Caroline Wilson's descent into gutter journalism

[dee-luded 2,959]

It also struck me as interesting that in the same week the papers saturated us all with the tanking subject, Falau quit the Giants. It got them through the heavy scrutiny that would have normally would have followed that event didnt it.

Whether that was the Giants acting independently and just being smart in their timing or the whole thing was somewhat more orchestrated is something to think about. Tippett goes through to the draft one week, and the door opens for the Giants to get him if they have salary cap space. The next week suddenly after 5 months of relative calm, the whole tanking story explodes with a series of probable AFL leaks and Falau quits in the middle of it. We lose face Giants save it.

I just smell a rat in there somewhere...

There are changes afoot, & vlad was on record re 'List Management'. the priority pick is gone & now in the hands solely of the AFL. Gillon Mclauchlan was nearly a NRL official but didn't. Vlad does U turn re 'list management'. is he clearing the decks for transition?

power struggles are the name of all games worldwide, it appears, as if it were in the etha?

change is inevitable, but we must stand, & stand firm for what we believe & need.

#Edit: If vlad is thinking of clearing off & cleaning the desk for a newby to come sit behind, he may want to sponge away any smelly perceptions lingering under the desk.

Edited November 4, 2012 by dee-luded

[dee-luded 2,959]

There's a few rats chewing at this carcass.

After a week of this I'm inclined to agree with Ben Hur that either the smoking gun doesn't exist or it won't be found.

It's been a [censored] week for the club but I'm beginning to feel that we're going to walk away from this minus a couple of employees and an AFL orchestrated "Fine" that will be imposed with a few stern words to show them puffing their chests. The [censored] that should follow us getting booked on this is something the AFL's don't want. Too many fat snouts at the trough. Corporates rarely if ever punish their own, it's way too intertwined.

I've lost what little respect I had left for the Age and have been appalled at the journalism of Caroline Wilson. I honestly thought she was better than that. Her last few have us guilty, convicted and sentenced without barely a mention of the 6 or so other clubs that have done this. It's not journalism it's a form of kangaroo court.

I think my "tipping point" just became a blur again.

To borrow a phrase from others

Go Demons Unleash hell

I'd still like to understand who's been hiding under her skirt.

#Edit:

Edited November 4, 2012 by dee-luded

[Hannibal 5,814]

The allegation that Connolly threatened people with losing their jobs if the team kept winning is probably the most damning allegation so far.

Connolly has a strong and dry wit. By saying that Stynes will fall out of his hospital bed when he finds out we've won is a perfect example of his humour. Melbourne's not wanting to win was a hot topic at the time and the club knew its best interests weren't served by winning, so clearly there was much ammunition for Connolly to use his well known levity around the club. The written word doesn't always explain context, timing, or tongue in cheek remarks. As is often said, you had to be there.

That's my take on it. And is my assertion not more logical than the proposition that he actually meant what he said ? Who really thinks that Connolly would say if we win games you'll lose your job and believe he meant it ? It's no doubt the type of joke that comes back to haunt you if you've got disgruntled ex-employees plotting your demise.

[titan_uranus 25,020]

Connolly has a strong and dry wit. By saying that Stynes will fall out of his hospital bed when he finds out we've won is a perfect example of his humour. Melbourne's not wanting to win was a hot topic at the time and the club knew its best interests weren't served by winning, so clearly there was much ammunition for Connolly to use his well known levity around the club. The written word doesn't always explain context, timing, or tongue in cheek remarks. As is often said, you had to be there.

That's my take on it. And is my assertion not more logical than the proposition that he actually meant what he said ? Who really thinks that Connolly would say if we win games you'll lose your job and believe he meant it ? It's no doubt the type of joke that comes back to haunt you if you've got disgruntled ex-employees plotting your demise.

I couldn't agree more with this post.

This, to me, is a perfect example of how Caro has taken little tid-bits and blown them out of proportion to suit an agenda. Her evidence is pathetically weak.

[BIG JIM 508]

Im sick to death with CW and her attack on the MFC.

I think if the MFC is made to be the whipping boy for AFL tanking we members should stand as one and let the AFL know we will not stand for a media driven witch hunt.

CW should never be allowed access to any player or staff member from the MFC for the rest of her days.

Brock cant wait to see your big smile when Carlton come's under fire when there done ripping the heart out of the MFC.

MFC FIRST & FOREVER

[What 18,810]

Clock ticking for Demons

The writer of the article forgets to mention we had to have time for our defence too.

My goodness.

I suggest everyone looks at this article.,

How the Offical AFL site can publish this crap and expect anyone to believe that the MFC is being treated fairly in this saga,

That article is nothing out propaganda, and I am [censored] off.

So obvious that Vlad and his mates are just trying to justify the money they have put into their new 'Integrity' department and that [censored] Brett Clothier, the integrity officer. And we are the victims.

Seems like they need to hire another Integrity officer to check the Integrity of their laughable Integrity department.

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,602]

It will be interesting what CS and CC have to say after this is all over. Cant wait for the response. Its fairly obvious why Scully left now, apart form the cash and if I was him id probably wouldnt want to be at the club either.

Dean Bailey although not all his fault when pressure comes to you can be a person that gets walked over eaily. The players did and I bet Neeld was in charge and club people came to him about losing to get draft picks neeld would give them a very solid response back and wouldnt let it happen.

Why are so many people SOOO short sighted that they actually believe that what she has written - given her factual track record in other issues - is concrete evidence of what factually occured?

[GawnWithTheWind 604]

Sorry if this has already been addressed, SMH reported that if we lose our first and second round picks.. Viney would be gawn?

I thought as long as we had a pick in the draft, we can still take him.

He has also signed a contract I believe?

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,602]

Good find, Clint

Checkmate...

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,602]

When one peels back all of the layers of speculation, innuendo, hearsay, etc. it seems to me that the only supposed smoking gun in this entire "tanking" investigation is the discovery of a scheduled meeting in a room known as the vault where it was apparently noted that winning games of footy wasn't in the best interests of the club from a draft perspective. Unless I'm mistaken that seems to be about the extent of it. Connolly's dry sense of humour on another occasion not withstanding. All of the other pieces of "evidence" are merely positional moves and a feeling from some former players that the club didn't want to win games, even though those players acknowledge that they were never instructed to under-perform. It all gets back to this supposedly clandestine meeting where perhaps 3 people present have noted that the club discussed the ramifications of winning. If there is stronger evidence than that it certainly hasn't been released. And merely noting that winning wouldn't help the club was merely a statement of fact and by itself doesn't necessarily amount to any breach of the game's laws, or intent to do so. It hasn't been reported anywhere that following the comments "winning wouldn't be in the best interests of the club" it was stated "and this is what we're going to orchestrate to ensure we don't". If those comments took place I'm sure it would have been reported and the contents of this meeting would be far more damaging. This meeting was also a common place meeting that was standard practice for the football department, which is at odds with the impression given in Wilson's initial article.

If the above comments are a fair representation of the investigation thus far it's little wonder that this matter hasn't been concluded in over 3 months. That's right, 3 months. If the evidence was any better it would have been leaked to Wilson and the club would already have been asked to explain themselves to the AFL Commission. There's an inference that there's a lot more to come out, but I'm not so sure. At worst I can see circumstantial evidence, which wouldn't be easy to prove, or penalise. But I'm no lawyer.

There's an overwhelming perception that the club will be heavily sanctioned and it's simply a matter of time. And while this may be correct I have a feeling that it's not as straight forward as being made out. Unless, of course, the real smoking gun happens to surface. Hopefully there are no incriminating emails that are about to be uncovered.

great post.

[titan_uranus 25,020]

Sorry if this has already been addressed, SMH reported that if we lose our first and second round picks.. Viney would be gawn?

I thought as long as we had a pick in the draft, we can still take him.

He has also signed a contract I believe?

The rule is as stated on the AFL's own website: http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=66411

'If a bid is made, the club that nominated the father-son player must use its next available selection if it wishes to retain its hold on that player'.

Thus, if the AFL takes 27 off us, we'd just have to use our next pick, whatever that is, and we'd still have him.

[GawnWithTheWind 604]

The rule is as stated on the AFL's own website: http://www.afl.com.a...px?newsid=66411

'If a bid is made, the club that nominated the father-son player must use its next available selection if it wishes to retain its hold on that player'.

Thus, if the AFL takes 27 off us, we'd just have to use our next pick, whatever that is, and we'd still have him.

Thanks TU

There is a large grey area due to the bidding already completed, and if we lose 4 and 27.. no chance of them saying " bad luck, game on for Viney now "?

[GawnWithTheWind 604]

So is it almost safe to say that:

If we are found guilty, we will lose picks in the 13, 14 drafts possibly? Too hard for our list to gather the required numbers without the ND?

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,602]

As I said in another thread according to the AFL the worst draft-related penalty they can impose is the removal of all draft picks and then the allowance of the bottom four draft picks in the draft, meaning we would still get viney (and given our previous drafting might actually have more luck?).

Here are some points that have been raised to me in the last 72 hours from various people:

1. In the media they know that reader's attention spans arent that long - they have milked the story in the last four days or so but if they had any damning evidence it would have come out by now because if it does in a fortnights time people have already gotten over the story. So her damning evidence when looked at the context of where it came from isnt really that damning.

2. There is a rumour circulating that the AFL have already told the MFC that we will be found to have brought the game into disrepute by allowing our actions to be interpretated as demeaning the integrity of the game. According to this rumour we will get full access to this draft but may lose access to our first rounder next season and some premiership points. We wont be found guilty of tanking according to this rumour.

3. Its interesting that the article that appeared today on the AFL website suggest that this investigation (purely into the demons) will finally 'put the issue of tanking to bed once and for all.' Does that mean that the AFL considers now that tanking does exist but only when MFC did it?

4. Why would theAFL allegedly leak this story? Why would they chose to leak it to Caro? Why did an AFL source allegedly leak the Misfud story and when it was proven baseless who looked stupid? Why have they chosen to leak the story now after four months of investigation at the same time that Adelaide is under investigation for serious issues and Israel has chosen to sneak out the back door? Why would the AFL compromise the 3rd-party perception that the investigation will be fair and honest by allegedly leaking small amounts of information or allegations?

5. I wonder if there is any truth to the rumour that the AFL view our current administration as being too big for its boots?

But think about this whole scenario in the context of a criminal investigation. Flippant comments made four years ago to a room of people who allegedly have differing recollections of those comments is hardly damning evidence that those comments were endorsed, or that they constituted a directive to staff, players or coaches to lose at all costs or fix a match.

MFC is clearly being made an example of by the media. it remains to be seen whether we will also be made an example of by the AFL.

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,602]

So is it almost safe to say that:

If we are found guilty, we will lose picks in the 13, 14 drafts possibly? Too hard for our list to gather the required numbers without the ND?

neeld is on record as saying they believe they already have enough young players. hence the top up for this core group of youngsters. I dont think he will be overly phased if we lose access to one pick in 2013.

[beelzebub 23,379]

So is it almost safe to say that:

If we are found guilty, we will lose picks in the 13, 14 drafts possibly? Too hard for our list to gather the required numbers without the ND?

If..everythings IF

guilty ? of what exactly ??

Lose ? Nothing. We would tie this up in court that long it would not only embarrass the AFL it would hamstring the draft and most that follows.

Some of you people are far too prepared to roll over

This far from over let alone defined.

In life when youre pushed...you push back. Sometimes harder.

Or perish !!

[monoccular 17,432]

As I said in another thread according to the AFL the worst draft-related penalty they can impose is the removal of all draft picks and then the allowance of the bottom four draft picks in the draft, meaning we would still get viney (and given our previous drafting might actually have more luck?).

Here are some points that have been raised to me in the last 72 hours from various people:

1. In the media they know that reader's attention spans arent that long - they have milked the story in the last four days or so but if they had any damning evidence it would have come out by now because if it does in a fortnights time people have already gotten over the story. So her damning evidence when looked at the context of where it came from isnt really that damning.

2. There is a rumour circulating that the AFL have already told the MFC that we will be found to have brought the game into disrepute by allowing our actions to be interpretated as demeaning the integrity of the game. According to this rumour we will get full access to this draft but may lose access to our first rounder next season and some premiership points. We wont be found guilty of tanking according to this rumour.

3. Its interesting that the article that appeared today on the AFL website suggest that this investigation (purely into the demons) will finally 'put the issue of tanking to bed once and for all.' Does that mean that the AFL considers now that tanking does exist but only when MFC did it?

4. Why would theAFL allegedly leak this story? Why would they chose to leak it to Caro? Why did an AFL source allegedly leak the Misfud story and when it was proven baseless who looked stupid? Why have they chosen to leak the story now after four months of investigation at the same time that Adelaide is under investigation for serious issues and Israel has chosen to sneak out the back door? Why would the AFL compromise the 3rd-party perception that the investigation will be fair and honest by allegedly leaking small amounts of information or allegations?

5. I wonder if there is any truth to the rumour that the AFL view our current administration as being too big for its boots?

But think about this whole scenario in the context of a criminal investigation. Flippant comments made four years ago to a room of people who allegedly have differing recollections of those comments is hardly damning evidence that those comments were endorsed, or that they constituted a directive to staff, players or coaches to lose at all costs or fix a match.

MFC is clearly being made an example of by the media. it remains to be seen whether we will also be made an example of by the AFL.

Maybe they could dock all our Premiership points since the alleged tanking took place - that could qualify us for about 8 more compensation picks, of which we could even get a couple right :-)))

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,602]

Has Hell's gate or Nudge made any posts on this issue?

[dee-luded 2,959]

Thanks TU

There is a large grey area due to the bidding already completed, and if we lose 4 and 27.. no chance of them saying " bad luck, game on for Viney now "?

I'd like to see 'em try that.

then we'll see all mother of a scrap, with all they're dirty skirts pulled out of the wash.

Monica leuwinski won't be the name about on everyones lips.

Lets hope some of Mother Teresa's influence sees the light of day.

[Outside fifty 967]

I'm sensing that this story has taken a different tack. Todays AGE has the Wilson rant buried well down the list of AFL related stories, number 11 in fact. Why would they lead with this story yesterday, and then by today try to bury it amongst the rest of their AFL related stories. I have a suspicion that Wilson hasn't got anything else to throw at us or maybe has been told to pull her head in. The AGE's senior Editor's would be trying to gauge which way the wind is blowing on this one and might have come to the conclusion that the story is running out of legs or starting to track negatively for them. I also like many on this forum get the Impression that we are being subjected to a public trial via the media with the AFL's tacit approval.It seems fairly obvious that information is being leaked from the investigation to the media. Why would they do this if they had sufficient evidence to act through the normal channels. Is it because as I believe, that they don't have sufficient evidence. I have a gut feeling that their investigation has faltered. This could be interpreted in several ways, are they either trying to flush out more evidence or is this one way of punishing us whist also sending out a clear message to all other clubs, whilst knowing that they will not be able to act against us once the finding are released? Why has all of this information been released two weeks ahead of the investigation deadline for reporting? Two weeks is an eternity in the media life cycle and the story could well be dead come reporting day. Then again I could be wrong and this could just be the calm before the storm. Either way it seems to me as though the AFL has deliberately compromised it's own investigation.One further point to consider. Wilson appears to have been the chosen AFL attack dog in this matter. This in itself seems strange given her strained relationship with AFL. I might be reading too much into this and crediting the AFL with Machiavellian prowess beyond their due, but given Wilson's obvious vendetta against Schwab, did they choose her because they knew that she would over step the mark as per Saturdays article. In effect deliberately compromising their own investigation whilst irrevocably damaging Wilson's own reputation within the Industry. Yeah a bit far fetched I guess but a nice thought though.

[Pirlo 813]

G'day guys, I post a fair bit on BigFooty but am in an exams period and found the temptation to stray from Demons talk too hard to resist. The board there, aside from the Dees board, is obviously rubbish - so I'm looking forward to contributing here until my final exam and beyond!

Caro is genuinely picking up on anything she can get her mitts on. I'm desperate that it's just her own desire to break a story thats driving this agenda, but I'm a bit afraid that she may be being fed the info to try and demonise (excuse the pun) us in the eyes of the AFL world. This too gives other tankers enough time to get their stories in order, meaning we may well be scapegoated.

I don't care about draft picks in the next season or two, but we must keep pick 4 and Viney at all costs. Cut a deal, whatever...just make sure they're playing for us in Rd 1.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

G'day guys, I post a fair bit on BigFooty but am in an exams period and found the temptation to stray from Demons talk too hard to resist. The board there, aside from the Dees board, is obviously rubbish - so I'm looking forward to contributing here until my final exam and beyond!

Caro is genuinely picking up on anything she can get her mitts on. I'm desperate that it's just her own desire to break a story thats driving this agenda, but I'm a bit afraid that she may be being fed the info to try and demonise (excuse the pun) us in the eyes of the AFL world. This too gives other tankers enough time to get their stories in order, meaning we may well be scapegoated.

I don't care bout draft picks in the next season or two, but we must keep pick 4 and Viney at all costs. Cut a deal, whatever...just make sure they're playing for us in Rd 1.

Welcome aboard.

[Biffen 12,943]

Welcome aboard.

Sparkling debut.

[hoopla 418]

I'm sensing that this story has taken a different tack. Todays AGE has the Wilson rant buried well down the list of AFL related stories, number 11 in fact. Why would they lead with this story yesterday, and then by today try to bury it amongst the rest of their AFL related stories. I have a suspicion that Wilson hasn't got anything else to throw at us or maybe has been told to pull her head in. The AGE's senior Editor's would be trying to gauge which way the wind is blowing on this one and might have come to the conclusion that the story is running out of legs or starting to track negatively for them. I also like many on this forum get the Impression that we are being subjected to a public trial via the media with the AFL's tacit approval.It seems fairly obvious that information is being leaked from the investigation to the media. Why would they do this if they had sufficient evidence to act through the normal channels. Is it because as I believe, that they don't have sufficient evidence. I have a gut feeling that their investigation has faltered. This could be interpreted in several ways, are they either trying to flush out more evidence or is this one way of punishing us whist also sending out a clear message to all other clubs, whilst knowing that they will not be able to act against us once the finding are released? Why has all of this information been released two weeks ahead of the investigation deadline for reporting? Two weeks is an eternity in the media life cycle and the story could well be dead come reporting day. Then again I could be wrong and this could just be the calm before the storm. Either way it seems to me as though the AFL has deliberately compromised it's own investigation.One further point to consider. Wilson appears to have been the chosen AFL attack dog in this matter. This in itself seems strange given her strained relationship with AFL. I might be reading too much into this and crediting the AFL with Machiavellian prowess beyond their due, but given Wilson's obvious vendetta against Schwab, did they choose her because they knew that she would over step the mark as per Saturdays article. In effect deliberately compromising their own investigation whilst irrevocably damaging Wilson's own reputation within the Industry. Yeah a bit far fetched I guess but a nice thought though.

I hope you are right

This morning there was an extraordinary article in the Age headed " Coaches will come good if everyone plays the long game: Coaches in transition should ignore the imposter of short-term results and focus on the future"

How do the editors reconcile this headline with yesterday's article which said it was "pathetic and disgusting for a club" to " conspire" to ignore short-term goals to improve itself in the long-term?

Yesterday's article was part of a long series of articles attacking an AFL club .Today's article was by Mr. Craig Foster defending a club they would like to succeed - the Melbourne Victory !!

[Redleg 40,942]

The allegation that Connolly threatened people with losing their jobs if the team kept winning is probably the most damning allegation so far.

Half the people in the room were recruiting people who have nothing to do with match day and are not coaches. To tell the whole room that you will all be sacked is obviously a joke. Then he leaves. He is trying to be funny which he has done at every function I have seen him at.

So he comes uninvited into a meeting and says "you will all be sacked if we lose the draft pick and Jimmy has fallen out of his hospital bed" and then leaves. Gee that sounds real serious. If he wanted to tank he need only quietly mention it to Bailey not in front of 15 witnesses.

Get a grip, it's a bloody joke.