VFL fines Demons 500K for ... ah .... not tanking !!

[Xman]

they're as guilty as sin quite obviously you goose

but unlike dribbling bafoons like you
the VFL knew the serious implications of such an admission , the legalities .. the potential laws broken etc etc

so

they are covering the actual breach up ....
heck they'll probably give the 500K back to the Demons in brown paper bags in return for no fuss from them

have you ever seen a seedier ... shadier sport then this low .. low scumbag sport , or the utter dopes that follow it ?

They conducted an investigation and their was no proof of tanking.

And of course there wasnt. How can a team be trying to lose if the people who actually play the game, the players, were trying to win?

if you believe that shit
then santa claus will be shortly riding a white unicorn ... being chased by the easter bunny ontop of the tooth fairy

they found plenty of evidence ...
probably for many clubs


but the VFL.... the scummiest filtho organisation in Australian sport


grabbed a carpet
& a broom


wow
how can they lie straight in bed at night

so Whats your proof Dave, I'd love to hear it....

[Striker]

Gillon was reading from an idiot sheet. That's obvious. What Connelly and Bailey did WAS and IS tanking! The AFL just won't admit it!

Who cares if he was reading from a prepared statement! As if that's unusual

Melbourne didnt throw games. Their players tried to win. This isnt tanking!

They knew they couldn't so they didn't try.

[Xman]

Gillon was reading from an idiot sheet. That's obvious. What Connelly and Bailey did WAS and IS tanking! The AFL just won't admit it!

Who cares if he was reading from a prepared statement! As if that's unusual

Melbourne didnt throw games. Their players tried to win. This isnt tanking!

They knew they couldn't so they didn't try.

Tell that to the players

[Striker]

Why don't you? You'll be in for a shock I'll bet! If the Demons want success to return, they need a clean out because they have no winners there anymore!

[King-Eliagh]

Y Its all in the definition of tanking, which is generally accepted as losing on purpose.

Generally accepted my arse. The more accurate definition of tanking in a sport which see's itself as 'professional' would be:

Not trying to win.

The Melbourne club, including the two goons orchestrating the playing roster etc, did not try their best to win. They had discussions about the following years drafting picks and in this context they decided to reorganise their playing roster to intentionally put a team who were, as they understood, not as capable nor skillful as their number one playing roster. This in no way means those poor mangy players they put on were not trying to win the game, of course they were. But the powers that be knew they had a much lesser chance of winning and this is why the AFL slapped em with a half a mil fine, the third biggest fine in the history of the code! Of course though, this wasnt for tanking

A debacle folks, of epic proportions! Watching it unfold and this goose Xman try his darndest to defend the cred of his AFL has been absolutely priceless over the last year. While its quite often our lauded forum mod Xman has poo on his face, this debacle has left him completely smothered from head to toe, back to front.

Jolly good show! I just wish it wasnt kinda finished now but jolly good show indeed!!! =D> =D> =D> :_<> :_<> =D> =D> =D>

[eelofwest]

Y Its all in the definition of tanking, which is generally accepted as losing on purpose.

Generally accepted my arse. The more accurate definition of tanking in a sport which see's itself as 'professional' would be:

Not trying to win.

The Melbourne club, including the two goons orchestrating the playing roster etc, did not try their best to win. They had discussions about the following years drafting picks and in this context they decided to reorganise their playing roster to intentionally put a team who were, as they understood, not as capable nor skillful as their number one playing roster. This in no way means those poor mangy players they put on were not trying to win the game, of course they were. But the powers that be knew they had a much lesser chance of winning and this is why the AFL slapped em with a half a mil fine, the third biggest fine in the history of the code! Of course though, this wasnt for tanking

A debacle folks, of epic proportions! Watching it unfold and this goose Xman try his darndest to defend the cred of his AFL has been absolutely priceless over the last year. While its quite often our lauded forum mod Xman has poo on his face, this debacle has left him completely smothered from head to toe, back to front.

Jolly good show! I just wish it wasnt kinda finished now but jolly good show indeed!!! =D> =D> =D> :_<> :_<> =D> =D> =D>

King want to know how they are paying for these fines, expansion etc?

AFL considers charging extra for blockbuster matches

BLOCKBUSTER games would cost fans more to attend under a variable ticket pricing concept floated by the AFL.

Extra revenue generated by a hike in gate price above the standard $20, or possibly a tax on reserved seating, would flow to the poorest clubs.

The AFL flagged the "variable ticket pricing" idea in its equalisation discussion paper distributed to clubs last month.

As a new way of increasing revenue it listed: "Possible examples include proceeds from variable ticket pricing."

Adelaide and Port Adelaide say they have not yet considered a blockbuster tax.

The SA clubs had the variable ticket pricing concept put to them by the AFL late last week but have not yet discussed it at board level.

"And until we do there is nothing that we can really say," Crows general manager of supporter services David Couch said.

"It's something that's been put on the table but we need to dissect it and discuss it at length before we can form an opinion. But it's fair to say pay-on-demand is something which has worked successfully at overseas sporting events."

There's a big enough impost on people going to the game as it is without having to slug them even more

The Power said it also wants to hear more of the proposal before making any comment.

"At the moment we're just trying to make our ticket prices as cheap as we can," Power general manager of marketing and operations Matthew Richardson said.

"We understand we have to make the football more affordable to get more people through the gates so we are doing our best to drive value for money options."

Port - which last night had its players man the phones at Alberton as part of its 2013 membership drive - offers an 11-game membership package at just $18 a game.

Walk-up tickets for Power matches range from $29.50 to premium undercover seating at $36. Children's tickets can be purchased for as little as $3.50.

Costs do not vary depending on the quality of opposition.

Adelaide adult ticket prices to home games range from $30.50 to $44. Children's tickets are $4.

The league has conducted research into variable pricing, which is the norm in the US, and has asked clubs for their views.

It's possible under the variable pricing philosophy that prices would fall for low-demand games.

Collingwood president Eddie McGuire said blockbusters already paid their way and fans should not have to fork out more.

McGuire said: "I've got no idea what they're talking about. Blockbusters already pay their way through television rights and through catering rights and through membership and through AFL membership.

"There's a big enough impost on people going to the game as it is without having to slug them even more."

But Geelong backed further exploration of the concept.

"Products that are in demand usually cost you more money," Geelong chief executive Brian Cook said.

"The AFL has been working on it for a little while. I still think it's a fair way off, (it's the) very early stages.

"I don't believe they would be looking at it for the 2014 season




AFL community being asked to carry the burden of the AFL's stupid mistakes..................... =D> =D>

Well Done Demetrio, way to bite off the hand that feeds you....

[Xman]

The AFL have floated this idea as a way of evening up the team's income and closing the rich/poor divide.

Since when is it used to pay fines, especially when the crows also need to pay a fine, and they are a wealthy club which will not benefit from the above proposal?

[King-Eliagh]

The demons didn't tank the whole debacle is still so amusing to fathom

[Xman]

The demons didn't tank the whole debacle is still so amusing to fathom

Tanking is trying to lose. The demons players were trying to win.

Pretty clear isnt it

[Striker]

Tanking is not trying to win, not trying to lose, X! You're as confused as the AFL lap dogs! Slurp Slurp Slurp!

[Xman]

Tanking is not trying to win, not trying to lose, X! You're as confused as the AFL lap dogs! Slurp Slurp Slurp!

Really? Can you find a definition?

Even with that definition I have no issue. Its very common in games that are dead rubbers. Hell, the entire preseason cup is a tank then

[Striker]

El gave the definition perfectly. Did you prove him right again and not read it?

[Xman]

El gave the definition perfectly. Did you prove him right again and not read it?

No, a proper neutral definition, not an idiots opinion.

[Xman]

El gave the definition perfectly. Did you prove him right again and not read it?

I'll give you a hand


tank definition

in.
and tank up. to drink too much beer; to drink to excess. : Let's go out this Friday and tank a while.
n.
a drunkard. (Usually tank-up.) : You're turning into a real tank, Harry.
n.
a jail cell for holding drunks. : One night in the tank was enough to make John take the pledge.
tv. & in.
to lose a game deliberately. : The manager got wind of a plan to tank Friday's game.
in.
for something to fail. : The entire stock market tanked on Friday.

Dictionary of American Slang and Colloquial Expressions by Richard A. Spears.Fourth Edition.
Copyright 2007. Published by McGraw Hill.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tank

[Raiderdave]

Y Its all in the definition of tanking, which is generally accepted as losing on purpose.

Generally accepted my arse. The more accurate definition of tanking in a sport which see's itself as 'professional' would be:

Not trying to win.

The Melbourne club, including the two goons orchestrating the playing roster etc, did not try their best to win. They had discussions about the following years drafting picks and in this context they decided to reorganise their playing roster to intentionally put a team who were, as they understood, not as capable nor skillful as their number one playing roster. This in no way means those poor mangy players they put on were not trying to win the game, of course they were. But the powers that be knew they had a much lesser chance of winning and this is why the AFL slapped em with a half a mil fine, the third biggest fine in the history of the code! Of course though, this wasnt for tanking

A debacle folks, of epic proportions! Watching it unfold and this goose Xman try his darndest to defend the cred of his AFL has been absolutely priceless over the last year. While its quite often our lauded forum mod Xman has poo on his face, this debacle has left him completely smothered from head to toe, back to front.

Jolly good show! I just wish it wasnt kinda finished now but jolly good show indeed!!! =D> =D> =D> :_<> :_<> =D> =D> =D>

King want to know how they are paying for these fines, expansion etc?

AFL considers charging extra for blockbuster matches

BLOCKBUSTER games would cost fans more to attend under a variable ticket pricing concept floated by the AFL.

Extra revenue generated by a hike in gate price above the standard $20, or possibly a tax on reserved seating, would flow to the poorest clubs.

The AFL flagged the "variable ticket pricing" idea in its equalisation discussion paper distributed to clubs last month.

As a new way of increasing revenue it listed: "Possible examples include proceeds from variable ticket pricing."

Adelaide and Port Adelaide say they have not yet considered a blockbuster tax.

The SA clubs had the variable ticket pricing concept put to them by the AFL late last week but have not yet discussed it at board level.

"And until we do there is nothing that we can really say," Crows general manager of supporter services David Couch said.

"It's something that's been put on the table but we need to dissect it and discuss it at length before we can form an opinion. But it's fair to say pay-on-demand is something which has worked successfully at overseas sporting events."

There's a big enough impost on people going to the game as it is without having to slug them even more

The Power said it also wants to hear more of the proposal before making any comment.

"At the moment we're just trying to make our ticket prices as cheap as we can," Power general manager of marketing and operations Matthew Richardson said.

"We understand we have to make the football more affordable to get more people through the gates so we are doing our best to drive value for money options."

Port - which last night had its players man the phones at Alberton as part of its 2013 membership drive - offers an 11-game membership package at just $18 a game.

Walk-up tickets for Power matches range from $29.50 to premium undercover seating at $36. Children's tickets can be purchased for as little as $3.50.

Costs do not vary depending on the quality of opposition.

Adelaide adult ticket prices to home games range from $30.50 to $44. Children's tickets are $4.

The league has conducted research into variable pricing, which is the norm in the US, and has asked clubs for their views.

It's possible under the variable pricing philosophy that prices would fall for low-demand games.

Collingwood president Eddie McGuire said blockbusters already paid their way and fans should not have to fork out more.

McGuire said: "I've got no idea what they're talking about. Blockbusters already pay their way through television rights and through catering rights and through membership and through AFL membership.

"There's a big enough impost on people going to the game as it is without having to slug them even more."

But Geelong backed further exploration of the concept.

"Products that are in demand usually cost you more money," Geelong chief executive Brian Cook said.

"The AFL has been working on it for a little while. I still think it's a fair way off, (it's the) very early stages.

"I don't believe they would be looking at it for the 2014 season




AFL community being asked to carry the burden of the AFL's stupid mistakes..................... =D> =D>

Well Done Demetrio, way to bite off the hand that feeds you....

seriously ?
are the VFL kidding

this .. from the self annoited best run game in the bizzz
what a calamity


tell me

will clubs charge less to get into dud games ?
& the VFL has scores of these ... dead set shitloads, of shit games ?

its the reverse principal
pay more for good
pay less for bad

so
A Midgets V Thuns games .. would by my calculations .. have patrons actually get paid to attend it would be that bad




the VFL... losing the plot