Just read The Age at lunchtime. I am thoroughly and absolutely depressed. Haven't go ttime to read thru 30 odd pages of this thread, to eek out any glimmer of hope. Is there any? Will it be pick 4 or worse??? Can someone summarise?

I don't agree with what you said at all.

Pick 4 wasn't a handout for being crap, it was Scully compo. If we weren't crap it still would have been attatched to our first round pick.

It wasn't a handout, it was compensation. How is that not clear? Anyway it's a non issue.

You said this: The fact that it is pick 4 is a comment on how crap we were. I agreed.

Pick 4 is only 4 because we were crap and got 3. The AFL gave us 3, so they gave us 4 too, because they'd agreed to after Scully left. The fact it is compensation is only relevant to the fact that we had two picks. They are where they are because we were crap in 2012.

Just read The Age at lunchtime. I am thoroughly and absolutely depressed. Haven't go ttime to read thru 30 odd pages of this thread, to eek out any glimmer of hope. Is there any? Will it be pick 4 or worse??? Can someone summarise?

Go and read Patrick Smith in the Oz for a slightly different perspective of trial by media

Well said Pennant St Dee.

I don't want to have another history lesson about the Gardner board.

We have to deal with what's in front us.

That doesn't involve anything other than getting behind the club.

I am sorry, the time for blood letting has not arrived.

If you are a Demon, you will get in line.

We can eat our own once again when this is over.

Care to elaborate on the financial disasters they are lurching to and from, I'm sure most of the posters on here are smart enough to chew and walk at the same time. We can handle a bit of clogging.

You won't answer my question regarding your association with the club so I must assume you have an agenda and cannot be trusted therefore you should be considered no better than a troll.

No, I don't care to elaborate at length in this thread. Why don't you run a couple of forum searches for "sponsorship debacle" and "bloated off field department", that should get you started.

I not even sure I know what you are getting at with the agenda stuff - what difference would it make? I am here to talk about the club like everyone else. Agenda accusations are impossible to disprove, completely irrelevant and it's waste of my time to write about it any further.

Anyone who thinks only individuals will be punished but not the club is living in fantasy land. Carlton was punished as a club. I think we'll be extremely lucky to lose just pick 4.

So you are saying the AFL has 23 days (15 business days) before the ND to:

1. Complete its investigation

2. Give Melbourne time to prepare its defence and appear before its 'Commission'

3. Decide on appropriate punishment?

With the Tippet saga still not resolved, I highly doubt any penalties we might cop will be this year.

Just read The Age at lunchtime. I am thoroughly and absolutely depressed. Haven't go ttime to read thru 30 odd pages of this thread, to eek out any glimmer of hope. Is there any? Will it be pick 4 or worse??? Can someone summarise?

Well AFL hasn't asked the club for please explain yet? If we are found as guilty worst case scenario is Carlton like penalties for salary cap, the best case scenario is AFL will ban all people that instruct coach to tank for life and club gets away with a slap to the wrist?

Just read The Age at lunchtime. I am thoroughly and absolutely depressed. Haven't go ttime to read thru 30 odd pages of this thread, to eek out any glimmer of hope. Is there any? Will it be pick 4 or worse??? Can someone summarise?

1. Melbourne did stuff in 2009 that happens every year.

2. Some people in the football media are tired of playing solitaire for seven hours a day and have a limited understanding of list management, so have decided to appropriately embark on a witch hunt at this special time of the year.

3. It appears that when Melbourne engaged in some list management in 2009, perhaps some club officials with verbal diarrhoea may have been a fraction blunt in their directions to then coach Dean Bailey.

4. The list of people keen to stick the boots into the MFC isn't restricted to the media or the AFL however, and every loosely termed 'man' and his dog with an axe to grind with the club is lining up to kick the Demons in the proverbial plums.

5. There is no new intel to factually suggest what penalty if any the MFC will receive, other than the ramblings of some journalists keen for scandal and a 'big story' of the MFC being forced to squeal like a pig.

6. Any punishment dished out to the MFC at this or a later time may (hopefully) result in court action by the club.

7. In short, after 31 pages, we don't have a whole lot of substance, other than that this club may not have been the most cleverly run outfit in the land in recent times.

So who should be the next President Hazy?

Any ideas?

I don't give a F$&@k about the past anymore.

The club was in deep sh!t when Gardner left it & it's still there now.

Nil all draw

Now let's move forward...

No, I don't care to elaborate at length in this thread. Why don't you run a couple of forum searches for "sponsorship debacle" and "bloated off field department", that should get you started.

I not even sure I know what you are getting at with the agenda stuff - what difference would it make? I am here to talk about the club like everyone else. It's completely irrelevant and a waste of my time to write about it any further.

Yep picked it in one; you're either an ex employee or ex director that has a grip with the club and maybe was spurned by the new Board, either way your input is baised and not worth a pinch of [censored].

Now run away and report back to the rest of the disgruntled, they might want to hear your garbage we don't.

It has been reported that COLLINGWOOD president Eddie McGuire and former Melbourne president Paul Gardner have both expressed their dismay about the tanking allegations against the Demons, and they both have come out strongly criticising the AFL for putting a system in place that provided a disincentive to win games.

Eddie McGuire has been quoted as saying that the incentive for clubs to win no more than four games in a season in consecutive years, providing them with a priority pick, was flawed.

Eddie has applied a very old quote in criticising the system

He reportedly said

"You can't blame the cat for swallowing the cream if you put the cream out in front of it.''

http://www.news.com....k-1226507551208

So who's feet does the actual blame fall at ? is it the AFL? and if it is the AFL then how can it be left up to them to be the judge us of what is or isnt tanking ???

Add to that the amount of negative press received to date over this issue and how could any other club let alone Melbourne expect a fair hearing anyway.

The Melbourne Football Club would no doubtbly be thrown to the wolves should this be interpreted and proven to have happened and they would use us the MFC as Sacrificial lambs , to relieve the pressure.

But where does it stop then ? As we all know there are many other Clubs that have done the same or even more than what we supposedly have done. My question is, would this trigger more investigations or they get their pound of meat would they then be Mulified ?

Or is this going to trigger a whole range of other investigations into other Clubs who have done more than ourselves in the pursuit of the same sort of success and yet still have to be held accountable .

If this was the case I wouldnt be surprised to see the MFC and all its supporters and other clubs March on AFL house in a day of action should this occur that Melbourne be extremly penalised, because many clubs by rights would then have to answer to the same if not more.

We all know the AFL is destroying the game with their constant interference as well as there continual ongoing changes they seek to introduce each year to persuade us that they still have relevence. Lets just hope they have enough sense to realise that the Melbourne Football club did not Tank but just pursued the enticements that the AFL put in place to help the MFC amongst others once more become a success

1.........

7. In short, after 31 pages, we don't have a whole lot of substance, other than that this club may not have been the most cleverly run outfit in the land in recent times.

boom boom !!

go Eddie... Hes a funny begger !! lol

So who should be the next President Hazy?

Good question - can I count on your support? hahahah.

And the club has yet to say Boo !! Theyre not nearly as silly as some here would have them id suggest.

First Sandy blows over and we have Caro.. Both substantially nothing but inclement bundles of wind !!

I've always liked McChins and if he was our president we would not be in this. I really believe this.

As this [censored] gets deeper I think we will see many more opposition figure heads come out and defend us, in a way they are defending their own clubs too.

This is certainly gaining momentum, as long as the findings are after we use pick 4 I will be relieved. All I want to do is take full advantage of this draft and then deal with the repercussions latter. If those repercussions are a board spill then so be it. I have to be honest, I am sick of this constant controversy we are in and am prepared for us to do whatever it takes to put an end to it!

Good question - can I count on your support? hahahah.

wed have to know who you are first !!

Yep picked it in one; you're either an ex employee or ex director that has a grip with the club and maybe was spurned by the new Board, either way your input is baised and not worth a pinch of [censored].

Now run away and report back to the rest of the disgruntled, they might want to hear your garbage we don't.

My input is well informed, well considered and, I dare say, well expressed. It is also typically ignored by people who find it uncomfortable to read and who typically prefer to take out there frustrations on me instead of addressing the issue.

Seriously though, our club has wasted golden opportunities on and off the field over the last 4 years, not to mention a lot of good will from supporters. I don't think this is really a matter for dispute anymore.

If he really cared for the club rather than his own self interest he would never have publicly stated what he did about the tanking issue. That's the problem with our leadership for years on end. People running their own agenda rather than running a football club/million dollar business. It existed under Gardner and it exists now. it's why we're seen us a joke and why the ultimate prize is so far away. Oh and it's also because of people like yourself pouring your vitriol upon us.

that's right. Absolute joke. the people with an agenda who have made those investigating aware of 'fresh information', will come to light.

Their intentions may have been to punish individuals in doing so. However much larger ramifications may result, by punishing the whole club and it's supporters. They'll have underestimated the fallout. And to think it won't affect the current playing group, they're sadly mistaken. they will have unravelled all the good work undertaken by the Stynes/Mclardy admin. It's not hard to work out who. some have shown their head today, clearly by knowing proceedings of investigation before they bacame public - even those who have shared their knowledge of 186 previosuly here, but nothing further to add today - or so they say.

what have we wasted OFF the field ?

Good question - can I count on your support? hahahah.

not until i know who you are and what your agenda is.

I don't find this current issue funny at all btw.

I know you are having a ball though. Maybe 2.

the Betting Agencies will insist on it.

This problem is not just going to go away sadly. It is getting bigger.

Too many have spoken now.

Do we know for sure who the unnamed second player is yet for sure?

Or is it a guess...?

Sorry but 100% wrong - the betting agencies will insist on what ? fairness in betting like the Kreuzer cup, like GWS resting players last year ? Betting agencies are aware of the vagaries of any sport which is allowed to gamble on and have constantly over the years let the official bodies administer the fairness to the game and the punter. Betting agencies live by the "buyer beware" policy. They do not get involved in getting sporting bodies to clean up their anomolies (or they would have never have taken a bet on cycling or boxing).

So you are saying the AFL has 23 days (15 business days) before the ND to:

1. Complete its investigation

2. Give Melbourne time to prepare its defence and appear before its 'Commission'

3. Decide on appropriate punishment?

With the Tippet saga still not resolved, I highly doubt any penalties we might cop will be this year.

The AFL has been investigating this for months, and I do expect findings to be released well before the draft. Can you point me to any rule that gives Melbourne the right to prepare a defence? I doubt they have such a right. As far as a punishment is concerned, the AFL has probably already decided one.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want anything like this to happen, but be assured that the AFL wants this whole matter resolved quickly.

It is completely different to rest players as they are not "in any match". But when you turn up on the day - be it as coach, assistant coach or player then you are bound by the rule.

Also I think you will find the teams who rest players don't do it to lose, they still usually win because they do it against weaker sides.

Disagree. Its the same thing as a club not trying its best to win a match.

The AFL has been investigating this for months, and I do expect findings to be released well before the draft. Can you point me to any rule that gives Melbourne the right to prepare a defence? I doubt they have such a right. As far as a punishment is concerned, the AFL has probably already decided one.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want anything like this to happen, but be assured that the AFL wants this whole matter resolved quickly.

of course we can prepare a defence. It would be happening right now.

Many silks support the Demons.