Herald sun investigation into dees tanking saga

[Luv_our_club]

I remember the yo-yoing of the MFC always annoyed me. They were a good team that scooped up great draft picks that other teams arguably deserved more...(not that Melbourne fans wanted it)

1997 - 16th
1998 - 4th
1999 - 14th
2000 - 2nd
2001 - 11th
2002 - 6th
2003 - 14th
2004 - 7th
2005 - 8th
2006 - 5th
2007 - 14th

 

[Scotland]

Melbourne are reaping more benefits from ******* up the tanking era, actually. And from AFL cuddles.

The 2008 & 2009 drafts netted them Watts, Blease, Strauss, Scully, Trengove, Gysberts, Tapscott. 2010 they took Lucas Cook, 2011 traded for Mitch Clark. Meanwhile we got Naitanui and Shuey in 2008, then Gaff, Darling, Lycett in 2010. Richmond picked up Cotchin and Rance in 2007 and Martin in 2009. Port picked up Wingard and Wines in 2011/12. Etc.

The 2009 side (i.e. the one with the most to lose by winning more than 4 games finished 4-18 75%). Four years later they were 2-20 54%. In the space of 3-4 years those teams above got better and the players they took from early picks in one or two drafts were established. Melbourne went backwards and the only player who really made a go of it went to the Giants anyway.

Without the AFL introducing expansion sides Melbourne would be in deep poop. Scully compo gave them picks 4 & 14 (4 being a function of their shitness and being able to choose which year to use the pick) which they turned into Hogan via the mini draft. And they got a free hit with Jack Viney at pick 26. 2014 the AFL gave them pick 3 as dubious FA compo, 2016 they shuffled picks around with GWS and (GC) again. The actual net return from not winning games in 2008/09 is pretty low. If the AFL stayed at 16 teams then they'd still have Scully but they wouldn't have been much better in the early 2010s.

 

[Luv_our_club]

Andrew McGrath... Pick 1: Essendon

 

[Hoops]

Should never have been priority picks. But anyone saying that the AFL should have behaved differently are kidding themselves. What else should the AFL have done? Claimed they tanked, kicked them out of the comp, open themselves or the club up to being sued. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. They have taken away the incentive which is all they could do really.

 

[Whatname]

Ahh whataboutism, rock solid defence.

It's not a defence but surely if you are going to investigate you investigate all clubs.

Melbourne only seem to be in trouble because Bailey and Mclean got all bitter and twisted.

 

[blue harvest]

Andrew McGrath... Pick 1: Essendon
View attachment 648595

This is 10 times worse than anything Melbourne did.

 

[Luv_our_club]

This is 10 times worse than anything Melbourne did.

 

[Swarhily]

It's not a defence but surely if you are going to investigate you investigate all clubs.

Melbourne only seem to be in trouble because Bailey and Mclean got all bitter and twisted.

I agree with the bolded but with the implication as clear as it is, MFC should have copped it and the way the AFL handled it is blatant corruption.

 

[blue harvest]

View attachment 648608

Lol that's my pic, first posted it on here years ago.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The AFL were so worried about the potential fallout from the tanking issues it had to sweep it under the carpet.
Being a key stakeholder in the gambling industry the thought of action taken against the AFL over match fixing must have given them many sleepless nights.

The AFL should not be taking money from the gambling industry.

 

[slashin_velvet]

Investigate what Goodwin said at half time.....theyre doing it again

 

[GastevsBeard]

Feel for the dees a bit here

Anyone following footy from 2000-2012 would know multiple clubs were tanking. I'd argue Carlton were the least conspicuous, so not sure why the target is on the dees back. Pretty sure Wallace while coaching my mob even admitted feeling "conflicted" during a 2007 match

 

[Blue1980]

Feel for the dees a bit here

Anyone following footy from 2000-2012 would know multiple clubs were tanking. I'd argue Carlton were the least conspicuous, so not sure why the target is on the dees back. Pretty sure Wallace while coaching my mob even admitted feeling "conflicted" during a 2007 match

Big difference between us and Melbourne is we sacked a coach for losing in 2007, Melbourne threatened to sack a coach if they won in 2009.

 

[fnerd]

Investigate what Goodwin said at half time.....theyre doing it again

Obviously returning to what the club knows best!!

 

[Frank Bunn]

anyone saying that the AFL should have behaved differently are kidding themselves. What else should the AFL have done? Claimed they tanked, kicked them out of the comp, open themselves or the club up to being sued..

It's clear that the AFL has no integrity as the administrator of a fair sporting competition. They rig the rules to 'grow the business' and maximise revenue.

One of those rules is to give a leg up to poorly performed teams, within the franchise, by giving them access to the best young players. Of course teams are going to exploit that rule to try to gain those high draft picks. Everyone knows Melbourne, and other teams, tanked, deliberately lost games - the media, the clubs, the fans. But on occasions like this the AFL has to double down on its own massive hypocrisy to avoid the consequences you mentioned.

 

[The Casey Cat]

Most of the Melbourne supporters were actually supporting their club to lose. They were singing the Richmond club song after the game. Even Gary Lyon was publicly saying that the club would be irresponsible in winning games at that time.

There were very few Melbourne supporters who were saying they were really hoping for a win back then because they knew they'd lose the early pick.

While they didn't have an active role in the clubs decision, they were certainly supporting it.

Good grief. Is it any wonder their improvement despite being quite talented and good age wise now has for the most part been 2 steps forward before one and three quarter steps back? Could say it's about as much as they deserve.

 

[fnerd]

Most of the Melbourne supporters were actually supporting their club to lose. They were singing the Richmond club song after the game. Even Gary Lyon was publicly saying that the club would be irresponsible in winning games at that time.

There were very few Melbourne supporters who were saying they were really hoping for a win back then because they knew they'd lose the early pick.

While they didn't have an active role in the clubs decision, they were certainly supporting it.

Not all of course but yeah plenty sure did.
Especially on here.

 

[doppleganger]

It’s not even a football issue. It’s not about punishing Melbourne.

Fixing a sporting event and corrupting a betting outcome is fraudulent.

Those who ordered it and those who covered it up should be brought to account in court.

It’s about the Melbourne Executive and management at the time and the AFL executive who became aware and did nothing. Not about Melbourne the club. Bailey’s testimony makes it clear it was ordered from above.

They weren’t ‘fixing’ the event.

The Dees did what clubs have been doing forever....as soon as you realise you are no hope of contesting and winning finals, you plan for the future.

You send senior guys off for surgery, where if finals were a chance they would push through.

You play a kid instead of the senior bloke, and try players in different positions to see if they can make it their.

The goal is a premiership, and improving your chance in the following seasons, at the expense of the present is often deemed to be more important for your club.

The Demons were no different to the GWS when they were introduced, neither side cared about winning as they were both planning 2 or 3 years ahead.

And yes, the AFL system back then decided to incentivise teams to not reach a certain level of performance.

My own team Collingwood in 2005, lost their last 8 with senior guys sent off for surgery to get a full pre-season in etc. and luckily enough stayed on 5 wins to get an extra priority pick.

Unless players were instructed to specifically miss, you can’t equate coaching for the future as ‘Match fixing’ especially as the betting markets would have been factoring the information in. They price the game based on teams, and when the Dees are trotting out kids their opponents are priced accordingly.

Whole thing should be left alone...ALL teams put future performance ahead of current season if they aren’t a chance of a premiership in that year.

And that means you effectively aren’t doing your utmost to win. That doesn’t equate to match fixing.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

They weren’t ‘fixing’ the event.

The Dees did what clubs have been doing forever....as soon as you realise you are no hope of contesting and winning finals, you plan for the future.

You send senior guys off for surgery, where if finals were a chance they would push through.

You play a kid instead of the senior bloke, and try players in different positions to see if they can make it their.

The goal is a premiership, and improving your chance in the following seasons, at the expense of the present is often deemed to be more important for your club.

The Demons were no different to the GWS when they were introduced, neither side cared about winning as they were both planning 2 or 3 years ahead.

And yes, the AFL system back then decided to incentivise teams to not reach a certain level of performance.

My own team Collingwood in 2005, lost their last 8 with senior guys sent off for surgery to get a full pre-season in etc. and luckily enough stayed on 5 wins to get an extra priority pick.

Unless players were instructed to specifically miss, you can’t equate coaching for the future as ‘Match fixing’ especially as the betting markets would have been factoring the information in. They price the game based on teams, and when the Dees are trotting out kids their opponents are priced accordingly.

Whole thing should be left alone...ALL teams put future performance ahead of current season if they aren’t a chance of a premiership in that year.

And that means you effectively aren’t doing your utmost to win. That doesn’t equate to match fixing.

Wrong.

The line is crossed when you draw the line itself.

That line in this case (and who knows, maybe others) was “do not win more than x games”.

Plenty of clubs have prioritised the future.

But they haven’t made it an organisational goal not to win a certain number of games. They haven’t written that goal on whiteboards in meetings.

That’s fixing results.

 

[doppleganger]

Wrong.

The line is crossed when you draw the line itself.

That line in this case (and who knows, maybe others) was “do not win more than x games”.

Plenty of clubs have prioritised the future.

But they haven’t made it an organisational goal not to win a certain number of games. They haven’t written that goal on whiteboards in meetings.

That’s fixing results.

The AFL draws the line!

And funnily enough, plenty of teams ended up right on the line when a priority pick was involved.

Which game did Melbourne specifically set out to lose?

 

[Truckosaurus]

I'm more annoyed with the AFL covering it up than I am with Melbourne for doing it. I don't buy the 'worried about being sued by betting agencies' line, gambling companies are very against match-fixing in other sports, I can't imagine them suddenly being okay with the AFL sticking their heads in the sand over it instead of rooting it out and punishing it harshly. Any cricket boards been sued over spot-fixing? Any tennis players or soccer clubs? They suspend betting when there's suspicious behaviour. Betting agencies want match-fixing ended, not brushed under a rug so small that all of the punters can still see it. It wouldn't matter if they priced Melbourne's opponents at $1.01, if it's a sure bet than they lose. No, the AFL covered it up because the AFL are more interested in papering over cracks than repairing the foundation.

 

[DaveEgoat]

The main thing to come from this article is Melbourne are the ONLY club to have tanked. End of story

 

[Frank Gallagher]

*Breaking News*

Herald Sun reveals what 99.9 of the football world knows!

Breaking the big stories lol, why the * didn't they do it when it actually kind of mattered?

What really pisses me off is we have countless wanna be journos who feed off our game and all's they want to do is hurt it, why bring this s**t up again now? not to mention tarnishing the name of a man who can't defend himself, ******* scum of the earth.

 

[Frank Gallagher]

I was sitting in row 18 at the G in 1979 and ended up with Wayne Harmes mouth guard, i still have it too, wanna be journos the bidding starts at 10k, comes with witness reports, some are dead but who cares?

 

[Norwegian Blue]

Can anyone give us a bit of a rundown on the Kruezer cup, seeing as it's vaguely related?

From memory:

1) The draft rules were reasonably convoluted but the bottom line was that if Carlton won four games or less in 2007, we'd get a priority pick BEFORE the first round.

2) After Round 11, we were 4-7.

3) Richmond were having a shocker of a year - worse than us - but weren't eligible for a priority pick as they hadn't been terrible in 2006.

4) After Round 11, Carlton lost five straight, including two 100+ point thrashings, culminating in coach Denis Pagan getting booted after Round 16.

5) As the situation stood, if Carlton lost the remaining six games, we would end up with pics 1 and 3, Richmond as wooden spooners would get pick 2. If we won one more game, Richmond would get pick 1 and we'd get pick 2. So we were looking at picks 1 and 3 vs pick 2.

6) New coach Brett Ratten was under no pressure to win any games. That's not to say he was told to lose, but the word around the club at the time was that it wouldn't be a black mark against him if he finished the season winless.

7) We lost the next six. The so-called Kruezer Cup was our round 22 game against Melbourne where everyone expected us to lose and the fans wanted to. But really, the tanking had happened for six games, not just that last one.

EDIT: forgot to add that throughout 2007 rumours had been swirling that Chris Judd - then only 23, at the height of his game and with a full head of hair - wanted to return to Victoria. So low draft picks were seen as more valuable than usual