Message from the President...

[nutbean 8,838]

Caro might not run out of steam, or witnesses or memos... but the public's interest, in the continual flogging of the perennial underdogs that finished 16th for a crime most would see other clubs of also having committed, will wane quickly.

I hope so - I'm getting RSI.....

[DEMON FROM WITHIN 46]

Demon From Within is going into a boring sales meeting but later expect some further discussion on this response from our president and your timely if misinformed views into this matter

[TonyMelb 7]

Agree with Jaded.

MFC Board must be prepared to fight and Don's statement is what is required at the moment.

The Board needs to address the issue with the AFL and when position is settled those implicated at the centre need to be "delisted".

Note that Schwab was already in effect gone 12 months ago and CC and Josh Mahony were moved from the positions they were recruited to no doubt because they still had some term of their contract to run.

AFL should be happy if that is result given the reality that several other clubs also tanked in particular Carlton. Naturally AFL will not be able to go as hard at it because of connections with AFL hierarchy. Is what may help MFC.

What this episode shows is that inperiod DB was coach CC and CS were heavily involved in the Footy Dept and DB did not run it, as many Dees supporters suspected.

[olisik 4,060]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/sheedy-weighs-in-on-demons-woes-20121102-28olu.html?rand=1351824955117

Sheedy can't let it go. All he talks about here is himself and his interview really.

Nothing to do with tanking...just about himself

[nutbean 8,838]

Demon From Within is going into a boring sales meeting but later expect some further discussion on this response from our president and your timely if misinformed views into this matter

misinformed views - interesting choice of words.

Please respond as to exactly what the AFL (not the media scrum) has informed us of ? That they are doing an investigation - thats all.

Our Presidents words were carefully crafted and I am sure reponses will follow when there is something that AFL requires us to respond to.

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/sheedy-weighs-in-on-demons-woes-20121102-28olu.html?rand=1351824955117

Sheedy can't let it go. All he talks about here is himself and his interview really.

Nothing to do with tanking...just about himself

would have been an interesting "sliding doors" moment if Kevin had taken the job considering the last 5 years....

[sue 9,102]

To why you little and Robbie F

I enjoy your postings and respect your opinions however with the heat being turned up in this tanking issue especially in relationship to sportsbetting agencies involved in the AFL a scapegoat is needed to be found and daily new allegations even if from un-named sources will cause the AFL to act in a brutal way.

We need to defend the club from the media and if it means turning the heat back on them through legal action it should be done before sponsors start to drop off.

I'm certain that the club itself needs to do exactly what it has done so far. But there is an argument you have made that the media crud needs to be countered (as an considered alternative of just letting it blow itself out). But any countering should be done by senior respected peopl not directly connected to the club. Who they are, I don't know.

[McQueen 17,864]

Demon From Within is going into a boring sales meeting but later expect some further discussion on this response from our president and your timely if misinformed views into this matter

What's wrong with you?

Boring meetings = Demonland

[This Dangerous 93]

McLardy's a pro. I'd be surprised if he went the 'My Cousin Vinny' defence by releasing a statement saying:

"Everything that the media just said about us is bullsh!t. Thank you. "

[Yossarian 1,820]

Exactly what I wanted to hear.

[Whispering_Jack 30,036]

Excellent statement from Don McLardy and the Melbourne Football Club making it clear we're not going to be tried by the media.

It would be appropriate for all of our posters to read it and appreciate what it means.

As a lawyer, I give 10 out of 10 to the legal team that helped put it together.

[btdemon 482]

ummm guilty of what.

1/ point me out the law has been broken - that has been done to death by the media

2/ show me the HARD evidence that we have broken the law

It is one thing having a firm opinion on us tanking and it is an entirely different thing have proof that will stand up to scrutiny that we tanked within the confines of how the law reads.

So what you want to do is defend ourselves against the media who can print what they like, embellish, speculate, postulate and plain make stuff up. Defend ourselves against the media who have also have no concrete idea what evidence the investigator has. ( this is the same media - Robbo - who tweeted that the Dawes to Bulldogs deal was done.)

We need to defend ourselves vigorously against charges from the AFL and to date the charges are ...hmmm....well there arent any.

The AFL will act against EVIDENCE...so when the AFL tables all its EVIDENCE then it is time to come out swinging. It is not proscrastinating - it is allowing us to see EVIDENCE of wrong doing so we can defend against it.

I do see that Adelaide followed your advice of coming out swinging against constant media barrages on the Tippett affair and vehemently denied that any side deal had been done on either transfer to club of choice for a nominated draft pick or money outside the cap and then the AFL investigated and a little thing called EVIDENCE appeared which basically showed that Adelaide had been doing exactly what they had been previously denying.

So cool your jets and vigourously defend against AFL charges when there are charges with EVIDENCE to defend against. ( not media hyperbole)

As per usual Nutbean. A measured and thoughtful post.

[Longsufferingnomore 1,631]

Excellent statement from Don McLardy and the Melbourne Football Club making it clear we're not going to be tried by the media.

It would be appropriate for all of our posters to read it and appreciate what it means.

As a lawyer, I give 10 out of 10 to the legal team that helped put it together.

WJ as you would well know this would have been prepared by our legal team. No admissions of anything. He has set the rules though with a thinly veiled warning to the media. This will go one of two ways: we will deem to roll over but with few sanctions that will hurt us in the longterm (ie a mutual agreement will be reached) or it will end up in court . I have actually thought of a third that is the investigation will include other Clubs thereby allowing the AFL to seem to be "fairhanded" (hah) and allowing us to get through the Draft period unscathed. Once that investigation is completed there will be either no sanctions because of the ambiguity of the law or all "tanking" clubs will be handed equivalent sanctions. I hate this. This is the lowest I have felt all through a horrible year apart from Jimmy's passing.

[P-man 13,366]

I agree with the consensus that it is anything but a white flag and is primarily a strong statement looking to see that the investigation is conducted in a legal and fair manner.

The only wording that bothers me a little is this:

“The board is also concerned to ensure there is minimal impact on our current football department and playing group. Since the significant restructure by the board of our football department in 2011..."

Going at lengths to distance yourself from the previous FD is not a great look, considering the allegations at hand.

[monoccular 17,426]

If it is an issue in relation to betting on these games, all the sports betting agencies need to do is examine the betting sheets to see who had money on these games. If no-one connected with MFC wagered on the game then as far as I am concerned that is the end of betting being an issue in this investigation.

If the agencies suspect something is up before the game has been played they can always suspend betting as often happens when star players etc are under an injury cloud.

Just a query re your last point.

Was betting suspended for the Kruzer Cup match? Or did they let it run in the certainty that Carlscum, who by then had defined and refined the art of tanking, would win, even had our entire team gone off with genuine injuries?

And FWIW IMVHO if the AFL are so cosily in bed with the betting agencies, maybe their integrity (I honestly just can't help laughing when I see that word in the same sentence as AFL) commission or whatever it is called, better get a great big mirror to hold up at AFL Commission meetings.

[jnrmac 20,060]

Every word has a wig on it

“The Board of the MFC is concerned to ensure that the MFC is treated fairly and properly. The board will fully co-operate with an independent, lawful and transparent process."

Good statement

Written and spoken by Guy Jalland

[Clintosaurus 7,843]

Just a query re your last point.

Was betting suspended for the Kruzer Cup match? Or did they let it run in the certainty that Carlscum, who by then had defined and refined the art of tanking, would win, even had our entire team gone off with genuine injuries?

And FWIW IMVHO if the AFL are so cosily in bed with the betting agencies, maybe their integrity (I honestly just can't help laughing when I see that word in the same sentence as AFL) commission or whatever it is called, better get a great big mirror to hold up at AFL Commission meetings.

I'm not sure if it was suspended, and a quick google search found nothing. I do recall us being around $1.20 for this game and commenting to a mate that it was the surest money in the world. In the leadup to the game Koutoufides was quoted as saying there was no way Carlton would win and it was not in their interests to do so.

[Steamin Demon 392]

All betting agencies suspended betting on The Kreuzer Cup.

I couldn't be happier with the clubs response. Calm, measured and exactly what was required.

[BIG JIM 508]

Very strong but smart comment from a very smart man

[hoopla 418]

Natural justice means the Club gets a chance to assess the evidence once it is presented and then has a chance to prepare an answer. The Club's lawyers as a matter of natural justice should be able to review any report in great detail and to interview all of the people who's evidence is being relied on.

It also means that the club expects to be treated the same way as all other clubs - and is entitled to have factored the law-makers' approach to similar situations into its actions.

I think it is a subtle reminder of the club's legal rights - and of the fact that the club has already purged itself!

The concerted media attack has already caused considerable damage to the club and its potential future revenue streams . I'd like to think that the statement is a subtle reminder to the media of its responsibilities.

Good one Don. Thanks

[monoccular 17,426]

It also means that the club expects to be treated the same way as all other clubs - and is entitled to have factored the law-makers' approach to similar situations into its actions.

I think it is a subtle reminder of the club's legal rights - and of the fact that the club has already purged itself!

The concerted media attack has already caused considerable damage to the club and its potential future revenue streams . I'd like to think that the statement is a subtle reminder to the media of its responsibilities.

Good one Don. Thanks

The juxtaposition of "media" and "responsibilities" is to me as amusing and as oxymoronic as "AFL" and "integrity".

But I agree 100% that it is a measured considered statement where many some are calling for ranting and screaming.

Edited November 2, 2012 by monoccular

[PaulRB 6,362]

Would or should part of the Clubs response include a factual analysis of the performance of all teams that have "won" a priority pick (and narrowly missed them) in the past decade?

Would a report by a well credentialed statistician reveal any trend in the available data for teams finishing within reach of the prized priority pick.

Not now, but maybe? should the AFL be swayed by the chanting of the crowd that CW is trying to stur up?

Surprised our brilliant minds in the Australian Press have not managed to examine the data and present the data in an unbiased way...

Edited November 2, 2012 by PaulRB

[Grapeviney 9,717]

should the AFL be swayed by the chanting of the crowd that CW is trying to stur up?

no, but like any large organisation, they are to some extent at the whim of the press and what they perceive to be popular opinion ..

it's the same as how governments regularly cave in to public pressure

having said that, the AFL have a decent history of absolutely thumbing their noses to the 'voice of the people' and even going about it in a pig-headed way

it may well be that demetriou tries to barrel his way through this maintaining a line of 'this is still not tanking and bugger the lot of you i'm satisfied clubs have not engaged in the systematic and deliberate losing of matches. case closed.'

[Robot Devil 1,895]

Maybe I don't know the right people, but I have not met a single soul who has said the MFC should be sanctioned for tanking.

I know supporters of just about every other team, and they have an opinion on whether tanking occured.

Not one said anything about sanctions, only that the incentive should be removed.

It is only the media who want this to be an issue. As far as the AFL going public is concerned, I don't think they give a rats @ss.

Mostly because either their team has used the same strategy in the past, or would have had to use it in the future.

They just want the system fixed.

Why are the AFL not listening to the public opinion in this case.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Robot Devil

[Bring Back Barassi 552]

Well, one thing is for sure... the club has access to the finest legal advice available. Every comment and response that comes out of any officials mouth will be carefully vetted and crafted by top lawyers.

They know a hell of a lot better than the average DLand poster on what the best course of action is.