binman

Spot on. Smart operator Gill (and AD who of course was acting behind the scenes). Clear precedent set for possible future penalties to be applied to Essendon. Even if no banned substances were used their processes around the supplement program were super sketchy and they will be slugged. A new version of the equalization process. Whilst they're at it they should slug Carlton, Collin wood and West Coast and we'd have our 500k straight back!

From the Hun: 'In the end, AFL investigators found no evidence to that the club tanked. It's accepted that clubs can experiment with player positioning on the field.' Thankyou. We did not tank.

A bit dramatic i would have thought. The executioner? To be clear i believe we are not guilty of tanking (it is important to note that we have not been charged with tanking btw). Despite this i also support what the club is doing and working out a negotiated settlement. The two positions are not mutually exclusive. As i have said there are no winners going to court and despite the fact we would have a great case we simply do not need the associated cost, distraction and drama. Nor do we need to make an enemy of the AFL (for starters imagine our draw next year if we get in a stoush with them - lots of interstate travel i would think). I think the AFL will make it clear the club has been found not guilty of the charges (and that there is no evidence of tanking ie players trying to lose) but that key personnel (perhaps working on their own initiative and certainly without support from the club) encouraged some practices that sit outside normal list management practices. The fine will relate to the club not reigning that in. I suspect the fine will be $500 k with half suspended. If we end up without next years draft being compromised that will be a huge, huge win. We will have a top 5 pick to go with Hogan who will be cherry ripe. That works for me.'And obviously for the club as clearly they have been working on a negotiated settlement. But lets see. If the wording isn't spot on and the penalties end up being more severe that has been suggested then sure, going to court should be considered, but only as a last option.

Why so?

Yes true, i was just being facetious. However rates the the young guns doesn't necessarily mean he thinks they're any good and to be honest he seemed to be damning the Gys with faint praise - he was unbelievably skinny when he arrived, which really is largely (if not entirely) his fault. Comments like he has come on dramatically smack a bit of a backhanded compliment and compared to his more effusive praise of other new recruits (he's hard at it, etc etc) a bit on the not so enthusiastic part of the how i rate my new team mate spectrum. But to be honest i hope he does make it as an AFL player and that North can help him achieve that. Unlike some i would not see that as a knock on our development program. Footy is littered with people who have seized second chances and turned their attitude around.

Kerr got smashed drunk, beat up a taxi driver and trashed his cab. He had form in this regard and like many AFL players had a problematical relationship with alcohol. The AFL did nothing - they let the matter go to court and play itself out there. What was the AFL's punishment for Heath Scotland by the by? He broke the law (and someone's face). The list goes on and on. Despite no positive tests, no criminal charges, lots of whispers and a couple of sketchy incidents (no violence) the AFL charged Cousins with bringing the game into disrepute (he certainly brought himself into disrepute but the game?) and kicked him out of the game. Doesn't seemed to acted as much of a deterrent does it.

We do have an official definition of tanking. The AFL CEO was explicit in his definition and left no room for confusion. Until it is codified his definition stands as the official AFL definition of tanking. I don't understand all the semantic posturing over this issue. We have a definition. Perhaps if people want to have a semantics or ethics discussion they could open a thread called 'Lets have fun and define tanking'. The only question that for me is worth debating and or discussing in this thread (which is - or was - about the outcomes of the AFL investigation and possible sanctions) is did we tank according to the official definition? The answer is no. The investigation appears to have found absolutely no evidence we did. Nothing, nada, zip. McClardy made that clear in his intelligent and to the point response to CW's silliness. We did not tank.

You're being unrealistic

I've backed the dees to make the 8

Rates him as what. I lloked for some praise in that quote and couldn't find any.

I had to laugh when i saw that photo. Hardly the shot that's going to convince BH Wattsy hardened up.

That is just untrue. It will be made explicitly clear we are not guilty of tanking and there is no evidence supporting the allegation we conspired to lose matches. The charge of brining the game in disrepute will hinge on CC's comments in the meeting and their potential to embarrass the club and the AFL by being in an environment where they would likely be repeated. As i said stupid logic but the best they can do.

More bollocks

Bollocks.

Spot on 55. The charge will be bringing the game into dispute which allows us to make the point we did not tank and there is no proof we did (which was what DM said in his statement). Stupid charge obviously but the only one they can level if they want a negotiated settlement. They'll just be working out the numbers as we speak. Perhaps the $500 k will be partially suspended? I noted last night that this was likely a strategic leak from the AFL so interesting to see Francis Leach's tweet above which seems to confirm that. Funny then that the Age article detailing the likely outcomes was labelled an exclusive when every paper in the country seemed to be running with it (now that what i call a leak!)

I have to admit i had a laugh about that. Full page red and blue tank with a Melbourne insignia. People getting cranky at CW should remember that there is editor who vets and directs.

Sorry here 'tis http://www.melbournefc.com.au/dee-tv

some nice video footage on dee tv of the game btw (on 4.5 mins but better than nothing - not bad music either)

Fair call. I suspect that the negotiations around these issues are what are holding things up. We need to be able to maintain we never tanked and they need to to find a way to penalise us without suggesting we tanked. Tricky.

Exactly. Had months to prepare and if he had stayed calm could have completely shown up how illogical her arguments are/were. Particularly the issue of this unofficial business. CW clearly had implied in her article that this was what the club had put forward as a defence not what some random insiders and supporters were saying. Hence DM's completely reasonable response. She was being completely disingenuous on the FC (and again in her latest article). But the clincher was that he missed the chance to completely show her up when she replied to his comment that players deliberately fumbling were raised in the report that it was never covered in the media. He must have known it had (and i would have assumed she would have been told after raising it the previous week). ​He also let her derail the conversation by asking the others if we deliberately lost games in 2009 (and they all agreed) and raising the conflict issue (when he lost it). I get the passion and all that but jeez he had the chance to drive a truck through her logic and flat out missed it.

Some random thoughts: Gary Lyon completely blew it. Way too emotional and also too aggressive. Crossed the line by some margin and i think he knew it. CW was understandably in fight or flight and as she was stuck there was always going have defensive body language (eg crossing the arms). Also ensured there could be no intelligent discussion. Made for very uncomfortable viewing. How no one mentioned that the suggestion players deliberately fumbled was in fact in the newspapers beggars belief (some posters said GL did say it but he actually said it was in the report). Who is briefing these people? Speaking of crossing the line. Quite a few demonland posters have crossed the line with their personal insults of CW. Sure critically analyse her articles, even slam them but all this with witch, shrew (and the rest) business is pathetic. Whoever the poster was that said they would be happy if she died should be ashamed of themselves (even with the rider) and i hoped has been banned or suspended. I suspect her latest article (which by the by is a good straight forward article) is the product of a strategic leak from the AFL to both papers given it largely is the same info as in John Ralph's Hun article. I guess the idea is to prepare the public for an outcome that doesn't involve throwing the book at us. All this palaver about us fighting the good fight, standing our ground, going to war, not accepting any compromise blah, blah blah is tiresome in the extreme. I tell you all the DL critics of the board would have every reason to slam them if they don't find a reasonable negotiated outcome that means we avoid court. And to end my rant. The idea that a negotiated settlement means we will forever be tainted as cheats is so stupid it gives me a headache just reading it. The only intelligent comment about the the issue the other night on FC was from Hutchy and was along the lines of get the deal done and get on with the season. Even without the drug scandal no one would have thought us any different to 5-6 other clubs who did the same thing (ie list managed to improve draft position). For gods sake there is Carlton game that will forever be called the Kruezer cup! But with the drug scandal - which will drag on for much longer than the tanking investigation - this whole thing will be buried and forgotten. Do the deal and lets get on with it. $500k ? Cheap at twice the price. Connoly suspended from being in a footy position? As several media people have pointed out he isn't in one atm so who cares? (by the by what no one in the media has pointed out is that was a very clever move by the board). Of course he won't be pleased but its big business and they play rough. He knows that - he's been a senior coach fcs. Get the deal done. Edit: the article i refer to above is not the opinion piece that has just gone up. That's made my headache worse!

Live by the source, die by the source (when they dry up - or give info that makes her look a tad silly)

Did Bernard Tomic tank last year because as he admitted he did not commit himself to training and he and his coach made some poor (or in the current vernacular unusual) scheduling decisions? or did he tank when he clearly threw in the towel in several matches (in tennis parlance tanking, which i guess is where the phrase came from and as such perhaps is the closest thing to a universally understood definition of the word ie a player not trying) From Wikipedia: when a team intentionally loses a game, or does not score as high as it can, to obtain a perceived future competitive advantage (for instance, earning a high draft pick) rather than gamblers being involved, the team is often said to have tanked the game instead of having thrown it. my head hurts

Really? There has hardly been any real developments since last week so what on earth will they be able to say? My understanding is....My sources tell me.......Hird has to go....What about the role of Bomber?......How will they prove it......So how many clubs are actually vulnerable to illicit drugs.........blah blah blah.........

I don't think FC is back on till late march