Play Nice Still no evidence against Melbourne re: tanking

[Sprout]

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?

Yes, anyone who objected to tanking was shown the door. "Tanking or bust".

I can't put into words how idiotic your question is, if serious.

 

[Ando727]

How long is this crap going to drag on? (this thread and the issue itself)

 

[LeverPuller]

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

By McDonald and co you realise:
- Junior was 33 and missed 8 games cos of a hammy
- Bruce was offered 1 year and demanded 2
- The rest (Moloney, Sylvia, Green, Davey) were the core of the remaining 'seniors'

The rest fall into the former bracket of too old.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

How long is this crap going to drag on? (this thread and the issue itself)

Most suspect the AFL aren't able to do anything in regard to punishing Melbourne until they can be absolutely sure they are not implicating themselves, which could take years.

Once again, we saw the AFL run off half-cocked with an idea without thinking it through. Draft picks for finishing down the bottom with only 4 wins for the season ... good idea, let's do it!!! Never entered their heads that clubs may see it as a chance to bolster their average playing lists? Really???!!! If that's the case, then the AFL are even more incompetant than I already think they are.

Thinking people at the time said the AFL should only award priority picks to clubs who have been on the bottom for three years or more and genuinely struggling, not for clubs having one poor season. And the picks shouldn't be automatic, they should be agreed upon by the management of the day.

That's the sensible way to do it, but the AFL aren't very good at sensible solutions.

 

[Ando727]

Most suspect the AFL aren't able to do anything in regard to punishing Melbourne until they can be absolutely sure they are not implicating themselves, which could take years.

Once again, we saw the AFL run off half-cocked with an idea without thinking it through. Draft picks for finishing down the bottom with only 4 wins for the season ... good idea, let's do it!!! Never entered their heads that clubs may see it as a chance to bolster their average playing lists? Really???!!! If that's the case, then the AFL are even more incompetant than I already think they are.

Thinking people at the time said the AFL should only award priority picks to clubs who have been on the bottom for three years or more and genuinely struggling, not for clubs having one poor season. And the picks shouldn't be automatic, they should be agreed upon by the management of the day.

That's the sensible way to do it, but the AFL aren't very good at sensible solutions.

That seems an accurate summary of events, but I just can't believe how long and drawn out this has become. I've reached the point where I don't care what happens anymore, I just want it to be over so we can focus on the future. This distraction is totally dominating our club (at least in terms of our fans and members), it's all anyone talks about. It's taking away all the excitement about the coming season. Not good for anyone. We're like a prisoner on death row: at some stage you either want to be exonerated, or executed - the waiting's the worst.

FFS AFL, just get this over with!

 

[bing181]

... how much of the collapse was aresult of the tanking we will never know.

Quite how you (and others here) can continue to raise and subsequently discuss and debate points based on the premise that Melbourne was tanking is beyond me. Really.

Nothing has been established, so let's wait and see.

 

[telsor]

Most suspect the AFL aren't able to do anything in regard to punishing Melbourne until they can be absolutely sure they are not implicating themselves, which could take years.

Once again, we saw the AFL run off half-cocked with an idea without thinking it through. Draft picks for finishing down the bottom with only 4 wins for the season ... good idea, let's do it!!! Never entered their heads that clubs may see it as a chance to bolster their average playing lists? Really???!!! If that's the case, then the AFL are even more incompetant than I already think they are.

Thinking people at the time said the AFL should only award priority picks to clubs who have been on the bottom for three years or more and genuinely struggling, not for clubs having one poor season. And the picks shouldn't be automatic, they should be agreed upon by the management of the day.

That's the sensible way to do it, but the AFL aren't very good at sensible solutions.

So you think that so long as the temptation is there, then the fault is with the one who created the temptation...

You don't get off because you robbed a bank that didn't have good enough security by saying 'they made it so easy, I just had to'.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

So you think that so long as the temptation is there, then the fault is with the one who created the temptation...

You don't get off because you robbed a bank that didn't have good enough security by saying 'they made it so easy, I just had to'.

It's not the temptation of reward, the AFL basically approved of tanking for years by refusing to even acknowledge, let alone address, that it could be occurring. The way that Demetriou in particular fobbed off and ridiculed anyone who even raised it as an issue promoted the belief that while everyone knew what was happening the AFL were happy for club's to go down the "list management" path of building towards the future rather than winning every game as a priority. Anyone who disagrees with this is either delusional or can't remember past their last breakfast. And to say things like "other clubs did it but Melbourne were worse" or whatever other rubbish you want to throw up is just as ridiculous.

Tanking happens in most sports where the draft is weighted towards the lower sides. NFL had the "Suck for Luck" campaign last year, NBA has a draft lottery weighted towards the worst sides yet teams still tank just for the chance to get a better draft pick. It's the nature of the beast and is a price to pay for equalisation or parity and unless coaches specifically direct players to go out and throw games there's not a lot that can really be done about it except to minimise it as much as possible or, in the AFL's case, have a true lottery with the bottom 10 sides all having 1/10th chance of getting the number 1 pick.

 

[telsor]

It's not the temptation of reward, the AFL basically approved of tanking for years by refusing to even acknowledge, let alone address, that it could be occurring. The way that Demetriou in particular fobbed off and ridiculed anyone who even raised it as an issue promoted the belief that while everyone knew what was happening the AFL were happy for club's to go down the "list management" path of building towards the future rather than winning every game as a priority. Anyone who disagrees with this is either delusional or can't remember past their last breakfast. And to say things like "other clubs did it but Melbourne were worse" or whatever other rubbish you want to throw up is just as ridiculous.

Tanking happens in most sports where the draft is weighted towards the lower sides. NFL had the "Suck for Luck" campaign last year, NBA has a draft lottery weighted towards the worst sides yet teams still tank just for the chance to get a better draft pick. It's the nature of the beast and is a price to pay for equalisation or parity and unless coaches specifically direct players to go out and throw games there's not a lot that can really be done about it except to minimise it as much as possible or, in the AFL's case, have a true lottery with the bottom 10 sides all having 1/10th chance of getting the number 1 pick.

Does any of that make it 'right'?

Tanking is CHEATING, and needs to be punished accordingly.

And show me where the AFL approved of cheating. They gave clubs the benefit of the doubt until one club was so bad at it, they couldn't ignore it any longer. (OK, that's Melbourne's real crime, they not only cheated, they were really bad at it).

 

[bing181]

And show me where the AFL approved of cheating.

Show me where the AFL proved anyone tanked.

 

[telsor]

Show me where the AFL proved anyone tanked.

Clearly, they're in the process of that currently...

I think most agree it's happened (and not just by Melbourne), the only question is proving it.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Does any of that make it 'right'?

Tanking is CHEATING, and needs to be punished accordingly.

And show me where the AFL approved of cheating. They gave clubs the benefit of the doubt until one club was so bad at it, they couldn't ignore it any longer. (OK, that's Melbourne's real crime, they not only cheated, they were really bad at it).

Do you understand what "tacit" approval means - it was approval by ommission and turning a blind eye to the obvious.

I don't necessarily believe tanking is cheating but I can see why some may think that and agree if proven to have occurred it should be punished although then you get into the arguments about what constitutes tanking and the difficulty of enforcing it when organisation's like the NBA or NFL haven't managed to. But that is beside the point to what I was commenting on which was that it wasn't mere temptation of a priority pick which is what implicated the AFL, it was their tacit approval in the years preceding 2009.

You're comment about us being "the worst" at tanking which is why we'll be punished is laughable, we did the same thing other clubs have done and people from other clubs have made similar comments to what McLean did (which is what set off this current investigation). I'm not saying "they did it so why can't we" what I'm saying is the assertion we only got caught because we bungled it up is wrong. There is nothing that has come out about our alleged tanking which is any worse than what has come out about other clubs and no other club has been subject to the same scrutinised investigation by the AFL's revamped integrity department as we have. We are also an easy target for the AFL to go after compared to Carlton, Richmond, West Coast, Collingwood, Hawthorn etc

 

[telsor]

Do you understand what "tacit" approval means - it was approval by ommission and turning a blind eye to the obvious.

I don't necessarily believe tanking is cheating but I can see why some may think that and agree if proven to have occurred it should be punished although then you get into the arguments about what constitutes tanking and the difficulty of enforcing it when organisation's like the NBA or NFL haven't managed to. But that is beside the point to what I was commenting on which was that it wasn't mere temptation of a priority pick which is what implicated the AFL, it was their tacit approval in the years preceding 2009.

You're comment about us being "the worst" at tanking which is why we'll be punished is laughable, we did the same thing other clubs have done and people from other clubs have made similar comments to what McLean did (which is what set off this current investigation). I'm not saying "they did it so why can't we" what I'm saying is the assertion we only got caught because we bungled it up is wrong. There is nothing that has come out about our alleged tanking which is any worse than what has come out about other clubs and no other club has been subject to the same scrutinised investigation by the AFL's revamped integrity department as we have. We are also an easy target for the AFL to go after compared to Carlton, Richmond, West Coast, Collingwood, Hawthorn etc

You say tacit approval, I say the didn't believe it was happening because they considered it unthinkable that a club would deliberately loose a sporting contest.

McLean isn't the only reason you were investigated, there were suspicions and allegations before then. That was just the straw that broke the camels back. Other clubs have been investigated, briefly, and nothing was found, Melbourne was investigated, briefly, and enough was found to look further. You say easy target, I think it was that you were the worst at covering it up (possibly because there was a bigger group in on it and for longer, but it'd be impossible to say for sure).

And yes, if Richmond was found to have deliberately lost games, I'd expect us to be hauled over the coals too...I dare say I'd abandon the club because I'd be so ashamed of them.

 

[Forward Press]

Most suspect the AFL aren't able to do anything in regard to punishing Melbourne until they can be absolutely sure they are not implicating themselves, which could take years.

Once again, we saw the AFL run off half-cocked with an idea without thinking it through. Draft picks for finishing down the bottom with only 4 wins for the season ... good idea, let's do it!!! Never entered their heads that clubs may see it as a chance to bolster their average playing lists? Really???!!! If that's the case, then the AFL are even more incompetant than I already think they are.

Thinking people at the time said the AFL should only award priority picks to clubs who have been on the bottom for three years or more and genuinely struggling, not for clubs having one poor season. And the picks shouldn't be automatic, they should be agreed upon by the management of the day.

That's the sensible way to do it, but the AFL aren't very good at sensible solutions.

The old priority pick system was indeed poorly thought through. I don't think you'll find many disagreeing with your post.

To the AFL's credit, they fixed it up (eventually) by making the criteria for awarding a priority pick secret and discretionary. In a way, they have already admitted they were wrong with the old system. Do you think the AFL would ever approach an issue and flatly state they were wrong? I also do not think that the AFL must take full responsibility for a club (or clubs) choosing to violate the spirit of the priority pick system.

 

[lloydy_loinchop]

You say tacit approval, I say the didn't believe it was happening because they considered it unthinkable that a club would deliberately loose a sporting contest.

If tanking was 'unthinkable' for the AFL it shows how alarmingly naive and short-sighted they were in bringing in priority selections. As it were, it wasn't 'unthinkable' because a few years ago they changed the priority pick rule from one season of 4 wins to two seasons of four wins. So before Melbourne's tanking allegations, they realised it was a problem, and while not publicly admitting it, altered the rules accordingly. Collingwood and Carlton were probably the most obvious tankers during that period. Collingwood got Thomas and Pendlebury, and Carlton picked up three first-round draft picks.

Obviously those clubs weren't world-beating teams in those years, but the supporters of both would probably admit that they didn't finish as high on the ladders as they could have in some years. Is this a sin? I don't think so. I'm sure many supporters of those clubs (especially Collingwood) are probably happy about it.

What is called 'tanking' is quite arbitrary and vague, because to some extent, all AFL clubs prioritise the future over the present. Hawthorn might not try to win a Rd22 game to protect themselves for finals. Western Bulldogs dropped players like Gilbee and Hargrave and then let them retire when they are currently better than players in their current best 22, so that they can develop youngsters for the future. The priority pick rule gave such perverse incentives as to allow Melbourne to justify not wanting to win the game. Now that is the sin that occured - the original formulation of the rule by the AFL.

If the AFL were just, they'd cop the blame for the whole fiasco and end the 'tanking debate', or as I see it, the 'list management debae'. The former is seen as a blight on the game, the latter is seen as part of team's premiership 'cycles' and list-building efforts. The tanking for priority selections is much more egregious than the tanking or list management that follows from the standard reverse ladder order draft. Once priority selections are scrapped or at least put on some sort of sliding scale (instead of a hard 4 wins or less limit), tanking will not be as much of a problem.

 

[Forward Press]

I don't necessarily believe tanking is cheating but I can see why some may think that and agree if proven to have occurred it should be punished although then you get into the arguments about what constitutes tanking and the difficulty of enforcing it when organisation's like the NBA or NFL haven't managed to.

Just on that point, the NBA has sanctioned a team for 'tanking' - in this case what could be called list management by resting four key players. The team lost that game.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2012/11/30/nba-fines-san-antonio-spurs-250000k/1738435/

Although everyone knows the NBA commissioner has a bee in his bonnet with regards to San Antonio.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Just on that point, the NBA has sanctioned a team for 'tanking' - in this case what could be called list management by resting four key players. The team lost that game.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2012/11/30/nba-fines-san-antonio-spurs-250000k/1738435/

Although everyone knows the NBA commissioner has a bee in his bonnet with regards to San Antonio.

That wasn't for tanking per se, that was more for giving an "F you" to Stern for their schedule by resting their players in a prime time nationally broadcast match. Interestingly the Spurs almost won that game, would have been interesting if they did.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

You say tacit approval, I say the didn't believe it was happening because they considered it unthinkable that a club would deliberately loose a sporting contest.

McLean isn't the only reason you were investigated, there were suspicions and allegations before then. That was just the straw that broke the camels back. Other clubs have been investigated, briefly, and nothing was found, Melbourne was investigated, briefly, and enough was found to look further. You say easy target, I think it was that you were the worst at covering it up (possibly because there was a bigger group in on it and for longer, but it'd be impossible to say for sure).

And yes, if Richmond was found to have deliberately lost games, I'd expect us to be hauled over the coals too...I dare say I'd abandon the club because I'd be so ashamed of them.

You are wrong on almost every count. If the AFL thought it "unthinkable" as you say (which I disagree with) they were more gullible and naive than Chamberlain was when he declared "peace in our time".

McLean is the only reason we are currently being investigated. Suspicions and allegations have been made against several other clubs. No other club has been invetsigated by the current revamped AFL integrity department. Nothing has come out yet about Melbourne that hasn't been stated about other clubs so I don't see how you can see we were the worst at covering it up. We are in the same boat as every other club that has been accused of tanking except we have been subject to a 7 month investigation by the upscaled integrity department while other clubs have been given a "please explain" with no further intent by the AFL to look further.

If you'd abandon your club for doing what they believed was in their long term best interests and best chance to work towards a premiership it doesn't really show much support.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I don't really rate the guy, but I think Jon Anderson said on AW he thought the AFL would lay charges today.

Given his track record though, it probably means we wont hear anything now for 6 months

 

[Demonheart]

You say tacit approval, I say the didn't believe it was happening because they considered it unthinkable that a club would deliberately loose a sporting contest.

McLean isn't the only reason you were investigated, there were suspicions and allegations before then. That was just the straw that broke the camels back. Other clubs have been investigated, briefly, and nothing was found, Melbourne was investigated, briefly, and enough was found to look further. You say easy target, I think it was that you were the worst at covering it up (possibly because there was a bigger group in on it and for longer, but it'd be impossible to say for sure).

And yes, if Richmond was found to have deliberately lost games, I'd expect us to be hauled over the coals too...I dare say I'd abandon the club because I'd be so ashamed of them.

You're wrong, Melbourne was investigated twice previously and nothing was found.

 

[Demonheart]

I don't really rate the guy, but I think Jon Anderson said on AW he thought the AFL would lay charges today.

Given his track record though, it probably means we wont hear anything now for 6 months

MASSIVE NEWS!!! I can 100% confirm that the AFL went to the MFC today to lay charges, however when they got to our offices they were greeted by our hoard of angry Zulu's and decided against it. I believe there are photos doing the rounds on twitter of Connolly dressed in a grass shirt and wielding a spear!

 

[Ned_Flanders]

MASSIVE NEWS!!! I can 100% confirm that the AFL went to the MFC today to lay charges, however when they got to our offices they were greeted by our hoard of angry Zulu's and decided against it. I believe there are photos doing the rounds on twitter of Connolly dressed in a grass shirt and wielding a spear!

Sorry to burst your bubble, but sportsnewsfirst.com.au ran with this yesterday - and it was a g banger, not a grass skirt

 

[Demonheart]

Just on that point, the NBA has sanctioned a team for 'tanking' - in this case what could be called list management by resting four key players. The team lost that game.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2012/11/30/nba-fines-san-antonio-spurs-250000k/1738435/

Although everyone knows the NBA commissioner has a bee in his bonnet with regards to San Antonio.

They were fined because they didn't notify the league in time, not because they were rested. Always a good idea to read the article

 

[telsor]

You're wrong, Melbourne was investigated twice previously and nothing was found.

So, the AFL treated you exactly the same way as they did everyone else for the first two times.

Then on the third time, they decided that when you roll it all together it was looking suss and dug further.

Yeah, clearly a conspiracy to get you.

 

[Forward Press]

They were fined because they didn't notify the league in time, not because they were rested. Always a good idea to read the article

You really think the fine was only because of late paperwork?