Slartibartfast

I don't know the answer but it would have been hard to have less resources. He was a paradox in a way. He was very ordinary with early picks but got a lot of good ones late. In the first RD he recruited Robbo, Junior, Nathan Bassett, Ward and Bishop. He picked up Woey, Rigoni,;Nathan Brown, Whelan, Bruce, Jolly and Jamar with late picks. But he failed terribly with his early picks and that killed us. It's ironic that close to his best, Scotty Thompson, didn't get on with the coach and is/was exactly what we need.

I note this from our website about our footy recruiting department Craig Cameron did all their jobs when he was at Melbourne. There was no list management committee.

It's a depressing team. That midfield would struggle to be top quartile in todays competition. To think that in 25 years we can't cobble together a better midfield than that tell us why we haven't been able to win a flag.

Perhaps to a degree yes, but shyte happens.

I understand that but the general footy public don't see it in those terms and I doubt the AFL did. They may now having had significant discussions with us. This is a branding exercise to the AFL, they don't give a rats toss that we got an extra draft pick. And the man in the street thinks we cheated. That's the issue and that's what Caro's on about.

I spoke to a long time MFC supporter yesterday and he said "we tanked". I said "it depends on the definition". He said "we didn't try and win". That's what Caro is editorializing. What WJ and Redleg are doing is acting in accordance with their training and profession. They are mounting legal arguments to get us off. It's probably one time I hope the law is an ass in our favour.

The nice thing is that when you stop beating your head against a brick wall it stops hurting after a while. You may wish to consider it. Sorry Redleg, I hadn't seen your earlier post.

AFL give us terrible draws, remove our funding, don't guarantee our loans and at the end of the TV rights period we are the Tassie Demons. We've got the lowest number of supporters in the AFL, we are expendable. You really don't get it.

Or sometimes you have to live to fight another day.

Firstly we may lose the club. You really don't get the relationship we have with the AFL do you. Secondly we may lose the court case.

What if CS and CC instructed Bailey to tank but he didn't do it?

It's not an easy situation and you only have to look at Matt Rendell to see why. If Bailey refuses to cooperate the AFL go to Adelaide FC and just point out that his decision is putting stress on the AFL/AFC relationship and given past recent events that is not desirable. It would be in their best interest to part company with Dean. I have sympathy for DB's situation re "following orders" but he was senior enough to carry a portion of the responsibility of those orders or simply not to follow them.

I actually think they can do it better than most. I'm surprised you can't see that what is at stake here, as well as the merits of each individual issue, is the overall image or "brand" of the AFL. Most would recognize, you may not, that the drug issue at present represents a significant threat to the brand of the AFL. This plays into our hands as the AFL would be loath to be fighting "brand" issues on the drug issue and have the tanking issue going to court as well which circumstances of tanking being linked to more than one club. Sometimes things are more complex than they seem Robbie.

I would have thought most would realize that these negotiations would be fluid and that the situation and outcomes will change all the time. In your post you've recognized that he has changed his position in the last few weeks, What is surprising about that? The events of the last week would almost certainly have impacted on the possible outcomes we will face as will each individuals response to any deal offered.

I don't know what he didn't like about Dal Santo. I shouldn't have said anything. My bad but we wouldn't have had Dal Santo and that was the point I wanted to make. Both Neale and Craig were/are very strong charactersl but Craig recognized that Neale was the boss and did what he was asked.

You'll have your moment in the sun if you're correct. Just save it. It sounds quite possible to me.

No, I was told in confidence but he didn't particularly fancy Dal Santo.

That's not correct.

List management to gain draft picks is "wrong" in the generally accepted sense IMO. List management to freshen players up for finals, resting players during the year as Geelong has regularly done is fine if it is to maximize the chances of success in that year. List management to lose a game to have you better placed for finals (ie "selecting opponents") is really tricky but in essence I think is ok but TBH I'm not sure. Players doing anything but their best (in contrast to list management) is unacceptable in any circumstances.

It's a non issue. People can make up there own mind. Most have and I don't care.

I believe, in a non legal sense, we were "wrong" in managing the club to lose game to gain draft picks. I believe we did that. I'm also on record of saying that I supported the move because it was "AFL approved best practice at the time we did it". Redled is a person with significant legal background who's opinion I respect so I asked him the questions. Like everyone here I want the club to be cleared and I don't want anyone of our employees punished and if Redleg can explain to me why we are innocent within the written law well and good I'll be pleased. But I'll still think we "tanked" in the "right and wrong" sense of the word and while I'd like to believe we were "right" (did the honourable and right thing) I've not seen an argument here that allows me to think that. And I'd like to. I reckon if we are cleared there will be many who inwardly thing "thank heavens we got away with that".

Binman the post you've responded to doesn't have a "stance" but asks questions of Redleg because I value his opinion. I thank him for taking the time to answer.

I've not seen anyone defend the process but that is quite different to considering the issue. IMO too many are sidetracked by the inequities of the processes when considering our actions. It's an easy place to go and feel good as most love playing the victim and I agree, in terms of process we are.

Thanks for your reply Redleg. I'm not aware that anyone has suggested the players didn't play to their best abilities and if that's the definition of tanking then I don't understand why the AFL has gone to the trouble they have. I think there must be more to their investigation. I added the words "with the intention of gaining draft picks" because list management aimed to win a premiership in the current year is clearly different to the motive of "gaining draft picks". I thought it would direct the conversation away from the obvious examples of list management that were not aimed at getting draft picks. Just on the topic of "legal background" I think this is much of the issue. The "ordinary" person would think it's wrong to "list manage" to get draft picks. They are making a decision on the morals of the situation based on "right or wrong".. Once it becomes an investigation and the legal interpretation of rules is examined then "right and wrong" become irrelevant and "did we break a law" becomes the issue. You will have seen this in your profession on countless occasions.

Do you think it's against any rules for administrators or/and coaches to make decisions which don't give you the best chance of winning with the intention of gaining the best draft picks? (Bailey's comment) Do you think we are guilty of that? Were you of the opinion around the time of 2007 and 2008 that Carlton had broken rules and should have been punished given their behaviour in the latter part of the 2007 season?