binman

BH - not a troll, more a content generator

Love it! Is Don. Is Good

I also agree

Ok but leaving aside any discussion about tanking given it was round 21 and we had no chance of making the finals standard coaching practice for ever and a day would be to experiment, play players in positions not their norm, try a few things - all with the aim of improving our chances of success in the following season. Which it appeared to do. For example Jamar claims that increased versatility helped him take his game to another level (AA level as it turns out) which had to help the team in general (and still is for that matter). So in fact rather than coaching in an extraordinary suspect fashion Bailey was in fact coaching in a bog standard ordinary way. And by the by what does it matter or indicate that at times he had Spencer and McLean beside him? He played as a forward that day and as the key ruckman Spencer would have his turn resting up forward. And McLean was/is a mid and almost all mids spend some time up forward, indeed it is often said what makes players like Judd and Ablett (and Swan for that matter) so dangerous is their capacity to play forward and contribute goals. Again all moves at the [censored] end of listless season have to be seen through the lens of what is best for the side in the following year(s). The parallel to our last season is obvious. Several players were players were played out of their normal position (which reduced our chances of winning at times) in large part due to Neeld having an eye to the future. Playing Rivers, arguably our best defender up forward for an extended period allowed the back six to gel (ie the ones who would be playing together in 2013) and Tommy Mac to flourish. All in the name of development not winning discreet games. Tanking? I think not and no different to what Bailey did.

Nice little article in today's' Hun with Jamar talking about the "tanking plaver". Article says that the "controversial stretch of games where Melbourne was accused of tanking were the making of his career" with Jamar saying that playing in different positions helped him to be more versatile and helped build his confidence for the following year when he made AA. He also notes playing forward has helped play that role now (as he is expected to, particularly given the changes to the interchange rules and the introduction of the sub - my comment). Another great comment was that as a forward he kicked 5 against Carlton in round 21! Pretty poor bit of tanking by Bailey then. I mean how often in the last decade has any demon player kicked 5 in a game - a tanking coach worth half his salt would have moved him after he kicked his first.

Yep and good call.

Or bottle of Grange

The majority of my peer group, work mates and others (ie the man in the street) i chat to about this issue don't believe we cheated. Most seem to be saying that it was standard operating practice to list manage in a way that maximized draft position and that they accept multiple clubs did exactly that (this view mirrors that put forward by the CEO of the most powerful and influential footy club CEO in the country - Eddie McGuire). Some of those men in the street also believe that we are being crucified for breaking a rule that does not exist but not the majority as to be honest most don't care enough to have formed a view on this (or whether we should be punished for that matter). However it is absolutely true to say that the majority of people i know or have talked to about this seem to believe if we are punished then all the other clubs who did exactly the same thing should also be punished (which is an ace up our sleeve as the AFL will be well aware of the public pressure to go after,say CW - a point CW made early on)

Again i have no great truck with CW. I dislike her style of gossipy journalism but acknowledge some like it. I do wonder again though where was she when the biggest story in recent AFL history was brewing? She and others and purely reactive and in no way are investigative journalists. However as i have noted CW whole modus operandi relies on having good sources and her recent significant missteps have likely threatened the qulaity of her sources and information. To me the latest article is evidence of this. It suggests that her sources were probably some ex Melbourne people, AA and possibly others connected the investigation. These sources have dried up and she has nothing new and is now really struggling (to the extent that her articles are now overtly marked as opinion which is perhaps also protection against defamation suits). Her assertion that "Connolly will be charged as will former coach Dean Bailey" is most likely AA's view of how things will/should proceed and is now months old. As an aside I have to say i loved the line ''but Fairfax Media could not confirm whether CEO Cameron Schwab would also be charged." Such tricky snake oil salesman style journalism that again is symptomatic of the standards of footy writing in general. What does it mean? It implies that it has been confirmed that the others will be charged (impossible i would have thought - unless Gill is talking directly to her and even then it would not be 'officially' confirmed as such) and that she (or Fairfax) have some sort of official dialogue with the AFL on this issue (when in fact not ever talking to anyone about this issues or asking the question would be not confirming it - i could say that i can't confirm CW has used performance enhancing drugs, which would be true - i can't confirm it - but at the same time implies she does).

Lets say it turns out to be true - there'd still be people who say we erred by not taking him!

A deal will be done.

Unless i'm going crazy the article does not say he will be based in NZ

I've worked it out! Watts is as attractive as BH's avatar and he is unsettled by the feelings it stirs in him.

A guilty verdict of what Ben? All three charges, one of the charges or just two of them. You obviously know we haven't been charged with tanking - no such charege exists. Leaving aside the likelihood of charges being successfully prosecuted i would expect severe penalties of the dees or any club found guilty of all three of the charges, particularly draft tampering. Draft tampering is a bloody serious charge.

I reckon this is spot on. No doubt in my mind AA left (or was pushed) because of the ridiculousness of this investigation. They will do a deal and good on them. Should have happened 6 months ago. As i've said before there are no winners going to court and whilst it might make some supporters feel all warm inside if we fight city hall pragmatism will win out (as it usually should). Avoiding court doesn't have to mean accepting guilt on tanking or offering CC up as a sacrificial lamb (or should that be sacrificial scapegoat). Good on Gil for looking for a way out (if true)

Touch a very big lump of wood but surely this is by far the best position we've been in terms of injury coming into a season for a long long time (touching wood again!)

When and how (ie twitter, website?) did Melbourne say it wasn't us?

Is that like one of CW's sources?

My take on cutting a deal to avoid court action? I reckon stand firm to any pressure to suspend or sack (or anything remotely similar) CC. But do a deal where we make it clear we haven't tanked but acknowledge that even though CC was just joking in the infamous meeting we understand that it is possible that some employees (but not key ones, in particular DB) may have thought he was being serious. We agree perception is reality blah, blah and we will certainly ensure CC is aware of that. So plead guilty to the charge of encouraging coaches not to perform to their utmost. But only that charge. All others withdrawn The penalty? Cop fine or even perhaps a fine and a second round draft pick. Why? Because at the end of the day we really don't want to go to court. No winners going down that route. Who cares about some coin (which is likely going to be far less than paying lawyers) and a draft pick?, well we know there is no guarantee you'll get an AFL player in the second round anyway. This way we avoid court, make it clear we haven't tanked an can move on without all the white noise.

Would people pleaaaaase stop replying to MJT - it's making a mockery of my ignore function!

Totally fair call Bob. That's your view and fair enough. But the moral question is a different one to the more black and white legal one of right or wrong. But that's my query about being disingenuous. It appears to me (and i'm happy to be wrong) that you are trying to make the above points indirectly or via a legal 'clarification" question of Redleg.

Woewodin hands back his Charlie? What about Cousins - if he had to hand back his Charlie it would be like that scene from Scarface!

Again i'm not sure if you are being disingenuous or not Bob. Perhaps i'm wrong, but to me your post (and several others in a similar vein) implied you believe we have transgressed or broken some rules. But i'll take you at face value and accept you were asking Redleg for a legal opinion. Now that he has given it, and you profess to respect his opinion, i assume you will move on and leave the notion of us breaking rules (or Carlton for that matter) alone.

Bob, I'm really confused by your stance on this, particularly your emphasis on whether we broke rules or not. The answer to your question above is, of course it isn't against the '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? We can't break a rule that doesn't exist. As Eddie said maximising draft position was and is standard business practice. Is it against the spirit of the rules or comp? Maybe. Is it, in the end a strategy that is worth the downside (eg not having a winning culture)? Probably not. But either way minimising the chances of winning by say resting players (such as GWS did just last year) for whatever purpose (draft position, chances of winning a final the next week etc) is not against the AFL rules as they stand now (which by the way i expect that they will be changed to make this clearer). You can see this can't you or are you being disingenuous? The whole point and problem for the AFL is there no specific rule that relates to this. The best that they have is the encouraging coaches, players etc not to play to their utmost, which is what i think they will try to pin on CC (and is perhaps the only charge they have a hope in hell of making stick). As i have posted before there is an official definition of tanking. The AFL's CEO gave it and made it explicit and until they clearly articulate another in their policies and procedures it has to be the one that every one goes by (including a court). By his definition we have not tanked. End of story.

And who is Thrice (anyone who knows e25 must have been around a bit)?