nutbean

I think I would like to vote - first I am casting this opinion as outsider looking in so I have to largely judge the book by its cover A whole lot of good mixed with a whole lot of bad. A whole lot of good - Debt reduction, restructuring the footy club and will even give him cudo's for getting Energywatch ( as other codes did as well) and then replacing them when they went pearshaped - not easy in this enviroment with the product he has to sell. A whole lot of bad - the apparent sticking his nose into the footy department and getting players and others offside and his tie up with this current mess.

My best indicator as to what sort of trouble we are in and the determination of the AFL to do something is all to do with timing. November 22nd is draft day - if the AFL wind up their investigation in the next week and give the MFC 7 days to explain leaving the AFL a couple of days to hand down the penalties BEFOREdraft day then I believe this indicates that the AFL are going to go us hard and we are in deep do-do. It will tell me that the AFL think it has enough to convince the football public/media etc that it has the MFC cold and they can also differentiate between solid evidence they have against the MFC as opposed to the very subjective and untested/unsubstantiated information they have on the likes of Carlton. (I am not convinced that people from other clubs would not sing like canaries if the blow torch was applied as well) Compare this to the issue dragging on until after draft day - the immediate sting and high emotion charged action of losing immediate draft picks has gone. I believe that if it drags after the draft date the please explain will come and then we will have 3 months of argie bargie followed by a revision of the draft process, maybe a couple of resignations at the MFC.

The only precedent of taking away draft picks was for was black and white. Players were paid under the table and the amounts were not recorded under the salary cap. Our tanking is black and white...no wait...grey....maybe light grey...could it be that there was any tanking at all - was it list management - was winning secondary to thinking to the future - what exactly is tanking ????? You see the difference ?

In fact it is not trial by the AFL - they have said nothing of any interest so far.

I dont care how many players come out and say they felt sick for Bails and could see what was going on - unless Bailey or anyone else in command told the players not to perform then thats about as relevant as me seeing what was going on from the stands and feeling sick for Bails. However if there is a folder with papers inside from the footy department titled - " how we are going to lose football games to get draft picks" that the AFL now has, then I am worried. I still maintain that there is going to have to be concrete testimony from the FD people saying " we formulated a plan to lose matches and acted on it" before we are in trouble. Why I am feeling a little quezy is that the papers seem to be indicating that is indeed the case - I do not believe everything I read however that doesnt stop what I read making me feel nervous.

Therein lies the problem. GWS were resting players to preserve bodies so therefore they probably wont win. MFC were tanking so they rested players Neeld didnt like the input from some senior players so he dropped them to reserves. Bailey was tanking because he played the youth before more established senior players. Neeld played Rivers at CHF and Garland at FF and Bate in the middle to see how they performed there and fill a need. Bailey play Warnock at CHF and Frawley at full forward and Miller in the middle because he was tanking to get draft picks. Wrongly so Jnrmac, others are picking and choosing motive. And when you have choice of motive your choices are then subjective.

Sorry but 100% wrong - the betting agencies will insist on what ? fairness in betting like the Kreuzer cup, like GWS resting players last year ? Betting agencies are aware of the vagaries of any sport which is allowed to gamble on and have constantly over the years let the official bodies administer the fairness to the game and the punter. Betting agencies live by the "buyer beware" policy. They do not get involved in getting sporting bodies to clean up their anomolies (or they would have never have taken a bet on cycling or boxing).

Because the Melbourne Fraternity would be short a lawyer or two I'm guessing - a stereotype I know but where there's smoke there's mirrors

Don't jump up and down and vigorously defend yourself against allegations until you are 100% of what the allegations will be. Wisest course of action - let all the whistle-blowers blow and let the AFL say their piece then defend vigorously. There could be nothing worse than standing up and saying " there was never an active plan to lose games" and two days later a memo surfaces titled "active plan to lose games". Let all the chips fall first I say.

And I may be wrong but this is where I think you have it wrong - the AFL first and foremost priority is not to stop tanking stone dead - they just want this to GO AWAY. The AFL do not want to sanction the MFC and then other clubs in what is still a subjective prosecution that will end up in courts. They want this to GO AWAY. Again I may have this wrong but I am still tipping - Vlad "after looking at all the evidence it is still difficult to say with certainty that teams went on the field to lose. However to remove all hint of this going forward, the priority picks have been removed and the bottom four teams will participate in lottery system similar to the NFL in the future". I just cant see the AFL wanting this stinking fetid issue to end up in court AND the pressure of then lining up Carlton next and ...then..WCE and Hawthorn and Stkilda etc etc.

More than ever now is not the time for the club to say anything. You only make comment when you know all the cards that hAve been dealt. Adelaide is looking pretty silly now as their denials from adelaide heavy's on the Tippett affair were nothing but lies as more and more was revealed. McLardy has llittle idea of what the likes of Bailey, Prendergast and others no longer at the club but at the infamous meeting have said to investigators. If the AFL make specific accusations then tackle them but noisily defending charges not yet laid can bite on the bum when you havent seen the evidence against you.

What has me now worried is my constant theme that unless someone in the coaching panel says that there was a definitive plan to lose matches then all is good - whilst I never believe everything I read, you can draw the conclusion from Caro's article that there is verification from participants from our FD about a meeting where there was a plan on how to lose matches. There is a difference between towing the line, early surgery, experimentation and games into kids and crumbling like a bad poker player and admitting to a meeting where a plan was discussed to lose games of football. I for one and not feeling all that comfortable.

If the story is accurate as written - then we have a football department that made a plan to actively lose games of football. If the story is accurate as written..... (if the story is accurate as written then how stupid are we to have a meeting including 10 members of the FD discussing how to lose games of football)

I am removing coaches instructions to the extent that Brock saying there was tanking is useless unless he can say "bailey told us to go half speed, Bailey told us to miss shots at goal" . Players testifying that it felt wrong is nothing more than fluff . players testifying that a coach told me to throw the game is another thing altogether.

yikes - concrete evidence of a systematic plan.... (glad I put in the disclaimer about a concrete proof !!!)

Once you remove the players - they did not try and lose - and once you remove the coaches instructions to the players - the players were never instructed to do anything adverse - then it is so muddy in my opinion, that without concrete evidence of a systematic plan the whole issue is dead in the water.

phew - I thought it said AFL footballer being stalked I love you Jack Viney

We don't need to use the other clubs as a defence - to sanction us the AFL would have to specifically spell out what we did to receive the sanctions - if they go with the games where our experimentation was questionable the howl from the media scrum over other clubs would be deafening. Without proof subjectively sanctioning the MFC opens up a pandorra's box that the AFL does not want opened. I spoke to a WCE mate of mine as I was hazy on what they did and he just giggled and said "Darren Glass was the worst full forward of all time - his leading and kicking were crap but his NikNating was sensational"

This where I struggle - to punish a club for a crime you have define the crime - bringing the game into disrepute - without proof (we went out to lose games) all you have is rehashing of age old practices - maybe more blatant - but the AFL cant prosecute on something subjective - as AD has said all along - bring proof of tanking and they can prosecute.

We played a big body centre half forward in the midfield called Brad Miller and then delisted him. We played a big body centre half forward called Matthew Bate in the midfield and then ..................... We played Warnock and Frawley at full forward and centre half forward kept one and the other left for gold coast. We played Rivers and Garland at centre half forward and full forward and kept one and................... The hysterical part about our experimentation is Neeld did exactly the same this year !!!!!!

All you need to do is follow it through to its logical conclusion to understand that UNLESS there is CATEGORICAL proof this cant go anywhere. Follow it through to its logical conclusion.

First of all - nobody predicted it ? - everyone was screaming for it !!! Letting Moloney and Rivers go and picking up Byrnes- that was FA so we let them go as per the AFL system. Letting Petterd, Martin, Gysberts etc go - we let them go for market value which happened to be peanuts. The writing was on the wall with Neeld from day one that dead wood was going to be cut. He made a strong statement with his dropping of our past leaders during the year so nothing he has done at seasons end was a surprise. The picks we got for our trades does not surprise. If you call long overdue change drastic then yup -its drastic. I call it long overdue change.

The priority pick is gone so we are half the way there - I am tipping that somewhere down the track the AFL will say we cannot find conclusive proof of tanking, only proof of teams list managing, experimenting and looking to the next season - but to remove this an issue in the future wewill do A,B and C ( a lottery as per the NFL ?). What we have there is a dead parrot.

no problem - the AFL may be stupid but they're not stupid (?). They would get legal advice and the first question would be - if we do X Y and Z to the MFC and they legally challenge what will the outcome in all probability be. Again, another reason why I think this will go nowhere. edit - you may say that the AFL wants to make an example and following your logic, the example will be AFL sanctions the MFC, the MFC takes the AFL to court over the sanctions and the court tears the AFL a new one. Are you seriously suggesting that this is the example the AFL wants to make ? doulbe edit - unless there is something in writing or someone party to the situation goes on the record and says we instructed/were instructed to lose games then the AFL would in all probability lose any case that went to court OR their hand would be forced to bring sanctions against other tankers - which I am sure is scenario that the AFL finds less than inviting. AFL is on a hiding to nothing so they will go with nothing

There is your major contradiction in one. Without defining the word then how can you can determine guilt or innocence. Did our coaching staff put a higher price on experimentation than on winning - yes Did the players try to lose games - no Did the coaching staff try to lose games - ahhhh - try and prove that one and therein lies your problem