Play Nice Still no evidence against Melbourne re: tanking

(Log in to remove this ad.)

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.
Pot....kettle......surely youre not serious.
I think you'll find most Melbourne fans have tried to put forth their views in a constructive manner and are either shot down with personal attacks or completely ignored so others can just keep on slamming the club and it's supporters no matter what we say. Granted, some go a bit overboard with their defense of the club but under the circumstances I think that's understandable. No doubt you would do the same if you were in that position.
 
Joined
Nov 22, 2012
Posts
8,637
Likes
8,776
AFL Club
Essendon
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.
Like I said, the Zulu thing isn't likely to be relevant because if the AFL are relying on that to back up their case they will lose. Assuming they have lawyers who aren't hacks they have something solid to back up their case otherwise they wouldn't have issues their ultimatum to the club officials ("tell us why we shouldn't charge you"). That is unless the AFL want the case to fall over, but what do they have to gain from that?

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.
For someone who is pretty keen on calling people out for posting speculative crap you sure are coming up with a lot of speculative crap. The Watts stuff was never linked to the 800/1000 (take your pick, the papers seem to use either number) page brief of evidence the club received, the news report simply said the AFL had looked into it and asked some questions. The key here is that not every line of questioning delivers worthwhile information. Just ask any cop. Ditto with the fumbling. As with the Zulu thing, if the AFL is relying on these to back up their case they will lose.

So far the only thing I have seen that has been definitively linked to the brief has been the 60 witness statements contradicting Connolly - based on the wording in that article no one can say for sure if Connolly's 'conspiracy' claims are included in the brief. I'm not trying to accuse the club of anything here, I'm just reading between the lines of the sensationalist crap that pervades our media.

So the questions are: can an entity as powerful and well staffed as the AFL really be dumb enough to be relying on those for evidence? Why would they bother setting up an investigation specifically to fail and what could they possibly have to gain from this? Why continue this charade when the investigation could conclude that there is none or not enough evidence to justify threatening the club officials with charges?

Of course AA lost his job as well, a casualty of a poorly lead investigation.
[Citation needed]

We're now seeing in almost every article how poorly the investigation team handled it, stop/start recording, threats and heavy handed interrogations,
Maybe this is the case, we'll most likely find out after charges have been formally laid if questions about the collection of evidence is used in the defense.

the AFL's brand is being damaged thanks to AA.
[Citation needed]

The MFC haters are going to be very disappointed when this is all finished, will you be one of them?
No, not really, but it depends on how it ends. I'd really like to read what was found out to be honest because if they are relying on shit like Watts not playing enough games then I'd hate to see charges stick. I'll stick my neck out for the AFL here because I honestly don't think they're that stupid though.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2002
Posts
10,829
Likes
2,668
Location
MCG, pocket, Punt rd end
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Victory, Hereford
Nice of you to have an obsession about me, care to comment on the issue as opposed to focussing on me?
Obsession? Bwahahahahaha nice try kid. You posted somethign stupid and people have pointed it out, the issue is your belief that Melbourne have been charged.

LOL lightweight
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2002
Posts
10,829
Likes
2,668
Location
MCG, pocket, Punt rd end
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Victory, Hereford
Like I said, the Zulu thing isn't likely to be relevant because if the AFL are relying on that to back up their case they will lose. Assuming they have lawyers who aren't hacks they have something solid to back up their case otherwise they wouldn't have issues their ultimatum to the club officials ("tell us why we shouldn't charge you"). That is unless the AFL want the case to fall over, but what do they have to gain from that?
There has yet to be anything published that holds more weight than the Zulu comment, correct me if I'm wrong with direct quotes.

For someone who is pretty keen on calling people out for posting speculative crap you sure are coming up with a lot of speculative crap. The Watts stuff was never linked to the 800/1000 (take your pick, the papers seem to use either number) page brief of evidence the club received, the news report simply said the AFL had looked into it and asked some questions. The key here is that not every line of questioning delivers worthwhile information. Just ask any cop. Ditto with the fumbling. As with the Zulu thing, if the AFL is relying on these to back up their case they will lose.
Yet again I'm using the same source that you've used. You can't have it both ways, you can't pick and choose what you want to believe, below is a direct link to the evidence (sic) gathered by AA's team.

MELBOURNE Football Club's selection policy, including its use of prized draft pick Jack Watts, has been heavily scrutinised by AFL investigations into the Demons' alleged tanking in 2009.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/watts-drawn-into-demons-tanking-investigation-20130112-2cmd3.html#ixzz2IUdT1LSJ

So far the only thing I have seen that has been definitively linked to the brief has been the 60 witness statements contradicting Connolly - based on the wording in that article no one can say for sure if Connolly's 'conspiracy' claims are included in the brief. I'm not trying to accuse the club of anything here, I'm just reading between the lines of the sensationalist crap that pervades our media.
If that's what you believe then you have selective memory. In previous articles it clearly stated that Bailey believed those comments to be a joke and nothing more.

So the questions are: can an entity as powerful and well staffed as the AFL really be dumb enough to be relying on those for evidence? Why would they bother setting up an investigation specifically to fail and what could they possibly have to gain from this? Why continue this charade when the investigation could conclude that there is none or not enough evidence to justify threatening the club officials with charges?
What an odd question. The Mifsud scenario demonstrates incompetence where the AFL accused a senior coach of being a racist through the media without any evidence at all.


Don't flatter yourself

Maybe this is the case, we'll most likely find out after charges have been formally laid if questions about the collection of evidence is used in the defense.
Yes, everything will become a lot clearer, I can't wait for it to happen

No, not really, but it depends on how it ends. I'd really like to read what was found out to be honest because if they are relying on shit like Watts not playing enough games then I'd hate to see charges stick. I'll stick my neck out for the AFL here because I honestly don't think they're that stupid though.
This investigation is the result of a power play between Vlad and AA. It was an attempt to embarras Vlad but it backfired spectacularly. Their main witness backflipped and they have found no smoking guns, that's why there's been so much emphathis on what happened during matchday. That's why there's so much fluff, the AFL are also very angry that it's also been reported on a regular basis in the media about the manner in which the investigations were done. Stop/start recording, threats of losing their job if they didn't say what the investigators wanted to hear, smashing the desks during interrogations interviews, people being interviewed 6 times in a desperate attempt to discover an inconsistency. The further this has gone the more damage it's doing to the AFL, that's why AA lost his job. I won't reveal my source for that but after what I've heard and pieced together I believe it to be true.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2002
Posts
10,829
Likes
2,668
Location
MCG, pocket, Punt rd end
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Victory, Hereford
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 .
Well, that's the thing isn't it. You claim that your opinion is fact then have a sook when others prove that you a wrong.
 
Joined
Nov 22, 2012
Posts
8,637
Likes
8,776
AFL Club
Essendon
There has yet to be anything published that holds more weight than the Zulu comment, correct me if I'm wrong with direct quotes.
...most of nearly 60 witness statements contradict Connolly and recall the meeting at the Junction Oval in the days after the surprise round-15 win over Port Adelaide, the Demons' third of the season.

Read more:http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/connolly-claims-conspiracy-20130114-2cpwu.html#ixzz2IUrRp1RZ
Of course it depends on what they contain but I think these witness statements carry a bit more weight than...
There are also claims he warned everyone, perhaps in a joking manner, ''the Zulus will come and get you'' if the Demons did not stay the course.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/investigators-question-melbourne-over-watts-20130112-2cmrs.html#ixzz2IUs8ytdp
But of course very little of what has been published in detail has been directly linked to the evidence submitted to the club which is why I think the actions of the AFL hold more clues as to what will happen. But since you seem convinced that this is a huge conspiracy and the result of a falling out between AA and AD you probably feel that the AFL isn't acting rationally.

Yet again I'm using the same source that you've used. You can't have it both ways, you can't pick and choose what you want to believe, below is a direct link to the evidence (sic) gathered by AA's team.

MELBOURNE Football Club's selection policy, including its use of prized draft pick Jack Watts, has been heavily scrutinised by AFL investigations into the Demons' alleged tanking in 2009.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/watts-drawn-into-demons-tanking-investigation-20130112-2cmd3.html#ixzz2IUdT1LSJ
Yet the article makes no mention that this will be used as part of the case, merely that it was a line of questioning pursued by the investigation. Same with the positioning of players and the fumbling. And unless there are statements or hard evidence of Connolly or some other person at the club suggesting these tactics be used to throw matches I can't see this being used to back up charges. Unless of course the AFL wants the prosecution to fail.

What an odd question. The Mifsud scenario demonstrates incompetence where the AFL accused a senior coach of being a racist through the media without any evidence at all.
Perhaps you could answer those questions as they are the main reason I think the AFL has enough to make charges stick. The fact that the Victorian gambling authority is holding an investigation as well makes me think that the AFL will try to be on their best behavior here and I doubt a repeat of the Mifsud saga is on the cards. Also could you link me to an article about the Mifsud thing because as I read it it looked like it was just one guy making those accusations, and not it was an official AFL release.

Don't flatter yourself
This investigation is the result of a power play between Vlad and AA. It was an attempt to embarras Vlad but it backfired spectacularly. Their main witness backflipped and they have found no smoking guns, that's why there's been so much emphathis on what happened during matchday. That's why there's so much fluff, the AFL are also very angry that it's also been reported on a regular basis in the media about the manner in which the investigations were done. Stop/start recording, threats of losing their job if they didn't say what the investigators wanted to hear, smashing the desks during interrogations interviews, people being interviewed 6 times in a desperate attempt to discover an inconsistency. The further this has gone the more damage it's doing to the AFL, that's why AA lost his job. I won't reveal my source for that but after what I've heard and pieced together I believe it to be true.
Not saying this is impossible but what you have posted is a really, really big claim and you should provide some sort of source. Until then I'm sure you'll understand if people accuse you of clutching at straws.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2002
Posts
10,829
Likes
2,668
Location
MCG, pocket, Punt rd end
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Victory, Hereford
Of course it depends on what they contain but I think these witness statements carry a bit more weight than...
It's interesting that 60 people can give expert opinion of what transpired during a meeting where only about 15 people were actually present, at most.

Damn I hope this goes to court
 
Joined
Nov 22, 2012
Posts
8,637
Likes
8,776
AFL Club
Essendon
It's interesting that 60 people can give expert opinion of what transpired during a meeting where only about 15 people were actually present, at most.

Damn I hope this goes to court
Actually it was 30 people. I suppose there is a teeny weeny chance that some of those present at the meeting might have told others about what transpired shortly afterwards.
 

Purple Suit

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Posts
8,157
Likes
13,711
Location
Freo
AFL Club
Fremantle
I think you'll find most Melbourne fans have tried to put forth their views in a constructive manner and are either shot down with personal attacks or completely ignored so others can just keep on slamming the club and it's supporters no matter what we say. Granted, some go a bit overboard with their defense of the club but under the circumstances I think that's understandable. No doubt you would do the same if you were in that position.
I think you'll find that both sides have ranged from constructive posts to going the man, speculative nonsense. We're all as bad as each other in terms of picking out articles that back-up opinion but dismissing others. I agree that you should defend your club but there does become a point when some things shouldn't be defended 100%, it's up to supporter to decide where that point is. Example - Some West Coast supporters defending picking up Cale Morton as an amazing coup rather than accepting it as a low probability move.

The truth is that we're still none the wiser on what will occur to Melbourne and whether they are let off, the book thrown at them or something in between, the other side will easily construct the counter argument as the whole tanking debacle can be linked back to the AFL so it's easy to blame them.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Ando727

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Posts
5,558
Likes
11,168
Location
Hobart
AFL Club
Melbourne
Oh well only a couple more weeks till the punishment is handed down I guess and we can all move on.
People like you will never move on. If we have a bad couple of years you'll say "good, you deserve it", if we start to climb the ladder you say, "Cheating bastards, don't deserve to have success". If we challenge or win a premiership, you'll say, "You cheated to get it"

One thing's for sure, anytime you have a disagreement with a Melbourne supporter for the rest of your life, you'll be armed with your Melbourne-tanking cheap-shots. But we will move on from people like you. Eventually you won't even get a response.

Honestly, I've heard it all now, as far as insults to my club and its members go. It doesn't even register as an annoyance anymore. Just a sad observation of how miserable some BF members are with their faux moral outrage.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2002
Posts
10,829
Likes
2,668
Location
MCG, pocket, Punt rd end
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Victory, Hereford
Actually it was 30 people. I suppose there is a teeny weeny chance that some of those present at the meeting might have told others about what transpired shortly afterwards.
So it's now rumour which this investigation is relying on, second hand information, jesus that's even worse.

I'll say it again, damn I hope this goes to court.
 

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
I think you'll find that both sides have ranged from constructive posts to going the man, speculative nonsense. We're all as bad as each other in terms of picking out articles that back-up opinion but dismissing others. I agree that you should defend your club but there does become a point when some things shouldn't be defended 100%, it's up to supporter to decide where that point is. Example - Some West Coast supporters defending picking up Cale Morton as an amazing coup rather than accepting it as a low probability move.

The truth is that we're still none the wiser on what will occur to Melbourne and whether they are let off, the book thrown at them or something in between, the other side will easily construct the counter argument as the whole tanking debacle can be linked back to the AFL so it's easy to blame them.
You. I like you.

I hope we get access to this 800-pg report somehow.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Posts
2,274
Likes
586
Location
melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
If only this were true. Odds are, if things don't go MFC's way, this could go to court. Nobody wants this.

We've had this thing hanging over our head for 6 months. It's damaged our brand. It's been soul destroying for all at our club, particularly our supporters. (Some will say quite justifiably.) I want it over with.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Posts
2,274
Likes
586
Location
melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
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.
 
Top Bottom