I'm clearly a nutter. I too watched the show only last night and couldn't see what all the fuss was about. I didn't see any agendas, just a couple of panellists without the best grasp of our club and circumstances.

What galled me the most was when Sheahan implied we'd made a mistake replacing Bailey with Neeld. You'd think Sheahan's been around long enough to know that the lack of game-plan and defensive aspects of our play after 4 years under Bailey was enough to warrant change. The rest didn't worry me much.

BH, I consider it an agenda when these guys bang-on about Melbourne and tanking, but seem to give a wide berth to every other club that has wandered down the same path that we alledgedly have.

If this was purely a tanking related issue then it should be reported and discussed in such a way. Instead, it was made to look as though Melbourne are the sole perpetrators.

Why is that?

I would have thought it was the epitome of tanking and if the AFL is serious about the practice it would investigate this along with every other accusation of tanking we read or hear about in the media.

I think to tank there has to be a reward for losing, i.e. higher draft picks.

Losing NAB cup games could be a legitimate preparation for the real season, like putting players in for surgery early, etc... If it helped Roos get his team into finals or the Grand final it is all fair...

Its is a line ball question given higher draft picks could be part of a teams preparation for finals...

Edited August 9, 201212 yr by PaulRB

I think to tank there has to be a reward for losing, i.e. higher draft picks.

Losing NAB cup games could be a legitimate preparation for the real season, like putting players in for surgery early, etc... If it helped Roos get his team into finals or the Grand final it is all fair...

Its is a line ball question given higher draft picks could be part of a teams preparation for finals...

It's only a matter of degrees PRB. Losing to get draft picks. Losing to keep players fresh.

Both have the ultimate goal of putting the club in the best position to win the flag. The core motive is the same.

I see no difference.

I don't disagree.

All teams compete within a set of rules.

All teams push against these rules to gain an advantage.

Perhaps it's a flaw of the MFC PR dept and our ability to justify ourselves in the public realm that has lead to us been hypocritically crucified over this issue..?

Edited August 9, 201212 yr by PaulRB

the funniest thing about watching OTC this year is that Paul Roos does not know if he is Arthur or Martha when he talks about the Dees. He takes inherently contradictory positions from week to week. It'd be great to get a transcript of all the shows.

I don't disagree.

All teams compete within a set of rules.

All teams push against these rules to gain an advantage.

Perhaps it's a flaw of the MFC PR dept and our ability to justify ourselves in the public realm that has lead to us been hypocritically crucified over this issue..?

The PR problem is that the AFL controls the game and any criticism of the rules of their game is liable to bring about adverse outcomes for us. That's why we must keep mum until such time as they train their gunsights on us.

The media hypocrites know this and that's why they're able to kick us with impunity. And given that other clubs continue to escape scrutiny on the 'tanking' issue, I would suggest that the true motive of these sh1tstirrers is more 'personal' than 'moral'. Clearly, there is something or someone at the MFC that gets up their goat.

But remember, it's all hot air, pi$$ and wind at this stage. The only PR problem we face from all this pallava is if it's affecting our ability to entice free agents to the club. Cloke, Boak et al.

We can only hope that it's not. Time will tell.

It is an identity vacuum issue.

In the absence of the MFC asserting their own identity, story and news on the field, the media provide one for us.

And in general bad stories work better than boring ones, and we've offered some juicy non-footy moments in the past couple of years.

On Cloke, for some reason I see him as a bit of a contrarian and the Melb bashing may work in our favour. I mean if he's planning to leave the most powerful club in the league, for a new adventure/challenge, then Melbourne certainly fits the bill.

Edited August 9, 201212 yr by PaulRB

Apparently that rocket scientist Healy was dicussing the selwood reprimand and likened it to the reiwoldt incident when he was injured and then harrased by a couple of Brisbane players. he dobbed in Brad Scott, while his brother was in the studio. Only problem is that Brad was not one of the culprits. As they go to the break you can hear Chris ask if Healy is going to apologise to Brad. the audio was later taken down. No apology or explanation was forthcoming. I ask you this, where is the integrity?

Apparently that rocket scientist Healy was dicussing the selwood reprimand and likened it to the reiwoldt incident when he was injured and then harrased by a couple of Brisbane players. he dobbed in Brad Scott, while his brother was in the studio. Only problem is that Brad was not one of the culprits. As they go to the break you can hear Chris ask if Healy is going to apologise to Brad. the audio was later taken down. No apology or explanation was forthcoming. I ask you this, where is the integrity?

And didn't Chris look threatening into the bargain? Good thing Gerard's an old man now.

As for integrity, well, it's the media, integrity is other people's business. The one that got to me was later (yes, I have no idea why I was watching it) when Mike and Roosie both dismissed the fact of Melbourne's eight goals in a row against the Saints as 'academic'.

Sheahan talking cr@p I can understand, he wouldn't know the top of a Sherrin from the bottom. But sure, Roosie would have taken that attitude as a coach if anyone had kicked eight in a row against the Swannies? That's alright lads, it's only eight, cue in the rack, all that sort of thing.

But as a media flack things is different now.

Apparently that rocket scientist Healy was dicussing the selwood reprimand and likened it to the reiwoldt incident when he was injured and then harrased by a couple of Brisbane players. he dobbed in Brad Scott, while his brother was in the studio. Only problem is that Brad was not one of the culprits. As they go to the break you can hear Chris ask if Healy is going to apologise to Brad. the audio was later taken down. No apology or explanation was forthcoming. I ask you this, where is the integrity?

So thats what happened! You could tell Chris Scott was [censored].

The one that got to me was later (yes, I have no idea why I was watching it) when Mike and Roosie both dismissed the fact of Melbourne's eight goals in a row against the Saints as 'academic'.

Sheahan is a joke. He said St Kilda are going well and are the best side not in the eight yet at the same time completely dismissed Melbourne. If he watches the replay from the weekend again he'll realize that with one KPF in the team we would have been in front at half time by about 4 goals. We played all over them for 70% of that game. The gap for the Saints between genuine talent (Hayes, Del Santo) and everyone else is huge. I bet Scott Waters didn't think those 8 goals were academic. They won't be academic if they miss finals by percentage. They'll be quite real.

"oh gee I was so taken aback when Brock said he left MFC because they tanked that I didn't think to ask him why he went to Carlton"

Sheahan's a liar or an idiot - or most likely both.

Apparently that rocket scientist Healy was dicussing the selwood reprimand and likened it to the reiwoldt incident when he was injured and then harrased by a couple of Brisbane players. he dobbed in Brad Scott, while his brother was in the studio. Only problem is that Brad was not one of the culprits. As they go to the break you can hear Chris ask if Healy is going to apologise to Brad. the audio was later taken down. No apology or explanation was forthcoming. I ask you this, where is the integrity?

Thanks Demonoid, I was wondering what Chris' comment was about. Would have been good for Gerard to make the apology. My respect for the Scott boys goes up and for Gerard goes down, the man who never makes a mistake. Maybe he should do a show with KB.

Mickey Malthouse summed up Healy a long time ago, when he called him out for leaving melbourne for Sydney's money. Healy is an irrelevant hack, Just go to Bigfooty and see what every supporter thinks of him.

This is what shizens me about the tanking debate, apparently we played players out of position and tanked.....well we are doing that now, Dunn in the backline, Rivers forward, the only difference is that now there is no priority pick. There is nothing to this tanking thing, we are gonna come out of it clean as a whistle, because no one would have been dumb enough to send a memo on letterhead saying tanking is our policy. We developed players for the future. One of the player development decisions they talk about from back then was putting Jones as a small forward, when he was at the time our best midfielder. Well look at Jonesy now, he has developed into a goal kicking midfielder, and i am pretty sure is leading our goal kicking this year.

Its easy to kick us when we are down, and we don't ahve anyone strong enough personality wise, like an Eddie, to come out and say anything,

Like someone else mentioned earlier, the fact that Sheahan didn't ask Brock why he went to Carlton, who tanked in a lot more spectacular fashion than we did, sums up the journalistic skills of the man.

Keep telling you people to stop watching the commercial TV. Watch Marngrook and this will give you a hit for the week.

I think to tank there has to be a reward for losing, i.e. higher draft picks.

Losing NAB cup games could be a legitimate preparation for the real season, like putting players in for surgery early, etc... If it helped Roos get his team into finals or the Grand final it is all fair...

Its is a line ball question given higher draft picks could be part of a teams preparation for finals...

What utter bulldust.

If you deliberately lose a game it doesn't matter what the 'reward' is. That is plain stupid.

There is also betting to consider, The AFL has danced with the devil on this. They accept money from bookies and must take the consequences.

Keep telling you people to stop watching the commercial TV. Watch Marngrook and this will give you a hit for the week.

to be honest i didnt watch it and dont have foxtel. it was broken down by timmy and Radar this morning on SEN.

Its so funny that at the time McLean wanted to leave he stated the same views.

Mike Sheahan, an active reporter at the time, didn't bother to pursue it then, Why Now?

The fact that Brock was also offered $150,000 more, by Carlton was also convieniently ommitted from the questions.

Mike Sheahan, supporters like you we can do without!

Paul Roos, people in glass houses should throw stones!

G. Healy, you shouldn't have left training on your last night at Melbourne with your shorts at half mast, I was there, saw it, and based my opinion of you that night, nothing has changed with you!

What utter bulldust.

If you deliberately lose a game it doesn't matter what the 'reward' is. That is plain stupid.

There is also betting to consider, The AFL has danced with the devil on this. They accept money from bookies and must take the consequences.

Tanking to win finals is accepted.

For example

Fremantle in Round 21 (2010) sent a second grade team to Tassie to play the Hawks (they lost by 116 points) to allow some players to freshen up for rd 22 and finals. Most blatant example of tanking...

First elimination final vs Hawks they win by 30 points. Big reward.

Edited August 14, 201212 yr by Whispering_Jack

Mike when you are reading this, I for one don't believe you guys didn't have a clue what Brock was going to say. It was a set up and we all know it, in fact anyone with half a brain in the footy world knows it too.

There is absolutely no doubt it was a set up ..... the big question was it for OTC's own purposes, ar did it come from much higher up which is what I suspect and have expressed repeatedly??

There is absolutely no doubt it was a set up ..... the big question was it for OTC's own purposes, ar did it come from much higher up which is what I suspect and have expressed repeatedly??

What 'higher up' are you referring to?

There is absolutely no doubt it was a set up ..... the big question was it for OTC's own purposes, ar did it come from much higher up which is what I suspect and have expressed repeatedly??

What's that ? The head of Fox Footy ? Or the AFL ?I doubt the AFL would bring further heat on itself.

What's that ? The head of Fox Footy ? Or the AFL ?I doubt the AFL would bring further heat on itself.

The AFL isn't going to determine who appears on On The Couch.

Gerard Healy might have a say in it, though.

The AFL isn't going to determine who appears on On The Couch.

Gerard Healy might have a say in it, though.

I understand that POV, I'm just wondering if what monoccular is referring to by "much higher up"..

I understand that POV, I'm just wondering if what monoccular is referring to by "much higher up"..

I think Monoccular reckons it was all AFL orchestrated, which is fanciful.

Paul Roos knows all about tanking.

http://www.heraldsun...x-1111115705014

Credibility = 0.

wait what? im the real deelirium!