Roos under investigation (-> Cleared)

[Chow-Chicker]

Yep



Yep



Nope



Because YOU don't consider the NAB Cup a valid comp, it's OK to throw games and the like, but if it happens in a comp that you approve of, then it's not ok....

Either way, a team is in the competition, they should be there to win.
Imagine the psychological damage of playing to lose, even once.
I don't want that.
Roos can feel how he like about the NAB cup but when I see the Swans play, I want to see them trying to win.



Who made threats of fines against Roos?
The media.
But that becomes irrelevant when the AFL is up for attack.



As I stated before, people like the Swans.
If it was Malthouse, or



There was no PROOF Not comments by Carlton staff, no player ex-girlfriends dishing the dirt, no nothing.
How does the AFL investigate a team based on a gut feeling?
Seriously, the whole Carlton tanking BS is a bit stupid.
How did they drop games?
How many players were in on it?
Administration?
Coaching staff?
Who the hell tells a whole team of players that they are looking top lose games?
There is no possible way it wouldn't get out.
Player gets drunk... etc etc

Yes, well.....whatever. At the end of the day, Roos will be not guilty - therefore he DID NOT instruct a player to not kick a goal and therfore DID NOT invlove himself in match fixing. Just like Carlton DID NOT tank. And Matthew Head DID NOT say "now I know what its like to have a victory".

As I said, there is no problem whatsoever in AFL. Everything is just beeeeeeeeeeeewdiful.

[Claret]

.Add to Andy D's Hitleresque attitude - did anyone see that if players pull out, (injured or faux injured) of the Dream Team V v Vic game in May - those players will be banned from playing the next round ? - its almost like "you vill play zee game or else!" the man has far too much power.

I think, in his defence, he said that they considered applying this but decided that it wasn't necessary.

[Chow-Chicker]

There was no PROOF Not comments by Carlton staff, no player ex-girlfriends dishing the dirt, no nothing.
How does the AFL investigate a team based on a gut feeling?
Seriously, the whole Carlton tanking BS is a bit stupid.
How did they drop games?
How many players were in on it?
Administration?
Coaching staff?
Who the hell tells a whole team of players that they are looking top lose games?
There is no possible way it wouldn't get out.
Player gets drunk... etc etc

On second thoughts.......there was a comment made by a Carlton Board member that they hoped to lose in order to get either the No.1 draft pick or something along those lines. It was controversial at the time....and I'm not sure if it was 2006. I'll be trying to dig that one up......unless someone else remembers it.

Oh, and we all know about the times Fevola was taken off the ground after dominating certain games, only for them to lose their way and lose the match while he was sprinting around the boundary line uninjured....

EDIT: Koutoufides was the one who suggested it was better to lose than win in order to get the No.1 draft pick. A whole bag full of Carlton personalities agreed - including Robert Walls

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,22320101-23211,00.html

In any case, Roos telling McVeigh not to kick a goal does not mean he didn't want to win the match. As you say, he would have had to tell the entire playing group not to kick goals.

[Triple B]

Add to Andy D's Hitleresque attitude - did anyone see that if players pull out, (injured or faux injured) of the Dream Team V v Vic game in May - those players will be banned from playing the next round ? - its almost like "you vill play zee game or else!" the man has far too much power.

I agree with him on this one.

Maybe as a Sydneysider, therefore exposed to the State of Origin phenomena every year, I can see where he is coming from (for those who are unaware, players selected for SOO cannot play the club game on the weekend before each SOO game).

They are trying to promote this match and if it is taken seriously, it will indeed be a great spectacle.

They are going to play the game on a free weekend which has been scheduled to accommodate the game. If a player is unable to play for the Vics or the others because of injury, they would also have been unable to play for their club that week. Correct?

Therefore, they will sitout the following week in lieu of the week they would not have been able to play for their club on Vics v Others weekend.

I know the argument won't be popular among the inmates on RWO, but I think it is a good move designed to create a monster spectacle in May. I would love to be in Melbourne for the match, should be a ripper.

[Claret]

I know the argument won't be popular among the inmates on RWO, but I think it is a good move designed to create a monster spectacle in May.

For those of you who missed it , I'll say it again. THIS ISN'T HAPPENING.

From Demetriou himself . . .

We talked about introducing a rule that if a player pulled out with an injury or phantom injury that they wouldn't play the following week (in the home-and-away season) but I don't think we are going to need to.

Source

[Triple B]

My position hasn't changed.

If a player is unavailable thru injury to play in the 'marquee' match, I have no problems with them missing the next H & A game.

[TheGrimReaper]

Any new news on events on Roosey?

I hope Roosey, when he gets off, sue the AFL for defamation.

[AnnieH]

Any new news on events on Roosey?

I hope Roosey, when he gets off, sue the AFL for defamation.

A decision by the AFL won't be made until tomorrow ... knowing them, it'll be after 5pm.

If he gets off, Roosey won't sue - that's beneath him.
He'll just have another "feather in cap", i.e. another time when Roosey was right and Theo Dimwit was wrong.

[TheGrimReaper]

A decision by the AFL won't be made until tomorrow ... knowing them, it'll be after 5pm.

Right after their sexual orgies no doubt.

[573v30]

A decision by the AFL won't be made until tomorrow ... knowing them, it'll be after 5pm.

Hopefully common sense will prevail and Roos is found not guilty of match fixing or whatever charge the AFL want to use in order to damage his integrity.

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Is there even any proof against Roos? It seems like hearsay to me, one man's word against another's.

[ernie koala]

Any new news on events on Roosey?

I hope Roosey, when he gets off, sue the AFL for defamation.

I'd like to think a comprehensive autobiography from Roosy once he retires, with at least one chapter devoted to Demetrio, should add the final touches to the already massive omlete he's wearing.

[ROK Lobster]

Is there even any proof against Roos? It seems like hearsay to me, one man's word against another's.

That's not hearsay.

[DeadlyAkkuret]

That's not hearsay.

Uh yes, it is.

hearsay ( ) n. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.

That's one man's word against another's, whether it be true or not.

[goswannie14]

Uh yes, it is.

hearsay ( ) n. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.

That's one man's word against another's, whether it be true or not.

I think you will find hearsay would be if the person who heard the alleged remarks passed it on to someone else. If that person then repeated it, it is hearsay. Which is what the highlighted part of your quote means.