Good result to the tanking saga?

Ringo · February 19, 2013, 07:14:47 PM

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/melbourne-fc-found-not-guilty-of-tanking-but-bailey-and-connolly-cop-suspensions/story-e6frf9jf-1226580877741

Here is the text of the findings Purple. Seems the club has accepted the ultimatum responsibility as employers of Connolly and Bailey so they get the fine to be paid by instalments, Would be interested to really test this in the legal system though. It is like saying I found Emplee z falsifying some accounting figures but I have to take the responsibility and fine.

Purple 77 · February 19, 2013, 07:35:12 PM

Quote from: Ringo on February 19, 2013, 07:14:47 PM
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/melbourne-fc-found-not-guilty-of-tanking-but-bailey-and-connolly-cop-suspensions/story-e6frf9jf-1226580877741

Here is the text of the findings Purple. Seems the club has accepted the ultimatum responsibility as employers of Connolly and Bailey so they get the fine to be paid by instalments, Would be interested to really test this in the legal system though. It is like saying I found Emplee z falsifying some accounting figures but I have to take the responsibility and fine.

Ah, thanks very much!

Oh well, at least now I can say that when people say we tanked back in '09, I can just show them quotes from the report lol

quinny88 · February 20, 2013, 07:35:11 PM

Did anyone watch AFL 360 last night?
They had footage of both Demetriou and McLachlan being asked what the actual definition of "tanking" was when doing the investigation and neither of them knew the answer.. They stumbled on their words and McLachlan even admitted he didn't know the actual definition...
How can you say someone is not guilty of something if you dont know what that something actually is!?
Even more bizarre is how you can say that someone is "not guilty" of something yet give 2 of there employers lengthy suspensions and whack the club with a massive fine.
And then the icing on the cake is the MFC president, Don McLardy stating that the clubs name has been cleared and that they were proven to be not guilty yet they had 2 of their past employers suspended and a $500,000 fine sent their way. Doesnt sound very clear to me. Sounds like a harsh punishment for something they believe they didnt do and persistently defended
The whole thing has been a circus. The AFL have lost the plot lately. There needs to be an overhaul at the top of the tree, starting with Demetriou

Ringo · February 20, 2013, 07:45:03 PM

Quote from: quinny88 on February 20, 2013, 07:35:11 PM
Did anyone watch AFL 360 last night?
They had footage of both Demetriou and McLachlan being asked what the actual definition of "tanking" was when doing the investigation and neither of them knew the answer.. They stumbled on their words and McLachlan even admitted he didn't know the actual definition...
How can you say someone is not guilty of something if you dont know what that something actually is!?
Even more bizarre is how you can say that someone is "not guilty" of something yet give 2 of there employers lengthy suspensions and whack the club with a massive fine.
And then the icing on the cake is the MFC president, Don McLardy stating that the clubs name has been cleared and that they were proven to be not guilty yet they had 2 of their past employers suspended and a $500,000 fine sent their way. Doesnt sound very clear to me. Sounds like a harsh punishment for something they believe they didnt do and persistently defended
The whole thing has been a circus. The AFL have lost the plot lately. There needs to be an overhaul at the top of the tree, starting with Demetriou

Agree with your last sentence Quinney - The AFL has lost the plot completely. Even as a Brisbane supporter and the allegations of recreational drug use at Brisbane the AFL said no further investigation until substantiated proof was given. All they had to do was ask the 2 former club employees who corroborated parts of the story to ascertain whether investigation was necessary. Fail again.

quinny88 · February 20, 2013, 07:51:52 PM

Quote from: Ringo on February 20, 2013, 07:45:03 PM
Quote from: quinny88 on February 20, 2013, 07:35:11 PM
Did anyone watch AFL 360 last night?
They had footage of both Demetriou and McLachlan being asked what the actual definition of "tanking" was when doing the investigation and neither of them knew the answer.. They stumbled on their words and McLachlan even admitted he didn't know the actual definition...
How can you say someone is not guilty of something if you dont know what that something actually is!?
Even more bizarre is how you can say that someone is "not guilty" of something yet give 2 of there employers lengthy suspensions and whack the club with a massive fine.
And then the icing on the cake is the MFC president, Don McLardy stating that the clubs name has been cleared and that they were proven to be not guilty yet they had 2 of their past employers suspended and a $500,000 fine sent their way. Doesnt sound very clear to me. Sounds like a harsh punishment for something they believe they didnt do and persistently defended
The whole thing has been a circus. The AFL have lost the plot lately. There needs to be an overhaul at the top of the tree, starting with Demetriou
Agree with your last sentence Quinney - The AFL has lost the plot completely. Even as a Brisbane supporter and the allegations of recreational drug use at Brisbane the AFL said no further investigation until substantiated proof was given. All they had to do was ask the 2 former club employees who corroborated parts of the story to ascertain whether investigation was necessary. Fail again.

The AFL prefer to just sweep everything under the rug until it is that out of hand that they have to do something. We have seen it with this tanking stuff and the drugs recently. What's next :o

They put all of their time and energy into unwanted/unnecessary rule changes and bringing new clubs in that will never take off (particularly GWS) rather than worrying about the mountain of issues in front of their face already

Ziplock · February 20, 2013, 07:53:03 PM

I think they found melbourne guilty of formal discussions about tanking, not that they necessarily did it.

Grazz · February 20, 2013, 07:54:03 PM

Agree quinny, the whole thing is very confusing. Without wanting to stick it to the Dee's you know they tanked i know they tanked the whole footy community knows they tanked yet they are not guilty but cop a 500k fine and have to former employees suspended from their positions. If it was so serious it would be laughable how the AFL have handled this and the drug fiasco. They are incompetent twats who are being paid top dollar and performing very badly. I didn't see AFL360 but it would not surprise me at all that Demetriou didn't know the definition of tanking he's the biggest head in the sand fool there. Needs to be sacked the tosser. The damage that's been done to the brand AFL on his watch is monumental. If you performed this badly in the private sector you wouldn't have a job long.

Purple 77 · February 20, 2013, 09:24:32 PM

I think its obvious the club tanked in 09, but as previously said if we are found not guilty of tanking, what is the 500k fine for?

Think I read somewhere that we were fined for being the employers of Bailey and Connolly; we seem to be taking the financial fall for them :-\

Grazz · February 20, 2013, 09:37:49 PM

Quote from: Purple 77 on February 20, 2013, 09:24:32 PM
I think its obvious the club tanked in 09, but as previously said if we are found not guilty of tanking, what is the 500k fine for?

Think I read somewhere that we were fined for being the employers of Bailey and Connolly; we seem to be taking the financial fall for them :-\

I agree mate, im a Crows supporter and weve lost one of our coaches for 16 weeks so im as gobsmacked as you are to be honest.
What a ridiculous outcome for being not guilty. The AFL are a rabble just making it up as they go along to suit the best outcome.
Have very little confidence in the AFL now not that i had alot before but certainly have none now.Twats the lot of them.

McRooster · February 20, 2013, 10:03:33 PM

How the flower does Caro know this shower a week ago? It can't be Anderson (he's left the building) so it must be Devil Demetriou and Gilligan McLachlan who have been spit roasting her and feeding her the info. Is it in order to work out how their findings will be received and so they can best answer lines of questions and deal with all likely scenarios, or is to work out how to spin blame while they stay clean? Surely if a true AFL integrity commission does indeed exist then they should be targeting Caro to find her 'source'.

To those Crow supporters who think 'why do we get penalised?' ... Well a Port Adelaide supporter said it beautifully on radio tonight - 'Adelaide employed Bailey without investigating thoroughly the cloud hanging over his head and rolled the dice by employing him based on record, worth and achievement to their group. Much like any business employment decision it would seem. However should a courier company employ someone who has a drink driving case pending, and the employer is unaware, does the employee retain the right to sustain his employment should be be found guilty of the drink driving charge? No.

A negotiated finding for Melbourne that smells of cover-up. To protect others and their legacies, Bailey and Connelly have fallen on their tridents. It is Melbourne's 'inner Demons' that have destroyed its soul.

Grazz · February 20, 2013, 10:41:40 PM

I except Rooster that we hired Bailey so suck it up Crows, what stuns me is if Melbourne are innocent how is the coach guilty.
I agree if the integrity commision does indeed have any integrity then why haven't they gone to Caro to find out where all this stuff is coming from, your theory of its coming from the top to me is probably spot on cause i haven't heard anyone at the top screaming about who is leaking all this stuff and wanting their heads for it, so you may well be onto something there. I also agree the whole thing stinks to high heavens of another manufactured AFL cover up for a best outcome scenario. Demetriou has been leading the charge that there is no tanking in the AFL for a couple of years now so an adverse finding would see him look sillier than he already is but this finding seriously makes him and others look like absolute fools. I have no faith in the drugs investigation at all, this will just be adjusted to suit the best case scenario for the AFL if the EFC are found guilty. I have not one bit of trust in the AFL anymore and the monkey running it,he's an incompetent fool who needs to be shown the door.

Why they only went after the Dee's for tanking and not a few other clubs regardless of wether Melbourne made inflammatory statements about tanking means nothing, tanking is tanking and if your perceived to be doing it then you need to be looked at. We all know the Dee's weren't the only ones over the last decade chasing priority picks for poor seasons. Demetriou couldn't even explain the AFL's definition of tanking he mumbled and fumbled before passing it to someone else to explain who also couldn't explain their own definition of tanking. Id like to see a time were all club members can vote a no confidence motion against the AFL board where all the club ceos get together under extraordinary circumstances such as whats transpired lately and agree that the all club members need to vote on whether they have faith in the board to manage the game otherwise these idiots can just go on forever and a day screwing up the game, they must be accountable and be held accountable by somebody and i feel that right should go to all club members who have payed their hard earned to be an AFL club member and if you want a vote then pay your money to gain a vote. Just my 2 cents worth of a rant. I cant stand incompetence.

quinny88 · February 21, 2013, 01:07:40 AM

Quote from: Ziplock on February 20, 2013, 07:53:03 PM
I think they found melbourne guilty of formal discussions about tanking, not that they necessarily did it.

Which is what's ridiculous because they have said that only Connoly and Bailey knew about it.
So Connoly says to bailey rest players x,y,z and also play other players x,y,z out of position so we lose the game. Bailey follows through and does it and they are guilty of that but they are not guilty of tanking?
What do you have to do to tank then? Put on an opposition jumper and kick the ball the oppositions way?
It makes literally no sense to say that they are guilty of having conversations about tanking, following through with those actions but then not be found guilty of tanking.. Yet still get suspended and Melbourne fined for it. Whole things giving me a headache.
I wish the afl CEO position was put up like an election once a year so that we could decide who runs the show

Cicjose · February 22, 2013, 06:35:59 PM

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/demons-afl-negotiate-payment-plan-for-500000-penalty/story-e6frf9jf-1226583069991

One-third of it is expected to be payable by the end of this year and the balance by the end of 2014.

An AFL spokesman said yesterday the league and Melbourne were working through the details of paying the fine.

"It will be paid in two payments," he said.

"It might be that two-thirds is paid this year and one-third next year or the other way around," the spokesman said.

"Details of the payment is still being worked out."

Grazz · February 22, 2013, 07:08:09 PM

Quote from: Cicjose on February 22, 2013, 06:35:59 PM
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/demons-afl-negotiate-payment-plan-for-500000-penalty/story-e6frf9jf-1226583069991

One-third of it is expected to be payable by the end of this year and the balance by the end of 2014.

An AFL spokesman said yesterday the league and Melbourne were working through the details of paying the fine.

"It will be paid in two payments," he said.

"It might be that two-thirds is paid this year and one-third next year or the other way around," the spokesman said.

"Details of the payment is still being worked out."

The Dee's still recieve a fair chunk of cash from the AFL each year so the AFL will be keeping their own money. This was discussed on footy classified last night quickly. Still a loss of income but its not like they'll be needing to look for it but other areas within the club will surely miss it. I feel for the supporters that gave up their hard earned for the debt demolition only to see 500k removed from the clubs income for being not guilty of something that 4 or 5 other clubs have done but not called upon for a please explain. Totally mystifying outcome of which im unlikely to ever understand. Conolly cant have anything to do with players training big deal he's in marketing now. Bailey should of been fined but with all their logic they suspend him for 16 weeks and hurt another club that had nothing to do with it. My faith in those running our great game has been significantly diminished over the last few weeks i gotta say. The inmates are running the assylum.

Chopps · February 22, 2013, 11:01:57 PM

i think they should stop tinkering around with the rules and focus on the big picture, if they re thinking a team tanked go and have a look at all other teams that were heading to the bottom, i see no issues with blooding the youngens and trying a few things but if discussions take place to do it only for a loss then they need to be fined.

so let me get this right. 500 k because two ex employees discussed it? holy hell. i would of though 500 k would be minimum fine for tanking not discussing it between two people only. crows lost 300 k and draft picks for stuffing up with a contract, the comparison in fines doesn't seem to suit, saying if its tanking for 500 k is better then paying one player under the table or 500 k for a discussion is alot considering you could almost pay two players under the table and be caught for it