but things are starting to leak and it aint great. It could get to the stage where it is up to the MFC to prove their innocence. Our defence was list management (which is what a few on here are calling, and understandably so), but that can be taken out of the equation if people start signing stat decs, etc.

Like you, I'm like "most people". It's the blokes that wear funny wigs that aren't like most people, and they're the ones that may eventually be fighting our case!

Great work Tim Harrington. Has locked in 3 draft picks this year, Viney, Evans and Nicho, has also locked in Jesse Hogan next year. Will make it difficult for Vlad to take ALL our picks off us, considering most are committed to players already!

I'm not trying to be a smart a$$, but a lawyer would have a field day with that definition, plain and simply, because that's not the definition! How's this definition; http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tank "Slang To suffer a sudden decline or failure". Tanking DOES NOT mean to tell players to lose. There is no formal definition of it meaning "to intentionally lose".

Clint - what does "tanking" mean? (Serious question - hoping for serious answer!)

Iva, the thing is that we could've got away with the "List Management" line, but c0ck head CC (alledgedly) called a meeting to discuss plans to not win too many games. That's why the "others" that have done it have gotten away with it.

I don't understand this "poor us" mentality. If we are guilty of what the AFL throw at us, we deserve to be punished. If that means making us sh!tter, then we have to deal with that. I'm on the fence with it. Will feel better (?) when I know what rule the AFL think we have broken.

The thing that needs addressing, before anything can be done, is an official and clear definition of "Tanking". If the AFL want to, they will find a law that we have broken, especially if all these people come forward and their stories are consistent. Will we be charged with tanking? It depends on what the rule book defines as tanking. From my recollection, the only thing the AFL has said is that they are investigating allegations that the MFC weren't giving themselves the best opportunity to win certain games. The general public call that tanking, but half the people on here say we didn't tank. How do you know we didn't if you don't know the meaning of it? I said in an earlier post, the only relevant, formal definition of tanking I could find was to fail. Did our players go out on purpose to fail? I strongly believe they didn't in tha tseason, just as strongly as I believed they did in 186. In 2009, did the coaches purposely set out to fail? That's the debate, and while it would seem hard to prove, I'm not liking the evidence that's appearing.

What has Stephen Milne go to do with this?

Geez, easy now turbo. Was only making an observation. I generally am happy to keep an open mind about most topics, I'm just really concerned about this particular one. Just for you though, the opposite to what I'm thinking is that we didn't tank, and there will be no case to answer. See, I can do it. You obviously do Oli, as you kindly replied to my post directed at a differnet poster.

I think this is an area where NRL have it over the AFL. They realease the season fixture with the first 6 rounds (I think) locked in to day/time, then week by week allocate what games will be played on what days/times, generally based on ladder positions. So bascially, they look in to a 6-week crystal ball and predict what will be the higer viewing matches for that round.

Found this article though, so not sure if I'll get a slap on the wrists for posting it from a (non) reputable source... http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/saints-jason-gram-in-court-20121030-28gun.html Not sure if the article relates to the OP, so apologies if I have derailed the thread.

Present.

I had to laugh at this post TU. You have put a lot of thought in to WTF could happen to us if we are guilty, but you sign off with a we didn't do it ending. If you were that confident we didn't do it, why worry yourself with what might happen?!

Was thinking it may have been a potential Top 10 pick from Western Australia, that the Eagles had their eye on.

RPFC - can you please give me the definition of "Tanking"? The only thing I can find anywhere on the net under "Tanking definition" that would be deemed appropriate in this situation is; "4. (Economics, Accounting & Finance / Stock Exchange) (Business / Commerce) (intr) Informal to fail, esp commercially See also tank up" With that definition in mind, were the players guilty of tanking? No, not those games as I refuse they delibrately failed. I would argue that a number of players tanked in 186 though. So, then we look higher, were the coaches sending us out to fail? Ie. Tank? This is the concern. But, I'm happy to believe you when you say we didn't tank, but please, can you give me a formal definition of the word Tanking?

All this talk of the backroom deal to enable us to get Viney in the 2nd round, but "overpay" for Hogan by using pick 3 + some, does that mean Gold Coast had a backroom deal with GWS as well? Afterall, they gave up Pick 2 + some for the 1st mini draft pick.

First class flogger. (Barrett that is, not you Clint!).

He is the final player that we had earmarked at the start of trade period that we haven't got. Let's see it happen! One thing I keep thinking of with Ray, not sure if it has been mentioned on this thread yet (can't be bothered reading it all), Misson would know what Ray's work ethic and attitude toward training would be like...

Well, whatever this place is that Morton and Gysberts have taken us can't get much worse can it?

71, 74, 75, 78, 85, 88, 92, 105

Oli, are you bitter that some of your predicted 14-Club trades didn't come to fruition, and in turn, wasted all that time you spent thinking up such deals?