Don't worry about the Bowden's - apparently Terry's told them that they will be playing the entire year in the two regardless of form - no chance of a recall due to another youth policy.

Why is there an incentive to tank? To get the earliest pick possible so a club can select the best kids possible.

Okay, say the priority picks are removed ... you reckon if 15th and 16th are playing off in R22 with the result to determine who gets #1 that there won't be a mention of tanking?

Maybe the lottery system has more merit than I first thought, but either way, having a the current draft system as the only real means of injecting new talent into a club's playing list puts clubs in a position where losing can provide more benefits than winning.

I hate to say it, but the NRL has a salary cap and no draft. How much tanking talk do you hear about in the NRL? While their system is far from perfect, it at least saves clubs from being in a severely compromised position.

In the case of a round 22 clash between 15th and 16th there's the stain of a wooden spoon as an incentive to win.

I'll bet if Ninethmond had of beaten the saints, we would of beaten Melbourne

Harf basically when asked if Carlton had cheated said the following:

- NO
- Every club that finished bottom 4 prepare for the next season
- We were not good enough to win no matter who was playing
- Players dont do these sorts of things
- What is Weezels drawfs agenda ? He reckons he got paid for the interview. Also reckons trying to get exposure because coaching out in the country will not get him noticed
- There is no such thing as tanking, if you are on the bottom you are not good. Thats it
- Attacked a caller who said its crap how people bet on these games, and then tanking happens. Harf said everything Carlton did was out in the open, its not like players were dropped on the day of game, it was clearly specified on the team sheets, so people have no excuses on betting as they know what they are in for
- Basically said that playing Hammo was a classic point in what Carlton were trying to achieve.
- Harf was emphatic in that we were transparent in the whole process in declaring straight up we were playing youngsters and that players that had no future would not be playing. Youngsters needed to be tested. We did not hide anything. Ratten said this all along
- Real match fixers are teams that are making finals and will not alter ladder position, and losing on purpose to make money.

Expect Harf's "resignation" from SEN very soon

Patrick was delisted. There's only Joel now.

Harf basically when asked if Carlton had cheated said the following:

- NO
- Every club that finished bottom 4 prepare for the next season
- We were not good enough to win no matter who was playing
- Players dont do these sorts of things
- What is Weezels drawfs agenda ? He reckons he got paid for the interview. Also reckons trying to get exposure because coaching out in the country will not get him noticed
- There is no such thing as tanking, if you are on the bottom you are not good. Thats it
- Attacked a caller who said its crap how people bet on these games, and then tanking happens. Harf said everything Carlton did was out in the open, its not like players were dropped on the day of game, it was clearly specified on the team sheets, so people have no excuses on betting as they know what they are in for
- Basically said that playing Hammo was a classic point in what Carlton were trying to achieve.
- Harf was emphatic in that we were transparent in the whole process in declaring straight up we were playing youngsters and that players that had no future would not be playing. Youngsters needed to be tested. We did not hide anything. Ratten said this all along
- Real match fixers are teams that are making finals and will not alter ladder position, and losing on purpose to make money.

If we adopted the NRL system we'd still be having contractual arguments mere weeks before the start of the season (ie. Israel Folau).

I've never been a fan of the whole lottery thing, but I see little choice but to now adopt it. But that presents another problem. What if the team who finishes 13th finishes on 7-8 wins and draws the #1 pick, while the bottom team who might finish with 4-5 wins gets #4? Would that be fair?

Do you give the bottom 4 equal chance, or do you get more chances based on where you finish? If so, would it be inconceivable a team might 'tank' for more chances?

The NBA system in the U.S. is probably the fairest. The bottom team might get 16 balls in the lottery (out of 136), second bottom 15, third bottom 14 and so on......the top team would get only one ball. Balls are picked out and that team gets the draft pick from 1 onwards.

This was purely a ratings grab by McGuire's Footy Show in the opening episode of the season.

Hutchison has been after a big story for that show, and Liberatore was a walk up start for him...
..from Brownlow Medal to Assistant Coach who has been unsuccessful in getting a Senior gig with any Senior Club..
..to attacking his former Club, the Bulldogs; it's President and their Coach.....to accusing Carlton of tanking....all on national Television.

Hutchison is a piranha who will always seek out the weak and the willing for a "big" story.

During the "interview"....I could almost see and hear McGuire rubbing his hands with glee and saying "It's been a HUGE week in Football"......

We need a Royal COmmission into McChin and Hutchy's obvious manipulation of the media FLOWER it. Why hasn't anybody thought about that? eh?

Don't worry about the Bowden's - apparently Terry's told them that they will be playing the entire year in the two regardless of form - no chance of a recall due to another youth policy.

I agree.
That was the most disgraceful interview/questioning technique I have ever seen.
Gutter journalism at its worst.
McChin would never have allowed that to go to air if it was the pies in question.

If we adopted the NRL system we'd still be having contractual arguments mere weeks before the start of the season (ie. Israel Folau).

I've never been a fan of the whole lottery thing, but I see little choice but to now adopt it. But that presents another problem. What if the team who finishes 13th finishes on 7-8 wins and draws the #1 pick, while the bottom team who might finish with 4-5 wins gets #4? Would that be fair?

Do you give the bottom 4 equal chance, or do you get more chances based on where you finish? If so, would it be inconceivable a team might 'tank' for more chances?

Find me another industry that effectively dictates where players have to start their careers. The draft, while perfect in theory, has so many normally unacceptable compromises in so many aspects of workplace conditions it's not funny.