nutbean

Former Richmond coach Terry Wallace admits he did "absolutely nothing" in a game two years ago, knowing a win would cost the Tigers prized recruit Trent Cotchin."It was a no-win situation for everyone in the coach's box," Wallace said. "We decided the best way to operate was just to let the players go out. "I didn't do anything. I just let the boys play. There weren't any miracle moves in the last couple of minutes." Richmond led by nine points 12 minutes into the final term, but the Saints kicked the last three goals to win by 10 points. The rule - "A person, being a player, coach or assistant coach, must at all times perform on their merits and must not induce, or encourage, any player, coach or assistant coach not to perform on their merits in any match - or in relation to any aspect of the match, for any reason whatsoever.'' - AFL Regulations 19(A5) Does this sound like a coach performing on his merits?

I would suggest that his testimony given during the interrogation, at a time when he had the full backing of the club might just vary slightly from what he might say or notes he may produce when he is trying to save his reputation and is an ex exployee who said "you are on your own buddy". All I am saying is that any charge and penalty "we" accept which includes CC and Schwab ( and i would venture even Bailey) would have to be accepted with their compliance.

Agreed on a negotiated settlement but when you say both parties - the MFC side of the equation needs the compliance of Bailey, Connolly and Schwab (if those are the three individuals targeted).

A life ban for an imbecilic joke ? So you would jettison CC in heartbeat. Just what we need - an angry CC going to court to clear his name furious at the MFC for throwing him to the wolves. If you have no problem with CC being banned for life are you that confident that he wont take on the saving of his reputation by himself and are you also confident that he wont have some choice words about his ex employer who shafted him ?

Actually you dont have to prove the witnesses wrong - in a civil action ( which this would be) it is balance of probabilities - would the average person be offended or feel bullied by CC's comments - clearly, by his admissions, the person who was in the best position to make CC's comments a reality (DB) didnt take him seriously. If there is a charge against CC for his "comments" and he is dismissed he would have a good case for wrongful dismissal. For a charge against CC for his ill conceived comments to be accepted unhindered, I suggest it would need CC's compliance to accept the charge and penalty ( ie a deal done and accepted).

The only slap on the wrist outcome that I could see happening would be parties being guilty of "injudicious comments that left open the possibility of misinterpretation" and maybe Connolly would come at that ( being guilty of a bad stand up routine) I am not so sure that Bailey would come at "injudicious actions that left open the possibility of misinterpretation" but maybe.. Other than that, how can the AFL find any parties guilty of "tanking" and wave the finger at them and whack them on the bum twice and say thats it or how could the club accept that ? For me, It is not about the penalty - it is about the wording of the charges - if any.

it explains a lot ! "The word comes from Laconia, a region in ancient Greece where the local Spartan rulers gave very short speeches" I am making a tenuous link but I think the Watts problem is Demetriou's fault.

again....vodaphone

I rank Luke Moylan as different kind of fail. He may have been taken earlier than the scribes predicted but compare that to Morton who was taken exactly as predicted, with many games to prove his worth and failed. Moylan was cruelled by injuries wihout proving whether he could or couldnt play so therefore in the black and white world of recruiting, he was a fail. If you are looking for shades - Morton and to a lesser extent Cook and Gysberts were worse. Those three got on the park and couldnt prove themselves.

If you are with vodaphone - anywhere in the greaterMelbourne metropolis

What has me scratching my head is that you are not the slightest bit irked about the penalty for dumb remarks being the loss of the club?

For us it has been a lifestyle choice.

BH told me in no uncertain manner that I waffle so I thought a change of avatar was appropriate - however I would like to see BH change his avatar to Mark Latham.

This is where I disagree - a loss is far worse for the AFL as the AFL will (should) be forced by the court definition of what actions constitute tanking to apply the same standard against other teams which participated in the same/similar practices. This would bode badly for Carlton, WCE, Richmond, Collingwood etc.

Have we considered that the club which has taken the vow of silence has also worded up Gary and said "dont comment and dont bite". Whilst I think if this all settled with no impact to us then we should all quietly move on , but I also know some will be baying for blood - CW's in particular. I think that keeping powder dry until we know what the outcome is, is a better idea than taking her task now before all the cards are on the table.

I agree but I do like to see ramifications outside what the AFL can do highlighted. I have seen AD having breakfast at Georgios in Malvern a couple of times by himself and he was studying the sports sections of the paper. I would like to think that he reads that and ponders that his "company's" disproportionate handling and ultimate decision could cost one of his stakeholders 10 million dollars in revenue.

I don't mind reading that. It hopefully ups the ante with the AFL. "Go down the path of charging for bringing the game into disrepute and these could be the consequences and you can bet that the MFC are not going to allow the jeopardising of millions of dollars of revenue by rolling over and accepting these charges". To those advocating we negotiate out a penalty. The single admission of guilt brings with it potentially huge ramifications outside what the AFL can do to us.

BH - profile pic changed....

Hence my very intentional indicator of where I am getting my read on the evidence - ie the papers. If ( and it is a very big if) the evidence is as the papers have reported then it is indeed subjective and open to interpretation.

Absolutely, but I am not in an exclusive club. (the membership committee advises that you have met all the necessary entry requirements and wishes you welcome)

potato potarto, tomato tomarto - if detailed retrospective investigation is being done on our club and if the prime reason is because of the game vs Richmond then it is remiss of the AFL not to widen the investigation and look at Carlton as well. If the AFL want to label us a tankers due to that match, they should not be letting Carlton off the hook because they "tanked a little bit less". If it so obvious what we did on that fateful day vs the tigers then what Carlton did was also obvious.Both or none - ( its like comparing Son of Sam and Charles Manson and debating who was the biggest mass murderer). (but you are right..we were more blatant. The only worse piece of tanking according to the rules (IMO) is the Wallace confession re Cotchin - that is an admitted confession to not coaching to the maximum due to the conflict over draft picks.)

The other point in the comparison is whilst you can make arguments about who knew what substances who was taking , you either have taken a banned substance or you havent. It is definitive. From my reading of the evidence in the tanking debate (from the papers) it is subjective.

I believe in Santa too !

I will get shouted down. I am actually saddened - FCS, I just wanna verbally punch on about football - who is the best team, worst team. I wanna hate Carlton because I dont like their scummy players not because of any system Judd has rorted and I want to hate Essendon but not because they are sticking stuff in their arms. The game is being overtaken by issues concerning tanking, salary cap breaches and drugs and that makes me sad.

Agree with all the above except a couple of points. 1/ retrospective investigations by the responsible body should have included others who participated in the same practices - this is not victim mentality 2/ I dont believe we were any more embarrassingly inept than Carlton - Mitchell and Fevola vs Bailey and Mclean - both Bails and Brock spoke with bias - one being just sacked and the other (IMO) embittered at his departure. Would I have preferred that both said nothing - you bet. The wink wink nudge nudge stuff of CC and an un-named board member was preschool stuff. Carlton for its actions, WCE for its actions, Richmond for its Terry Wallace comments in my opinion should be included in any investigation. If they want to find us guilty then fine - but others must also be held up to the same standard.