Good result to the tanking saga?

quinny88 · February 16, 2013, 02:30:18 AM

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-02-15/demons-face-500k-tanking-fine-reports

Main point from that is that there are no draft pick penalties. I trust the Demons faithful are pretty stoked with that?

tbagrocks · February 16, 2013, 03:28:19 AM

Sando seems to think he's alright, Bailey to be cleared according to Sando

But we all know they tanked so Baily is legit?

Ringo · February 16, 2013, 10:40:23 AM

We await the final outcome next week.

Article says Melbourne Board still to be advised of outcome!!.

Purple 77 · February 16, 2013, 08:09:30 PM

Quote from: Ringo on February 16, 2013, 10:40:23 AM
We await the final outcome next week.

Article says Melbourne Board still to be advised of outcome!!.

Yes exactly

Well, I sort of think that if Melbourne was found guilty, the punishment would/should be a lot bigger than that, so should we really be punished at all?

I actually think Melbourne would not be too pleased with that, coz its a punishment thats not good enough to be real IMO

Ziplock · February 17, 2013, 03:28:48 AM

yeah... if they're actually guilty then they should be copping that + loss of picks at least...

Capper · February 17, 2013, 03:36:32 AM

Quote from: Ziplock on February 17, 2013, 03:28:48 AM
yeah... if they're actually guilty then they should be copping that + loss of picks at least...

or at least their first pick for 2 years because as a result of the tanking they got better picks

Ringo · February 17, 2013, 04:15:15 PM

Think that is the issue - Proving without a benefit of doubt that tanking occurred and was deliberate.

Lawyers would have a field day if loss of picks and points are involved without obsolete proof.

Cicjose · February 19, 2013, 04:24:12 PM

http://www.afl.com.au/afl/news/2013-02-19/tanking-inquiry-live

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-02-19/tanking-inquiry-results-to-be-revealed

Melbourne did NOT set out to deliberately loss matches in the 2009 season

Dean Bailey cannot coach the first 16 rounds of the 2013 season

FORMER Melbourne football operations manager Chris Connolly has been banned from football for 11 months

In addition, the Demons have been fined $500,000.
________________________________

A statement from the AFL said:

- There had not been a directive from the Melbourne Football Club board or executive management that the team should deliberately lose matches in any game during the 2009 season.

- Demons coaches and players did not set out to deliberately lose in any matches during the 2009 season.

- Connolly had made comments during a football department meeting concerning pre-game planning that were "prejudicial to the interests of the AFL".

- Bailey, in regard to Connolly's comments, had also acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the AFL.

T Dog · February 19, 2013, 04:56:16 PM

This should concern a few other coaches and senior staff of clubs who were in similar positions. The demons weren't Robinson Crusoe in seeking priority picks over the years. >:(

Boomz · February 19, 2013, 05:41:07 PM

Laughed when I read the result... They got lucky.

Grazz · February 19, 2013, 05:43:47 PM

Question i keep asking myself is why were the Dee's the only ones looked at when we all know a few others were having a race for the bottom in seasons past.

Boomz · February 19, 2013, 05:45:54 PM

Quote from: Grazz on February 19, 2013, 05:43:47 PM
Question i keep asking myself is why were the Dee's the only ones looked at when we all know a few others were having a race for the bottom in seasons past.

Because the AFL were forced to by all the comments by Bailey & Mclean... They won't look into any tanking that they aren't forced to.

Grazz · February 19, 2013, 05:47:15 PM

Quote from: Boomz on February 19, 2013, 05:45:54 PM
Quote from: Grazz on February 19, 2013, 05:43:47 PM
Question i keep asking myself is why were the Dee's the only ones looked at when we all know a few others were having a race for the bottom in seasons past.

Because the AFL were forced to by all the comments by Bailey & Mclean... They won't look into any tanking that they aren't forced to.

So basicaly just another half a**ed investigation by the AFL.

Ringo · February 19, 2013, 06:10:52 PM

Whilst the outcome is extremely satisfying for the Melbourne Club, the question I find myself asking here is How can they say the club has no case to answer when two of its senior coaching officials are given severe penalties and then fine the club $500,000 as employers of the club.

Yet another investigation by the AFL that only gives part of the facts.

Purple 77 · February 19, 2013, 06:48:18 PM

Was there anything in that article that says why Melbourne is being fined 500k? I can honestly find nothing other than it saying Bailey and Connolly were acting prejudicial to the interests of the AFL. So, that equates to a 500k fine?

Maybe a good result in the end, but this:

Quote from: Grazz on February 19, 2013, 05:43:47 PM
Question i keep asking myself is why were the Dee's the only ones looked at when we all know a few others were having a race for the bottom in seasons past.

gets me REALLY annoyed.

Quote from: Grazz on February 19, 2013, 05:47:15 PM
Quote from: Boomz on February 19, 2013, 05:45:54 PM
Quote from: Grazz on February 19, 2013, 05:43:47 PM
Question i keep asking myself is why were the Dee's the only ones looked at when we all know a few others were having a race for the bottom in seasons past.

Because the AFL were forced to by all the comments by Bailey & Mclean... They won't look into any tanking that they aren't forced to.

So basicaly just another half a**ed investigation by the AFL.

Looks like it, that, and/or the AFL isn't telling us everything.

So overall, not happy at all with the fine, as it isn't explained clearly enough in the article, to me anyway. Shouldn't we only get punished if we tanked? This is a punishment; a punishment that doesn't reflect the severity of tanking. We should have either been punished very harshly or not at all IMO