Play Nice Still no evidence against Melbourne re: tanking

[LeverPuller]

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

Because we needed, literally, a full rebuild.
From the end of 2007 we have...Jamar, Davey, Nathan Jones, Frawley, Garland, Grimes, Sylvia and Spencer. That's it. Does that tell you what kind of a shit state our list was in and has been then?

 

[Bring-Back-Powell]

The verdict is in ladies and gentleman:

The Melbourne Football Club will be fined $3,500,000 and stripped of the following drafting penalties:

2013 National draft - loss of first, second, and third round draft picks. Excluded from acquiring players from free agency
2014 National draft - loss of first and secod round picks
2015 National draft - loss of first round pick

It's believed the primary evidence the AFL has pointed to are as follows:

* Only playing Jack Watts in 3 games in 2009. The AFL refutes Melbourne's defence that Watts was still in year 12 and not up to the rigours of a full season.
* Claims a fumble by Paul Johnson in the last quarter of the rd 18 2009 Melbourne V Richmond game directly influenced the entire result of the match. The AFL didn't accept Melbourne's defence that 200 cm ruckman are not so skillful at ground level.
* A round 22 loss by Melbourne (4-18) to St Kilda (20-2) was key to the penalties dished out.
* The exclusive use of 3 ruckman in the round 21 loss to Carlton at Etihad Stadium. The AFL refutes Melbourne's claims that other clubs such as Essendon have adopted such tactics.

The AFL aknowleges that no type of 'smoking gun' evidence such as emails, letters or tape recordings were ever found in the investigation, though were deeply concerned by Brock McLeans' claims during Foxtel's 'on the couch' program.

 

[Forward Press]

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?

Again, does all this really matter?

We can never be sure if Melbourne really were a genuine 4 win team that year or whether they were capable of more. They really were bad in 2009 but could they have won 5-6 games that year? This investigation is predicated on there being enough evidence in the first place to justify launching an investigation. Time will tell whether there is enough to sanction Melbourne for this.

Mentioning the AFL as judge, jury and executioner is irrelevant - it is not a judicial organisation and the AFL can investigate and impose penalties on its member clubs without the need for independent bodies. Again, I think the AFL has to take partial ownership of this mess anyway, but it does not excuse a team unfairly exploiting the system.

Ask yourself this - what about the clubs that ended up one or two wins above the priority pick cut-off? What about the clubs that were genuinely 5/4 win teams that year that got deserved extra draft pick assistance? The priority pick rules were intended to assist clubs that were genuinely bad and the accusation levelled at Melbourne is that some in the football department tried to maximise the chances of Melbourne not winning more than 4 games in 2009. Technically they would qualify but it certainly violates the spirit of the rule.

For the record, I would also like the AFL to poke around Carlton, Richmond, Collingwood, West Coast and all others that received a priority pick. It's unfair to completely single out Melbourne. The investigation is about Melbourne though, and it seems there may be more evidence related to Melbourne 'tanking' in 2009 than for other clubs in all other seasons.

 

[The Dodger]

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' .

But it is that 1 extra win that will make all of this go away. That is what is ridiculous about that system. 1 more win in 2008 or 2009 and no extra pick. No tanking allegations, no wasted AFL time. Please also dont forget that this was pointed out ad nauseam to the AFL during the whole period to which they said tanking doesnt exist and something along the lines of "the very idea that a team of players would take the field to deliberately lose is ridiculous (IIRC Demetriou in 1 of his interviews).
Had the AFL realised that a team would get "penalised" for winning a 5th game and that some people might go the route of not winning that 5th game, they needed to change that rule. Whether they thought someone had yet or not, they should have realised the potential exists for a team to do that. They didn't and now we have a (probably very costly) investigation into the very topic that the AFL said does not happen.

I agree that tanking is not good anyway but I also believe that the short sighted benefit existed and may have been to good to resist for some.
Time has proven that getting that extra pick means jack squat to a poorly run club at the time and to me that is punishment enough. The AFL should now bare their burden for implementing a silly rule, that they were warned provided more benefits for losing a particular game than winning it.

 

[LeverPuller]

Ask yourself this - what about the clubs that ended up one or two wins above the priority pick cut-off? What about the clubs that were genuinely 5/4 win teams that year that got deserved extra draft pick assistance? The priority pick rules were intended to assist clubs that were genuinely bad and the accusation levelled at Melbourne is that some in the football department tried to maximise the chances of Melbourne not winning more than 4 games in 2009. Technically they would qualify but it certainly violates the spirit of the rule.

Just to clarify this, the only two teams who qualified for the top PP in 2009 were Melbourne and West Coast. Richmond did not qualify due to winning 11 games and nearly playing finals in '08. West Coast would have needed to have lost 4 of their wins to qualify for the start of R1 PP; Richmond would have qualified for the end of R1 PP had they lost 1 more game.

 

[Deleted member 98541]

Because we needed, literally, a full rebuild.
From the end of 2007 we have...Jamar, Davey, Nathan Jones, Frawley, Garland, Grimes, Sylvia and Spencer. That's it. Does that tell you what kind of a shit state our list was in and has been then?

'
That's 8 players, we've got 10. Big deal. Not to mention that Jamar>Goldstein, Davey>Wells, Frawley>Hansen and a geriatric Boomer as has been proven by the numerous Dees v North polls over the journey.

Why is one team entitled to 2 extra first round draft picks when there are perfectly good alternatives to rebuild AND stay reasonably competitive to a point where priorities are out of reach?

The fact is North have attempted a similar rebuild to Melbourne, but Melbourne chose to take it to the next level to ensure a better crack at the draft.

It was part of a grand plan, pay off debt, gain picks 1 and 2, sack the coach, then 'emerge' with a new jumper and mascot and a winning image. I probably wouldn't give a shit if it weren't for the constant "we're going to smash your bunch of plodders first round pick! First round pick blah blah blah!!"

It's like watching an episode of Scooby Doo when the good guy finally gets to rip off the mask of the bad guy, "And I would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids."

 

[The Dodger]

Again, does all this really matter?

We can never be sure if Melbourne really were a genuine 4 win team that year or whether they were capable of more. They really were bad in 2009 but could they have won 5-6 games that year? This investigation is predicated on there being enough evidence in the first place to justify launching an investigation. Time will tell whether there is enough to sanction Melbourne for this.

Mentioning the AFL as judge, jury and executioner is irrelevant - it is not a judicial organisation and the AFL can investigate and impose penalties on its member clubs without the need for independent bodies. Again, I think the AFL has to take partial ownership of this mess anyway, but it does not excuse a team unfairly exploiting the system.

Ask yourself this - what about the clubs that ended up one or two wins above the priority pick cut-off? What about the clubs that were genuinely 5/4 win teams that year that got deserved extra draft pick assistance? The priority pick rules were intended to assist clubs that were genuinely bad and the accusation levelled at Melbourne is that some in the football department tried to maximise the chances of Melbourne not winning more than 4 games in 2009. Technically they would qualify but it certainly violates the spirit of the rule.

For the record, I would also like the AFL to poke around Carlton, Richmond, Collingwood, West Coast and all others that received a priority pick. It's unfair to completely single out Melbourne. The investigation is about Melbourne though, and it seems there may be more evidence related to Melbourne 'tanking' in 2009 than for other clubs in all other seasons.

You are right there may be enough to start an investigation, my argument is that when you are warned constantly that this may be the case, and deny it exists, to then investigate a team based on a rule that you made and were constantly warned about is a bit lame.

What you ask me to ask myself is my point exactly. No arbitrary 4.5 win figure and a team that did the right thing and tried to win every game and ended up getting flogged consistently but won 5 games doesn't get the help it should because of that magical 4.5 win figure. Where is the benefit in trying hard but still being a shit team?
Basically its remove that 4.5 figure and all of it goes away, no potential match fixing and no investigation. Money + Time + Reputation saved.

 

[Forward Press]

Just to clarify this, the only two teams who qualified for the top PP in 2009 were Melbourne and West Coast. Richmond did not qualify due to winning 11 games and nearly playing finals in '08. West Coast would have needed to have lost 4 of their wins to qualify for the start of R1 PP; Richmond would have qualified for the end of R1 PP had they lost 1 more game.

I wasn't only referring to the start of R1 PPs. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Forward Press]

You are right there may be enough to start an investigation, my argument is that when you are warned constantly that this may be the case, and deny it exists, to then investigate a team based on a rule that you made and were constantly warned about is a bit lame.

What you ask me to ask myself is my point exactly. No arbitrary 4.5 win figure and a team that did the right thing and tried to win every game and ended up getting flogged consistently but won 5 games doesn't get the help it should because of that magical 4.5 win figure. Where is the benefit in trying hard but still being a shit team?
Basically its remove that 4.5 figure and all of it goes away, no potential match fixing and no investigation. Money + Time + Reputation saved.

That's exactly it. The old system was stupid. The new system is far better with secret criteria - one of the few times in the AFL when transparency in the system doesn't help.

I do not think however that this means a club should escape penalty if the AFL believes it violated the intent of the old system.

 

[The Dodger]

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.

If it is as far out in the season as that you are correct that is another ball game, I would still argue if they didn't have that magical figure to aim for would they be doing that? But from what I have read (and that video posted earlier) they are focusing on late in the season anyway as their evidence.

Chicken Egg is still completely applicable though.
If the AFL listened to the arguments against the PP they would have changed it and avoided a team setting out lose. It really is as simple as that. Especially after 2007-08, there should of been enough evidence to see that they would have games where someone doesn't really truly want to win or at the very least my be confused as to what is best for the club.
But instead we were reliably informed it doesn't and that the suggestions that it happens is ridiculous.

 

[The Dodger]

That's exactly it. The old system was stupid. The new system is far better with secret criteria - one of the few times in the AFL when transparency in the system doesn't help.

I do not think however that this means a club should escape penalty if the AFL believes it violated the intent of the old system.

That is what I asked you in the other thread though; How hard was it to see that it could be manipulated by putting a figure on it? It should have been the historical criteria form the start, would that really have taken such a big think tank to come up with?

 

[Forward Press]

That is what I asked you in the other thread though; How hard was it to see that it could be manipulated by putting a figure on it? It should have been the historical criteria form the start, would that really have taken such a big think tank to come up with?

I think the AFL made the right call initially - deny tanking until the evidence becomes difficult to ignore - like Brock McLean speaking out for example (note Melbourne supporters, that's not the only example, I just used the most prominent one). I guess they were trying to save face and not admit there was a problem (by changing PP criteria) until it was all too much.

Doesn't excuse cheating the system though.

 

[The Dodger]

I think the AFL made the right call initially - deny tanking until the evidence becomes difficult to ignore - like Brock McLean speaking out for example (note Melbourne supporters, that's not the only example, I just used the most prominent one). I guess they were trying to save face and not admit there was a problem (by changing PP criteria) until it was all too much.

Doesn't excuse cheating the system though.

See this is where we differ. I think making a poorly thought out policy point, followed by an actual physical representation of what my happen in further years (Kreuzer Cup) and being told constantly over the years that your policy point is open to manipulation is akin to being responsible. Again about the denying of the evidence is immaterial in that it should have been self evident to see what might have happened (even if they thought Carlton were trying in the Kreuzer Cup game), that scenario of missing out on Judd or Kreuzer had they won a meaningless game should have shown them then and there. Its not just the pick as in the Carlton case how many memberships were bought following the announcement they got Judd & Kreuzer. How many no.5 guernseys were sold immediately on that news? It was a financial reward as well as pick reward, to great to refuse.

Further on the AFL denial, is it better to nip something in the bud or let it fester and deal with the consequences later? From my point of view they are investigating the result of their inability to act when it was happening. Too little, too late.

 

[old55]

I thought it was a pretty reasonable conclusion.

You palmed off a perfectly good player in Mclean, had you kept him, you would've won enough games to forfeit a Priority. Hence, you never would've been accused of cheating, ahem, tanking. Him putting you in it on national television was really just drawing attention to a whole concept that would've been avoided had you hung on to him.

I stand by the trade.
OUT: Mclean
IN: World of PAIN

Right now it's:

IN: Tanking culture, Tanking investigation, Toumpas, Dawes, Barry
OUT: nothing

I'm not calling that winning btw.

 

[Sprout]

I am sure most feel quite dirty reading this thread. The sad culture and state of mind that led a club to this state is against all that any sport is about.

Fortunately we don't have long to wait for a clearer picture from the AFL. Many meltank posters have such an inability to accept reality they present a strong resemblance to Lance Armstrong. We can just hope, for the sake of the game, they unlike Armstrong will eventually man up.

Still sniffing around éh? You give yourself so much credit referring to the club as "meltank". You'd be best off sitting at the little kids table and letting the adults get on with the discussion.

 

[Sprout]

'
That's 8 players, we've got 10. Big deal. Not to mention that Jamar>Goldstein, Davey>Wells, Frawley>Hansen and a geriatric Boomer as has been proven by the numerous Dees v North polls over the journey.

Why is one team entitled to 2 extra first round draft picks when there are perfectly good alternatives to rebuild AND stay reasonably competitive to a point where priorities are out of reach?

The fact is North have attempted a similar rebuild to Melbourne, but Melbourne chose to take it to the next level to ensure a better crack at the draft.

It was part of a grand plan, pay off debt, gain picks 1 and 2, sack the coach, then 'emerge' with a new jumper and mascot and a winning image. I probably wouldn't give a shit if it weren't for the constant "we're going to smash your bunch of plodders first round pick! First round pick blah blah blah!!"

It's like watching an episode of Scooby Doo when the good guy finally gets to rip off the mask of the bad guy, "And I would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids."

This post proves you're teetering on the edge of delusional my friend. The grand plan involved sacking the coach? This is seriously tin foil hat stuff.

Plus painting all supporters with the same brush based on the actions of a few (assuming there were actually Melbourne fans running around screaming "we're gonna smash you! first round pick!")is not only unfair, it's illogical.

 

[bing181]

I am sure most feel quite dirty reading this thread. The sad culture and state of mind that led a club to this state is against all that any sport is about.

Now where did I put that hair shirt ...

Pompous, self-righteous ... and inaccurate.

 

[ManOfClay]

The verdict is in ladies and gentleman:

The Melbourne Football Club will be fined $3,500,000 and stripped of the following drafting penalties:

2013 National draft - loss of first, second, and third round draft picks. Excluded from acquiring players from free agency
2014 National draft - loss of first and secod round picks
2015 National draft - loss of first round pick

It's believed the primary evidence the AFL has pointed to are as follows:

* Only playing Jack Watts in 3 games in 2009. The AFL refutes Melbourne's defence that Watts was still in year 12 and not up to the rigours of a full season.
* Claims a fumble by Paul Johnson in the last quarter of the rd 18 2009 Melbourne V Richmond game directly influenced the entire result of the match. The AFL didn't accept Melbourne's defence that 200 cm ruckman are not so skillful at ground level.
* A round 22 loss by Melbourne (4-18) to St Kilda (20-2) was key to the penalties dished out.
* The exclusive use of 3 ruckman in the round 21 loss to Carlton at Etihad Stadium. The AFL refutes Melbourne's claims that other clubs such as Essendon have adopted such tactics.

The AFL aknowleges that no type of 'smoking gun' evidence such as emails, letters or tape recordings were ever found in the investigation, though were deeply concerned by Brock McLeans' claims during Foxtel's 'on the couch' program.

****ing lol that you of all people would be making this kind of post suggesting the AFl can't proved Melbourne tanked. You being the one who was proud of his team tanking and all.

 

[Old Campaigner]

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 point I made was that it didn't matter if it was a regular meeting or a secret meeting in an underground super villain hideout, the media is referring to it as 'the vault meeting' because that is more recognizable to the readers than saying 'the meeting where allegedly people were told to tank'.

The Age published an article after Caro's original allegations and after the results of the investigation were handed to the MFC for comment, saying that there were 57 witness statements and most of them contradicted Connolly's statement that no such meeting took place. Which assuming The Age isn't blowing smoke out it's ass, contradicts your idea that there is no proof that 'the vault meeting/the meeting where allegedly people were told to tank' took place.

Unless there has been a retraction or some new leak (which I'd still be interested in reading if you have found one) I'm inclined to go with what this article has been claiming.

 

[SunshineBoy]

The point I made was that it didn't matter if it was a regular meeting or a secret meeting in an underground super villain hideout, the media is referring to it as 'the vault meeting' because that is more recognizable to the readers than saying 'the meeting where allegedly people were told to tank'.

The Age published an article after Caro's original allegations and after the results of the investigation were handed to the MFC for comment, saying that there were 57 witness statements and most of them contradicted Connolly's statement that no such meeting took place. Which assuming The Age isn't blowing smoke out it's arse, contradicts your idea that there is no proof that 'the vault meeting/the meeting where allegedly people were told to tank' took place.

Unless there has been a retraction or some new leak (which I'd still be interested in reading if you have found one) I'm inclined to go with what this article has been claiming.

They are hanging their hats on the term "the Vault" and how the meeting was NEVER codenamed that., whatever it was called 57 people say it occured.

 

[Demonic_Inferno]

See this is where we differ. I think making a poorly thought out policy point, followed by an actual physical representation of what my happen in further years (Kreuzer Cup) and being told constantly over the years that your policy point is open to manipulation is akin to being responsible. Again about the denying of the evidence is immaterial in that it should have been self evident to see what might have happened (even if they thought Carlton were trying in the Kreuzer Cup game), that scenario of missing out on Judd or Kreuzer had they won a meaningless game should have shown them then and there. Its not just the pick as in the Carlton case how many memberships were bought following the announcement they got Judd & Kreuzer. How many no.5 guernseys were sold immediately on that news? It was a financial reward as well as pick reward, to great to refuse.

Further on the AFL denial, is it better to nip something in the bud or let it fester and deal with the consequences later? From my point of view they are investigating the result of their inability to act when it was happening. Too little, too late.

What a great post.

Well done, you've smashed the nail on the head. A great deal of unjustified damage has been done to the MFC already.

 

[ExTasDeeMan]

'
That's 8 players, we've got 10. Big deal. Not to mention that Jamar>Goldstein, Davey>Wells, Frawley>Hansen and a geriatric Boomer as has been proven by the numerous Dees v North polls over the journey.

Why is one team entitled to 2 extra first round draft picks when there are perfectly good alternatives to rebuild AND stay reasonably competitive to a point where priorities are out of reach?

The fact is North have attempted a similar rebuild to Melbourne, but Melbourne chose to take it to the next level to ensure a better crack at the draft.

It was part of a grand plan, pay off debt, gain picks 1 and 2, sack the coach, then 'emerge' with a new jumper and mascot and a winning image. I probably wouldn't give a shit if it weren't for the constant "we're going to smash your bunch of plodders first round pick! First round pick blah blah blah!!"

It's like watching an episode of Scooby Doo when the good guy finally gets to rip off the mask of the bad guy, "And I would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids."

I'm just going to reply to your post because you put so much effort in, good for you.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

Surely the ludicrous thread title should now be corrected?

 

[Robot Devil]

Surely the ludicrous thread title should now be corrected?

Why?

 

[Dont be a lemon]

Everyone knows there is evidence and is waiting for the AFL to bring down the hammer.