La Dee-vina Comedia

I've been wondering what an "honesty session" really means. Why would the team need an "honesty session"? It suggests to me that the coach wanted the players to send a message to one or more of their team mates in a way that the coach could not, perhaps because of special position held by those players. If that's correct, I can only see two players who Goodwin might want such a message passed on to, and that's the Captains. And of the two Captains, I could see the possibility that the "honesty session" was to tell one of them in particular that if he's unable to lift his performance, he's holding the team back and might need to consider his own future. Or, I'm overthinking this.

Footballing maths. I suspect you might really mean 4 of our best 22.

The problems we have are a team issue, not an individual player issue. The evidence for that is 2018. So, I'd suggest not worrying so much about the performance of specific individuals and instead try to find why the team is not playing like the team of 2018.

I'm always fascinated about how much criticism or praise is heaped on a player or a recruiting decision after just a few games when history shows that winning premierships requires a long-term view. If any supporter group should understand that, it should be Melbourne supporters.

Nice attempt at diversion!

We also got caught by a mood change, partly (but not solely) due to the rapid increase in sports betting. The consequence of the rapid rise in sports betting is not just a greater focus on sports integrity (and that's a good thing) but anti-gambling advocates use any tool available in the armoury to garner attention for their cause. Any hint that there might be something inappropriate happening in sport is pounced on as an argument by the anti-gamblers as to why sports betting is bad.

I think there's a hint in the Herald Sun story where it says that at the time Gillon McLachlan claimed he didn't know what "tanking" meant. I imagine the AFL decided that "tanking" could be defined to mean that the players who were on the field didn't try (or, didn't try hard enough). The AFL may have concluded the players did try to win and therefore didn't "tank". That the club did other things (players in for surgery, playing players out of position, etc) may not have been considered to be "tanking" but "list management decisions". It's not dissimilar to President Clinton's argument as to why he claims he didn't lie when talking about what he did and didn't do with "that woman, Monica Lewinsky".

The transcripts. Up until now it's all been conjecture. The Herald Sun (somehow - and that's something that the AFL should be worried about) has got transcripts which definitively tell us what Bailey and others said in their interviews.

Robbo is the chief football writer. I don't believe he has a management role. It would be the Sports Editor in consultation with the Editor-in-Chief (or whatever title the day-to-day editor has) who would make this decision. I would expect Robbo and Warner had no say in it at all.

Good food for thought in Jack Russell's post above. There is a broad question here about the media's role and the public's right to know. Is it any more or less newsworthy because it's sport? Is it newsworthy ten years after the events it refers to? With respect to the first question, I think being sports-related, rather than politics, business or crime, still means it's newsworthy. As to the ten year issue, I don't see how that reduces its news value, as long as there is something new, which in this case, there is. The bullying and harassment question is also worth considering, but I wouldn't like to see the media prevented from publishing for that reason. That would lead to the media being prevented from publishing many things that hurt other people's feelings. It would be used as a blunt censorship tool. (The better answer is to stop buying rubbish newspapers!) In short, I think it's newsworthy and while I don't work in the media, if I were editing the Herald Sun, I'd publish it.

I've just seen the Herald Sun. I think it's worth mentioning that contrary to some comments earlier today, none of the story was written by Mark Robinson (unless he's contributed to something online). It's all the work of Mick Warner, a Richmond supporter. So all that conspiracy stuff about Robbo, his being an Essendon supporter and that's why it was published today is way off the mark. In fact, it's so far off I'd suggest the mods should delete all those comments.

This is the key point. The AFL (as it was then) is fundamentally to blame. It established the system which encouraged tanking and then turned a blind eye to the practice. If I recall, it was only when the Victorian gambling regulator said it was going to investigate that the AFL reacted. A quick Google search found this - see page 7

And I assume you know the HUN is owned by someone who has a pathological dislike of Bill Shorten and is known for instructing his editors to use the paper for political purposes. I think the owner's political interests trump the editor's football interest! Coincidentally, The Age today has a fascinating story about the Murdochs with a reference to their willingness to use their media assets in this way.

There are a number of posts in this thread suggesting that the article was published today because Mark Robinson is an Essendon supporter. I very much doubt that Robbo had any say as to when it was published. I think the first comment I've copied above is far more likely - that the editor of the Herald Sun needed a story to avoid having to put Bill Shorten's budget reply on page 1. As to the story itself. Ho-hum. By name it's the same club, but a decade on it is essentially a completely different organisation with a different Board, admin and almost a completely different playing list. And don't forget, many of the players on the list today would have been too young to even be aware of the "tanking issue" when it happened. To them, it's ancient history.

But if that were true, what do we make of this very post? Does that mean this post is not factual, so therefore there is a place on Demonland for "facts"? Then that would mean your post is correct. I'm beyond confused.

She doesn't. She's the CEO of AFL Tasmania and goes by her new married name of Trisha Squires.

I can't imagine footballers even notice there are words on the banner let alone read it before they run through it.

I can't agree. If it was a pre-ordained outcome that he'd get off, why was he found guilty in the first place?

Contention: The MRO/AFL Appeals process is corrupt and favours the big teams such as Collingwood. If you're wondering why I've added this, have a look at the Michael Christian thread, particularly today (after Mason Cox was successful on appeal). As I keep saying, if you ever have a choice between conspiracy or incompetence, go with incompetence every time.

And I'd rather still have hair on the top of my head. There's not much use in wanting something that couldn't be kept.

I would assume an AFL coach is like any other person. Job security makes it much easier to do a better job. Any coach worrying about his or her future, may make short-term decisions to win a few games without considering what's best in the longer term.

I think you may both be right! Greater Melbourne has been growing by 100,000 people per annum for the last few years. Some of that may be Australians from elsewhere who may already support a team, but I suspect most are from overseas and therefore unaligned. But I also agree with A F that without a premiership (or two), it may be difficult to convert these unaligned supporters into Demons.

Yes, I should have given credit where it was due. Rude of me.

You asked me a question. I answered it. I'm sorry if my answer wasn't to your liking. Let's just leave it at that, shall we?

I've actually lost track of who's a realist, who's over-reacted and who is arguing with whom. I think it's time we all moved on (me included). For what it's worth, I think I'm a realist who over-reacted and started arguing with myself on this thread.