What's the difference between Tanking and Match Fixing?

[Baldur]

Nothing

 

[Masto]

They are the same thing. One is done to improve draft position, the other to make money. However, it is also highly likely that persons who knew of this knowledge at the MFC also made money from it. Will be difficult to prove though.

 

[Mr Magic]

No idea how the AFL sees it, but to me - even if the club is resting players because they wouldn't be averse to a few losses - there is absolutely no problem with it as long as the players who are on the park give 100%.

Reason being is that it's all transparent. Punters and bookies can look at the team sheets and assess the likely outcome of the match based on the quality of the sides the two teams are fielding.

If you have players on the park deliberately underperforming, that's a different story. Even if one or both sides are deliberately understrength, the general public has the right to assume that all players who are on the park are putting in an honest effort. If they're not, that's when the fix is in.

Thats it, so when they are told you will be sacked the public do not know they are not putting an honest effort in so the public start wasting their money buying tickets to a no contest game and the public waste their time, and lives as well. Basically all fans that have embraced MFC and others appear to have been duped

 

[Caesar]

I don't see the difference. Fremantle had their eyes on a final and didn't care about losing a minor round game - didn't play their best team. Taking the foot off the gas is seen as acceptable in this situation for some reason.

Yeah, but Fremantle fielded a weak team. People could look at that team before the match and make an informed call on how capable that team was of winning. That means they are buying their tickets, placing their bets, etc. with their eyes open and knowing what the situation is.

Perhaps the club is not really trying to win in an overall sense, but the actual contest - 36 players on the field playing a match of football - still has integrity.

If you have players not putting in their best efforts, deliberately stuffing up, etc. then the actual match becomes a fixed result.

Look, to be clear, I don't like either situation. I just want teams to try and win matches of football. But to me there is a pretty clear difference between working the system strategically, and actually fixing matches on a tactical level.

 

[SugarHealey]

Tanking is deliberately finishing as low as possible in order to obtain draft picks, match fixing is throwing a game or a score/game moment in order to receive money, it is generally brought about by somebody placing a large sum of money on this particular result

Totally agree, tanking designed to throw A game for immediate personal gain & riches. Or, to not come up against a finalist who you don't want to play against, in the run to the Grand final.


Match Fixing IMO, is more defined to reap financial rewards through betting or financial payoff.

 

[Mr Magic]

Totally agree, tanking designed to throw A game for immediate personal gain & riches. Or, to not come up against a finalist who you don't want to play against, in the run to the Grand final.


Match Fixing IMO, is more defined to reap financial rewards through betting or financial payoff.

Don't agree, match fixing is match fixing and can be done for a variety of reasons and is broad.

Their is a bigger difference between match fixing and list management than match fixing and tanking. To tank you are match fixing and list management is separate. Playing to lose is not list management, that is the difference for me.

The point gets back to whether you are putting a team on to the field to try and win or not regardless of list composition and Melbourne seem to have had incentives from their power brokers direction not to win according to recent news articles.

For example Melbourne could have fielded all rookies in games. This could be seen as list management where the public knows they are unlikely to win like GWS. That would be more akin to list management.

Shifting players around for no genuine reason despite various claims, meetings saying we do not want to win beforehand, threatening sackings if the club wins despite supporters and others expecting a reasonable contest is more akin to tanking it would seem.

GWS for example are not tanking because they are largely not expected to win as their list is currently considered too young and there list management although shrewd and cunning could not be argued as tanking through deception. The punters, audience, spectators and sponsors are aware of this situation and have been afforded to make they own decisions about this in how they treat the matches and their involvement.

Tanking on the other hand, has a real deception component about it like match fixing.

 

[jim boy]

That argument falls on deaf ears because the coaches players wages etc.. bonuses are linked to certain objectives. So their is financial advantage through deception, the path is a little more indirect thats all, and besides,

Are you seriously saying that because coaches expect a bonus if and when they eventually win a premiership, then that is evidence of financial deception???

Better let the cops know about Longmire, Scott, Malthouse etc

I would be stunned if no one took advantage of the meeting(s) that took place regarding being aware of info that pronounced bias ahead of certain contests which the public were wagering on.

You must be stunned after every game of the year - every selection committee before every game plots a course which will impact the game in some way which can considered inside information. There is a huge difference between having inside information and acting on it with the bookies.

 

[Mr Magic]

Are you seriously saying that because coaches expect a bonus if and when they eventually win a premiership, then that is evidence of financial deception???

Better let the cops know about Longmire, Scott, Malthouse etc



You must be stunned after every game of the year - every selection committee before every game plots a course which will impact the game in some way which can considered inside information. There is a huge difference between having inside information and acting on it with the bookies.

If a human attends a meeting were the focus is about pre-determining results that is far more sensitive information than playing a certain way.

Put it this way , if MFC was on the ASX and they were going to plan a 2 million dollar loss next year I am confident they would have to release it to the market regarding rules of fair play. So our hypothetical company says we are going to make a big loss and ASIC, the shareholders and long term prospects of employees can get fooked?

The fact is if 15 or so people know the result of matches going forward that places them in a highly compromised position where they team wants to lose and the opposition will want to win. If I was in that situation and other people who have to adhere to various codes of conduct would resign on the spot.

The articles virtually say some said if we win you will not have a job. This type of dysfunctional behaviour regarding incentives goes on in the corporate world in employee employer relationships all the time , it is called corporate slavery were the free market does not exist and is consumed by power relationships. The only difference here is the broader stakeholders want the team to compete to win. The fact is the head honchos wanted a short cut to longer success it appears, they needed to deceive to make this plausible it would appear, so the utilisation of power relationships and deception by employing counter intuitive techniques to prevent competing to win appears to have been employed. The carrot could be do as we say you work for us for 4 years or more , don't and you are out the door. The fact these people work in pigeon holed specialised industry where the desire of certain skills is limited places them in a weak position regarding opportunity for powerful like CEO's etc.. to exploit

Bullying in the workforce is a common day event, people who are not aware of this are disenguine.

And how about poor Maxwell the pies skipper? What was it? he was getting moved to the forward line. Sensitive info??? Lets be conservative and say on the richter scale we will give that a 1.5 on sensitivity.

Hmm, 15 or so guys getting informed that we do not want to win, and some of them senior, well experienced and ingrained in the AFL culture. On the richter scale that would have to be a 1638 and rising compared to Maxwell, in fact Vlad couldn't even rate it he would be blown off course just thinking about doing some reconnaissance in the hazardous area!!!

 

[jim boy]

If a human attends a meeting were the focus is about pre-determining results that is far more sensitive information than playing a certain way.

Put it this way , if MFC was on the ASX and they were going to plan a 2 million dollar loss next year I am confident they would have to release it to the market regarding rules of fair play.

Yeah but they're not, they were a shit team and everyone knew they were a shit team who were tanking at the time - not really inside info. Businesses exist to make money for shareholders, football clubs exist to win premierships and that is what Melbourne thought they were pursuing.

The fact is if 15 or so people know the result of matches going forward that places them in a highly compromised position where they team wants to lose and the opposition will want to win. If I was in that situation and other people who have to adhere to various codes of conduct would resign on the spot.

The articles virtually say some said if we win you will not have a job. This type of dysfunctional behaviour ... blah, blah, blah

That the execution of the policy was insanely stupid is not something I'm disputing. It's torn the heart from melbourne and that is something that they have to deal with and probably deserved. If other clubs want to pursue such self-destructive policies, let them, they are responsible to them, not me. You can't legislate against stupidity.