Play Nice Still no evidence against Melbourne re: tanking

[Demonic Ascent]

I live in sydney and get no SEN, but isnt SEN a mouthpeice for the AFL? (like part owned or somthing)

or do i know nothing...

Hmm didn't think so but could be wrong - SEN is owned by the same mob who own 3AW I thought. Some on there (particularly Mark Fine) tend to go off about the AFL semi-regularly which I doubt would happen much if the AFL was too involved.

 

[liam_13]

I think shutting down an investigation halfway through would look more unprofessional than letting it run its course and not having enough evidence to back up charges.

This investigation being completely crap/incompetent right from the start though...so instead of a quick end and quick statement saying it's complete, they go on and on, taking it to commissions and everything...?

Anyway this is pointless because it is not about evidence etc. Sorry, moving on

 

[ManOfClay]

So this announcement supposedly absolving the Demons that was coming today hasn't actually come?

 

[HerculesRockefeller]

Public perception.



Journos don't worry me, MFC or AD I'm fairly certain.

I'm pretty sure MFC and AD worry alot about journalists.

 

[00Stinger]

My feeling is Swabb, Connolly and/or Bailey may get pinged for attempting to tank, but the club will get off as they don't believe the orders of them were followed. Thus meaning it unfair for the club to get punished because of their attempts to orchestrate a tank.

Bullshit, know, but none the less it is the feeling I get

 

[Higgs Boson]

So this announcement supposedly absolving the Demons that was coming today hasn't actually come?

It's not like you, it didn't come early

BAM!!!

I'm here all week, try the veal, it's terrific

 

[ManOfClay]

If it follows my current form it won't come at all

 

[Demonic Ascent]

So this announcement supposedly absolving the Demons that was coming today hasn't actually come?

You put too much faith in tweets of SEN reporters that no-one has ever heard of.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I think that they are very closely linked (I know little about SEN though, so that's entirely guesswork).

However SEN haven't officially run with the tweet from Anderson as rfctiger pointed out.

SEN did discuss the afl buying a share of the company, but I don't think that eventuated.

Off a very very very rusty memory (so pls don't quote me), I believe they made some kind of deal with the afl with regards to content during an earlier broadcast agreement, when the station was financially struggling. I don't think that's the case anymore though, as they broadcast now the cheaper B class schedule (AW and Triple M do the A class at the higher price), and I think their financials have improved a fair bit.

As an earlier poster said, they are now often quite critical of the afl

 

[IanW]

I live in sydney and get no SEN, but isnt SEN a mouthpeice for the AFL? (like part owned or somthing)

or do i know nothing...

The AFL's media unit has been happy to break stories that dont reflect well on the AFL - it's all part of the long-term cold war between news corp and the AFL.

 

[ziad]

Journos don't worry me, MFC or AD I'm fairly certain.[/quote]
Is that you R. Nixon?

 

[Demonheart]

The AFL's media unit has been happy to break stories that dont reflect well on the AFL - it's all part of the long-term cold war between news corp and the AFL.

Which story have the AFL's media unit broken that have harmed or embarrased the AFL's reputation?

I know that they comment on them after the story has surfaced but I don't remember too many times them actually breaking it first

 

[LeverPuller]

Can I ask non-MFC supporters, just for the general consensus of the thread - if the current PP rule was in place and Melbourne, at the end of the 2009 season having won a total of 13 games (including the Richmond game as a W in this) in the previous 3 seasons (out of a possible 66 - less than one game in every 5), would you have been okay with Melbourne receiving a priority pick?

 

[telsor]

Can I ask non-MFC supporters, just for the general consensus of the thread - if the current PP rule was in place and Melbourne, at the end of the 2009 season having won a total of 14 games (including the Richmond game as a W in this) in the previous 3 seasons (out of a possible 66 - less than one game in every 4), would you have been okay with Melbourne receiving a priority pick?

It depends how many they would have won if they'd tried.

That's the sad and frustrating part...we'll never know.

 

[LeverPuller]

It depends how many they would have won if they'd tried.

That's the sad and frustrating part...we'll never know.

The only one I'm going with is the Richmond one. That said, if I even extend it to the Sydney game of Rd17, it's still only 14 wins - 21%.

 

[Suma Magic]

Can I ask non-MFC supporters, just for the general consensus of the thread - if the current PP rule was in place and Melbourne, at the end of the 2009 season having won a total of 13 games (including the Richmond game as a W in this) in the previous 3 seasons (out of a possible 66 - less than one game in every 5), would you have been okay with Melbourne receiving a priority pick?

I dont think the 4.5 wins cut-off was too low. So having five wins shouldn't have got you the PP.

 

[SunshineBoy]

It depends how many they would have won if they'd tried.

That's the sad and frustrating part...we'll never know.

I tend to agree with this, in saying it though, the cub had a huge turnaround the following year with basically the same list, but i will stand corrected on this ad then promptly fell back down into the doldrums.

How much of the improvement was hidden away we will never know and how much of the collapse was aresult of the tanking we will never know.

jus out of curiosity, the club had a massive cleanout of Senior Players and the leadership group, was that because they ( the cleaned out players) objcted to the tanking as blind freddy would have seen? Or was there other reasons?

 

[LeverPuller]

I tend to agree with this, in saying it though, the cub had a huge turnaround the following year with basically the same list, but i will stand corrected on this ad then promptly fell back down into the doldrums.

How much of the improvement was hidden away we will never know and how much of the collapse was aresult of the tanking we will never know.

jus out of curiosity, the club had a massive cleanout of Senior Players and the leadership group, was that because they ( the cleaned out players) objcted to the tanking as blind freddy would have seen? Or was there other reasons?

As in the 2012 clear out or the 2008-10 clearout? The former was the change in direction from Neeld. The latter was a result of awful list management under Daniher - apart from McLean there was no one at all in the 24-27 bracket, everyone was at the tail end of their careers.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

It depends how many they would have won if they'd tried.

That's the sad and frustrating part...we'll never know.

That's the thing I'm furious about - we would have won the flag that year if we didn't deliberately try to lose every game in the hope of picking up an extra highly rated 18 year old kid.

 

[Forward Press]

Can I ask non-MFC supporters, just for the general consensus of the thread - if the current PP rule was in place and Melbourne, at the end of the 2009 season having won a total of 13 games (including the Richmond game as a W in this) in the previous 3 seasons (out of a possible 66 - less than one game in every 5), would you have been okay with Melbourne receiving a priority pick?

I would support that.

If the benefit of three years of being shit (or marginally less shit if they won 14-15 games or so, which still averages out at only 5 wins a season) is one additional start of first round pick, it would be hard to argue against that.

 

[Forward Press]

That's the thing I'm furious about - we would have won the flag that year if we didn't deliberately try to lose every game in the hope of picking up an extra highly rated 18 year old kid.

Way to grossly exaggerate and misconstrue telsor's post.

 

[scottwade]

Can I ask non-MFC supporters, just for the general consensus of the thread - if the current PP rule was in place and Melbourne, at the end of the 2009 season having won a total of 13 games (including the Richmond game as a W in this) in the previous 3 seasons (out of a possible 66 - less than one game in every 5), would you have been okay with Melbourne receiving a priority pick?

No, simply because I think it rewards mediocrity and bad management.

Melbourne were crap not through any extraneous reasons, but because they were poor at list management, player development and various other factors (eg administration, facilities etc).

 

[SunshineBoy]

As in the 2012 clear out or the 2008-10 clearout? The former was the change in direction from Neeld. The latter was a result of awful list management under Daniher - apart from McLean there was no one at all in the 24-27 bracket, everyone was at the tail end of their careers.

Thanks for that but wasn't referring to the neeld clean out interesting that peopl like McDonald and co were shown the door,

 

[Demonheart]

No, simply because I think it rewards mediocrity and bad management.

Melbourne were crap not through any extraneous reasons, but because they were poor at list management, player development and various other factors (eg administration, facilities etc).

How did you feel about the zone selections?

 

[Bluelegs]

I tend to agree with this, in saying it though, the cub had a huge turnaround the following year with basically the same list, but i will stand corrected on this ad then promptly fell back down into the doldrums.

How much of the improvement was hidden away we will never know and how much of the collapse was aresult of the tanking we will never know.

jus out of curiosity, the club had a massive cleanout of Senior Players and the leadership group, was that because they ( the cleaned out players) objcted to the tanking as blind freddy would have seen? Or was there other reasons?

I would hardly call our 2010 or 2011 seasons a huge turn around. West Coast in 2010-2011 was a huge turn around, Adelaide 2011-2012 was a huge turn around.