Message from the President...

[nutbean 8,838]

I can't believe for one nanosecond that CC would've said something so daft.

Total bullsh!t imo.

After the Scully episode I have learned to neither believe or disbelieve - But I would be gobsmacked if he did say those things and he would deserve to be sacked - not for tanking but sheer stupidity. If you wanted to issue stern warnings on the consequences of winning you would have a quiet word in Bailey's ear and thats it. Not sure how the boot studder can have an impact on whether we win or lose ( unless they were making sure that none of the footy boots fit properly)

[Sir Why You Little 37,036]

Sharp advice - not.

Do NOT come out swinging until all is revealed and you know exactly what you are swinging at. How would your advice look, coming out and deny deny deny and then when the investigation is completed a piece of rock solid damning evidence is put in front of the MFC ????????

It is a good statement from Don as it implies that there are certain standards of justice we require whilst denying or admitting nothing.

Let all the evidence be presented by the investigator - then you know EXACTLY what you are denying and know exactly how to defend.

of course. Loose lips sink ships & the other one often used in politics...."sh!t sticks" so choose your moment wisely...

[ILLDieADemon 804]

The only ppl who are going to suffer in all this is us, the supporters.

We're the ones how donated our money to keep our club a flout and we're the one's who will still be around in 10 years time once all the coaches and player of 09 have done there damage.

At the end of the day Its just a job to them.

If they fine MFC they are Fining us not the ppl who's idea it was to Tank

If they take Draft pick of us, we will suffer not the Board

As Supporter We need to take a stand. We are the one's who live and breath Melbourne Football Club

We are the one's who bleed RED AND BLUE

If anything come to the MFC we must fight for our club and Protest form our Home The MCG all they was to the AFL headquarters.

We can not let The AFL use us as an example for the rest of the club's!!

We have to show the world that we are not an easy target and will stand to be pushed around!!

WHO IS WITH ME?

[stinga81 210]

The only ppl who are going to suffer in all this is us, the supporters.

We're the ones how donated our money to keep our club a flout and we're the one's who will still be around in 10 years time once all the coaches and player of 09 have done there damage.

At the end of the day Its just a job to them.

If they fine MFC they are Fining us not the ppl who's idea it was to Tank

If they take Draft pick of us, we will suffer not the Board

As Supporter We need to take a stand. We are the one's who live and breath Melbourne Football Club

We are the one's who bleed RED AND BLUE

If anything come to the MFC we must fight for our club and Protest form our Home The MCG all they was to the AFL headquarters.

We can not let The AFL use us as an example for the rest of the club's!!

We have to show the world that we are not an easy target and will stand to be pushed around!!

WHO IS WITH ME?

Agree to a certain extent.

The current Footy Dept and playing group and us, the supporters we'll potentially be the biggest losers out of all this.

[binman 42,948]

I also assume that it means that they will need to see charges and have the opportunity to defend the club. That implies a formal legal process. That can take a lot of time...and the AFL will then have the investigation process (this one and the last one) formally examined in public.

I'm sure they are happy about that.

Yes, a strong vibe of legal action in the presidents statement. And if legal action eventuated the investigation would be examined as would all the relevant regulations the AFL would be using as the basis of a claim we had broken the rules.

As has been pointed out many times in this thread it is unclear what rule or rules we might be in breach off if there was proof that tanked, and for that matter as far as i can tell no specific AFL definition of tanking. This is not the case say in the Crows case. If they have made payments outside the sary cap it contravenes a specific, clearly articulated rule as does making agreements (eg letting Tippet go to the club of his choice) that are not communicated and cleared by the AFL

For me this is something CW's articles completely miss. There seems to be no analysis at all of the legal aspect of this issue. Not once as far as i can recall has it mentioned what we would actually be charged with if the tanking allegations were proved.

Which makes the comments and speculation in the media about possible sanctions all the more ridiculous. For pete's sake on SEN news yesterday the news reader said we are likely to lose our number 4 pick as if it was a fact.

[DEMON FROM WITHIN 46]

Sharp advice - not.

Do NOT come out swinging until all is revealed and you know exactly what you are swinging at. How would your advice look, coming out and deny deny deny and then when the investigation is completed a piece of rock solid damning evidence is put in front of the MFC ????????

It is a good statement from Don as it implies that there are certain standards of justice we require whilst denying or admitting nothing.

Let all the evidence be presented by the investigator - then you know EXACTLY what you are denying and know exactly how to defend.

You are a nutbean

The media is ripping us to pieces on a daily basis and you state wait till all the evidence comes out WE ARE GUILTY mate and the more the club sits back allowing us to be ripped to pieces the more frenzied the media pack will become forcing the AFL to act under immense pressure using our club as a scapegoat.

Procrastinate thats your [censored] advice

Edited November 2, 2012 by DEMON FROM WITHIN

[ILLDieADemon 804]

Yes, a strong vibe of legal action in the presidents statement. And if legal action eventuated the investigation would be examined as would all the relevant regulations the AFL would be using as the basis of a claim we had broken the rules.

As has been pointed out many times in this thread it is unclear what rule or rules we might be in breach off if there was proof that tanked, and for that matter as far as i can tell no specific AFL definition of tanking. This is not the case say in the Crows case. If they have made payments outside the sary cap it contravenes a specific, clearly articulated rule as does making agreements (eg letting Tippet go to the club of his choice) that are not communicated and cleared by the AFL

For me this is something CW's articles completely miss. There seems to be no analysis at all of the legal aspect of this issue. Not once as far as i can recall has it mentioned what we would actually be charged with if the tanking allegations were proved.

Which makes the comments and speculation in the media about possible sanctions all the more ridiculous. For pete's sake on SEN news yesterday the news reader said we are likely to lose our number 4 pick as if it was a fact.

They always DO that on SEN, If an announcer says on air "I think they will probably take pick 4 off them" they it will on every news brake for the rest of the day.

They talk a lot of [censored] sometimes on that station.

I really think they AFL will wait till after the Draft before they do something this just wont happen over night, there is 20 days left till the Draft lets just hope I'm right

[Sir Why You Little 37,036]

You are a nutbean

The media is ripping us to pieces on a daily basis and you state wait till all the evidence comes out WE ARE GUILTY mate and the more the club sits back allowing us to be ripped to pieces the more frenzied the media pack will become forcing the AFL to act under immense pressure using our club as a scapegoat.

Procratinate thats your [censored] advice

but Guilty of what exactly?

Give the lawyers time to mount our case.

It has only been 48 hours since this blew up.

The law is grey.

[old55 23,573]

"As you know from recent media, the AFL is currently investigating certain aspects of MFC's on-field performance in the 2009 season," McLardy said.

"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. The board has sought an assurance from the AFL that natural justice will be afforded to the MFC, its players, employees and staff through the investigation.

"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, we have had a clear plan and settled staff, and every effort will be made to ensure they can continue to focus on the upcoming season."

I think that's a great statement, very carefully worded - very happy with that.

[DEMON FROM WITHIN 46]

but Guilty of what exactly?

Give the lawyers time to mount our case.

It has only been 48 hours since this blew up.

The law is grey.

I understand your comments however we need to slow down the relentless media attack and by coming out swinging and defending the clubs integrity, brand and sponsorship deals through the threat of legal libel action we diminish the flames which are getting higher around the club which will force the AFL to act and to become extremely heavy handed

[Sir Why You Little 37,036]

I understand your comments however we need to slow down the relentless media attack and by coming out swinging and defending the clubs integrity, brand and sponsorship deals through the threat of legal libel action we diminish the flames which are getting higher around the club which will force the AFL to act and to become extremely heavy handed

no mate. The relentless media attack is designed to sell papers primarily. We must prepare our defence very carefully. Let the AFL finish its investigation then we have a right of reply. The papers can wait.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

The AFL will have to gather all the information surrounding the allegations and then examine it to see if any rule has been breached.

They will interview all relevant parties to see what was said and what if any threats were made. Comments like "Jimmy nearly fell out of bed when we won" will probably not be considered because they can't be substantiated, unless there was someone else with CC when it supposedly happened, otherwise it is hearsay and not admissible.

Unknown players coming forward and spilling their guts to Wilson won’t be considered unless she names the parties concerned and are they interviewed by the investigator and sign a declaration to confirm their conversations. Comments like “we are going to play you in a different role in the second half of the year” may to some sound like a tanking conspiracy but to anyone with half a brain they sound like “we are going to play you in a different role in the second half of the year”.

There may be a case to answer, or not, but at the moment we can’t refute any allegations because there haven’t been any made, at least by the people that count, the AFL. There will be time after this to go after the media but that’s a fight that will have to wait for another day.

[nutbean 8,838]

You are a nutbean

The media is ripping us to pieces on a daily basis and you state wait till all the evidence comes out WE ARE GUILTY mate and the more the club sits back allowing us to be ripped to pieces the more frenzied the media pack will become forcing the AFL to act under immense pressure using our club as a scapegoat.

Procrastinate thats your [censored] advice

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)

[DEMON FROM WITHIN 46]

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.

[binman 42,948]

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.

Two more words. What ever.

[Sir Why You Little 37,036]

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.

a statement was issued this morning mate. We are no doubt collecting our own case.

Until the AFL conclude their findings we should keep quiet but remain wide awake.

[nutbean 8,838]

I will postulate and suggest as follows.

If before the findings are handed down, CS and CC resign on the pretence of not wanting further destablisation of the club and certain actions they took previously could have various negative interpretation then I am tipping that the AFL has shown us enough evidence that they have got us cold and a minimisation deal ( probably fines) has been done.

Just me postulating...nothing more.

[Clintosaurus 7,845]

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.

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.

[PaulRB 6,363]

I like the clubs approach to date and the statement today. We'd look like duffers responding to every vapour and rumour being peddled by the media, so we keep silent until we know:

1. what rule or law we are accused of breaking,
   
2. how the rule break alledgedly occured,
   
3. what evidence is available to support this accusation,
   
4. what the likely penalties or sanctions are, and
   
5. What re-course, legal or otherwise, would best suit the club in order to fight the sanctions.
   

Caro will run out of steam by cup day, and quicker if the club refuses to take her bait and act on or respond to her accusations.

Edited November 2, 2012 by PaulRB

[McQueen 17,864]

Many of the posters who were crying out for a swift and telling response from McLardy when all this started to gather momentum should now feel vindicated - even though it is most likely entirely different to your original expectations.

Don's response shows professionalism and sound knowledge of due process which provides me with a sense confidence.

Let's just let them do their best. That will be all I ask of them.

[nutbean 8,838]

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 will ask you for an answer to one single question - what if the investigation by the AFL turns up concrete evidence of a formulated plan to lose games ? (our defense and attack of the media = lies, legal action = waste of money because we are guilty).

I am not sure anyone will dispute that winning was not our first priority - thats not against the spirit of the game but I will suggest that a concrete formulated plan to lose games of football is against the spirit of game. Before we start gunning for media and commencing legal action I would like the investigation to be completed and know that there isnt a hard copy of such a plan.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

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.

If the Melbourne Football Club and its team of Legal People are convinced that we haven't breached any AFL Rules, then I would imagine that they would have fired off a letter to the AGE and HUN advising them to be careful what they print as we will pursue them if they defame or slander us.

What you have to understand is they have printed allegations that have been made by former Players, Coaches and Officials of the club and until these allegations are tested in court we cannot confirm or deny their veracity. Even if the AFL clears us we may have been involved in things that were technically tanking but unable to be substantiated under AFL rules.

If the AFL clears us I would imagine the only thing they will say is that there is no evidence of Melbourne tanking and nothing more, if we take this further we will have to produce all evidence and air our dirty laundry in public; I’m not sure we will want to do that and I’m certain the AFL wouldn’t. In fact they may come to an “arrangement’ to finally get rid of this issue; I’m only surmising here.

[nutbean 8,838]

I like the clubs approach to date and the statement today. We'd look like duffers responding to every vapour and rumour being peddled by the media, so we keep silent until we know:

1. what rule or law we are accused of breaking,
   
2. how the rule break alledgedly occured,
   
3. what evidence is available to support this accusation,
   
4. what the likely penalties or sanctions are, and
   
5. What re-course, legal or otherwise, would best suit the club in order to fight the sanctions.
   

Caro will run out of steam by cup day, and quicker if the club refuses to take her bait and act on or respond to her accusations.

99% agree - the one thing that scares me is that this story is so big that Caro wont run out steam and will keep digging - and it worries me that someone has been foolish enough to print a memo entitled "priority pick ? you bet...tanks alot !" and the whole football department has signed off on it

[nutbean 8,838]

In fact they may come to an “arrangement’ to finally get rid of this issue; I’m only surmising here.

This has been rattling around in my pea brain as well.........

[PaulRB 6,363]

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.