nutbean

The best you can do is Bruce, McLean, Miller and Johnstone ? Seriously ?

As uncomfortable as all this is, it's still going to plan. Insufficient/inconclusive evidence of anything. My only concern is what started out looking like a semi authentic charade of an investigation is now looking so ridiculously inept that any shred of weight that could be given to the investigation is long gone. The only small comfort is journo's still aren't lambasting the investigation for the bad comedy it now is. Shhhhh - don't say a word. People think this is genuine.

I have maintained two stances all along. It is important to note that this is a retrospective investigation and to all those who say it doesn't matter what others have done I say phooey - you cant have selective retrospectivity. 1/ we are not guilty of anything HOWEVER 2/ if the AFL in their wisdom retrofit our actions into a chargeable offence then the same retrofitting must be applied to 5 other clubs It can only be all or nothing (hence the reason for my belief that If that it will be nothing)

I am Adrian and so is my wife.

And at the risk of being repetitive and boring - intent can only be found if there is concrete proof that players were actually told not perform or there is proof that the coaches were told not to perform. Trying to retro-fit on field actions as proof that the players/coaches were told not perform or a couple of flippant comments by administrators is speculative at best. Anything other than concrete proof is guessing.

The trouble with all of this is that there has been an outcome and people are working backwards and pointing at actions to make them fit the outcome. Whilst we all have our opinions as to what has transpired, it is still reverse engineering and open to interpretation. 2012 - outcome - there were no priority picks on offer. Action - we played our two key backmen (Rivers and Garland) as forwards. Conclusion - experimentation borne out of necessity and coaching curiosity. 2009 - outcome - priority picks up for grabs. Action - we played our two key backmen (Frawley and Warnock) as forwards. Conclusion - we did this to lose games and get priority picks It is reverse engineering at its finest

You are seriously showing your age ( I have made my kids sit through that movie a half a dozen time - sadly they laughed at me - not the movie)

Cousins is a good example of the major difference between what they are playing with here. What exactly were the repercussions of getting the Cousins case wrong. A bit of egg on the face and maybe even recompense for Cousins. Charge the MFC and we take the AFL to court and the AFL is fighting the club, three individuals, possiblilty of muddying a Saints name (Jimmy) and then the follow on affect on Richmond, Stkilda, Carlton, WCE, Collingwood and Hawthorn. I have no doubt that if the stakes were not as astronomically high as I think they are and the spill over effect so large that the AFL would not have the slightest hesitation in pressing charges. I firmly believe that the Commission is sitting and thinking that if they charge us they will be starting up something that they will not be able to control and stop even if they wanted to. To my recollection there has never been a case like this that has the potential for so much collateral damage.

You see...now you are doing what the media is doing.... you are a getting a hint of scent and reporting it as the whole world has dropped its guts. you stated above - "it is reported that the charges will be......." - nooooo......what it should read is "if the AFL are not satisfied with the responses provided by the club then the charges will be......". If the MFC are true to their word , if charges are laid then that will trigger legal action as it means that the explanations offered by the club to evidence has not been accepted. Our opinions differ as I don't think the club or coaches/admistrators will be charged with anything as I dont think that the AFL want (or can afford) for this to go legal. I think it iis important to note that even if the AFL think they can win a court challenge from the MFC, the damage will be done to the AFL when this pandora's box is opened in court whether or not the AFL wins (which is unlikely anyway)

someone as old as me !!!

My guess is that if these tapes exist then there is sure to be an 18 minute gap in them.

"your honour, I put it to you that we delisted Simon godfrey in 2007"

I'm thinking Ashen faced fumbling.

Cant help myself - Jay Clark just tweeted the same piece of HS footage on twitter with the following message "Watch the faces of the Melbourne coaching staff when Ricky Petterd almost pinches the Dees the win over Richmond" I tweeted back at him "by Jove - your right ! The smoking gun ! you've found it ! Go and collect your Walkley right now."

Tanks for the memories ?

i think they are clasping at straws...grasping at claws....harping on flaws...carping at bores...ohhh damn

totally and utterly ridiculous statement and totally and utterly correct.

yikes i think that vision IS the smoking gun - I think the person to left of Bails is coaching the team not Bails at all.

I've gone one further - I dont think it will need to be settled before it goes to court becase i dont think we will even be charged.

As Rjay has said above and the point that again and again you keep missing.To quote Tom Cruise from A few good men - it doesnt matter what we believe - it only matters what can be proven. From the evidence we have heard of from the media - it is all highly subjective and speculative. I will continue to put in the big disclaimer that we are relying on information about "evidence" from the media - there may be something concrete that has been presented back to the club that can sink us but for everything that has been reported the reason that the club keeps saying it will fight is in because in my opinion the evidence they know exists can only lead people to believe and not lead to a charge being proven.

Then the AFL are stupidier than I have given them credit for - we may have rolled over in the past - but no club in my opinion would allow themselves to be charged with tanking without concrete proof - subtle example was never ever going to happen

I'm not so sure - nearly any penalty we accept is tantamount to an admission of tanking and i dont think we will let that happen to our brand. If the AFL comes out and charges Connolly for making statements in his position as an administrator for an AFL club that were ill concieved and open to misinterpretation so that the integrity of the game could be threatened - then I could live with that. If they fine Connolly for threatening staff to underperform and not win games then noooooooooo...If Bailey and Schwab are charged with making injudicious statements that led others to believe that they being asked to not carry out their duties to the best of their abilities - then again maybe i can live with that. If they charged with bringing the game into disrepute by telling staff /players to throw games then noooooo. It subtle but all we are being charged with is poor choice of words. Then these three can make statements after simply saying - "if we had our time again we would have been much clearer in what we said or chosen different words because at no time did we ask anyone to underperform" . Any charges laid due to positional changes, rotations, etc and its off to court we go.

Good luck with that - BBP has been asked on numerous times to back up his " plead guilty and take a lesser penalty" line with the rules that have been broken and the inequivocal evidence to support the breaking of the rules. Every bit of damning evidence to date we have heard (albeit from the media) is subjective and in the main has been cleared previously by the AFL. BPP has enormous problems differentiating what he believes happened ( and in fact what most of us believe happened) as opposed to what can be proven. There needs to be more concrete evidence than what we have heard to PROVE that we have broken any rule. So again BPP I will ask you - what rule has been broken, who broke it and what evidence that is currently in the media backs up your assertion that we are not innocent.

you need to clarify. Which is it ? do the AFL want some pork on the fork and some meat on a hook or do they not want to hurt the game and thats why they havent widened the investigation. I think the AFL can be dumb but i dont think they are dumb enough to think they can have both. If they want to make an example of us then the fallout will be that when it goes to court other clubs will be dragged into this and it will hurt the game. Thats why I bang on ad nauseum about my belief that AFL will not make an example of us and continue this charade to bring down an insufficient/inconclusive evidence finding - Grant Thomas got it right - the AFL cant afford to do anything else.

If Connolly and Schwab are found guilty then so is the MFC by extension. The MFC cant be " just a little bit pregnant". If the above two go down then the MFC are tankers. And to clarify - both sides arent threatening - AD has made one statement saying anyone found guilty wont work in the industry again and he said that months ago. Thats it. The threatening about fines and loss of draft picks etc is coming from the media. It is really important you dont confuse the two because at this stage it is trial by media. Lets talk about punching on with the AFL if and if they bring down charges.