The findings of the controversial Melbourne Demons tanking controversy has been one of the AFL’s more bizarre performances.
The League remains adamant that Melbourne didn’t deliberately lose matches, nor did they fail to play to their full potential, in the second half of the 2009 season, so that they could hang onto the prized first two selections in the National Draft, where they snared Tom Scully and Jack Trengove.
However, the AFL fined Melbourne $500,000, and suspended the former head of their football department, Chris Connolly, from employment football for 12 months, and former coach, Dean Bailey, for 16 matches.
Currently an assistant coach with Adelaide, Bailey is banned from helping coach the Crows on game day, and from working with any Crows players. At 16 matches, it’s effectively a season ban, and could well cost Bailey his job.
The AFL stopped short of taking draft picks off the Demons, which Melbourne has described as a win.
Like presumably any members of the media and the footy fraternity, I am confused by this decision by the AFL.
The league has said Melbourne is not guilty of tanking, yet has still handed down a hefty fine and two equally hefty suspensions to key figures involved in the football side of the club at the time of the allegations. How does that make sense?
The AFL’s deputy CEO, and the man most likely to replace current chief Andrew Demetriou, Gillon McLachlan, says Connolly, Bailey and their former club are guilty of prejudicial conduct, according to part of rule 1.6 in the AFL rules document.
This applies to a person deemed to have engaged in conduct which is unbecoming or likely to prejudice the reputation or interests of the AFL, or bring the game into disrepute.
You seem to need to have a legal degree, as McLachlan does, to understand this ruling.
We need to know exactly how Melbourne, Connolly and Bailey have brought the game into disrepute, if McLachlan is comfortable they didn’t tank and that such a thing has never existed in the AFL.
I am becoming more bewildered by the minute with this finding.
There’s no doubt that when Melbourne strung a couple of wins together in rounds 14 and 15 of 2009, taking their season’s tally to three victories, their priorities shifted.
They knew they could only win one more match if they were to get the first two picks in that national draft, which they had been banking on all season.
Dean Bailey admitted that he was given instructions to play players in different positions, to experiment, and to blood youngsters, even if they were not ready for the rigours of AFL footy.
It was all about the future and I don’t have a problem with that. Chris Connolly was head of the football department that instigated that move.
Melbourne were playing within the rules. In those days, if teams won four games or fewer for two years in a row, they were given two picks in succession at the next draft. With the Demons getting the wooden spoon for finishing last in 2009, they had the added bonus of securing selections one and two to try and set up their future with the best young talent in the land.
It hasn’t worked out that way, but that’s another story.
The AFL for many years has been keen to the point of obsession on making the competition on the ground very even, which is why the priority pick was introduced and why every club in position to use it has taken advantage of the opportunity.
The two matches on which the AFL concentrated their investigation on were Melbourne’s terrible effort in Canberra when they were barely competitive against an undermanned Sydney side, and the next week, when the Demons snatched defeat from the jaws of victory after the siren against Richmond, a result which Demons supporters actually cheered.
Outside of those two matches, the most famous example of a team making sure it’s tough for them to win was during the last match of 2007, when Carlton played Melbourne for what has been dubbed the Kreuzer Cup.
The winner got four points and would finish second last. The loser received the wooden spoon and the number one draft pick, which would inevitably be used on star ruckman Matthew Kreuzer.
Carlton allowed Travis Johnstone to have 42 touches that day, running around without an opponent, and to this day Kreuzer wears navy blue. Yet the AFL doesn’t believe Carlton were tanking. Right!
How many more examples do you want? Richmond, Hawthorn and the Western Bulldogs all earned priority picks in the 2004 draft, so they shared the first six picks.
The Hawks in particular picked wisely, choosing Jarryd Roughead and Lance Franklin, with Brett Deledio a good selection for the Tigers and Ryan Griffen likewise for the Dogs.
The system was there to be exploited and clubs have done that. Supporters in seasons past actually breathed a sigh of relief when they lost late in the season.
If they were near the bottom it meant early picks. There’s no doubt clubs that, even if clubs weren’t overtly tanking, they were being structured to perform at a level where victory was less likely, or near impossible.
The players’ efforts can’t be criticised on these days – they want to win every time they go out to battle, and no doubt they tried their best.
The AFL is to blame for the predicament that Melbourne find themselves in today – half a million dollars poorer, and with the ill-will that sees them responsible for Connolly and Bailey being out of work for lengthy periods.
But remember, there’s no tanking in the game, just prejudicial conduct. Or is that the same thing?
Pot Stirrer
Guest
Yes you can, Whilst they wouldnt have deliberatley fixed a match they knew they would be sending a team out with the intention of losing to help with the draft picks. People in the know would pass on the information, innocently im sure as to what the club is doing and suprise suprise people start betting. Hence thier actions have brought the game into disrepute. So they are half guilty becuase its not the intention but the result of what they did which should have been foreseen by the intelctuals in charge.
Jack
Guest
Spot on Bunny
Jack
Guest
Agree Jay, sack him and run the broom through AFL House
c
Roar Rookie
tc hi
Jack
Guest
Sack Decietful Demitriou
Jack
Guest
Agree 100%
Jack
Guest
Investigate each and every one of them or I want the AFL to shut up about protecting the 'integrity of the game' because they don't know what integrity means - they are hypocrites and they've been trying to brush these tanking issues under the carpet for years and every time it comes back they push it back under just like they have done again - and don't tell me Stynes (RIP) didn't have any idea what was going on, how much would the AFL hate that to come out? I had a meal with him during that year and he was very proud about how many Top 10 picks they were building for the future. I love Stynes and it's only my opinion and I wish he was here to defend himself but if the whole world knows they tanked it's hard to believe that the President didn't, even if he was sick at the time. Disgraceful Demetriou!
Jack
Guest
Sack Demetriou, Fitzpatrick and all other commission members that are toeing the 'party' line. We all know they tanked and I've called for their sacking in other posts as I'm sick of them all and see right through them, it's a total disgrace and Dan it's a good article but you've gone too soft on them IMO. We all know that this was a 'political decision' - not enough people are standing up to protest this BS. Bring banners to the games and protest, only problem we have is that the TV channels won't show them because they want the TV rights deal. The AFL did a backroom deal with the Dees hoping they could nip this issue in the butt - Disgraceful Demetriou - that's what we should call you from now on, or maybe... Deceitful Demetriou Dirty Demetriou Dodgy Demetriou All are accurate - hope to see some banners soon. I'm bringing one in protest!
Hughster
Guest
I like the principle of the first draft pick but clearly it is a reward that creates uncertainty. Why not have a system where the last three teams, if they finish within 8-12 points of each other, each go into a hat and draw a number from one to 3 so as to decide the order of draft picks. I think this is similar to what happens in the NBA? Roarers feel free to correct me on this. Introduce a level of uncertainty of reward for poor performance and perhaps you get greater confidence of on (and off) field credibility. What is clearly the major issue in Australian sport in recent days is "perception". The nature of media and breadth of commentary can turn innuendo and speculation into perceived reality with hours. It doesn't matter if its real. Administrators should give far greater credence to how their actions are perceived as this becomes the trigger for criticism. There is the legal adage that in a court of law its not what you know...its what you can prove. The sporting environment is not a court of law and administrators had better get used to it.
Steele
Guest
I don't understand the confusion? Bailey and Connelly acted Inappropriately, however no evidence was found suggesting they were acting on behalf of the president or the board. Therefore the club is in the clear but must pay a fine on behalf of their employees indescretions. It's not that difficult to comprehend. It may appear obvious that they tanked, however no official paper trail was discovered making it very hard to prove in a court of law. If Melbourne are considered very fortunate then what does that make Calton and the rest of the tankers? Melbourne have carried the can for half a dozen sides and a short sighted afl rule.
Brian
Guest
Anyone else noticed that Melbourne & Adelaide both have dream draws in 2013. Most of the other clubs would pay 500k for such favours
Brian
Guest
Hansie - There was no point Melbourne winning and missing out on a higher draft pick. Iangou I brought up Fremantle because the AFL have come out and said the reason for the 500k and no draft picks is that there was no proof that Melbourne tried to lose only that it was discussed prior to the game -h= hence the fine. I fail to see how Fremantle would not have discussed that in resting so many players they would inevitably lose the game. Just as an aside I believe Fremantle were well within their rights to rest those players
TC
Guest
Interpol and Juve say hi.
Lroy
Guest
Yes, isnt that interesting. Adelaide, lose draft picks, and melbourne dont??? How is that possible... I guess if they really cracked down on the Dees, they would have to re look at the Kruezer cup game... better its all swept under the carpet. So to date, Ben Cousins is the only person to have brought the game into disrepute?? hmmmmmmmmmm
Hansie
Guest
Freo made the 8 and comfortably beat Hawthorn in the finals. There was no point sending half fit players all the way to Launceston and back.
King Robbo
Guest
Maybe the AFL should have a promotion/relegation system haha.
NeeDeep
Roar Pro
The whole thing is so vague, it's laughable. The AFL have looked at it and gone, "Yep, they tanked. What do we do about it now? We can't throw the book at them, because of all the previous incidents that we've let slide and now with GWS playing players out of position and resting players for no real reason, it would look very double standard like." Melbourne have probably put as much to them, through the grapevine and a mutual agreement has been reached, to head off an ugly and protracted legal / media court battle. What I would really love the AFL to do, is come out and say exactly what Bailey, Connolly and the MFC atually did. This rather ambigous statement, about "bringing the game into disrepute", is just a dodge all together. Be specific Gillon!
Kev
Guest
Only in the AFL can a team be found not guilty of tanking and yet still cop a $500k fine and see 2 coaches suspended. This just gets messier by the day and it's because Demetriou still takes a head in the sand approach to tanking.
TomC
Roar Guru
Couldn't agree more. I just don't see a grey area here. Either the club tanked or it didn't. Personally, on the balance of evidence, I don't think they did. Or at least I don't think it can be proven that they did.
cliffclavin
Guest
cheers