Why doesn't Mike Fitzpatrick come out of the shadows from behind AFL scenes & shed some light on the Visy 3rd party dealings at Car'ton?

and the Judd recruitment?

and the Kreuzer Cup 2007?

Speak up Mike F, & dim'itriou.

Your silence re Car'ton is deafening the whole media.

  On 01/11/2012 at 00:54, dee-luded said:

Why doesn't Mike Fitzpatrick come out of the shadows from behind AFL scenes & shed some light on the Visy 3rd party dealings at Car'ton?

Thrid party payments/dealings werent against the rules when Judd signed.

Thats why $cully was the highest paid contracted player this year, whereas if you had taken in Judd's Visy and environment ambassador payments + his contract there would have been quite a difference.

Long story short it will be interesting to see what happens to Judd when his contract is up for renegotiation & Carlton's salary cap

  On 01/11/2012 at 01:18, PJ_12345 said:

Thrid party payments/dealings werent against the rules when Judd signed.

Thats why $cully was the highest paid contracted player this year, whereas if you had taken in Judd's Visy and environment ambassador payments + his contract there would have been quite a difference.

Long story short it will be interesting to see what happens to Judd when his contract is up for renegotiation & Carlton's salary cap

good, lets bring It ALL out in the Open then.

the AFL will have nothing to hide, nor will M Fitzpatrick, if it was all above the Board???

  On 01/11/2012 at 01:23, dee-luded said:

good, lets bring It ALL out in the Open then.

the AFL will have nothing to hide, nor will M Fitzpatrick, if it was all above the Board???

In terms of third party dealings - they will have nothing to hide and nothing to be ashamed about because it was within the rules.

You cant be retrospective in terms of morals and rules

Funny how fitz is a carlton man, and is seen regular at carlton games sitting next to the carlton presdent, talk about conflict of interests

  On 01/11/2012 at 01:30, PJ_12345 said:

In terms of third party dealings - they will have nothing to hide and nothing to be ashamed about because it was within the rules.

You cant be retrospective in terms of morals and rules

retrospective, so if they are so proud of the juds deal why hasn't it been as transparent in the media as other AFL topics.

It may be legal, but that doesn't mean if the public understand it & whats taken place, that they will like it.

Let s see it put out in black & white print on the paper.. People may eve buy one, just to read it, rather than the cop the public relations blancmange they serve every other day.

I thin the footy public would like to know which clubs are getting a helping hand from these afl friendly rules to some.

named men at the footy, who become faceless behind closed doors, & answer to no-one.

just which strings are being pulled? who's, & by whom?

  On 01/11/2012 at 01:34, vincehotboy said:

Funny how fitz is a carlton man, and is seen regular at carlton games sitting next to the carlton presdent, talk about conflict of interests

  On 01/11/2012 at 01:47, why you little said:

Agree DL.

Spew it all out. I have waited for this for a long time.

Fix it AFL. Rewrite the rule. NOW.

We have to keep this post & the others at the top of the boards & take it to Big footy and others to get a groundswell going.

So the AFL can't hide behind they're own Media blanket.

Mike Fitzpatrick,,, Its movember did you know. what is that you say??? we can't quite read your lips, or hear what you have to say in those back rooms.

How about coming out Mike?

lets see you put your mo'jo where your Mouth is, Come clean, & shave off that disguise!

How did brock get another blue contract, and who engineered it?

How was it that radar got a strong blue contract, after the Kreuzer Cup?

  On 01/11/2012 at 01:44, dee-luded said:

retrospective, so if they are so proud of the juds deal why hasn't it been as transparent in the media as other AFL topics.

It may be legal, but that doesn't mean if the public understand it & whats taken place, that they will like it.

Let s see it put out in black & white print on the paper.. People may eve buy one, just to read it, rather than the cop the public relations blancmange they serve every other day.

I thin the footy public would like to know which clubs are getting a helping hand from these afl friendly rules to some.

I think your getting a bit confused.

1. "hasn't it been as transparent in the media as other AFL topics" - let me ask you a simple question, how many clubs talk about how much their player's contracts are worth? Contracts are a no-go-conversation for all clubs, and no one is transparent.

2. "so if they are so proud of the juds deal" - Who is saying they are proud? I said they wouldnt be ashamed. Dont try and change my words.

3. "It may be legal, but that doesn't mean if the public understand it & whats taken place, that they will like it." - This is a weak argument. How much do the public know about AFL rules and I'm sure if you asked any Carlton supporter, Collingwood, West Coast, Essendon and very possibly us if we would be happy to retain a player because some of his salary came from third party dealings I'm sure you would know the answer. The only reason why it was banned was to create greater competitivness and ease the growing gap between rich and poor clubs.

4. "Let s see it put out in black & white print on the paper.. People may eve buy one, just to read it, rather than the cop the public relations blancmange they serve every other day." - I honestly have no idea what you are talking about

5. "I thin the footy public would like to know which clubs are getting a helping hand from these afl friendly rules to some." - No one is getting help from third party dealings in player contracts. As I said earlier, it was banned a long time ago, get over it.

I understand what your trying to do, and its fine to have a go at other clubs because you feel that we are being singled out, but ffs make sure what your saying is correct and relevant

  On 01/11/2012 at 02:07, PJ_12345 said:

I think your getting a bit confused.

1. "hasn't it been as transparent in the media as other AFL topics" - let me ask you a simple question, how many clubs talk about how much their player's contracts are worth? Contracts are a no-go-conversation for all clubs, and no one is transparent.

2. "so if they are so proud of the juds deal" - Who is saying they are proud? I said they wouldnt be ashamed. Dont try and change my words.

3. "It may be legal, but that doesn't mean if the public understand it & whats taken place, that they will like it." - This is a weak argument. How much do the public know about AFL rules and I'm sure if you asked any Carlton supporter, Collingwood, West Coast, Essendon and very possibly us if we would be happy to retain a player because some of his salary came from third party dealings I'm sure you would know the answer. The only reason why it was banned was to create greater competitivness and ease the growing gap between rich and poor clubs.

4. "Let s see it put out in black & white print on the paper.. People may eve buy one, just to read it, rather than the cop the public relations blancmange they serve every other day." - I honestly have no idea what you are talking about

5. "I thin the footy public would like to know which clubs are getting a helping hand from these afl friendly rules to some." - No one is getting help from third party dealings in player contracts. As I said earlier, it was banned a long time ago, get over it.

I understand what your trying to do, and its fine to have a go at other clubs because you feel that we are being singled out, but ffs make sure what your saying is correct and relevant

I don't care about that or or individual specifics. But the advantages the clubs have had from these obscure rules & backroom afl deals by faceless people.

Why was Pagan sacked? My understanding is that Carlton knew they had Judd around Round 12 or 13 in 2007, and Denis still trying to win games would jeopardise this, so he was fired and replaced by Ratten who was told to make sure there no more wins and after achineving this was rewarded with the coaching job for 2008. Riley knew he wouldn't be at the Dees in 2008 so I guess the offer from Carlton, which must have come before Round 22 may have had some influence, although I could have coached the team to a win over Carlton that day. Even Caroline Wilson said around the time Carlton knew they had Judd that the Blues would not win another game that year.

  On 01/11/2012 at 02:03, dee-luded said:

We have to keep this post & the others at the top of the boards & take it to Big footy and others to get a groundswell going.

So the AFL can't hide behind they're own Media blanket.

Mike Fitzpatrick,,, Its movember did you know. what is that you say??? we can't quite read your lips, or hear what you have to say in those back rooms.

How about coming out Mike?

lets see you put your mo'jo where your Mouth is, Come clean, & shave off that disguise!

It's Movember, he can leave it on!

  On 01/11/2012 at 02:13, H_T said:

It's Movember, he can leave it on!

But we can't read his lips, they just don't seem to move, out in the light of Day?

If hew shaved it would he be faceless?

  On 01/11/2012 at 02:10, dee-luded said:

I don't care about that or or individual specifics. But the advantages the clubs have had from these obscure rules & backroom afl deals by faceless people.

If you dont care about it or individual specifics then dont attempt to raise up topics, which are wrong, and then go cry and resort to immature comments like 'I dont want to play anymore' when someone calls you on your BS.

All you had to do was edit your post and move on.

I think you well and truly deserve to win a medal on the biggest [censored] out and immature comment on demonland.

Your sir, are a:

Sorry i forgot you might not undertand - ...a spud

apparently look up AFL integrity & you find this picture >

talk of integrity according to mike,

THE FULL statement from AFL Commission chairman Mike Fitzpatrick on Ben Cousins.

"I just want to say before we deliver the decision that the AFL Commission today had a difficult decision to make.

"We had to weigh up many competing interests – not just the issue of Ben Cousins the player – but also the interests of the wider football family and indeed the wider community and the integrity of the game.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsId=69870

  On 01/11/2012 at 01:18, PJ_12345 said:

Thrid party payments/dealings werent against the rules when Judd signed.

That is actually very debatable

The reality is the AFL decided to turn a blind eye to it for whatever reason

One supposed reason was the AFL felt they had been too harsh on carlton over the salary cap punishments and this was a way of squaring up so to speak

They had the power to disallow the visy ruling as being outside the cap as the rules stood then but decided not to

Just another example of AFL meddling and bending the system to suit as it pleases them

Why when brock says the dees tanked there is a big investgation, but when Libba says the same thing about carlton, and fev wright it in his book, it is dismissed, when some thing is put in wrighting it is more powerfull then words, there is a editor, words can come out without thinking, a book has more thought, fitz and kenhan are too close, funny when they are watching carlton games next to each other, the judd deal whould not have happen at anyother club.

  On 01/11/2012 at 03:27, vincehotboy said:

Why when brock says the dees tanked there is a big investgation, but when Libba says the same thing about carlton, and fev wright it in his book, it is dismissed,

apparently the AFL walked away after Carlscum officials made it clear that they "Hit the post many times".

Sadly your ability to lie well is obviously taken into account.