We do. But it does seem amiss that those responsible at the MFC for their role in the mess seem to have slid through it without being held to account or, in my opinion, adequately scrutinized.

Perhaps Dean Bailey or some other disaffected inner-sanctum member will have something to say about that at some point down the track.

Until then ...

Somebody is sitting on a good story that's worth a few bob. The truth will come out one day and would be surprised if it hasn't in bits and pieces on this thread already.

You go to Jimmy and you tell him that you think he and Cam and the rest of the motley crue not only had knowledge of this farce but that we actively participated in a charade that played with our club adn our fans.

What kind of reception do you think that would get?

i don't think we had a choice in the matter, which is exactly what Jimmy's article is saying in a very diplomatic way.

What is your take on that specific article rpfc?

I would happily sit down with the board and CEO to thrash this one out. I don't like this club to be shafted from behind.

You go to Jimmy and you tell him that you think he and Cam and the rest of the motley crue not only had knowledge of this farce but that we actively participated in a charade that played with our club adn our fans.

What kind of reception do you think that would get?

nicely dodged rpfc and threw in a straw man too

No, the answer is simply that Jim looked at the rules and made a reasonable deduction that many others did too. Nothing mysterious there

You go to Jimmy and you tell him that you think he and Cam and the rest of the motley crue not only had knowledge of this farce but that we actively participated in a charade that played with our club adn our fans.

What kind of reception do you think that would get?

I reckon a few on here want some sort of "solution" .

They know that the AFL and GW$ will probably "Get away with it" so it becomes a case of blaming the "Next cab off the rank".

We should all stick pat with the Club on this issue . Absolutely no good comes from implicating the Club .

We've already had enough division over these $cully swine so why should we now start giving the Son the benefit of the doubt .

Not sure anybody here really wants to be a T$ apologist - or do they ?

nicely dodged rpfc and threw in a straw man too

No, the answer is simply that Jim looked at the rules and made a reasonable deduction that many others did too. Nothing mysterious there

I don't think you are following what I am saying.

WYL is referencing Jimmy's assertion. The bolded part of your post - I agree with it.

But there are some on here that think we played along with this farce and knew ahead of time but didn't blow the lid for fear of AFL recriminations or something along those lines...That's the BS.

WYL is referencing Jimmy's assertion. The bolded part of your post - I agree with it.

But there are some on here that think we played along with this farce and knew ahead of time but didn't blow the lid for fear of AFL recriminations or something along those lines...That's the BS.

Is it BS? Then explain Jimmy's article. He knew what was going down and told the public as diplomatically as he could....that a young T$ was being forced to lie because of AFL rules.

No BS there.

I thought Jimmy was talking about the rules the AFL put in place for GWS, that the way they could approach uncontracted players in a window. More general terms, I think you're marrying it up now that T$ has flown. If you thought that you would have said it at the time instead of believing in Tom.

Is it BS? Then explain Jimmy's article. He knew what was going down and told the public as diplomatically as he could....that a young T$ was being forced to lie because of AFL rules.

No BS there.

If that is all you are saying then fine, what I am saying is that you cannot then make the leap to say we were aware of this farce as it was unfolding - that we knew of the things that were happening behind the scenes.

That is the BS.

If that is all you are saying then fine, what I am saying is that you cannot then make the leap to say we were aware of this farce as it was unfolding - that we knew of the things that were happening behind the scenes.

That is the BS.

but that is just it. I think the MFC DID know what was being done behind the scenes. But also knew we were powerless to stop it. I think that was a given since the china situation.

I don't think you are following what I am saying.

WYL is referencing Jimmy's assertion. The bolded part of your post - I agree with it.

But there are some on here that think we played along with this farce and knew ahead of time but didn't blow the lid for fear of AFL recriminations or something along those lines...That's the BS.

I am following exactly what you are saying

I only commented (whimsically) that you didn't answer the question but rather your implication of the question (that implication probably correct)

Jim said the rules (AFL) encourage young players to lie, but he didn't say that meant HWFUA was lying nor IMO did he imply it......but he left the door open enough to say that it was a possibility.

I suspect the club deep down had concerns that he may be already committed to GWS but no hard and fast facts, therefore they played it the way they did

I thought Jimmy was talking about the rules the AFL put in place for GWS, that the way they could approach uncontracted players in a window. More general terms, I think you're marrying it up now that T$ has flown. If you thought that you would have said it at the time instead of believing in Tom.

it's all connected HT whichever way you look at it. Now i agree i did some sitting on the fence during the year, that was mainly because i hoped T$ was not lying. That said i did have some posts deleted from here when i stated that T$ may well be sitting in the stands for more reasons than just a dodgy knee. I still believe that we held him back in 2011. But Jim's article mid year coupled with the dodgy press conference always had me worried. It is all connected.

I don't reckon that T$ approached anybody at Melbourne at any time and said " I'm leaving for GW$ at the end of the season" or words to that effect .

I do , however , reckon he was probably asked more than once by the Club whether he was leaving and then just kept trotting out the line "I'll make up mind at the end of the season" or words to that effect .

The Club probably ( if not definately ) became more and more suspicious as the year went on as to T$'s true intentions .

And then , like many fans , the Club started preparing for the worst .

I think it's more a case of what T$ didn't say to Jimma that would have led to Jimma's comments earlier in the year .

I am following exactly what you are saying

I only commented (whimsically) that you didn't answer the question but rather your implication of the question (that implication probably correct)

Jim said the rules (AFL) encourage young players to lie, but he didn't say that meant HWFUA was lying nor IMO did he imply it......but he left the door open enough to say that it was a possibility.

I suspect the club deep down had concerns that he may be already committed to GWS but no hard and fast facts, therefore they played it the way they did

This is how I feel, I don't like supporters spouting nonsense about the MFC's involvement in this.

If we acted that way I would be the first calling for all positions to be spilled and re-filled.

This is how I feel, I don't like supporters spouting nonsense about the MFC's involvement in this.

If we acted that way I would be the first calling for all positions to be spilled and re-filled.

Who is blaming the MFC here? This is all the AFL's doing. But at the same time to think that the MFC did not know what was going on is totally naive IMO.

We were not sanctioned for tanking....but.

And why were Carlscum let off the hook?

This is how I feel, I don't like supporters spouting nonsense about the MFC's involvement in this.

If we acted that way I would be the first calling for all positions to be spilled and re-filled.

Why is it such a stretch for you to believe that Schwab, Connolly or anyone else at the MFC would be different than anyone else in the football industry in promoting and defending their interests?

It's not 'BS' ... it's just politics.

Why is it such a stretch for you to believe that Schwab, Connolly or anyone else at the MFC would be different than anyone else in the football industry in promoting and defending their interests?

It's not 'BS' ... it's just politics.

This is a hypothetical, how it is on our best interests, because no one at the club played along with any charade.

We didn't acquiesce or become obsequious to our own failure.

It would be pathetic and the end of the Jim Stynes administration - I wouldn't bat an eye-lid as they all get pushed out.

We were dudded and hopefully our Club will learn from it . The compo picks might be ok and I hope one of them at least , turns into a star .

And I hope T$ turns out to be a dud but we need to factor in that he was most probably protecting himself this year with the 6 million dollar pay day looming .

We also need to be mindful of plotting our revenge - best served cold of course .

If the Club wants to target a draftee then the Suns would be a smarter option .

This is a hypothetical, how it is on our best interests, because no one at the club played along with any charade.

We didn't acquiesce or become obsequious to our own failure.

It would be pathetic and the end of the Jim Stynes administration - I wouldn't bat an eye-lid as they all get pushed out.

I think you are underestimating the position of the AFL heads here rpfc. I don't think the MFC had anywhere to go. They are not to blame. But i cannot agree they did not know what was going on. They did. Otherwise T$ coming home early from china would have been a HUGE story. As it was it remained quiet. The deal was done... Move on. Yes i am looking back, but now a lot more of the jigsaw fits.

The word 'conspiracy' is innacurate to describe what occurred because, essentially, no unlawful act took place.

!

An act can result from a conspiracy without that act being unlawful .

The AFL is up to its neck in it as usual. Not GW$ this time but the $ydney $wans - All-clear on Jack deal can't be taken seriously.

Watch your back Tim Lane. Vlad does not like this sort of thing.

Maybe Phil was the grassy knoll....

Phil more likely the book depository building...

There is no afl competition anymore in the traditional sense. the only game being played for premiership points is the turf warfare between rugby 1, rugby 2, soccer and australian rules. everthing else is just pawns being moved across the board by zeus (andrew). notice how every premiership celebration/ photo opp these days is identical? every pre-season is identical, every injury melodrama is identical and every finals series (arm-wrestles resulting in breen-type victory) is identical. as long as melbourne don't end up in a confederation with western samoa, i definitely wouldn't go to the away games.

Tim Lane is quite right when he talks of the AFL being hopelessly conflicted on the Jack issue where it is/was seen to be pursuing a policy of promoting the game against its rugby rivals in NSW. It's the same conflict that some of us complained about in connection with the Scully situation where it ignored its responsibility to the competition and to treating individual clubs fairly when those interests collided with that of promoting the new franchise. In many areas of private enterprise such as the law and in the field of politics, there are sanctions against such conflict situations. It's a form of corruption but not, it seems, when it comes to the AFL.

Tim Lane is quite right when he talks of the AFL being hopelessly conflicted on the Jack issue where it is/was seen to be pursuing a policy of promoting the game against its rugby rivals in NSW. It's the same conflict that some of us complained about in connection with the Scully situation where it ignored its responsibility to the competition and to treating individual clubs fairly when those interests collided with that of promoting the new franchise. In many areas of private enterprise such as the law and in the field of politics, there are sanctions against such conflict situations. It's a form of corruption but not, it seems, when it comes to the AFL.

Correct. The corruption stems from the climate of secrecy and the arbitrary shifting of goalposts to suit the expansionist agenda. Demetriou arrogantly dismisses this notion as irrelevant quibbling, taking the autocratic line that a few noses being put out of joint while the bulldozers plough through the forest is a temporary annoyance. But the question remains ... just what collateral damage is this heavy handed approach doing to the fabric of the national game? Like the forest floor that becomes nutrient poor and eroded within a few years of being cleared, the AFL seems oblivous to the effect its unprincipled methods may be having on its own grassroots base of support.

Tim Lane is quite right when he talks of the AFL being hopelessly conflicted on the Jack issue where it is/was seen to be pursuing a policy of promoting the game against its rugby rivals in NSW. It's the same conflict that some of us complained about in connection with the Scully situation where it ignored its responsibility to the competition and to treating individual clubs fairly when those interests collided with that of promoting the new franchise.

It is also the same conflict that saw the AFL find no evidence of tanking by Melbourne despite Dean Bailey's comments a few months ago in much the same way as the Jack issue was handled.