Should we be humble or seek retribution?

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Chronology seems to confuse you some.

An amnesty was offered and ignored.

The only amnesty I was aware of was 1993, and we took advantage. 'Was there another?

Then after charges were leveled at us, a reduction in penalty was offered for full confession and contrition, it too was ignored.

Again, I didn't see anything of this offer. Although no way was Elliot going to confess. In fact he said he would sign an affadavit that we had done nothing wrong (he didn't).

Charges were proved by a legally constituted association, the AFL, and they handed down a penalty that was a) not unprecedented - see Melb circa 1999 and Essendon circa 1996 and b) was within the authority of the association to be handed down.

If either of those aforementioned conditions were erroneous legal action could have and would have ensued. It did not.

Then new board says really sorry, please reduce the penalty (no-one here realised just how serious you guys were about this celery stuff, we thought it was something you put in a lygon st salad).......sorry chaps.....too late.

This is where the chronology goes askew IMO. The new board were in before a penalty was handed down. In fact, the new board called for everyone to come clean resulting in SOS and Bradley going to the AFL and confessing they had been offered money outside the cap as part of their contract but had not received it.

Collins was sure the cooperation from the new board would help them with the penalty as the AFL had urged him to cooperate. He was bitterly disappointed that the AFL reneged on that implication.

Now that doesn't mean we didn't deserve the ultimate penalty but I wanted to add some balance and context.

 

[40yearBLUE]

The only amnesty I was aware of was 1993, and we took advantage. 'Was there another? Yes, in fact there were several more.

Again, I didn't see anything of this offer. Although no way was Elliot going to confess. In fact he said he would sign an affadavit that we had done nothing wrong (he didn't). See this from blueseum: The Commission has made a decision about sanctions but before I announce that detail, I wanted to outline a number of issues which were considered in making this decision....."Secondly, during the investigation period, former board members of the Carlton Football Club refused to cooperate". Implicit in that statement is that if we had of co-operated the penalty would have been far less severe. Source: http://www.blueseum.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=19&page=2

This is where the chronology goes askew IMO. The new board were in before a penalty was handed down.

Now that doesn't mean we didn't deserve the ultimate penalty but I wanted to add some balance and context.

Wrong. Again from our own historical records on Blueseum:

"Shortly after the AFL announced these penalties, growing member discontent at Carlton had seen John Elliott's highly controversial presidency come to an abrupt end when he was voted out at an extraordinary general meeting". http://www.blueseum.org/tiki-index.php?page=Denis+Pagan

The key word there being "after". We do tend to create in our own minds the history that best suits us. Its often a shame though that reality is somewhat different.

I agree with you that the new board did further co-operate with the AFL as did SOS and Bradley but it was too late. The AFL could hardly reduce the penalty after it was announced. And my anology stands, its too late to apologise or confess after sentencing and you realize the nature of the penalty. Way way too late. The contrition is hollow and is in fact self pity. Wrong. If anything I would increase the penalty at such a display. It proves you are still to learn what is proper behaviour. Once you have genuine remorse then you can start to rehabilitate. Thats how parolees are assessed. Until then you are defiantly still trying to scam everyone to suit your own purposes.

And it is far more likely we confessed to avoid even further penalties. As it stood, we had already received penalties 2 off seasons in a row. Collins wanted to avoid the hat trick by coming fully clean. And some sections of the then Carlton community hated him for it. Some still do. Dinosaurs.

 

[CrippsonBlue]

Nope, you're wrong.

For starters, the first quote you give (which was at the time of the penalty) even states 'former board members'.

Secondly, that statement you linked to when the penalties were given was 23/11 - Collins was in before this.

Also you claimed a reduction in penalty was offered, yet the only evidence you can provide is having us draw a long bow from a simple comment and trying to claim the offer is somehow 'implicit' - huh

Please, it was going to be big news obviously and they wanted the decision to have all the justification it could, hence the comment. There is no evidence as far as I know (unless you can provide something other than arbitrary 'implicit' evidence) that we would have received a reduced penalty with earlier cooperation.

In fact, as ODN pointed out Collins was led to believe his cooperation would help with the penalty which it did not, so it is very unlikely a reduction would have been given to the actual offending board.

In fairness to you though, we do tend to create in our own minds the history that best suits us. It's often a shame though that reality is somewhat different.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Wrong. Again from our own historical records on Blueseum:

"Shortly after the AFL announced these penalties, growing member discontent at Carlton had seen John Elliott's highly controversial presidency come to an abrupt end when he was voted out at an extraordinary general meeting". http://www.blueseum.org/tiki-index.php?page=Denis+Pagan

The key word there being "after". We do tend to create in our own minds the history that best suits us. Its often a shame though that reality is somewhat different.

I agree with you that the new board did further co-operate with the AFL as did SOS and Bradley but it was too late. The AFL could hardly reduce the penalty after it was announced. And my anology stands, its too late to apologise or confess after sentencing and you realize the nature of the penalty. Way way too late. The contrition is hollow and is in fact self pity. Wrong. If anything I would increase the penalty at such a display. It proves you are still to learn what is proper behaviour. Once you have genuine remorse then you can start to rehabilitate. Thats how parolees are assessed. Until then you are defiantly still trying to scam everyone to suit your own purposes.

And it is far more likely we confessed to avoid even further penalties. As it stood, we had already received penalties 2 off seasons in a row. Collins wanted to avoid the hat trick by coming fully clean. And some sections of the then Carlton community hated him for it. Some still do. Dinosaurs.

As much as I appreciate Blueseum, it is not our official record as such. It has linked with the club and does great work but they club do not write the records.

We had been found guilty but had not been sentenced. Collins and his team came in a week before the sentencing. The sentencing was carried out a day or two before the draft and Collins and co came out of that hearing fuming.

 

[Murphylicious]

Nope, you're wrong.

For starters, the first quote you give (which was at the time of the penalty) even states 'former board members'.

Secondly, that statement you linked to when the penalties were given was 23/11 - Collins was in before this.

Also you claimed a reduction in penalty was offered, yet the only evidence you can provide is having us draw a long bow from a simple comment and trying to claim the offer is somehow 'implicit' - huh

Please, it was going to be big news obviously and they wanted the decision to have all the justification it could, hence the comment. There is no evidence as far as I know (unless you can provide something other than arbitrary 'implicit' evidence) that we would have received a reduced penalty with earlier cooperation.

In fact, as ODN pointed out Collins was led to believe his cooperation would help with the penalty which it did not, so it is very unlikely a reduction would have been given to the actual offending board.

In fairness to you though, we do tend to create in our own minds the history that best suits us. It's often a shame though that reality is somewhat different.

Hang on, in one breath you try and discredit 40YB for drawing conclusions from a comment, then turn around and do the same thing.

Where has it ever been said, and when was it ever agreed that Collins' cooperations would help with the sentencing? It seems a bit far fetched to believe that the AFL would go lighter on the sentence if Collins cooperated AFTER we had been found guilty.

Collins did the right thing in ensuring he cooperated though and to make sure there were no more skeletons in the closet that would come out at a later date.

Not sure why everyone is still arguing about this though. We did the crime, we did the time. Pure and simple.

 

[40yearBLUE]

As much as I appreciate Blueseum, it is not our official record as such. It has linked with the club and does great work but they club do not write the records.

We had been found guilty but had not been sentenced. Collins and his team came in a week before the sentencing. The sentencing was carried out a day or two before the draft and Collins and co came out of that hearing fuming.

I can no longer rely on my own memory, for 2 reasons. Advancing age and also my realisation that I too remember events through the prism of my own prejudice. But I dislike inaccuracy. So I do research. Incessantly. Some would say bordering on OCD at times.

Upon reading your retort I did a little more research and you are indeed correct, Collins was President when the penalty statement was presented on 23 Nov 2002. He had been in the job about a week.

That does not in any way change the tenet of my points. After a guilty verdict, its too late to act contrite. The contrition is the act of someone sorry they are being penalised, not one who realises they did wrong and wants to make amends. Those who truly want to make amends and truly realise that they have wronged impose on themselves harder penalties than they otherwise would receive and every utterance is one of contrition and acceptance. We didnt, we continued to complain and moan about the penalty, as you say, Collins was fuming as he exited and "expected" a penalty concession. Thats not contrition, thats anger at the penalty for being caught. TOTALLY WRONG MINDED.

I am not going to bother about revisionist views. What happened, happened. Many are glad it fell the way it did. We are far better off for it. The AFL has been totally vindicated in their actions. We have rebuilt on a solid foundation. We cheated for more than a decade and were forced down for a decade. Fair cop. We have learnt our lessons and now are good AFL citizens. If we ever return to such duplicitous ways we ought to have our licence revoked. Perhaps permanently. But I doubt that will ever happen. But you just never know do you. That is part of the true crime of the Elliot times, he has robbed some of us in our pride of our history. It is now forever tarnished with that blemish that no amount of success and life well lived can ever erase.

You can debate all you like about the morality of the rules themselves, I dont like the socialism of the system, what you cannot do is debate the morality of breaking them.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The BF live timeline.

9/10/02 Motion of no confidence carried at EGM
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-50640.html

21/10/02 Delutis resigns
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-51643.html

11/11/02 Charged
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-53847.html

8/11/02 Reference to the election being 12/11/11
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-53606.html

11/11/02 - Reference to Elliot being gone
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/archive/index.php/f-25-p-2.html

19/11/02 - I was still trying to appeal to the AFL prior to the penalties in an email
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-54699.html

By the way, it was 9 years ago, we had just won the spoon in a horror season, there were many unknowns. I'm not expecting debate about my decision to send an email at that time. The vibe around here and the other sites was very depressing and one felt to do something was better than to do nothing, if for no other reason but to expend some frustration.

Blueseum was right in that the AFL had already decided our guilt but Elliot was tossed on that basis, not after the penalties. Collins and CarltonOne were still cooperating and trying to mitigate the damage and hoping that a new board and 11th hour cooperation (inc SOS and Bradley) and the departure of the AFL's nemesis in Elliot, might lessen the penalties.

Even after the penalty hearing, the club said they felt misled by the AFL and were shocked that it didn't go as they were lead to believe.

 

[40yearBLUE]

Even after the penalty hearing, the club said they felt misled by the AFL and were shocked that it didn't go as they were lead to believe.

So dont you see, even after the penalties we were still railing against the system, still in denial, still defiant.

It took some time for that arrogance to wear off.

For some it still hasnt, obviously.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Upon reading your retort I did a little more research and you are indeed correct, Collins was President when the penalty statement was presented on 23 Nov 2002. He had been in the job about a week.

That does not in any way change the tenet of my points. After a guilty verdict, its too late to act contrite. The contrition is the act of someone sorry they are being penalised, not one who realises they did wrong and wants to make amends. Those who truly want to make amends and truly realise that they have wronged impose on themselves harder penalties than they otherwise would receive and every utterance is one of contrition and acceptance. We didnt, we continued to complain and moan about the penalty, as you say, Collins was fuming as he exited and "expected" a penalty concession. Thats not contrition, thats anger at the penalty for being caught. TOTALLY WRONG MINDED.

Given we had a new board in between verdict and sentencing this doesn't really apply. The old board wasn't contrite and was never going to be and Elliot isn't to this very day. The old board paid the price.

The new board however can hardly be held responsible for being contrite after the verdict instead of before as they were not there to do so. They could only be contrite when they were in power and they were. Certainly someone lead the new board to believe that full cooperation could help their cause. We can hardly blame Collins for his anger if he had been lead to believe things might go easier. This is not the same as just being angry that they were caught.

Let's not forget that Collins started putting a broom through the place and really took the players to task for their salary demands.

Now I for one am glad that Collins got SOS and Bradley to go forward. We were already done by the O'Reilly smoking gun so a clean slate is exactly what we needed. I was annoyed by the bagging of Collins and people saying that Elliot would have taken the AFL to court, even years after the fact. It was shortsighted thinking. It wasn't much fun waiting to see if we had cleared our decks and the revelation of the Matthew Allan/Dave Allison breach a few months later gave more than a few heart palpitations. I had chants of 'bring out your dead, bring out your dead' going through my mind, hoping that was the last of it.

I do think the AFL got more information out of us based on hollow promises, but that doesn't mean we didn't deserve the punishment. It was a massive moment in AFL history and I completely understand the shock and anger of Collins and co. They felt they were also being blamed for what happened under Elliot's watch and felt betrayed. I didn't mind the passion actually. In fact, while we are bagging Carlton's angry initial response, we might remember that Demetriou's response to that response was equally angry and unprofessional.

 

[CrippsonBlue]

Hang on, in one breath you try and discredit 40YB for drawing conclusions from a comment, then turn around and do the same thing.

Where has it ever been said, and when was it ever agreed that Collins' cooperations would help with the sentencing? It seems a bit far fetched to believe that the AFL would go lighter on the sentence if Collins cooperated AFTER we had been found guilty.

Collins did the right thing in ensuring he cooperated though and to make sure there were no more skeletons in the closet that would come out at a later date.

Not sure why everyone is still arguing about this though. We did the crime, we did the time. Pure and simple.

Discredit?

When you state "a reduction in penalty was offered for full confession and contrition, it too was ignored" as fact, then provide the evidence for this as: "during the investigation period, former board members of the Carlton Football Club refused to cooperate", we are hardly talking of a simple conclusion from a comment - it is factually incorrect.

As for Collins, there have been comments saying Collins believed his cooperation would reduce the sentence - of course there was no official agreement or evidence to this otherwise there would have been an even bigger fallout.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

So dont you see, even after the penalties we were still railing against the system, still in denial, still defiant.

No mate, you are searching there. The CarltonOne board fully cooperated and even offered up more players. That is not denial and that is not defiant.

You can separate a shocked response to an unexpected outcome, from someone denying they did wrong. Collins did not blame the AFL for our penalties, he blamed the former board and he blamed the players. He just thought that in being asked to cooperate and start afresh that the AFL would recognise that. It would have felt like the AFL were saying the new board deserved to be punished as well as in his mind, through his discussions, the penalties were pretty much the maximum that could be handed out. I'm fairly sure there was a guideline in terms of draft penalties for breaches and ours was obviously at the higher end.

I think the emotion was understandable and not necessarily a sign of further defiance given the circumstances.

 

[40yearBLUE]

Given we had a new board in between verdict and sentencing this doesn't really apply. The old board wasn't contrite and was never going to be and Elliot isn't to this very day. The old board paid the price.

The new board however can hardly be held responsible for being contrite after the verdict instead of before as they were not there to do so. They could only be contrite when they were in power and they were. Certainly someone lead the new board to believe that full cooperation could help their cause. We can hardly blame Collins for his anger if he had been lead to believe things might go easier. This is not the same as just being angry that they were caught.

Let's not forget that Collins started putting a broom through the place and really took the players to task for their salary demands.

Now I for one am glad that Collins got SOS and Bradley to go forward. We were already done by the O'Reilly smoking gun so a clean slate is exactly what we needed. I was annoyed by the bagging of Collins and people saying that Elliot would have taken the AFL to court, even years after the fact. It was shortsighted thinking. It wasn't much fun waiting to see if we had cleared our decks and the revelation of the Matthew Allan/Dave Allison breach a few months later gave more than a few heart palpitations. I had chants of 'bring out your dead, bring out your dead' going through my mind, hoping that was the last of it.

I do think the AFL got more information out of us based on hollow promises, but that doesn't mean we didn't deserve the punishment. It was a massive moment in AFL history and I completely understand the shock and anger of Collins and co. They felt they were also being blamed for what happened under Elliot's watch and felt betrayed. I didn't mind the passion actually. In fact, while we are bagging Carlton's angry initial response, we might remember that Demetriou's response to that response was equally angry and unprofessional.

This is only valid in apportioning blame to individuals. Of course the new board was not held responsible for the actions of the old board, if the AFL thought the new board were responsible they would have sought another change in board or assumed control of the club, which I believe it almost did.

But the show of petulance in complaining about the severity of the sentence goes to my argument, it is not a showing of genuine remorse it is a show of self pity, self interest, and a hope to minimise the impact of the penalty. The penalty by the way was the least of our concerns as I have pointed out in a previous post, what we did after the penalty was what really hurt our chances of a quick rebuild. But back to the topic of remorse, what we should have instead showed is gratitude to the competition for the leniency and mercy shown (it could have been a lot worse, for example we might be looking forward to flag 16 this year), for the understanding in allowing us to now get our house in order and we now hope we can rebuild to become a successful club again the right way as opposed to what we have been found guilty of and are genuinely sorry we acted in this way. That, that would have said, ahhh they finally get it, not just that we are serious but that they are the ones that have wronged.

And on your premise, all a club has to do is cheat all it likes each year and just change boards if questioned, problems solved.

If you think dispassionately about it, the AFL handled the situation perfectly. The penalty was exactly weighted. It did not kills us, no matter how close we came to it, we rebuilt on a solid foundation and are back in business as a genuine premiership chance, and we nor any club has been found guilty of deliberate systematic breaches since. Forget these penny ante technical breaches, they are not cheating, they are human error, everyday mistakes and nothing to be concerned about by us or any others.

So all in all, history has vindicated the AFL and we have rebuilt a solid, genuine long term successful club rather than one built on smoke mirrors and stealing tomorrows success for today's gratification. Having said that, it seems to be the way the world is now.

 

[40yearBLUE]

Discredit?

When you state "a reduction in penalty was offered for full confession and contrition, it too was ignored" as fact, then provide the evidence for this as: "during the investigation period, former board members of the Carlton Football Club refused to cooperate", we are hardly talking of a simple conclusion from a comment - it is factually incorrect.

As for Collins, there have been comments saying Collins believed his cooperation would reduce the sentence - of course there was no official agreement or evidence to this otherwise there would have been an even bigger fallout.

Not even remotely close.

In his statement Wayne Jackson says unambiguously that A (our refusal to co-operate) had a direct bearing on the B) penalty imposed.

I am not drawing any inferences whatsoever, it is a statement of fact.

Here is the relevent section of his official statement in full, highlighting the relevent parts:

"The Commission has made a decision about sanctions but before I announce that detail, I wanted to outline a number of issues which were considered in making this decision.

Firstly, the nature of one of the breaches revealed a complex and deliberate scheme designed and implemented to hide payments and deceive the AFL.

This involved the use of trusts, confidentiality agreements and payments to third parties. The paper trail was carefully followed by our investigations team.

Secondly, during the investigation period, former board members of the Carlton Football Club refused to cooperate. This of course has made the task more difficult and time consuming.

Finally, as the chairman has pointed out, this is the third breach by Carlton Football Club since 1998 and this latest breach occurred while Carlton was under a suspended sentence of a penalty for a previous incident. That suspended sentence has been triggered by events this evening.

In light of these issues, the Commission has decided on the following sanctions:............."

A led directly to B, nothing being inferred, interpreted or implied, it is a simple statement of fact. A led directly to B.

What you are entitled to question and argue is if a prior offer was made in which this statement of fact would end up as the conclusion. I beleive it was but have no direct evidence of such now, but I recall reading something to that effect. I am sure someone will provide it eventually.

It matters not. The fact is, had we co-operated the penalty would not have been so harsh. We did not. At least not until it was too late, a sign in my view of continued belligerence but open to interpretation, The rest as they say is history.

 

[parrot]

I’m laughing real hard here at the words like “crime”, “suspended sentence”, “found guilty”, “breaches”. Might be time to ask yourself who is actually handing down these in-house penalties. It’s actually senior staff in a private company called the AFL, with a history of shady conflicts of interest allover the place, who are themselves well overdue for an ASIC investigation.

There is no court involved, no “crime”, there’s no government body involved. These are arbitrary in-house fines, dished out for political reasons by a private company. This is important because the motives are different, and the credibility of any “investigations” they conduct is pretty much zero. Everyone knows the main purposes of the out of proportion penalties was primarily to benefit 2-3 individuals, who I might add, made a truckload of cash out of it. And the subsequent ignoring of numerous subsequent large breaches is basically because there’s no benefit to their company bringing these breach’s to the attention of the media. It’s really that simple.

Try to understand what a Private Company means. It ain’t a court, it ain’t a upholder of justice. Far from it!!! Lol. It’s about making $’s. That’s it. Period. Understand this and it all makes perfect sense. Ultimately, I don’t really care, because we’re back bigger that ever. The only ones that should be worried are the AFL because of some of the shady stuff they were involved with back then.

 

[40yearBLUE]

I’m laughing real hard here at the words like “crime”, “suspended sentence”, “found guilty”, “breaches”. Might be time to ask yourself who is actually handing down these in-house penalties. It’s actually senior staff in a private company called the AFL, with a history of shady conflicts of interest allover the place, who are themselves well overdue for an ASIC investigation.

There is no court involved, no “crime”, there’s no government body involved. These are arbitrary in-house fines, dished out for political reasons by a private company. This is important because the motives are different, and the credibility of any “investigations” they conduct is pretty much zero. Everyone knows the main purposes of the out of proportion penalties was primarily to benefit 2-3 individuals, who I might add, made a truckload of cash out of it. And the subsequent ignoring of numerous subsequent large breaches is basically because there’s no benefit to their company bringing these breach’s to the attention of the media. It’s really that simple.

Try to understand what a Private Company means. It ain’t a court, it ain’t a upholder of justice. Far from it!!! Lol. It’s about making $’s. That’s it. Period. Understand this and it all makes perfect sense. Ultimately, I don’t really care, because we’re back bigger that ever. The only ones that should be worried are the AFL because of some of the shady stuff they were involved with back then.

AH yes another denialist conspiracy toting victim. And as per the norm, wrong again.

Dictionary meaning of crime

Crime is the breach of rules or laws for which some governing authority (via mechanisms such as legal systems) can ultimately prescribe a conviction.

The governmental legal systems that our societies live by is but one use of the term crime and the understanding of its applications.

The Etymology further decries your lack of understanding: The word crime is derived from the latin root cernō, meaning "I decide, I give judgment".

It matters not what body presides.

Once again you have needed to be schooled.

Your posts are fun to read at times, but terribly uneducated most of the time.

 

[LanceRomance]

I don't think it technically was a crime in the sense of breaching legislation but it was more of an infringement of AFL rules.

For instance if you broke the rules at school you would get a detention but you wouldn't be labelled a criminal.

If someone called/labelled me a criminal for breaking some rules (not legislation) I'm pretty sure I could sue them for slander or libel whatever the case may be.

Here is the MacQuarie dictioanary definition

Crime
noun 1. an act committed or an omission of duty, injurious to the public welfare, for which punishment is prescribed by law, imposed in a judicial proceeding usually brought in the name of the state.
2. serious violation of human law: steeped in crime.
3. any offence, especially one of grave character.
4. serious wrongdoing; sin.
5. Colloquial a foolish or senseless act: it's a crime to have to work so hard. [Middle English, from Old French, from Latin crīmen offence]

I would say colloquially, the club may have committed a crime - especially in the sense of "do the crime, do the time"

I would stop short at saying they are criminal, in the most literal sense, as judged by the state. Because that would be misleading.

 

[thylacine60]

You obviously never attended Our Lady Of Perpetual Succour Primary School.

 

[LanceRomance]

You obviously never attended Our Lady Of Perpetual Succour Primary School.

Haha

I went to a Grammar school where detentions were applied liberally.

 

[40yearBLUE]

Haha

I went to a Grammar school where detentions were applied liberally.

At Our Lady, something else was applied liberally but we dont go there.

 

[parrot]

...Dictionary meaning of crime

Crime is the breach of rules or laws for which some governing authority (via mechanisms such as legal systems) can ultimately prescribe a conviction....

OK, so you were wrong. At least you put in the effort to use google and wiki to find out.

The better term in this case, would be a "fine" because it was is fact only an in-house penalty handed out by a private company.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Retribution for sure.

 

[40yearBLUE]

OK, so you were wrong. At least you put in the effort to use google and wiki to find out.

The better term in this case, would be a "fine" because it was is fact only an in-house penalty handed out by a private company.

What are you 12

The AFL is the authority in that sentence I "wiki'd" and they handed down a conviction to which we were later sanctioned using the penalties at their disposal.

We were probably lucky no actual criminal convictions ensued for tax evasion given players and certain club officials were falsely declaring income or at least hiding it.

Whatever like I said you are amusing sometimes but mostly just plain juvenile.

 

[CrippsonBlue]

It matters not. The fact is, had we co-operated the penalty would not have been so harsh. We did not. At least not until it was too late, a sign in my view of continued belligerence but open to interpretation, The rest as they say is history

Again you are still simply drawing conclusions and passing it off as fact.

Your definition of 'A' is wrong - our refusal to cooperate was just one small portion of it, and insignificant in comparison to the main issue of the actual breach.

It is not fact that a reduced penalty was offered - the comments may imply one may have been forthcoming with earlier cooperation, but this is far from definite, and with clear incentive to justify the penalty as much as possible I would take such comments with a grain of salt.

It is fine for you to believe this, and it may have happened, but if you are simply basing it from those comments then neither of us can say for sure. Regardless, it matters not as you say.

 

[40yearBLUE]

Again you are still simply drawing conclusions and passing it off as fact.

Your definition of 'A' is wrong - our refusal to cooperate was just one small portion of it, and insignificant in comparison to the main issue of the actual breach.

It is not fact that a reduced penalty was offered - the comments may imply one may have been forthcoming with earlier cooperation, but this is far from definite, and with clear incentive to justify the penalty as much as possible I would take such comments with a grain of salt.

It is fine for you to believe this, and it may have happened, but if you are simply basing it from those comments then neither of us can say for sure. Regardless, it matters not as you say.

You can be as revisionist as you like brother, delusion is a wonderful pet.

I am not drawing anything from anything, they are not my words they are the Official statement of Wayne Jackson head honcho at the AFL at the time, giving the penalties, but he felt it important enough to tell the world that the penalty was a direct reflection of the severity of our breach, the fact (yes thats right fact! remember those) we did not co-operate and our rate of recidivism.

Never once did I say it was the only reason we were punished. But Jacko makes it perfectly clear for those of us able to understand plain English without personal interpretive dances, as to one of the factors that lead to the severity of the penalty.

Its no mystery, there is no sophistry going on, he showed a direct cause and effect, action and re-action. You cheat, you get caught, you get penalised, you dont co-operate with the investigation and the penalty will be harder than it could have been, and you do it repeatedly and sooner or later you will learn the hard way.

But you go ahead and wallow in your delusional world view that the world was out to get us, that we was set up, that it was every body else's fault but ours.

Good luck with that.

 

[agro]

You can be as revisionist as you like brother, delusion is a wonderful pet.

I am not drawing anything from anything, they are not my words they are the Official statement of Wayne Jackson head honcho at the AFL at the time, giving the penalties, but he felt it important enough to tell the world that the penalty was a direct reflection of the severity of our breach, the fact (yes thats right fact! remember those) we did not co-operate and our rate of recidivism.

Never once did I say it was the only reason we were punished. But Jacko makes it perfectly clear for those of us able to understand plain English without personal interpretive dances, as to one of the factors that lead to the severity of the penalty.

Its no mystery, there is no sophistry going on, he showed a direct cause and effect, action and re-action. You cheat, you get caught, you get penalised, you dont co-operate with the investigation and the penalty will be harder than it could have been, and you do it repeatedly and sooner or later you will learn the hard way.

But you go ahead and wallow in your delusional world view that the world was out to get us, that we was set up, that it was every body else's fault but ours.

Good luck with that.

Come on Dougie you can do better than that - no one is being revisionist here.

The simple fact of the matter is you are wrong. The Carlton Football Club went to the AFL Commission meeting on that Friday Night in November 2002 with a new board, new president, provided further evidence and clean hands and could not co-operate any more than they did with the AFL Commission - you choose simply to ignore this point as it doesnt suit your point of view.

The simple fact of the matter is that Jackson and Evans had already decided on the penalty and whether or not the Carlton Football Club went to this meeting with Elliott or Collins as President made no difference.

In fact how Ron Evans could sit in judgement and act as judge, jury and executioner of us actually beggars belief - himself a President of an AFL Club found guilty of breaching the TPP one year after he retired from the position (retired in 1992 - Essendon found guilty of breaching the TPP in 1993) - not much of a conflict of interest there.


As for your definition of Crime -I have had a close look at the most recent edition of the Crimes Act and cant find any sections relating to TPP breaches there.

But I'm sure Dougie, your superior research skills borne of 40 year support of the Carlton Football Club will come up with some other holier than thou conclusion.