What a wretched few weeks it’s been for Aussie sports fans.
We have copped a battering from the collective might of Government ministers, the ACC, ASADA and a delighted media who’ve stopped at nothing to exploit every “possibly” and “potentially” they can lay their scabrous hands on.
The investigation is presumably ongoing and is possibly making strong progress in catching out whomever it is that has potentially done whatever they’ve allegedly done.
Confusion reigns in the land.
It is into this climate of suspicion and paranoia the AFL has released the results of its investigation into the allegations of tanking by the Melbourne Football Club.
It somehow managed to find the club innocent of deliberately losing games but simultaneously fined them $500,000 as well as suspending the senior coach and football operations manager at the centre of the non-tanking scandal.
Commenting on this, The Roar’s Sean Lee wrote:
“That the Melbourne Football Club were found not guilty of tanking yet still received a $500 000 fine shows that the AFL are confused over how to charge and punish its clubs.”
Putting on my cynic’s headgear I would say they’ve delivered their “punishment” with absolute clarity of thought. The AFL’s only concern in all things is the protection of the brand image of the AFL.
The AFL’s management would have looked silly had they cleared the parties of all wrongdoing. They would have opened themselves up to all kinds of harsh criticism in the media.
Similarly, they would have had unkind things written about them had they cracked down as hard possible on Melbourne because the AFL declared over and over that there was no such thing as tanking.
So instead, they chose the path of confusion and have opened themselves up to all sorts of harsh, unkind criticism from fans and the media. They get to be seen to be doing something about a problem they insist didn’t (and doesn’t) exist.
The AFL has painstakingly constructed a narrative around itself as the code all other codes aspire to be like in this country. It has declared itself the leader in every conceivable aspect of governing a pro-sports comp.
By choosing to deliver the most baffling and illogical finding of its investigation into itself, has the AFL once again shown the way for other codes to follow?
In 2010, the NRL delivered a harsh-but-fair punishment to the Melbourne Storm for systematic and deliberate salary cap breaches. The club was fined over a million dollars, had premierships and minor premierships stripped and was forced to play the 2010 season for no points.
Naturally they also had to jettison a host of players from their illegally-assembled squad. This list included superstar back Greg Inglis, the most dangerous player in the world on his day.
Sponsors walked away from the club and from the game. The playing group and coach still lives under a pall of suspicion about what they knew.
The AFL must have been in awe of the NRL’s stupidity in their handling of this issue. Not only did CEO David Gallop front a media desperate to apply the label “the biggest scandal in Australian sporting history”, he ruthlessly battered, humiliated and hamstrung a vital expansion club.
He was staunch in his refusal to relent and allow the Storm to compete for points in 2010. He copped the abuse of fans and angry Storm officials with stoicism.
The matter was referred to ASIC, Victoria Police, the Australian Tax Office and other outside agencies to do their best at uncovering the hidden details of the affair.
He sacrificed a cheating club on the altar of integrity.
What was the result of the lancing of this boil? Did the Storm continue to wilt under the pressure? Did members walk away, never to return?
By confronting the issue squarely, issuing appropriate punishments, allowing outside agencies to conduct independent investigations and riding out the fierce PR consequences, the Storm were able to hold their heads up with pride as they raised the 2012 NRL trophy.
Fans felt vindicated in their faith, rewarded for sticking by their club in the tough times and are able to look to a bright future free from the gravitational pull of a dark past.
Will fans of the Melbourne Demons be able to draw a similar line under their club’s murky dealings?
The AFL’s ruling has not allowed a clean break to be made with the past, instead infuriating sports fans who crave integrity and transparency.
At a time when the integrity of Australian pro sports is most under scrutiny, the release of such a confusing and contradictory finding must be counted as a fumble.
Hiphop
Guest
This deserves a reply " By confronting the issue squarely, issuing appropriate punishments, allowing outside agencies to conduct independent investigations and riding out the fierce PR consequences, the Storm were able to hold their heads up with pride as they raised the 2012 NRL trophy." The NRL (half owned by News) punished the News owned club. The Storm had 9 internationals plus 2 SOO players on their books for the best part of 5 years in climate challenged Melbourne with no home grown players yet the NRL ddint do anything about it until someone leaked it. The people held to account had left the club or were player agents. To think the Board didnt know or News didnt know is laughable. An ex NRL coach told me that it was inconceivable that the coach didnt know how much money there was available to recruit what players unless he deliberately didnt want to know. Wouldnt the strength of their squad give you some inkling there was a problem.. Even Gould said his eyes shot up when Finch went to melbourne in 2009? for allegedly $50K ie how did they fit him in when they were alegedly bursting the cap. They somehow managed to attract the best young talent in the country. Sheens claimed they were paying double to promising kids that the northern clubs could. The Storm argued they backloaded the contracts so all the monies were due in later years whereas a result they would have had no money for new or existing players. The NRL and News Ltd got rid of this problem by just drawing a line across the problem and starting afresh in 2011 (admittedly dropping a few players, Inglis, White who else). News Ltd had tried everything to make the Storm noticed in Melbourne. What better way than to fix a salary cap problem with the NSW based NRL (1/2 owned by News) putting harsh penalties on the southern club to draw Melbourne sporting fans to their cause because of perceived NSW arrogance. The premier Brumby's response was typical - Over the top penalties by those northerners whereas AFL clubs just had draft penalties for similar offences. The Storm managed to retain their big three and an internal News Ltd review found Bellamy innocent - hardly an external review though the club finances were externally reviewed but didnt sheet blame home to inviduals. So in a sense the AFL review of a club stands up whereas the News owned NRL punished the News owned Storm.. I would love CEO Waldron to write a book... The references to ASIC , Victoria Police were about criminal matters of which there wasnt enough evidence - the Tax office's review of individual cases is not public information but if they reported the right amount of income then there wasnt a problem. Its just the Storms books that were inaccurate with marketing dollars..
TC
Guest
Is the situation comparable with the Storm? Firstly, the Storm won premierships, and then years afterwards, they were stripped of those premierships. They were accused of cheating to win the premierships. The unfortunate aspect about this is that the NRL now has two blanks in its honour board, which is pretty ordinary, in all honesty. The question here is: why did a process exist whereby a question mark could exist about a team years after a season had been completed - surely you want such questions all wrapped up as you enter September of any season. Strong integrity? Or incompetence in basic sporting administration? In the case of Melbourne, they haven't won anything, are unlikely to win anything, but some hold the strong conviction that they have cheated. There has always been a strong tradition in footy that if you are out of finals contention, you start planning for next year and that will often mean (not always) that you reduce your chances of winning the remaining games in the current season. No one has ever had a problem with that, nor should they, afterall, the premiership is won at the other end of the ladder. Maybe the problem is more with those people than the AFL?