Play Nice Still no evidence against Melbourne re: tanking

[The Dodger]

best not to go off half cocked DH
http://au.news.yahoo.com/video/nati...fa834/more-tanking-claims-levelled-at-demons/

Thats pretty weak video evidence. If you took any team and levelled the tanking allegation at them and then reviewed a few games you could find differing rotations / strange match ups / coaches leaving before the siren.
Seriously what was Bailey going to do in 19secs that would have saved that game. No they must be right he thought they were going to win so he thought "I know I will abandon my post that will make sure the game is won by a kick after the siren"
Surely they are not going to perhaps mistake a poorly run club as 1 that is definitely tanking. I would think for there to be charges there would need to be a white board signed by Bailey saying "don't forget to lose out there today". Not just a bunch of half arsed shiite that if you work really hard to put together you might get some semblance of a crafty organised unit deliberately losing games.

 

[The Dodger]

Bloody hell, I'm stuck in the vortex of this shit thread again.

1. The league did provide the incentive and it could be argued they provided tacit approval by overlooking the obvious deficiencies in the system for so long. Are they solely guilty, no, but they should be held partly accountable. That is under the premise that Melbourne is found to be guilty.

2. Not everybody did it, but there is very little doubt that other clubs would be guilty of tanking to the same extent as Melbourne. Few would deny this and the ones that do are frankly idiots who just want to see Melbourne castrated.

The evidence along the lines of lower than "normal" rotations and questionable match ups is, on its own merits, weak. There are any number of reasons for such decisions during a match. It simply can't be proven that they were made with the intent of losing the match. There's no way I'm going to say outright that a team as terrible as we were in 09 threw any game until I see irrefutable evidence that is the case. I don't see what is so difficult to understand about this.

Frankly I think a great number of opposition fans have persisted in this thread because they know Demons fans will react, which is why it probably should have been moved to the Bay after about Page 5.

Yep, for it also being the league that is the investigating party and that may lay charges that it finds, it is a bit ridiculous if you ask me. If an independent review was done of the whole situation I am sure the party would look squarely at the AFL and ask why they put a reward for a determined amount of wins in the first place that could be open to manipulation.

 

[Forward Press]

Yep, for it also being the league that is the investigating party and that may lay charges that it finds, it is a bit ridiculous if you ask me. If an independent review was done of the whole situation I am sure the party would look squarely at the AFL and ask why they put a reward for a determined amount of wins in the first place that could be open to manipulation.

Does it really matter?

It would be a fool who argues the AFL does not have some responsibility for the mess in the first place by having such a blatant loophole. However, it would also be a fool who argues that the mistakes of the old priority pick system excused the team that exploited it.

 

[Deleted member 98541]

That's it, remove disability assistance! Get rid of it right now! Rumour has it people are jumping off second story buildings all over Australia just so they can receive the benefit. This incentive to disable one's self must be removed this instant!

 

[The Dodger]

Does it really matter?

It would be a fool who argues the AFL does not have some responsibility for the mess in the first place by having such a blatant loophole. However, it would also be a fool who argues that the mistakes of the old priority pick system excused the team that exploited it.

Yes I believe the entity that is also to blame in the situation should then not also be the judge and the jury. I think it lame to make a short sighted mistake with as far as a PP goes and then find a team, who cant possibly make the finals or generally win game anyway might manipulate 1 result because of the arbitrary figure. Take that 4.5 away, would Melbourne still be as bad? Or would they magically climb the ladder because they won a 5th game the year before?

As I say above unless they can prove beyond a doubt that there is deliberate match fixing going on, none of the chargeable blame should lay with Melbourne. Anecdotal evidence of "a player was moved here, how unusual" is not good enough as if you take that as evidence you could find a case for nearly every loss in football being suspicious. The only thing that makes Melbourne's suspicious is that they conveniently fit within the guidelines laid out by the AFL and got less than 4.5wins.

In this case though Chicken or Egg? But for the rule of 4.5 wins being there would Melbourne have manipulated results of games?
I could understand the investigation if it was believed they doctored results because Demon officials / players had money riding on the outcome. But when the only thing riding on the outcome is an AFL approved draft pick who is to blame really?

 

[The Dodger]

That's it, remove disability assistance! Get rid of it right now! Rumour has it people are jumping off second story buildings all over Australia just so they can receive the benefit. This incentive to disable one's self must be removed this instant!

It's not the welfare that makes the team manipulate results its the arbitrary 4.5 wins that does that. As Carlton in 2007 would of had to forgo either Kreuzer or Judd if they won a meaningless game against Melbourne near the end of the season. Take away that 4.5 wins crap and immediately you stop the potential for results to be manipulated on a week by week basis when a team had 4 wins.

As a Melbourne poster has pointed out earlier, look at the Demons 0f '08 + '09. If they won 1 more game in either of those years were they going to be a much better team that did not need the assistance they received? 1 result and they probably still finish last or second last but apparently they must be good enough not to receive the PP.

 

[The Goon]

Yes I believe the entity that is also to blame in the situation should then not also be the judge and the jury. I think it lame to make a short sighted mistake with as far as a PP goes and then find a team, who cant possibly make the finals or generally win game anyway might manipulate 1 result because of the arbitrary figure. Take that 4.5 away, would Melbourne still be as bad? Or would they magically climb the ladder because they won a 5th game the year before?

As I say above unless they can prove beyond a doubt that there is deliberate match fixing going on, none of the chargeable blame should lay with Melbourne. Anecdotal evidence of "a player was moved here, how unusual" is not good enough as if you take that as evidence you could find a case for nearly every loss in football being suspicious. The only thing that makes Melbourne's suspicious is that they conveniently fit within the guidelines laid out by the AFL and got less than 4.5wins.

In this case though Chicken or Egg? But for the rule of 4.5 wins being there would Melbourne have manipulated results of games?
I could understand the investigation if it was believed they doctored results because Demon officials / players had money riding on the outcome. But when the only thing riding on the outcome is an AFL approved draft pick who is to blame really?

It's not the only evidence they have though is it? If enough people who were at the vault meeting say they were instructed to win no more than 4.5 games then all of the movements / rotations /out-of position playing is the secondary tier of evidence that supports the principle allegation.

 

[Deleted member 98541]

You say would they be much better if they one one more meaningless game?

Well what about if every club was trying to win every week. If they picked up players from state leagues, (as they are now), if they held onto older players a bit longer, if they developed the kids a yr longer in the two's.

Now if every club was managed like the above scenario, if there was a real stigma attached to lowly ladder positions and no team wanted that, how much better would the competition on the whole be?

At the end of the day Melbourne probably wouldve finished last anyway as every other club wouldve improved slightly as well.

You work out a way to run the league this way and you've instantly got a better league.


And anyway, the real question is, how much better are Melbourne after doing the exact opposite of my scenario by tanking for 2 yrs for the sole purpose of exploiting the draft? This mindset must be stamped put of the league and for this reason I vote 'Yes' against tankers.

 

[Demonheart]

It's not the only evidence they have though is it? If enough people who were at the vault meeting say they were instructed to win no more than 4.5 games then all of the movements / rotations /out-of position playing is the secondary tier of evidence that supports the principle allegation.

It's already been proven that there was no vault meeting. There was no meeting codenamed the vault to discuss tanking.

It's that simple, yet I know people like you desperately want it to be true, sorry kid.

As for the 3AW rumour, MYTH BUSTED!!

 

[Old Campaigner]

It's already been proven that there was no vault meeting. There was no meeting codenamed the vault to discuss tanking.

It's that simple, yet I know people like you desperately want it to be true, sorry kid.

As for the 3AW rumour, MYTH BUSTED!!

Well, there is an article in the age from a few weeks backs that specifically said most of the witness statements contradict Connolly's recollection that there was no 'vault' meeting. Unless there has been a more recent correction (which I'd be interested in reading if it exists) I'm inclined to go with what the article claims.

Whether or not it is referred to as the 'vault meeting' at MFC is pretty irrelevant, the media just needed a simple tag for referring to the meeting that allegedly took place and they stuck with 'the vault'.

 

[Monkey King]

Bloody hell, I'm stuck in the vortex of this shit thread again.

​

LOL. Happens to me all the time

 

[Demonheart]

Well, there is an article in the age from a few weeks backs that specifically said most of the witness statements contradict Connolly's recollection that there was no 'vault' meeting. Unless there has been a more recent correction (which I'd be interested in reading if it exists) I'm inclined to go with what the article claims.

Whether or not it is referred to as the 'vault meeting' at MFC is pretty irrelevant, the media just needed a simple tag for referring to the meeting that allegedly took place and they stuck with 'the vault'.

Actually the vast majority of the articles have sinced confirmed that Caro got it wrong on that one, The Age acknowledged it.

It is completely irrelevant, if they can't even get their facts right between a stock standard FD meeting or a secret star chamber to discuss tanking then it's pretty clear what's going on.

Of course I completely understand why you continue to have your opinion, you've made it perfectly clear what you want to happen.

 

[The Goon]

It's already been proven that there was no vault meeting. There was no meeting codenamed the vault to discuss tanking.

It's that simple, yet I know people like you desperately want it to be true, sorry kid.

As for the 3AW rumour, MYTH BUSTED!!

So there was no meeting in a demountable nicknamed "the vault", which could then justifiably called "the vault meeting", especially when referring to a specific meeting?

I'm also at a loss as to how many "alleged's" I have to throw into a post to simply have a discussion without being accused of enjoying Melbourne supporters pain. There was absolutely NOTHING trolling in my post. Learn to read what is written instead of what you expect kid.

 

[Demonheart]

So there was no meeting in a demountable nicknamed "the vault", which could then justifiably called "the vault meeting", especially when referring to a specific meeting?

I'm also at a loss as to how many "alleged's" I have to throw into a post to simply have a discussion without being accused of enjoying Melbourne supporters pain. There was absolutely NOTHING trolling in my post. Learn to read what is written instead of what you expect kid.

It's quite simple kid, there was no secret 'vault' meeting as you claimed, The Age admitted it.

I know you desperately want it to be true, sorry kid

 

[The Goon]

It's quite simple kid, there was no secret 'vault' meeting as you claimed, The Age admitted it.

I know you desperately want it to be true, sorry kid

Where did I claim the meeting was secret? Again: Learn to read what is written instead of what you expect kid.

 

[Demonheart]

Where did I claim the meeting was secret? Again: Learn to read what is written instead of what you expect kid.

You implied that when you referred to the meeting where they were instructed to tank. It's already been reported that the comment was a single throw away line about Zulu's which everybody took as a joke.

Quite simply your post was stating that it definitely took place, prove it.

 

[The Dodger]

It's not the only evidence they have though is it? If enough people who were at the vault meeting say they were instructed to win no more than 4.5 games then all of the movements / rotations /out-of position playing is the secondary tier of evidence that supports the principle allegation.

You have summed it up perfectly. The only thing that makes Melbournes game suspicious is the ridiculous arbitrary win figure. How would that instruction go, if there was no pre-determined figure? And IMO there is where we find culpability. in their naivety they created an end game. A figure which could be manipulated on a weekly basis. 5 wins, 2nd bottom and Pick 2 or 4 Wins, bottom and Pick 1 and 2. To benefit your club in the coming years what position would a reasonable person take given that the current year is shot? It's all well and good to do the honourable thing, but lets face it there would be clubs / people wanting to do what they consider to be right in the long term.

The evidence in that video seems to be all anecdotal, they have Bailey leaving the box early and Chris Connolly's positioning what ever that meant.
If that vault meeting was to weigh up the benifits of winning 1 - 2 more games as opposed to pick 1 & 2 and they decided pick 1 or 2 was better, is that really so suprising?

For the above anecdotal evidence to be of any real value, it has to be beyond doubt that the players / officials / support staff were in on it.
I have no doubt the AFL might concoct a charge out of this but IMO its pretty lame to do so, and that Chicken Egg scenario is highly applicable here.

Would Melbourne be much better if they scraped a win in 2008 or 2009 and not have needed that pick?

 

[The Goon]

You implied that when you referred to the meeting where they were instructed to tank. It's already been reported that the comment was a single throw away line about Zulu's which everybody took as a joke.

Quite simply your post was stating that it definitely took place, prove it.

No, you inferred it. Quite simply you have a huge victimisation complex seemingly combined with the comprehension skills of a 3rd grader. You are incapable of rational discussion without a desperate need to attack others for imagined and misconstrued slights.

 

[doggies ftw]

Wow I want Melbourne to get ****ed up just for the sole reason of watching @Demonhearts meltdown, GIVE IT A REST MATE! You have seriously been here this whole thread, we know where you stand just shut the **** up and leave already!

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Kind of like we all know OJ Simpson killed his wife.

Wow, you do know he was acquitted right? Oh but because he's black he must be guilty.

If Bailey or Schwab ever release a book called "If I Tanked, This Is How I Would Have Done It" then maybe I'll agree there's something fishy going on.

 

[Deleted member 98541]

Would Melbourne be much better if they scraped a win in 2008 or 2009 and not have needed that pick?

They would be shit loads better if they didn't tank for 2 years though.


People are getting hung up on the focus of one or two games. The whole sorry
Saga went for 2-3 years.

They are shit because of it. Because of tanking/incorrect list management playing too many kids for too long. Forget thinking about 'one extra win' .

 

[Higgs Boson]

They would be shit loads better if they didn't tank for 2 years though.


People are getting hung up on the focus of one or two games. The whole sorry
Saga went for 2-3 years.

They are shit because of it. Because of tanking/incorrect list management playing too many kids for too long. Forget thinking about 'one extra win' .

That's completely unjustifiable bullshit. You can hold whatever opinion you want, but don't spout complete crap like this that is completely divorced from reality.

 

[The Goon]

/Snip

Would Melbourne be much better if they scraped a win in 2008 or 2009 and not have needed that pick?

Melbourne were terrible, and deserved a PP. Having said that, there are nuances to the situation which I think add context to the discussion.

If a team gets to say round 20 or 21 and plays against another cellar dweller and "wins" a PP by losing that game it's pretty easy (and convenient) for the AFL to ignore any allegations of tanking. On the other hand, the allegations against the Dee's hinge on a meeting that apparently took place after round 15 - i.e. with essentially a third of the season still to go. That's a hell of a lot of footy still to play.

I think the pressure the Dees find themselves under from both opposition supporters and the media has a lot to do not just with the alleged tank, but also the length of time it supposedly went on for, i.e. most can see / forgive / understand "deliberately" losing a single game late in the season, but not planning to do so for a significant part of the season. So while the chicken / egg of the PP / tanking is generally publicly tolerated, I think many have assessed this as a worse breach of the intent of the rule.

... and we all know how much the AFL loves to be a cleanskin in public perceptions.

 

[Deleted member 98541]

That's completely unjustifiable bullshit. You can hold whatever opinion you want, but don't spout complete crap like this that is completely divorced from reality.

How long did the 'rebuild' go for then Einstein?

 

[Higgs Boson]

How long did the 'rebuild' go for then Einstein?

A re-build and tanking are not the same things.

The worst that's been alleged at Melbourne, let alone proven, is that during the latter part of 2009, with the season shot, Melbourne preferred to aim for under the 4.5 wins target than take a relatively meaningless win or two.

Stop trying to distort reality with your ramblings. It does you no credit.