Disclaimer, this is not a dig at Melbourne FC.
I thought about this topic and the investigation into Melbourne this morning, and also listened to some discussion on Eddies breakfast radio show.
Ed made some very good points about list management and how the AFL screwed the pooch by creating a reward for people to manufacture losing more games than they otherwise would.
It made me think abut a few things.
Allegedly, Melbourne set out to win less than 5 games in order to get a priority pick. They were also up against it financially and held fundraisers where people donated money to the club.
Allegedly, some of those donating 6 figure sums, did so on the proviso that the club would "manage" the rest of the season to ensure it got a priority draft pick.
Not much wrong with that you say? Just good list management and planning for the future? Fair enough.
I wonder if all those who allegedly made conditional donations would be happy to have their finances audited to ensure they didn't make bets with bookies/online/someone that Melbourne would win less than 5 games (or 5 games or less whatever the criteria was)?
Take this for a slight twist. If it's easy for a club that's struggling to choose to lose certain games late in the season to ensure a priority pick, why couldn't they do it at other times during the season?
Hypothetical example.
A club is doing it real hard financially, the AFL is propping them up, but their membership is low and can't get decent sponsors, facilities are crap and they're in debt up to their eyeballs. (sound familiar?)
Someone comes to the president/CEO etc and makes an offer. The offer is to donate $2,000,000 to the club. No obligation to service a sponsor, provide media coverage etc, all they want in return is that the club will lose 3 games of football that year, games to be nominated by the bloke providing the $2 mil. They would be games where the club was not real favourites to win, games where there would be little scrutiny or shock if they lost, but winnable games nonetheless.
Most people would baulk at that because it's obvious that the "donor" intends to back the opposition in those 3 games for big money and make back his $2 mil + interest. Some may decide that it's only 3 games, it's an investment in the long term future of the club, it's setting us up for next season, ensuring our viability, etc.
What's the difference between this scenario and deliberately losing games to get a draft pick?
Considering the AFL will hand out lengthy suspensions for players putting on $10 bets or giving away selection decisions to family for fear of people manipulating insider info for gambling, what would they do to a club that they can determine deliberately set out to lose games?
It seems to me that the AFL are going hard on this because of the scenario I've outlined above. If there's a difference between tanking and match fixing, it's minimal at best.
Discuss.
I thought about this topic and the investigation into Melbourne this morning, and also listened to some discussion on Eddies breakfast radio show.
Ed made some very good points about list management and how the AFL screwed the pooch by creating a reward for people to manufacture losing more games than they otherwise would.
It made me think abut a few things.
Allegedly, Melbourne set out to win less than 5 games in order to get a priority pick. They were also up against it financially and held fundraisers where people donated money to the club.
Allegedly, some of those donating 6 figure sums, did so on the proviso that the club would "manage" the rest of the season to ensure it got a priority draft pick.
Not much wrong with that you say? Just good list management and planning for the future? Fair enough.
I wonder if all those who allegedly made conditional donations would be happy to have their finances audited to ensure they didn't make bets with bookies/online/someone that Melbourne would win less than 5 games (or 5 games or less whatever the criteria was)?
Take this for a slight twist. If it's easy for a club that's struggling to choose to lose certain games late in the season to ensure a priority pick, why couldn't they do it at other times during the season?
Hypothetical example.
A club is doing it real hard financially, the AFL is propping them up, but their membership is low and can't get decent sponsors, facilities are crap and they're in debt up to their eyeballs. (sound familiar?)
Someone comes to the president/CEO etc and makes an offer. The offer is to donate $2,000,000 to the club. No obligation to service a sponsor, provide media coverage etc, all they want in return is that the club will lose 3 games of football that year, games to be nominated by the bloke providing the $2 mil. They would be games where the club was not real favourites to win, games where there would be little scrutiny or shock if they lost, but winnable games nonetheless.
Most people would baulk at that because it's obvious that the "donor" intends to back the opposition in those 3 games for big money and make back his $2 mil + interest. Some may decide that it's only 3 games, it's an investment in the long term future of the club, it's setting us up for next season, ensuring our viability, etc.
What's the difference between this scenario and deliberately losing games to get a draft pick?
Considering the AFL will hand out lengthy suspensions for players putting on $10 bets or giving away selection decisions to family for fear of people manipulating insider info for gambling, what would they do to a club that they can determine deliberately set out to lose games?
It seems to me that the AFL are going hard on this because of the scenario I've outlined above. If there's a difference between tanking and match fixing, it's minimal at best.
Discuss.
