nutbean

We got probed because the allegations against us were the "noisiest" I look at history - besides the MRP which is full of inconsistencies - point me to where the AFL has ever laid serious charges that applied to only one club that could be applied to numerous others ? We are not talking about why Trengove got 3 weeks for a sling tackle - we are talking about integrity, reputation, dollars and possible draft picks. This is high stakes stuff and I dont beleive the AFL will be bring down a guilty against us and yet completely ignore every other club.

I think 90% of the posters are saying exactly what you are saying and keep putting in the disclaimer that we basing our opinions on what we believe to be the evidence against us ( as reported by journo's - which is a major worry in itself). I am drawing my conclusions from what I have read and nothing more. My opinion will change in a flash if there is damning evidence uncovered. It is for the reason I continually harp on two points - under no circumstance wave the white flag and plead guilty until we see the evidence/charges and under no circumstance slag off the AFL on what can be considered a "farcical witch-hunt" until we see the evidence/charges. Until all the evidence is tendered we have no idea which end of the spectrum is correct.

This made me laugh - RPFC, am I free to plagarise this phrase and use it continuously at my workplace ?

100% agree and good luck trying to prove that. To my mind the only thing ( that we know about) that has a whiff of stink is numbnuts Connolly's sacking comment. But Bailey has said he thought it was tongue in cheek and as football operations manager if you wanted to ensure the outcome you would have threatened sacking people who could actually ensure a loss - the players - and apparently that didnt happen

And therein lies the AFL's problem - they just cant come out and say you tanked so here is a penalty. There has to be the rule the breached and how they breached it. The AFL has to define what constitutes tanking and what constitutes list management. They cannot just stop with us - so my thinking is that the AFL will either have to go everyone or no-one

Everyone keeps missing the point - we are not on our own here. To sanction us there must be a clear definition of tanking and what actions/circumstances must occur to be able charge us with tanking. If this is taken to court they will not let a charge stand if it is airy fairy non defined.The court will examine - what rule was breached, and how it was breached. If one of the standards we have breached is playing players out of position then you would argue that this practice has been going on for generations (Carlton, WCE etc) and no charges were ever laid - in fact Vlad examined these incidents and said all clear - therefore you would argue on the AFL's ability to retrospectively change a standard and furthermore retrospectively change a standard and yet only charge one club. The only way we can get pinged for tanking is by doing something over and above any other club has previously done - the only thing I have heard reported is Connolly's comments and some interchange rotations - you would hang your hat on these as strong evidence ? Again - I will put in the disclaimer - I havent seen the evidence and am working on what has been reported and it has been reported that there is no smoking gun - only Connolly's comments, dubious player positions, Baileys comments, miffed players and limited rotations.

I didnt miss it - of course if there is evidence that a court would find beyond doubt then ummm a sanction wouldnt be overturned. But we are all working at this point from the same stuff printed ( rumoured) in the papers. The evidence that has been reported (rumoured) from what has been printed is subjective at best and yet there is still talk of being charges. If this is the case then in my opinion there is a difference between what the AFL considers actionable and what a court would uphold. For what it is worth - I would think that AFL would have advice that if they charged a club under the rule you have quoted with the evidence they have that there would be strong possibility of it being overturned if challenged in court. ( unless as you say the evidence is that strong and we have not heard that this is the case)

Two points why I vehemently disagree with what you have posted 1/ Everything we have heard to date in my opinion is subjective so if the AFL wants to sanction us on this evidence then you would absolutely take it to court because you would argue ( and in my opinion successfully) that there is doubt. So if there is doubt that can be proven then every court in the land will help us. You are under the illusion that the AFL's idea of solid evidence and a courts idea of solid evidence will be the same. 2/ Unless the AFL comes out and sanctions us and then states clearly that the same standard will be applied against other clubs then there is every use pointing the finger at other clubs. This is not little kid stuff - it is called questioning why accepted practices(accepted in countless statements by Vlad himself) have overnight become unacceptable and are being selectively applied ( note if the AFL decides to sanction us but also decides it will go the likes of Carlton and Fremantle in particular then whilst it hurts - I cant argue because the standard applied to tanking is applied to ALL clubs)

whoooa nelly... I have put this disclaimer in lots of post - The evidence that has been reported (Brock, CC's comments, a board member before the Canberra game, positional moves) to my mind is subjective. I have no idea what the AFL has and if the AFL indeed have a book authored by Bails " how we will tank and get priority picks" then I will change my opinion in a flash - I repeat again - I am on working from the evidence that has been reported - I know no more than that . Thats why I have repeated repeatedly that the MFC should not run up the white flag and plead guilty now- the MFC should only consider its course of action after the AFL has presented its evidence to them .

Bingo - a black and white breach of a black and white rule with concrete evidence vs subjective evidence of a subjective practice breaching a non descript rule.

I rephrase - I assume that the AFL and commission MOSTLY have and had smart people working them. I am tipping Vlad has an Adrian Anderson voodoo doll that he is currently sticking pins into.

And why did Adelaide roll ? They knew exactly what the AFL had. We will also know what the AFL have and can respond accordingly.

And it amazes me that you dont think that AFL commission will consider that if wants to take down the MFC for tanking that they will have the luxury of not being able to justify their actions and then not have to hold other clubs to the same standard. It amazes me that you dont consider what we know so far to be completely subjective in nature and the AFL commission will not have considered the possibility of long drawn out court case over evidence that is not black and white. Again with the big disclaimer that we have not seen the evidence and do not know what the AFL has uncovered but if it is as reported it amazes me that you think the AFL will be so cavalier to charge us on such defendable evidence against a broadbrush rule. Ponder this - have you not considered that there is a reason the Vlad has stated since the day dot that tanking does not exist in the AFL ? To be charged with the evidence that has been in the media the AFL will know it is on a hiding to nothing trying to take this on both from a MFC alone perspective and the wider past actions of other clubs. I dont have my head in the sand - I just assume that the AFL and commission have smart people working for them.

Billy, I will continue to critique anyone who is advocating now - ( yes you - Bring back Powell) - that we plead guilty and try and damage control the penalties. Before contemplating this course of action two things need to happen first 1/ We need to be charged with something 2/ The evidence that led to the charges need to be scrutinized for strength and reliability Then and only then can a sensible, rational, clear thinking MFC make a decision as to the course of action to take. So when anyone posts that the AFL must have something or they wouldnt be doing this or how can half the footy journo's be wrong and the investigators are judge and jury ( judge and judy ?) and no use fighting their outcomes - when anyone wants to raise the white flag NOW and plead guilty - I will continue to harshly ( but with respect) critique their posts EDIT - the above refers to "whoa is us " posters not Deegirl. I'll prefer to withhold my whoa is us until I actually have something to whoa about

the longer this goes the more credence it gives to the AFL when the say "this was lengthy, detailed, thorough process with no stone left unturned, we interviewed and reinterviewed and made sure nothing was missed"

guilty finding = broadening not guilty = it all goes away

See I dont see it that way - the investigators are not the judge and jury - all they can do is present evidence - it is up to the commission to decide after we respond if charges are to be laid and I am thinking that commission has wider considerations than just the MFC. To make this clear I have never advocated that we shouldnt get charged because others have done the same. However the commission realises that if they charge the MFC for a retrospective act of tanking, then this charge must set a benchmark/standard of what constitutes tanking and then the AFL must apply this same standard against other clubs. So Ron Burgundy cant understand why Carlton arent in the crosshairs of the AFL - my thinking is that the commission is worried about an adverse finding against the MFC for the exact reason that the standard has to be applied to other clubs as well. I think that Carlton, WCE,Hawks Collingwood, Richmond, Stkilda and Freo are very much in the minds of the commissioners and the flow on affect of a guilty verdict - for this reason alone I think the AFL will apply the narrowest of narrow definitions to tanking and there will be no case to answer.

CC absolutely should have an adverse finding against him for his comments and be asked to explain. CC should absolutely refute the adverse finding and as Dean Bailey pointed out make it clear that they were tongue in cheek, flippant remarks. This is a process that is being followed and I expected nothing less. Nothing has changed. To all those who want to plead guilty and limit the damage I would refer them to Loges,RPFC, BB, the post above and others. Step one - weigh up the evidence - if it weak then respond to the AFL and let them know if there are any charges they will be vigourously defended. If it is strong ( and we have yet to hear of anything resembling "strong") and can be shown to actual break a rule then you work with the AFL to minimise the damage. The only smoking gun we have heard about is injudicious comments by Chris Connelly that are more than open to intepretation as to their seriousness - is that all they have got ? if so.... AFL late January - "after presenting the evidence to the MFC and receiving back detailed responses we find the MFC has no case to answer. Chris Connelly, has been cautioned on remarks that were made that were open to misinterpretation and this is a good lesson for all administrators on the being careful with throw away lines. The situation that has predicated this "tanking" investigation has been somewhat been lessened by the granting of priority picks only at the AFL discretion. From the 2013 draft onwards we will have a lottery system in place so the circumstances arising to the suggestion that a team is playing for picks cannot arise again."

maybe.. I am in the camp that we actually see very little of the leadership qualities except probably how hard they train or how well they play or how they lead by example - we cant hear the talk, we cant hear the encouragement, we cant hear the player telling a younger player what to do and what not to do. We dont hear what is said by who in the huddle or for that matter in the dressing rooms or training track. We have glimpses but thats about it - its interesting that I have talked to a couple of Collingwood players who say that Nick Maxwell is an exceptional leader - I dont see it but thats exactly my point - we dont usually get to see the whole picture when it comes to leadership ( hence the reason that Bartram was in the LG last year - I dont see it but the players and coaching staff did)

But in episode 4 Alverez did say " we will not find any gold whilst Bailey insists on playing that lummox Paul Johnston on Nathan Brown"

Please advise what rule has been broken. Please advise how the club broke the above rule. The AFL may not be a court of law but it has to prove there was tanking. If you suggest that playing Warnock and Frawley in the two forward posts was tanking because they were backmen then we tanked this year by playing Garland and Rivers forward. There is acres between believing what happened and actually offering up incontravertible proof as to what happened.

how are you coping knowing that the apocalypse is only 3 days away ?

Disagree - If you are investigated and they believe there is strong evidence then you are firstly CHARGED with a crime - you are not guilty unless you plead guilty - you have every right to defend yourself against the charges. Then if you are found guilty, you can appeal the decision. Its not bleating - its called justice. Now none of us know what evidence has been uncovered - if the investigators have found a manual entitled "a blueprint for not winning more than 5 games and landing a priority pick" - then you plead guilty to lessen the penalty. All I have heard so far is lots of subjective postulating and very little concrete evidence - if there is nothing concrete then you absolutely fight it. So to you, bring back powell and dr Gonzo - I am sure that if the club is CHARGED they will have an opportunity to weigh up the evidence and decide whether or not it is strong. Until the investigators put their cards on the table we are all guessing but rule one - don't throw you in the towel until you know what the opposition has lined up against you.

you obviously dont go to 'ology much - the second thread down is "rumour that Peter Moore and Kelvin Templeton are coming to the Dees" - not a lot of action over there

yuck.... The one big disclaimer I have stated since day one is we dont know what evidence the investigators have uncovered. What we have all heard is 1/ a couple of players "vibes" about what "bails" was allowed and not allowed to do 2/ lines uttered by Chris Connelly at a meeting and a committee member at the Sydneyt game 3/ 3 games with "suspect" player positioning and interchanges 4/ no player was told to not perform If thats all there is - then take it to the highest court in the land - heresay and subjective. To my thinking, the only way we can be charged and the prosecution be successful is if the investigators have more on us than we have so far heard.