On 30/10/2012 at 06:44, Demon Disciple said:

I will say however, the silence coming out of our club is deafening. Surely someone would come out and defend the club, surely. I don't care if Don re-iterates that we'll strongly oppose any penalties, something must be said.

I believe that the club has said it won't comment until the investigation is concluded.

Not sure I agree with a total lack of comment, but I guess there are ramifications associated with saying things.

A simple denial wouldn't hurt, I suppose.

  On 30/10/2012 at 06:44, Demon Disciple said:

I will say however, the silence coming out of our club is deafening. Surely someone would come out and defend the club, surely. I don't care if Don re-iterates that we'll strongly oppose any penalties, something must be said.

That was said in the article. Said they would fight any sanctions and bring the other clubs over the last 10 years into it.

  On 30/10/2012 at 06:48, Deemotivated said:

You don't need to be a genius to see why Bailey would choose to lay his barbs about tanking but its still a low dog act. It was to be expected i guess but he will forever be a piece of sh!t in my eyes. McLean is dog a hypocrite...

If Mahoney has rolled over on us then he needs to be shown the door too...

The biggest worry here is the punishment Carlton copped.... so lets hope if we're found guilty that the AFL realize we've already punished ourselves with horrendous drafting with the picks better than they could have done by taking our picks off us!!

Bailey isn't a dog. He was told how to coach by the same people who paid him.

The blame goes higher...

  On 30/10/2012 at 06:52, Striker475 said:

A few things.

- When did this 2009 meeting take place?

If the meeting was, say, between rounds 12 and 14, when Melbourne sat on a grand total of one win and were out of the finals hunt, what does it then get interpreted as? There was no hope by that point of Melbourne playing finals, so getting some 'experimentation' in and testing players for different roles is probably useful by that point.

- Were any members of the administration involved?

While Wilson 'alludes' to Schwab being 'involved', does actual presence at the meeting require the sanction or is it just being at the club?

- What are the ramifications for other sides?

Carlton 2007, West Coast 2010, Collingwood, Hawthorn. Cases to answer.

The other clubs dont have cases to answer because they dont roll over like dogs and lag on each other, the clubs its own worst enemy.

  On 30/10/2012 at 06:53, titan_uranus said:

I believe that the club has said it won't comment until the investigation is concluded.

Not sure I agree with a total lack of comment, but I guess there are ramifications associated with saying things.

A simple denial wouldn't hurt, I suppose.

In Don Mclardy's only comment on the issue made after Brock's comments, according to the AFL's tweet about an hour ago, he said that Melbourne would defend its integrity in the "strongest fashion". No word on whether he was talking about Peter Werth suits.

  On 30/10/2012 at 06:54, Redleg said:

That was said in the article. Said they would fight any sanctions and bring the other clubs over the last 10 years into it.

No they didn't. A journo writes 'it is understood that they will do x' is not an official statement by the club.

  On 30/10/2012 at 06:46, why you little said:

absolutely Mr. Leg. The AFL are wide open on this if it goes to a court of law...

You better believe it. Not to mention every other thing the AFL does that is not absolutely equal to every team. Fixturing. Draft concessions. Approval of contract breaking, Scully etc. Allowing 3rd party deals for Blues on Judd but not others, like us to keep Scully. Salary cap increases for some clubs. Larger lists for some clubs. Interfering in games after the result, Freo/Saints. Putting AFL officials into clubs. etc, etc, etc.

  On 30/10/2012 at 06:49, sue said:

the club has to carefully consider what to say, if anything, unlike us posters. It is a mistake to respond instantly every time the media says jump.

We may have been told to say nothing.

  On 30/10/2012 at 06:55, why you little said:

Bailey isn't a dog. He was told how to coach by the same people who paid hin.

The blame goes higher...

Yeah I agree it goes higher but he threw his little barbs in the aftermath to screw us over.... Dog act for mine.

Ill bet he isn't the first or last AFL coach asked by a club hierarchy to compromise himself for the good of the club but most choose to shut up and walk away with some sense of dignity.

  On 30/10/2012 at 06:58, sue said:

No they didn't. A journo writes 'it is understood that they will do x' is not an official statement by the club.

Fair enough. I just re read that part.

Were we tanking earlier this year when we played Rivers and Garland in the forward line?

I think not.

IMO it is actually okay to play players out of their traditional position. In fact, playing Dunn across half back saved his career.

  On 30/10/2012 at 07:01, Deemotivated said:

Yeah I agree it goes higher but he threw his little barbs in the aftermath to screw us over.... Dog act for mine.

Ill bet he isn't the first or last AFL coach asked by a club hierarchy to compromise himself for the good of the club but most choose to shut up and walk away with some sense of dignity.

he was asked a question as i recall. If he had said nothing it still would have looked dodgy.

I actually have some sympathy for Dean, but i know not everyone will feel that way.

Others should have walked on the same day imo.

Only Melbourne are capable of stuffing this up; I'm speechless.

One thing however I got a call from Connolly a couple of months ago and he told me at the time that he was now working with the MCC; I'm not sure if he meant he was with them, or as a liaison between them and the Football club but it was interesting.

  On 30/10/2012 at 05:16, Undeeterred said:

No big deal - that will upgrade our pick 49 to 48.

And means we got pick 87 for Cale!!

  On 30/10/2012 at 05:57, The Lobster Effect said:

Just looked up what happened to Carlton in 2002, wasn't flash!

• $1M fine
  
• Loss of draft picks No. 1, 2, 31 and 34 from the 2002 National Draft
  
• Loss of all draft picks in the 2003 Preseason Draft
  
• Loss of first and second round draft picks in the 2003 National Draft
  

Carlton were penalised for breaching strict AFL rules. The Demons have broken no rules.

  On 30/10/2012 at 06:31, thaipantsman said:

This is a poor comment. Nothing has been proven. All must be tested. Media is not court.

You are probably right mate, should have used the words if proved true...

I am however worried about the governance of the club if it is and surely nobody would be stupid enough to have a meeting, a quiet word in the ear should be enough.

  On 30/10/2012 at 07:06, why you little said:

he was asked a question as i recall. If he had said nothing it still would have looked dodgy.

I actually have some sympathy for Dean, but i know not everyone will feel that way.

Others should have walked on the same day imo.

I have sympathy for Bailey and the situation he may well have been put in if the rumor and innuendo is actually proved to be true.

There seems to be a lot of focus being put on us on a day where Adelaide are still in massive trouble and a StKilda player is arrested in the pre season.... again.

Bring on the report into these allegations..... until then its all just speculation.

  On 30/10/2012 at 06:56, mjt said:

The other clubs dont have cases to answer because they dont roll over like dogs and lag on each other, the clubs its own worst enemy.

Other clubs also haven;t had a 3-month investigation into them run by an "internationally recognised Police investigator".

I'm sure if a similarly thorough investigation was run into Carlton 2007 (or any of the others) then someone would roll over and things would come out.

  On 30/10/2012 at 06:45, pantaloons said:

This whole thing reeks of an over zealous AFL media with too many journalists and not enough genuine stories to cover. It's the biggest little story I've ever seen in any sport.

This really made me LOL! Its such a little story to DL's that there are 14 pages of posts today and counting...

Don't you love a squealer. Tough year, do we need any more?

  On 30/10/2012 at 07:38, pikeout said:

Don't you love a squealer. Tough year, do we need any more?

far from over yet. Bunker down.

Too old.

Is anyone brave enough to mention the elephant in the room?

Maybe we knew theres a good chance we will get smashed and loose draft picks next year? Maybe thats why we used pick 3 & 13 to secure Hogan now, because next year our 1st pick could be 60!

An investigation into any meeting held by Hawthorn, Collingwood or Carltank in their years of being at the bottom, will have to occur. Who is the person who is actually going to say "yes we agreed to tank".

Cannot see that happening. It has to be inuendo or hearsay.

If Bailey was to be proven guilty of such a statement. surely he would be sanctioned. I hope Melbourne is ready to take this to the High Court.

Brock Mcclean you are a 'wombat' ! you transferred to the Club who must be found guilty of tanking if Melbourne was ever found to have tanked. Certainly no player would deliberately tank.