No tanking in the AFL, lol

[bapa]

A DEFIANT Andrew Demetriou last night declared tanking had never taken place in the AFL.

DON McLardy spent 14 minutes yesterday celebrating the fact the Melbourne Football Club had been "cleared".. .
Payout may come later for Connolly

The AFL boss told the Herald Sun teams had never set out to deliberately lose games and secure draft picks.

"I have no evidence to support the view that tanking exists," Demetriou said.

"If you are asking me the question that has been asked before: 'Do I think players purposely go out to lose games?'

"I've said in my heart of hearts I don't believe that ever to be the case."

Asked if coaches could orchestrate tanking, Demetriou said: "Well, we've got no evidence to support otherwise...and we have got very, very good investigators."

Melbourne was yesterday fined $500,000 - the third largest financial sanction in AFL history - but found not guilty of tanking after a seven-month investigation.



Instead, former football boss Chris Connolly and former coach Dean Bailey were slapped with lengthy suspensions for "acting in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the AFL".

The resolution to the tanking saga was seen as a major victory for Melbourne, who had threatened Supreme Court action if heavily punished.

Demetriou was a surprise no show at yesterday's announcement, leaving his deputy Gillon McLachlan to explain the penalties.

"The Melbourne Football Club did not set out to deliberately lose matches in any game in 2009," McLachlan said.

"All I can say is on the evidence that I was presented...there is no allegation that is able to be sustained that Dean Bailey didn't coach on his merits or the players didn't play to their up most ability."

Connolly was suspended for 12 months, while Bailey, now an assistant at Adelaide, was banned from coaching for the first 16 rounds of the season.

McLachlan said there was no evidence to suggest the Melbourne board, led in 2009 by the late Jim Stynes, or chief executive Cameron Schwab had given directives for the team to lose.

He said the club was fined for being the employers of Connolly and Bailey.

At the centre of the investigation were comments made by Connolly at a football department meeting in mid 2009, where he warned officials about the importance of losing matches to improve the club's draft position.

"Connolly has accepted he went into a football department meeting and he made a terrible and stupid decision in the context of an AFL rule that has now changed (priority draft picks) and in the context of pressure and expectation of success," McLachlan said.

"He made a comment regarding the performance of the team, a desire to secure a priority pick, and I know he now regrets that comment.

"I think he has accepted - and the evidence accepts it - that the people in that room took him seriously and acted in a way that they thought he meant.

"The AFL concluded Bailey acted upon Connolly's warning by making decisions about selection, player management and match-day positioning because of the pressure applied by Connolly."

But McLachlan said Bailey had always set out to win on match day.

"What I am saying is that he (Bailey) made decisions in response to the pressure of that meeting - that he had to appease Chris Connolly - and may have had an impact that goes to success, but he made no conscious decision on match day to lose games," McLachlan said.

"He made decisions in response to that which meant that he was resting players and playing players out of position in the context of pressure not to win."

Connolly, who no longer works in the Melbourne football department, has been guaranteed future employment at the club once his suspension is served.

Melbourne president Don McLardy said yesterday: "The findings...state clearly there was no directive from the club board or executive management to deliberately lose matches, and the Melbourne Football Club never set out to deliberately lose matches in any game during the 2009 season."

An Adelaide spokesman said last night: "We are extremely disappointed at the significant suspension which Dean has incurred following the AFL's investigation.

"The Adelaide Football Club will continue to provide its full support to Dean during this time and is totally committed to retaining him as a valued employee of the Football Club."

McLachlan said the tanking investigation involved interviews with 58 players, former players, coaches and club officials

[bapa]

[bapa]

Mark Robinson From:
Herald Sun February 19, 2013

IF it looks like a tank, sounds like a tank and acts like a tank, it's a tank
THE football fan in all of us should feel insulted. Insulted and confused.
An investigation the AFL tried to ignore for several years ended with a determination that only two people spoke about tanking, that those two men rested players, those two played players out of position, but ultimately those two did not tank.
And the club didn't tank, but was fined $500,000.
And the club didn't complain about being whacked and, in fact, its officials actually praised the AFL.
And this, the best one of all - only two people knew about the situation; coach Dean Bailey and football manager Chris Connolly.
If we accept the AFL's line, Connolly must be a two-face.
He has convinced us he's a jovial, knee-slapping, humdinger of a bloke from the country, when, after yesterday, it is clear he is cunning and perhaps the most influential backroom standover merchant in the history of the AFL.
He's the Graeme Richmond of the modern AFL.
The man who clicks fingers, points fingers and barks orders.
And in this case, loses matches to gain priority picks.
Bailey must have panicked because, the AFL said, he felt pressured by Connolly.
To do what exactly is confusing - even more so because whatever he did earned him 16 weeks on the sidelines.
We know Bailey didn't tank on game days because the AFL told us so. But he rested players, which also wasn't tanking. And he played players out of position, but that's not tanking either.
So, Bailey is not guilty of tanking but guilty of playing players out of position and not picking players, which the AFL simply called prejudicial to the spirit of the AFL.
Sounds awfully like tanking.
Can't quite understand how Bailey could be pressured by Connolly.
He must have been frightened, so bloody frightened that after being told by Connolly to lose matches to gain priority picks, Bailey didn't even discuss this monumental and rule-breaking proceeding with anyone.
Not CEO Cameron Schwab. Not the prez, Don McLardy. Not the board. No one.
Confused or insulted any further?
Connolly sits out for 12 months for saying one sentence - in jest, arguably - in a footy meeting held mid-week and mid-season.

One bloody comment that was - yep - prejudicial to the interests of the AFL.
At times yesterday it felt like Gillon McLachlan was contradicting himself.

On one hand he said they didn't tank, but then admitted he didn't know what tanking was.
Another time, he said: "He (Bailey) felt pressured after that meeting and he made decisions in response to that, resting players and selection of players in certain positions ... there is no evidence that supports, for clarity, that on match day he did anything other than try to win the games and all players tried to win the games."
Another: "There is not just the resting of players and playing them in different positions, because that can be for developmental reasons, many other reasons. There is an admission here that was done to secure a priority pick."
And another: "What I am saying is that he (Bailey) made decisions in response to the pressure of that meeting, that he had to appease Chris Connolly and may have had an impact that goes to success, but he made no conscious decision on match day to lose games".
And, finally: "He made decisions in response to that, which meant that he was resting players and playing players out of position in the context of pressure not to win".
At least McLachlan took all questions and answered as best he could within the parameters of which the lawyers instructed him.
At least he was there.

The absence of chief executive Andrew Demetriou was the elephant in the room, and, though he explained last night there was nothing sinister or evasive about the decision, it wasn't a good look.
"This was a general manager of footy ops operation," he said.
"That's why I wasn't there."
Bad look on a momentous day?
"People can say that, but in keeping with past practices, the general manager of football operations is across all issues, rationales and reasonings and I'm happy to do interviews now that I've read the report."
The most accurate offering yesterday came from McLachlan when he said of tanking: "I don't think anything is in black and white in this world".
And that's why we remain insulted and confused

[Red-4-Life]

Cannot believe how the AFL just changed the definition of tanking. If it was a team outside of Vic they would have been punished majorly

[Stitch This]

Love the way that it's called tanking.

Anywhere else in the world it would be called match fixing.

But then Aussies never cheat.

[The Kop]

Tanking is just using the inefficiencies in the system to your advantage.
AFL created this by trying to give the worst performing team(s) a leg up.

Any “tanking” team’s end goal is still to be successful and win things. This is just taking a race to the bottom.
Not like they conspired to fix the outcome.

How different is this to Swansea dropping 7 first team players against Liverpool ahead of the League Cup final. Or the San Antonio Spurs “resting” their 5 best players in the last game of a 6 leg road trip to the Miami Heat.
Concepts are the same aren’t they?

[Bomber]

Tanking is just using the inefficiencies in the system to your advantage.
AFL created this by trying to give the worst performing team(s) a leg up.

Any “tanking” team’s end goal is still to be successful and win things. This is just taking a race to the bottom.
Not like they conspired to fix the outcome.

How different is this to Swansea dropping 7 first team players against Liverpool ahead of the League Cup final. Or the San Antonio Spurs “resting” their 5 best players in the last game of a 6 leg road trip to the Miami Heat.
Concepts are the same aren’t they?

Well put. Until the AFL change the ridiculous draft system (and rewarding rubbish), there will always be doubts at certain times.

[Delete Your Account]

Tanking is just using the inefficiencies in the system to your advantage.
AFL created this by trying to give the worst performing team(s) a leg up.

Any “tanking” team’s end goal is still to be successful and win things. This is just taking a race to the bottom.
Not like they conspired to fix the outcome.

How different is this to Swansea dropping 7 first team players against Liverpool ahead of the League Cup final. Or the San Antonio Spurs “resting” their 5 best players in the last game of a 6 leg road trip to the Miami Heat.
Concepts are the same aren’t they?

Well put. Until the AFL change the ridiculous draft system (and rewarding rubbish), there will always be doubts at certain times.

They've already removed the Priority picks.

But that's not an admission of any problem.

[The Kop]

Lottery for top 10 picks from 9th to 18th would be a start.

But with any system that has no relegation you’ll always have teams that technically throw in the towel when they can’t make the finals by trailing players in new positions, sending players to off-season surgery early, giving youngsters extra experience they wouldn’t normally get if they wanted to be competitive. But all these things might be classed as tanking but are they not bringing any future success closer earlier?

[God is an Englishman]

Love the way that it's called tanking.

Anywhere else in the world it would be called match fixing.

But then Aussies never cheat.

Completely agree. Surely, the 2 concerned will appeal. How can they not be guilty of match fixing but still fineing and suspending people.

[ozzie owl]

AFL = Big Joke.

[The General]

Apparently Melbourne AFL club have just signed a new deal with Nike, all players are going to be provided with...............tank tops !

[bapa]

Apparently Melbourne AFL club have just signed a new deal with Nike, all players are going to be provided with...............tank tops !

[Jay Walking]

Apparently Melbourne AFL club have just signed a new deal with Nike, all players are going to be provided with...............tank tops !

Well played. I'm stealing that.

[The General]

Apparently Melbourne AFL club have just signed a new deal with Nike, all players are going to be provided with...............tank tops !

Well played. I'm stealing that.

I cant take all the credit, that goes to Pete on 107.9 life fm's breakfast show, he is quite witty, dry sense of humour.

[God is an Englishman]

Apparently Melbourne AFL club have just signed a new deal with Nike, all players are going to be provided with...............tank tops !

Well played. I'm stealing that.

sorry, but I thought it was poor. Are you part german?

[Caretaker Coach]

Apparently Melbourne AFL club have just signed a new deal with Nike, all players are going to be provided with...............tank tops !

Well played. I'm stealing that.

I cant take all the credit, that goes to Pete on 107.9 life fm's breakfast show, he is quite witty, dry sense of humour.

I listen to his programme, he plays excerpts from some of the funnier tv shows eg - alas smith and jones, monty python, and those two guys who use to come on at the end of a current affairs show Friday nights ?

[The General]

Apparently Melbourne AFL club have just signed a new deal with Nike, all players are going to be provided with...............tank tops !

Well played. I'm stealing that.

sorry, but I thought it was poor. Are you part german?

I am sorry too, that it is not at your level of intellect - ve have vays of making you laugh.

[God is an Englishman]

I am sorry too, that it is not at your level of intellect - ve have vays of making you laugh.

It's OK, it was a good effort considering you're australian. Is there such a thing as a funny australian comedian?

[sephiroth]

tanking = match fixing

call it what it is.

[Jay Walking]

tanking = match fixing

call it what it is.

Disagree. Tanking is not putting out our best squad each week to win. Match fixing is trying to effect a result of a game whilst in play.

[God is an Englishman]

tanking = match fixing

call it what it is.

Disagree. Tanking is not putting out our best squad each week to win. Match fixing is trying to effect a result of a game whilst in play.

and why are they not putting the best team out on the pitch?

[Jay Walking]

tanking = match fixing

call it what it is.

Disagree. Tanking is not putting out our best squad each week to win. Match fixing is trying to effect a result of a game whilst in play.

and why are they not putting the best team out on the pitch?

Some players have niggles that if they were in finals contention, they would play through. Since they aren't, they send them off to surgery so they can have a decent preseason and recovery. Other times its to put time into young players.

By the nature of the system, AFL is so different to soccer. Its very hard to overhaul a list in a short space of time.

[Delete Your Account]

tanking = match fixing

call it what it is.

Disagree. Tanking is not putting out our best squad each week to win. Match fixing is trying to effect a result of a game whilst in play.

and why are they not putting the best team out on the pitch?

Sometimes there's a European Cup match mid-week.

Wait, are we talking EPL??

[God is an Englishman]

Sometimes there's a European Cup match mid-week.

Wait, are we talking EPL??

50 game season, compare to 30 (??)

3 games in 7 days compared to one a week. Whilst I dno't agree with it, they always put a team on the pitch to win a game, this one they didn't care if they won or not. If anything, they didn't want to win.

[Delete Your Account]

Sometimes there's a European Cup match mid-week.

Wait, are we talking EPL??

50 game season, compare to 30 (??)

3 games in 7 days compared to one a week. Whilst I dno't agree with it, they always put a team on the pitch to win a game, this one they didn't care if they won or not. If anything, they didn't want to win.

9 month season vs 6 months.

[God is an Englishman]

Sometimes there's a European Cup match mid-week.

Wait, are we talking EPL??

50 game season, compare to 30 (??)

3 games in 7 days compared to one a week. Whilst I dno't agree with it, they always put a team on the pitch to win a game, this one they didn't care if they won or not. If anything, they didn't want to win.

9 month season vs 6 months.

5 games a month v 5.5 games a month.

Now that 50 games in England is being conservative as well. How many will man u play this year?

[sephiroth]

team is selected on the basis that they will lose. that sounds like deliberate match manipulation to me.

[Jay Walking]

team is selected on the basis that they will lose. that sounds like deliberate match manipulation to me.

No the team is selected based on who is injury free. Those guys are out there to impress and win because they want to keep their spot on the list. The average life span of an AFL player is 3 years.

[bapa]

team is selected on the basis that they will lose. that sounds like deliberate match manipulation to me.

No the team is selected based on who is injury free. Those guys are out there to impress and win because they want to keep their spot on the list. The average life span of an AFL player is 3 years.

oh dear