Play Nice Still no evidence against Melbourne re: tanking

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Perry Pie

All Australian
Joined
Sep 19, 2009
Posts
852
Likes
350
Location
Liverpool
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Besiktas J.K.
What a stupid article

Just because there was a loophole in the laws of the ganes doesn't give you the right to cheat.

People have been charged with exploiting loopholes in the law/tax system and still get punished, you don't see them blaming the law for allowing them to do the wrong thing.

Think Melbourne and its supporters need to accept that they did the wrong thing abd not try to blame everyone and other clubs for their scum behaviour.
I think the article is a fair summary of the position. The AFL created a situation where losing an individual game (or a group of games) could result in a better long term outcome for a club. It is a bit different from resting players in the weeks running up to the finals in that resting players is not a fixed result, but it does blur the lines.
The incentive was wrong, the AFL knew it was open to abuse (and was probably being abused) but decided to do nothing about it. (I am not saying MFC are innocent, they made a logical "business" choice as they saw it).
 

Higgs Boson

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 23, 2004
Posts
6,947
Likes
4,392
Location
At the Portsea shack
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory
What a stupid article

Just because there was a loophole in the laws of the ganes doesn't give you the right to cheat.

People have been charged with exploiting loopholes in the law/tax system and still get punished, you don't see them blaming the law for allowing them to do the wrong thing.

Think Melbourne and its supporters need to accept that they did the wrong thing abd not try to blame everyone and other clubs for their scum behaviour.
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
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2001
Posts
13,718
Likes
2,038
Location
Tin Shed at Junction Oval
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Denver Nuggets, Man Utd.
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
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2002
Posts
10,829
Likes
2,668
Location
MCG, pocket, Punt rd end
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Victory, Hereford
Cool derail. If they AFL rely on a zulu joke in court they don't deserve to run the most popular code in the country. On the other hand, that article hints at specific instructions from Connolly. It also has what looks like Connolly's response to being shown a bunch of witness statements ("It's a conspiracy dammit!!").
That's nice, pity the papers (which you are using as your evidence so I'll quote the same source) specifically stated that it was Bailey who said he took it as a joke that the Zulu's will get them. Interesting that you're accusing me of derailing the thread because I'm using the same source of info that you are, my guess is that it doesn't suit your agenda so you're trying to dismiss it. But it is good to see you still in this thread peddling your 'opinions'.

The investigation team are having to rely on this type of crud and other juicy evidence such as Jack Watts only playing a handful of games and the players fumbling because they have no rock solid evidence. There have found no smoking guns, nothing concrete to get the club on. No emails, no standing orders, just a couple of ex-employees who left the club on bad terms have made wishy washy accusations, sadly (for people like yourself) there is conflicting evidence from many others. Even the person who gave AA the very reason as to why the investigation took place in the first place made a massive backflip that an Olympic Gymnast would have been proud of.
Of course AA lost his job as well, a casualty of a poorly lead investigation. We're now seeing in almost every article how poorly the investigation team handled it, stop/start recording, threats and heavy handed interrogations, the AFL's brand is being damaged thanks to AA.

The MFC haters are going to be very disappointed when this is all finished, will you be one of them?
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2002
Posts
10,829
Likes
2,668
Location
MCG, pocket, Punt rd end
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Victory, Hereford
Yep I'm sure that investigation and charge is just a figment of everyone's imagination.

Oh well only a couple more weeks till the punishment is handed down I guess and we can all move on.
This is a joke right? Show me evidence that any chearges have already been laid.

So the answer to your non-question is yes, it is definitely 100% a figment of your imagination, Melbourne have not been charged with anything.

Care to make up anything else to help your pathetic argument look better?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Grizzly_82

Premiership Player
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Posts
3,854
Likes
1,074
Location
Darwin
AFL Club
Geelong
This is a joke right? Show me evidence that any chearges have already been laid.

So the answer to your non-question is yes, it is definitely 100% a figment of your imagination, Melbourne have not been charged with anything.

Care to make up anything else to help your pathetic argument look better?
First there was no edvidence, now there's no charge.

AFL has given those involved a one month time period to respond as to why they shouldn't be charge. I suspect next month that the charges will be laid down due to the edvidence the AFL investigators have uncovered and the matter will be resolved .

Then the Melbourne supporters can stop living in denial about their club's behaviour.
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2001
Posts
13,718
Likes
2,038
Location
Tin Shed at Junction Oval
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Denver Nuggets, Man Utd.
Nice of you to have an obsession about me, care to comment on the issue as opposed to focussing on me?
The issue has been commented on and was commented on very well by Higgs Boson above. He showed your arguments for what they were, yet they were ignored so you could simply waste two posts above talking about nothing and this "go the issue not the man" rubbish. If you want discussion about the issue then discuss it like others have tried to do and stop ignoring it.
 

Grizzly_82

Premiership Player
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Posts
3,854
Likes
1,074
Location
Darwin
AFL Club
Geelong
The issue has been commented on and was commented on very well by Higgs Boson above. He showed your arguments for what they were, yet they were ignored so you could simply waste two posts above talking about nothing and this "go the issue not the man" rubbish. If you want discussion about the issue then discuss it like others have tried to do and stop ignoring it.
Bit hard to have a discussion about it when you're getting attack by several Melbourne supporters for expression an opinion .

Anyway couple more weeks and it'll be over, it's simple you don't agree with something just state it as far as I know the main board isn't a place to attack individuals on their opinions .
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2001
Posts
13,718
Likes
2,038
Location
Tin Shed at Junction Oval
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Denver Nuggets, Man Utd.
Bit hard to have a discussion about it when you're getting attack by several Melbourne supporters for expression an opinion .

Anyway couple more weeks and it'll be over, it's simple you don't agree with something just state it as far as I know the main board isn't a place to attack individuals on their opinions .
Then ignore the attacks and have this discussion you seem so eager to have. It's not hard.
 

LeverPuller

BigFooty Tanker
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Posts
30,965
Likes
33,913
Location
Q49, Olympic Stand
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Newcastle United Seattle Seahawks
First there was no edvidence, now there's no charge.

AFL has given those involved a one month time period to respond as to why they shouldn't be charge. I suspect next month that the charges will be laid down due to the edvidence the AFL investigators have uncovered and the matter will be resolved .

Then the Melbourne supporters can stop living in denial about their club's behaviour.
"Living in denial"
"Disgraceful"
"Scum"
"Big Sook"

These are all things you've said about and to Melbourne posters in the last two pages - started by yourself with the 'disgraceful' post.

Please stop outright insulting posters. Remember, ultimately regardless of if it's found or not we're stuck with everything that's occurred. We've been stuck watching a team barely win 5 games a season for six years while you've been "stuck" watching premierships. No matter what the club does, we're stuck with it - we're not just going to bail on our footy club. There's nothing supporters can really do to influence on-field events in the moment, and any later influence wouldn't have changed things - if the members went and voted out the board based on on-field events at the end of 2009, we still would be stuck holding the bag.

You label us disgraceful and disgusting, yet you'd label us the same if we decided to take your moral high ground and stop supporting our club. We had no way to change things on-field in 2009.
 

Geelong63

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 26, 2003
Posts
2,448
Likes
667
Location
Better than Norf
AFL Club
Geelong
First there was no edvidence, now there's no charge.

AFL has given those involved a one month time period to respond as to why they shouldn't be charge. I suspect next month that the charges will be laid down due to the edvidence the AFL investigators have uncovered and the matter will be resolved .

Then the Melbourne supporters can stop living in denial about their club's behaviour.
Grizzly - I think you are going to be disappointed in the result of the AFL investigation

The Dees are almost certainties to be in the clear in two weeks time.

The AFL don't want to come under any further scrutiny from the Victorian Government.
An inquiry into the activities of the AFL by the Victorian gaming and licensing commission would be the last thing that A.D would want.

I think the line from Vlad will be along the lines of "After a high intensity 6 month investigation into the Melb FC we are of the opinion that there was insufficient evidence to lay any charges against Melb or their officials.
The AFL has since tightened up the rules in relation to Priority Picks and is confident that they have the matter well under control and as a result the matter has been brought to a conclusion.
 

Grizzly_82

Premiership Player
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Posts
3,854
Likes
1,074
Location
Darwin
AFL Club
Geelong
"Living in denial"
"Disgraceful"
"Scum"
"Big Sook"

These are all things you've said about and to Melbourne posters in the last two pages - started by yourself with the 'disgraceful' post.

Please stop outright insulting posters. Remember, ultimately regardless of if it's found or not we're stuck with everything that's occurred. We've been stuck watching a team barely win 5 games a season for six years while you've been "stuck" watching premierships. No matter what the club does, we're stuck with it - we're not just going to bail on our footy club. There's nothing supporters can really do to influence on-field events in the moment, and any later influence wouldn't have changed things - if the members went and voted out the board based on on-field events at the end of 2009, we still would be stuck holding the bag.

You label us disgraceful and disgusting, yet you'd label us the same if we decided to take your moral high ground and stop supporting our club. We had no way to change things on-field in 2009.
True but I labelled the club pathetic and the how the supporters appears to be in denial about the tanking .

You will find I didn't attack any posters individually in the way that has been directed towards me by some Melbourne supporters.

Carry on I'm over it
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Posts
2,274
Likes
586
Location
melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
Case in point , must be the school holidays
You are such an easy target. :) You didn't think you could attack an opposition club as vigorously as you have and not expect to cop some ribbing from it's supporters? You're very good at putting forward your opinions on this matter, but not so great at giving credibility to opposing views.

I've wasted enough time on you. I'll check back in a couple of days. I bet you'll still be here.
 

SunshineTiger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Posts
19,949
Likes
30,424
Location
Somewhere in Queensland
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Chelsea FC
You are such an easy target. :) You didn't think you could attack an opposition club as vigorously as you have and not expect to cop some ribbing from it's supporters? You're very good at putting forward your opinions on this matter, but not so great at giving credibility to opposing views.

I've wasted enough time on you. I'll check back in a couple of days. I bet you'll still be here.

Pot....kettle......surely youre not serious.
 
Top Bottom