Play Nice Still no evidence against Melbourne re: tanking

[Timmy from Thomastown]

This thread was started on 2 Nov 2012.

Two and a half months later, there is still no evidence against Melbourne re: tanking.

 

[Spirit of 39]

This thread was started on 2 Nov 2012.

Two and a half months later, there is still no evidence against Melbourne re: tanking.

Who knows what's in the brief of evidence. But I dare say if there was any earth shattering evidence contained within it would have been leaked to the media by now.

 

[Forward Press]

Who knows what's in the brief of evidence. But I dare say if there was any earth shattering evidence contained within it would have been leaked to the media by now.

Conversely, maybe the incriminating evidence is being kept a closely guarded secret for fear that it would unduly jeopardise the fairness of the investigation?

Who really knows? I don't think anyone but the most deluded Melbourne supporters really think the Watts thing is the prime evidence of Melbourne's alleged tanking in 2009.

 

[budmazoz]

This thread was started on 2 Nov 2012.

Two and a half months later, there is still no evidence that I know of against Melbourne re: tanking.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Yep, been a long time hasnt it?

 

[Purple Suit]

This thread was started on 2 Nov 2012.

Two and a half months later, there is still no evidence against Melbourne re: tanking.

Two and a half moths later and you still think evidence and undeniable proof is the same thing.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Two and a half moths later and you still think evidence and undeniable proof is the same thing.

Who are you to assume you know what I think?

 

[Purple Suit]

Who are you to assume you know what I think?

800-1000 pages of "no evidence" leads me to assumptions.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

800-1000 pages of "no evidence" leads me to assumptions.

Yeah yeah I'll keep it simple for you

Two and a half months have "progressed" and we havent heard any more evidence sufficient to convict Melbourne FC of anything of note.

Oh and yeah....the thread title was always a little gramatically incorrect....forgive me the poetic licence to continue the theme.

 

[Baldur]

It's actually a very cogent, thoughtful and persuasive article, that makes some excellent points. However, you've determined to wash over those points with the glib argument bolded above, and have made to attempt to grapple with their substance. And you have done so because they are obviously inconvenient to the position you've clearly chosen to adopt, which is to prosecute the case against Melbourne, come what may.

And you can't even do that well, because the argument you've used is nonsense. It's quite extraordinary.

I don't think a loophole means what you think it does.

From Wikipedia: A loophole is an ambiguity in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system. Loopholes are searched for and used strategically in a variety of circumstances, including taxes, elections, politics, the criminal justice system, or in breaches of security.

Ambiguity. Ie, it's not clearly wrong. Ie, it's not clearly cheating. The 'tanking' issue is an ambiguity which just about every club with the opportunity to obtain a PP has chosen to exploit, with no consequences except for now. And people don't get charged for exploiting a loophole - that's why it's called a loophole.

Since you've used the tax example, have a think, if you can, about the difference between tax minimisation and tax avoidance. One might quite easily say that tax minimisation is against the spirit of the underpinning objectives of tax law. And it is - but that doesn't make it unlawful. Completely apposite to the tanking debate I would have thought.

If there is a loophole in the laws of the game then Melbourne hasn't cheated' - which is, of course, the conclusion you simply (and I mean simply) assume.

So thanks for actually arguing for Melbourne

Bottom of the harbour. Exploited a loophole. People went to jail.

Is what Melbourne did tax minimisation or avoidance? Looks like aviodance to me. What was the intent of the tax payer? That is what the cases are about. Go to jail, go directly to jail, do not collect $200.

Anyway Melbourne did not exploit a loophole, there is no loophole, deliberately losing is not allowed. If the AFL proves that is what you did then Melbourne is stuffed.

 

[Baldur]

In this situation they are not, so let's get back to that.

What happens when the witness statements contradict each other in a court room?

Gee, I wonder why you don't want to answer that question

After counsel subjects the opposing witness to cross, the judge decides who he believes.

 

[Achilles Heel]

After counsel subjects the opposing witness to cross, the judge decides who he believes.

Thanks for anwering , i have been away, and i guess on the balance of probabilities if 28 out of the thirty agree on the details , then im sure the 28 woud get the gong,

 

[Baldur]

Thanks for anwering , i have been away, and i guess on the balance of probabilities if 28 out of the thirty agree on the details , then im sure the 28 woud get the gong,

If the witnesses are equally believable then sure. But if the 28 witnesses come across as a pack of lying fruit cakes that cannot keep their story straight then it can easily go the other way. In fact lots of bad witnesses is worse then only a couple.

 

[Demonheart]

Bottom of the harbour. Exploited a loophole. People went to jail.

Is what Melbourne did tax minimisation or avoidance? Looks like aviodance to me. What was the intent of the tax payer? That is what the cases are about. Go to jail, go directly to jail, do not collect $200.

Anyway Melbourne did not exploit a loophole, there is no loophole, deliberately losing is not allowed. If the AFL proves that is what you did then Melbourne is stuffed.

Which law did Melbourne break?

 

[Demonheart]

Conversely, maybe the incriminating evidence is being kept a closely guarded secret for fear that it would unduly jeopardise the fairness of the investigation?

Who really knows? I don't think anyone but the most deluded Melbourne supporters really think the Watts thing is the prime evidence of Melbourne's alleged tanking in 2009.

That's laughable, why would the investigators leak minor evidence out to the media where the only result would be to embarras them? We know it wasn't the MFC who leaked the info because it started prior to us receiving it.

You come up with some absolute pearlers but this takes the cake

 

[Baldur]

Which law did Melbourne break?

Did not say Melbourne did, I am not going to play your silly little game

 

[Demonheart]

Did not say Melbourne did, I am not going to play your silly little game

Bullshit, you absolutely said that Melbourne did, here let me remind you.

Is what Melbourne did tax minimisation or avoidance? Looks like aviodance to me. What was the intent of the tax payer? That is what the cases are about. Go to jail, go directly to jail, do not collect $200.

You are the one who is playing silly games, your agenda is plain to see kid

 

[Baldur]

Bullshit, you absolutely said that Melbourne did, here let me remind you.



You are the one who is playing silly games, your agenda is plain to see kid

Funny thing is you are so twisted up about this that you see agenda's everywhere. Still not playing your game.

 

[Demonheart]

Funny thing is you are so twisted up about this that you see agenda's everywhere. Still not playing your game.

What game? You said that Melbourne was guilty so I asked you what Melbourne was guilty of and which rule we broke.

It's a fair enough question unless of course you believe that Melbourne are non guilty.

 

[Achilles Heel]

Bullshit, you absolutely said that Melbourne did, here let me remind you.



You are the one who is playing silly games, your agenda is plain to see kid

He was asking a question not accusing you guys of anything, but like a typical melbourne supporter jump down peoples throats and shout them down.....

 

[Forward Press]

That's laughable, why would the investigators leak minor evidence out to the media where the only result would be to embarras them? We know it wasn't the MFC who leaked the info because it started prior to us receiving it.

You come up with some absolute pearlers but this takes the cake

Who says it's the investigators leaking it? When did I imply that it was Melbourne FC leaking it?

You are completely delusional and I take you to be not representative of the other sensible MFC posters in this thread.

Looking forward to when school holidays end.

 

[Demonheart]

He was asking a question not accusing you guys of anything, but like a typical melbourne supporter jump down peoples throats and shout them down.....

That's crap, he clearly stated what his opinion was and it was stated as a question.

You, baldur, and forward press have been constantly trolling Melbourne in this thread and in many others during this whole thing. It's laughable to now watch you three stooges trying to take the moral high ground. barely a day goes by without one of you trying to sink the boots in.

It's a pity for you that when this ends you won't get what you want, enjoy your trolling while it lasts

 

[Demonheart]

Who says it's the investigators leaking it? When did I imply that it was Melbourne FC leaking it?

You are completely delusional and I take you to be not representative of the other sensible MFC posters in this thread.

Looking forward to when school holidays end.

Who else could be leaking the information?

You're an obsessed troll who's been trawling these threads the entire time.

 

[SydCrow]

great article here

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/system-a-farce-andrew-20130119-2d06t.html

Was no one at the AFL meeting that gave rise to priority picks for a stated number of losses per season brave enough to sully the head man's pristine conception of humanity by suggesting, in an entirely jocular way of course, so as not to be retrenched on moral grounds, 'Hell, Boss, even I'd be tempted to drop a dead rubber to get the next Buddy and Pendles'?

It's an unjust distraction to blame the minions at Melbourne for the tanking farce. The AFL rewarded Loss. What did it expect to happen when it decided to make lottery winners of losers? Not many of us don't believe Chris and Dean bought the Golden Ticket Andrew Demetriou was selling. Hopefully Irish Jim was part of the understanding. If so I honour him for being smart enough to realise the vanquishing of another also-ran at season's arse-end doesn't matter as much as the two young guns who might help deliver that one future day of deathless success.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/system-a-farce-andrew-20130119-2d06t.html#ixzz2IaK1VDPg

Vlad made the rules - can't now punish the minions for following them

 

[Forward Press]

great article here

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/system-a-farce-andrew-20130119-2d06t.html

I hate to keep recycling old points, but TheBrownDog always states that it's akin to a welfare cheat blaming the system for having loopholes. It's technically legal but goes against the spirit of the system and why it was set up in the first place.

The AFL did not intend to reward loss - it intended to assist clubs that were genuinely bad with the priority pick system and Melbourne allegedly rorted that system. The thing the AFL must take some responsibility for is that the old priority pick system left itself open to manipulation - but they shouldn't take full responsibility. Many other clubs who had 4 wins close to the end of the year chose to keep winning.