Wellman in trouble?

[bombermick]

He was coaching the Dees during their tanking era, and was reportedly present at this "vault" meeting. Bailey and Connolly will cop the full brunt, but the assistants may not be let off completely.

 

[BrunoV]

What was he supposed to do?

 

[Doss]

What was he supposed to do?

Obviously there is nothing much, or nothing at all, an assistant coach like Wellman could have done.

However, I suspect the AFL will make an example of Melbourne to cut this off at the pass. It wouldn't completely surprise if that includes penalising anyone who was present at 'that' meeting.

Hope I'm wrong.

 

[Lord Nicholson]

Bailey and Connolly will cop the full brunt, but the assistants may not be let off completely.

I'd say the finger is being pointed at a higher level than the coaching staff. Or, rather, should be.

 

[yaco55]

I suspect that Wellman will be penalised.

Ringleaders to receive larger penalties, and the supporting cast to receive shorter penalties.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

It should be, however the coaches still went along with it. Wellman could face some level of sanction.

 

[Pweter]

Something tells me the AFL will say they expected anyone present that was opposed to it should've taken the moral high ground and walked out of the meeting and potentially their job.

Demetriou has had his head in the sand on this for years. He will be embarrassed, and he will take to anyone involved with a very big stick I reckon. Obviously the more senior people will get hit harder, but anyone involved will get some type of penalty.

 

[yodellinhank]

Something tells me the AFL will say they expected anyone present that was opposed to it should've taken the moral high ground and walked out of the meeting and potentially their job.

Demetriou has had his head in the sand on this for years. He will be embarrassed, and he will take to anyone involved with a very big stick I reckon. Obviously the more senior people will get hit harder, but anyone involved will get some type of penalty.

Like Tony Liberatore?

 

[Ben the Gooner]

If the AFL punishes Essendon (Wellman), Adelaide (Bailey), Carlton (Prendergast) etc. for Melbourne's pissant mentality, it's an absolute disgrace.

 

[Jesse Custer]

Understand Ben but they were part of it. Especially Bailey.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Then fine them. Suspending them only benefits Melbourne (along with all other opposition clubs).

 

[Jesse Custer]

Agree with that. Fining them should be sufficient. But as for Bailey the situation is harder.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Reality is, if they were party to this stuff, they should cop some kind of penalty. Don’t give me the Nuremburg defence. Assistant coaches aren’t in charge, but it’s still a pretty senior position in a footy club. They’re professionals who should be held to some sort of standard. A fine would be suitable I think.

I actually hope there’s some kind of penalty; it’d help stop this stuff in the future. But I really doubt there will be. It’ll open a huge can of worms, there’s barely been a club who’s ever got a priority pick who hasn’t tanked to some degree. Melbourne have just been lagged by some bitter ex-players.

 

[Eleven 38]

Im not sure what the evidence is at the moment, but if it comes out that they intentionally lost games it becomes a match fixing investigation not a tanking investigation.. In that case there has to be bans, or huge fines for the people involved.

The Melbourne football club should also pay a penalty with loss of draft picks and huge fines.

 

[zackah]

Reality is, if they were party to this stuff, they should cop some kind of penalty. Don’t give me the Nuremburg defence. Assistant coaches aren’t in charge, but it’s still a pretty senior position in a footy club. They’re professionals who should be held to some sort of standard. A fine would be suitable I think.

I actually hope there’s some kind of penalty; it’d help stop this stuff in the future. But I really doubt there will be. It’ll open a huge can of worms, there’s barely been a club who’s ever got a priority pick who hasn’t tanked to some degree. Melbourne have just been lagged by some bitter ex-players.

This is a really tough one imo. Penalising someone just for being present in the meeting is taking a really strong stance. For all we know Wellman or others could have argued very strongly against the decision but were overruled. Whistle blowing in a situation like this would be a very very big call and something I doubt many people would have the courage to do.

As I said, tough call but if tanking is proven to have occurred then imo the fall guys should be Bailey as head coach and Melbourne as an organisation.

 

[MarkJohnson#1]

How have Carlton got away in all of this, didn't they do exactly the same thing? And Libba came out and admitted it? Or have I missed something...?

 

[Jesse Custer]

How have Carlton got away in all of this, didn't they do exactly the same thing? And Libba came out and admitted it? Or have I missed something...?

Didn't Libba withdraw his comments?

 

[Doss]

Didn't Libba withdraw his comments?

I'm guessing he was....uhhh...'gently' persuaded by Carlton/the AFL to do so.

 

[bombermick]

If Wellman was at that meeting and didn't speak up, he has to get no less than Wallis' punishment. As for Bailey, he financially gained from the tanking - earning another contract.

 

[Phone]

i don't see why he wouldn't be

 

[Ben the Gooner]

We play Melbourne in Rd 2. Any suspension would directly benefit the team they're trying to punish.

 

[yaco55]

It's irrelevant if the perpetrators are at different clubs - If they are guilty.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

No, it's not. Punish them, punish the club, but don't punish innocent bystanders, and in the process actively reward the club who broke the rules in the first place.

 

[Duckworth]

If Melbourne get a massive fine and loss of draft picks it could sink them.

 

[Phone]

No, it's not. Punish them, punish the club, but don't punish innocent bystanders, and in the process actively reward the club who broke the rules in the first place.

Who are the innocent bystanders though I mean, if that meeting did indeed basically give the go ahead to tank, it's literally not possible for any of the people who were there to be an innocent bystander, and all should be punished. Be it coaches or people setting up media equipment or whatever. Any of them could and should have left that meeting and called up the AFL and they didn't, and Wellman (if there) is no different to Bailey or anyone else in that room. Those people worked for the club. They did the crime. Or they covered up the crime. They should be punished. They're not innocent. The club should probably be punished to some degree, but I don't think it's very fair to gut the club, and give slaps on the wrist to Bailey, to the head of the footy department, to the CEO and whoever else was involved in the crime just because some of those people have left the club. They were the club. We're punishing them for what they did. Leaving the club doesn't mean they should be immune from punishment. They did the crime. They go. It sucks for us if we lose Wellman for be it 6 weeks or forever, but that's the way it is. he did something really wrong (if he, you know, did do something really wrong.)

Something that came to my mind during this post is that I would have thought that every club who has hired someone from Melbourne since 2009-2010, surely would have, at some point during the interview process, asked the tanking question, just because you know clubs don't wanna hire people who are ticking time bombs to be sacked, so all the above paragraph could be a moot point because Wellman and Bailey and all that could well be in trouble with their current employers anyway