Slartibartfast

One of the better views I've heard is that "tanking" can only occur on the field. When GWS made 8 changes against GCS in the Whitfield Cup and Hawthorn left 10 or so players out of their team punters knew what was happening and could adjust their betting accordingly. Personally, if you believed we tanked which I do, it wasn't hard to judge MFC's from going into games in the last half of 2009 so I reckon the punter was in a much better position than usual in our games. IMO tanking initially related to players not trying to win but the confusion now lies over its possible extension to list management and selection decisions. And what of training? [censored] the players on the track during the week so they can hardly run on the weekend? I wonder if that got examined. What people are concerned about is the motive. If the motive was to list manage and lose in order to gain PP then it's draft tampering. To me that is the issue. I can't imagine any sensible person thinks the players didn't try.

Redleg it goes to motive. If the objective of any decision is to gain access to a better draft pick it's tampering. If a club rests players before finals to give them a better chance of winning a GF then it clearly isn't.

No, anyone who doesn't want to read my posts. That would be good.

Titan put me on "ignore", you'll find it easier that way.

Titan there are question marks after each of my statement. I was asking H_T questions. I can't prove we tanked (subject to the definition) but you can't prove we didn't. That's why there is discussion. My views are in my penultimate post. That's my view.

What about reducing our chances of winning using list management, selection and positional methodologies that were done with the motive of obtaining a PP?Do you think we did that and is that tanking? Do you think we compromised the draft?

We don't know what the AFL has, we only know what the media has. But I agree, if this is it we're home free.

Even worse. Imagine if Carlton got another first round pick! With no PP I don't think it's much of an issue and if the bottom team got pick 10 it would be clearly unfair.

Can't see this happening. It would place a whole lot of extra work on already stressed under resourced recruiting departments if they don't know where their pick will be. Also, at the end of the day, who cares what the order is for the bottom 4 or so teams.

David Neitz should be there, he is a great Demon. Record games, record goals, record games as captain. Not only that he passed up on a final year career ending injury payment of well in excess of $100,000 because he knew the club couldn't afford it. Well ahead of Garry Lyon in terms of a great club man. FWIW I agree the focus should be on our future. For young supporters Smith, Barassi and the like are just names from our past who hold no real connection to the present. If they are going to be noted surely we should have Tom Wills, perhaps our most famous identity.

It's a controlled leak from the club to make the AFL's case look silly. It's working strongly in our favour. What it's not doing is telling us what the AFL's strong points are and until we know that we'll not know where we stand.

I've said all along that the AFL will reverse engineer this and that it is in everyone's best interest for this to just go away. We've been investigated for months now so nobody could say the AFL has ignored the issue. But the "evidence" or "accusations" are so weak as to be meaningless. I think that just about everyone knows the AFL couldn't prove tanking on a rotations basis, positional move basis, selection policy basis or, for heavens sakes, fumbles. How many similar circumstances could MFC come up with to show they were "normal". My view is this is the first step in showing the footy world that the MFC didn't tank. It's carefully planned and will probably coincide with a "no case to answer" finding on the Friday before the Aussi Tennis Open finals. But I do have one major concern. In one article I read it said that the AFL was closed until Monday so you'd think that this leak comes from our side in which case it would be selectively positive towards our cause. These articles make no mention of the "vault" meeting or the alleged meeting between Schwab and Bailey and seem to good to be true. If it walk and talks like a duck....

It's not an eye.

You should think things through on their merits and not based on your desire to disagree with all I say for the purpose of ridicule. The only person you're making look silly is yourself. It changes the dynamic whether you like it or not and raises the stakes for all concerned.

Oh yes it does. Grimshaw, Jalland, Howcroft and others hold very senior business positions. With plausible deniability they could avoid involvement and they would make decisions based on what's best for the club. If their reputations are on the line that objective will be seriously muddied.

It's the first time I've seen them mentioned. In any well run organization they would have plausible deniability, that would be good management and governance. I wonder if they do although I think I know the answer. Personally I think Jimmy will be doing a lot of good for the club even as we speak.

I'd argue that it's our failure to get early picks right that has hurt us significantly more than anything else over the last 10 years of drafting. Molan, Smith, Bell, McLean, Sylvia, Bate, Dunn, Morton, Frawley, Watts, Blease, Strauss, Gysberts, Tapscott, Scully, Trengove and Cook are all top 20 picks in the last 10 years or so. There are 17 there and Frawley and perhaps Jones aside there isn't much to hang your hat on. If you don't get the early picks right it doesn't matter what you do later in the draft. Having said that I think there is a chance that in a year or two we may be singing a different song re Barry.

Interesting to see the Board mentioned as being one of the four parties with a "please explain". That raises the stakes significantly and changes the dynamics. Of course it might not be right. Can't imagine the AFL wanting to pizz on a statue.

Yep, I'm standing up for myself and others, just like many believe the MFC should do in the tanking issue.

Because I couldn't call you stupid if I was. You'd be pretty stupid not to understand that.

Robbie your post invites a discussion on why I think CS and DMcL are not "best practice" but I'll not go there albeit that it would suit the "agenda" you think I've been so busy running. I point out again that it is you who raised this issue, not me. Suffice to say that an organization is tested in difficult times and it's necessary to manage those times well. I think there are numerous examples where we have been very poor when things are tough and it has cost us dearly. This is not to deny some very good work by both and I respect particularly the work of Don who is unpaid and has committed significant time to his post.

I agree but it surprises me that so many have taken offence at this comment. What I find completely insulting and far more offensive is to be told you're running an agenda, not a worthy supporter and wanting the club to fail. One bloke, who I think is a mod, accused me of being Caro's leak. FM, why would a supporter provide her with information? WYL continually insinuates I'm being interrogated by the AFL in the tanking affair with not one shred of evidence to support his assertion. Ordinary? Yes, in the extreme. And when the dolt said BH wanted to see the club fail I thought it was about time to call time. As most would know BH and I clash at times but I've not one shred of doubt about him being a fanatical supporter who wants nothing more than see this club succeed. You don't think it was an ordinary comment? Sorry but I'll now give a bit when people make stupid statement, it's one of the main reasons I'm no longer a mod because as has been clearly pointed out it wouldn't be appropriate if I was and it was about time an alternative view was put even if it did upset the cheerleaders. EDIT: Hadn't seen your post when I posted this BH. We disagree on much but agree on more.

Robbie you're being a bit silly here. I want the club to be cleared of any wrong doing, that's not a hard concept to get your head around. It would be for the good of the club for this to happen. I'm on record of saying that I think we can do better than Schwab and McLardy but to conclude from that that I'd be happy for the tanking investigation to succeed to achieve that result is just dumb as the possible penalties and the damage to our image, sponsorship, finances, drafting and perhaps membership would put us back a long way. I know you can't get past my "agenda" but what you don't realise is that my agenda, if that is the right word, is based around us becoming successful. That you and I disagree on the methodology does not make one person right and the other wrong, or in my case "evil". Schwab is no more or less to me than a person within the club doing a role. He's like a very important, perhaps the most important, person in a football team. If he isn't the best we can do we should look to improve. I think we can do better and you don't. We differ but it doesn't mean I'm out to get him, I just have a view. Hope this helps but I doubt it will. BTW, when did CC come into this?

I think that Strauss is the forgotten man and I'm hoping for a good season from him. If he does come good not only will it be a great story after the terrible injury he had but he will join Blease, Watts, Bail and McKenzie as players picked in Prendergast's first year to succeed. Watts I believe could play the role Goddard played for Saints so successfully and do it exceptionally well. And there is still hope for Jetta who is doing his first full preseason and doing well by all reports. Barry's second year was Scully, Trengove, Gysberts, Tapscott, Gawn and Fitzpatrick. All are still on AFL lists (as is Bennell from the previous year) and they may all carve out AFL careers. Cook was a clear failure from the next year but Howe and McDonald were outstanding gets from later in the draft with Davis still on a list. The Taggert, Tynan year doesn't count as they'd be on lists anyway. Barry has been judged very harshly but the reality is only one of his picks in the ND to this stage is a fail. Many of the others have already made it. I recognize that he had many early picks but he also made some very good decisions with later picks and unlike many I don't hold him as a failure. The next two years will tell. The FD failure of course was not with the individual players picked but there failure to pick the right type in that they only picked 3 genuine mids having had 8 top 20 picks in three years.

No, I want the club, and by extension Bailey, to be cleared of any wrong doing.