La Dee-vina Comedia

Is it, though? Are we expected to automatically assume that because a former assistant coach made the statement it must be true? He might be wrong. After all, if that was the problem, and the coaches were aware of it, why wasn't it fixed?

I'm not in favour of a Wild Card weekend. It just allows weaker teams an opportunity to make finals to be beaten up by stronger teams. A team that is 10th on the ladder after 23 rounds is in the bottom half of the ladder and shouldn't be eleigible to play finals under any arrangement. I accept a wild card round might keep some momentum going, but I'd rather go straight to finals instead. (By the way, what happened to 9th?)

Does anyone else think the bye between Round 23 and the first weekend of finals kills off interest, at least for neutral supporters? I've spoken to a few avid AFL supporters whose teams didn't make the finals, and we all agree that interest levels haven't just dropped but have virtually disappeared. For balance, I note that Gil MaClalchlan has said that since the bye was introduced, TV ratings, spectator numbers and (I think) revenues have all increased. It is a small sample (of seasons), and could be distorted by the teams playing, but it's only fair that I point out what he claims to be evidence which supports the bye.

Can you confirm he was "sacked". I have no recllection of his movements, but didn't he join us at about that time, so is it possible he chose to leave to come to us?

I like that a person with a username which includes "Wrecker" manages to alter the name of this site to "demo-land". Freudian, perhaps?

You forgot to look at page 2 of his resume where it says he has zero experience in coaching, list management and football administration.

Oli, I think you should take your own advice. In 2019, Viney played 21 out of 22 games.

Property development is not our core business. I'd rather sell to someone else and let them take the risks associated with that activity.

Do we actually own the land or just the business?

This stuff makes my eyes glaze over. I'm impressed with the level of understanding others have on Demonland about how the points system works. More importantly, though, it seems that our club is one of the leaders in understanding it and have made some smart decisions making extracting value before other clubs caught up. I hope we're still front runners in our understanding of the system.

If you read the gaming regulator's statement and the Herald Sun article you might be forgiven for believing the newspaper didn't understand the story. (Shock! Horror!) The regulator wasn't looking at the Melbourne Football Club. It was looking at whether the AFL has appropriate intergrity controls. That's necessary because the AFL has been approved by the regulator as a Sports Controlling Body. That approval allows the AFL to strike agreements with betting companies. If the regulator is not satisfied, it can remove the AFL's status. So, the story is not actually about the "tanking". It's more about what the AFL did or didn't do once the matter was brought to its attention.

Or, I assume, St Kilda, based on your name.

The idea of dressing up was a deliberate plan to divert players from using Mad Monday purely as an exercise in getting heavily inebriated with all the risks to the club that such behaviour entails. And, largely, it's worked. If I were a footballer, I'd hate the very idea of a Mad Monday. But I'm not a footballer; I haven't had to watch what I eat and drink for the best part of 10 months and I don't have a perenially sore body to go with it. And I see Kane Cornes doesn't like it...so I'm very happy for our players to have a Mad Monday or Wacky Wednesday if that's what they want. Irrespective of the result of the season they've earned the right.

As opposed to Mick Warner's mother...because clearly he's a son of a b*tch.

The Victorian gambling regulator has today put out a statement which says that the media stories earlier this year about Melbourne tanking provided no new information and the decision it made in 2009 still stands. The Herald Sun has whipped it up (paywall, so see below) by getting a comment from the State Opposition Leader (himself a former Gaming Minister) who has complained about the regulator's decision. Some stories should be left to die, but this one has some form of zombie appeal to the Herald Sun. Here's a summary of the Herald Sun beat up: (Mods, please merge with an appropriate tanking thread if necessary) The state Opposition says the gambling watchdog’s “nothing to see here” verdict on the Melbourne tanking scandal “beggars belief”. The Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation this morning said it will be taking “no further action” against the AFL over the Demons saga. Five months after announcing a fresh inquiry into the affair, the VCGLR said it had determined that the league had not breached its obligations as a sports controlling body. A statement released by the VCGLR refers to the AFL’s actions in notifying it of a potential problem in 2009, but not the confessions given by club officials to the league integrity unit in late 2012. Liberal leader Michael O’Brien told the Herald Sun this morning: “There is a real question whether the VCGLR is doing its job when it comes to regulating sports betting. “No sporting code can simply regulate itself when it comes to gambling integrity. “Footy fans will be wondering, how can alleged tanking by football clubs be ignored by the gambling regulator? “The ‘nothing to see here’ response of the gambling regulator beggars belief.” The VCGLR’s handling of this matter does nothing for public confidence in the regulator or in the integrity of sports betting in this state, he added. Today’s VCGLR decision follows the Herald Sun’s publication of 80 pages of secret tanking transcripts in April. The documents exposed how multiple Melbourne Football Club officials confessed to a conspiracy to lose matches during the 2009 season. In a previously undisclosed admission, then Demons coach Dean Bailey told AFL investigators: “What was said to me was, if I win games I would get sacked. I was threatened. I didn’t like it. “I think it was a terrible thing to be bullying and harassing not only me but the rest of the staff. Absolutely, I knew if we won those games, I felt that I would get sacked.” But VCGLR director of compliance Adam Ockwell said this morning: “The Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation has completed its review of media reports regarding the AFL and the Melbourne Football Club that were published in April this year. “The VCGLR found that the information and evidence published by the media formed part of its original investigation in 2009 which determined that the AFL had not breached its obligations as a sports controlling body. “As no breaches of Victorian legislation were identified, the VCGLR will be taking no further action. “In accordance with the Gambling Regulation Act 2003, the AFL as a Sports Controlling Body is required to notify the VCGLR in writing if it becomes aware of a breach or suspected breach of its policies, rules, codes of conduct or other mechanisms designed to ensure the integrity of the relevant sports betting event, as soon as practicable and in any event within 14 days of the breach or suspected breach. “The VCGLR is committed to ensuring the integrity of betting on sports events.” The Herald Sun report in April revealed for the first time that eight Demons football staff admitted they had been directed not to win more than four games; that players not seriously injured were kept off the ground during matches to stymie interchange rotations; and that the AFL’s investigators were provided with reports detailing “fake injuries” used to rule players out of team selection. After winning just four games in 2009, the Dees secured the first two picks in the national draft, selecting Tom Scully and Jack Trengove. The AFL announced the findings of its “tanking” probe in February 2013, declaring that Melbourne had not deliberately set out to lose games. The AFL’s then-deputy chief executive, Gillon McLachlan, stated: “I actually don’t know what the def­inition of tanking is. In the AFL rules, it talks to performing on merits and the best of their ability. In my view, there was no tanking on match day

Is that what the story is about? I interpreted it as turning pick 2 (or 3) into two picks in the draft, possibly both in the top 15 to 20.

The two statements don't have to be mutually exclusive. It's quite possible that Langdon could say his plan was always to return to Victoria irrespective of who he got to pay with AND the team that he ends up agreeing to play with is Melbourne.

This is not just about Langdon, but can any contract be signed and any trade be formally announced prior to the official trade period, even if the clubs and players involved agree?

Nicholson enigmatic? Really? Phlegmatic...maybe. (I've assumed you're talking about Alistair, not Daniel).

Isn't it compulsory to include the word "allegedly" somewhere in that sentence?

A word I never like to see associated with the club in the same week as Mad Monday, particularly if it's preceded by the word "indecent".

I just assume his title and official role have not been made public out of courtesy to those assistants whose jobs, or parts thereof, he'll be taking. It would be rude, disresepctful and unprofessional to say his job is to do "X and Y" when those roles have been done by someone else who is still at the club and hasn't yet been told that he won't be there after this season.

I just want to recruit him for nostalgic reasons. The world's first recognised rock music supergroup was Cream with Ginger Baker, Jack Bruce and Eric Clapton. I'm prepared to compromise and have Baker, Bruce and Petty. (The club can be the Heartbreakers.) Of course, I can understand that we should probably pick our recruits on their footballing roles, shouldn't we?

That bit's correct. The problem, though, is that he has to get the ball before he kicks it and that's the bit that was his problem.

That's 18 players, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you don't mean all 18 at once. Even after free agency and trading, that would still likely leave us with about 12-14 picks at the draft. I'm not sure there's a lot of elite talent for the 6-8 picks we'd have in the 100s.