http://www.heraldsun...5-1226506969336

Bev returns fire. Loving the reference to McLean's ironic move to Carlton. So this is what balanced media feels like.

Can you copy and paste that article onto the site...Im not a subscriber

So he was either ignorant ("passively involved") and therefore incompetent, or just plain incompetent. Which one do you think it was?

Also, whilst I'm not about to excuse Bailey for dropping a hint on his way out, I wonder if it ever would have happened if his sacking had been handled with even the slightest bit of professionalism. I can imagine what it would have been like to have had to justify your bad win/loss as a departing coach after being hung out to dry by a bunch of blokes who instructed you to lose games and then betrayed you in a private meeting where they decided to keep their interfering mate instead. He should have at least been given an opportunity to resign.

I suppose you think Gardiner was right in his little dig at the club. Talk about fark wit

Can you copy and paste that article onto the site...Im not a subscriber

To get around it, cut and paste the title in your search engine and then click on the article and it appears in full.

So.... How might this affect our current draft position??

If we lost our picks do we lose Viney, Barry, Hogan?

To get around it, cut and paste the title in your search engine and then click on the article and it appears in full.

Thanks

So he was either ignorant ("passively involved") and therefore incompetent, or just plain incompetent. Which one do you think it was?

Or there are other circumstances unknown to you, or me. Maybe I should guess ?

Right now I'm less concerned by who made the errors, as what is done is done. I'm more concerned by how the situation is handled from here.

Unlike you, I don't close my mind to differing opinions, options, circumstances, or outcomes.

I personally don't believe that we tanked. But I might be wrong. If I am, and we did tank, then those were my opinions on what may/will/should happen.

Is that so hard to understand?

Geez, easy now turbo. Was only making an observation.

I generally am happy to keep an open mind about most topics, I'm just really concerned about this particular one. Just for you though, the opposite to what I'm thinking is that we didn't tank, and there will be no case to answer. See, I can do it.

who cares?

You obviously do Oli, as you kindly replied to my post directed at a differnet poster.

OK. I tried this before but people haven't seemed to have cottoned on, so I'll try again.

The reason why the AFL isn't currently looking at Fremantle resting it's players, or Carlton, or any other club so far, even though they all did the same things we did, is because there is one thing about us that is different. This meeting and evidence stuff.

As I've said before, the experimentation, the list management and the rehab, all that on-field stuff, is not tanking. The AFL 'investigated' it earlier, and agreed. So that is not what they care about, and that's why there aren't any other investigations into other clubs.

The reason why this is all happening is because there is, apparently, evidence to suggest that we did those things not simply because we wanted to experiment with player positions or rest players for the benefit of their health, but that we did them all with a goal to lower our competitiveness and try to end the year with a priority pick.

Whether this is true or not remains to be seen. But if the investigation concludes that we did in fact have a meeting in 2009 where senior people sat down and said 'what can we do to get the priority pick', and then we went out and did those things, then that is probably tanking. And until there is evidence about the same thing going on at Fremantle/Hawthorn/Carlton/Hawthorn/WB/Richmond, there won't be any stories about them.

Keep hearing the media witch hunt is related to a hate of CS.What did he do to so many different media parasites to have them all so focused on the MFC?

Keep hearing the media witch hunt is related to a hate of CS.What did he do to so many different media parasites to have them all so focused on the MFC?

It's not a media witch-hunt

They've caught up to what the AFL is doing and they're reporting it.

It's just wrong and incorrectly targeted is all

I think Jon Ralph is on wednesdays. They swapped people around the last few weeks. He isnt to bad.

I think you'll be disappointed. Ralph is the one who has consistently given this story air. He is a freaking zealot on the topic.

He'll be in his element - except for the fact that Caro has scooped him when it got hot.

Or there are other circumstances unknown to you, or me. Maybe I should guess ?

Right now I'm less concerned by who made the errors, as what is done is done. I'm more concerned by how the situation is handled from here.

Poorly I would guess. If officials from our club confirm Connolly' s meeting (oh my that was beyond stupid) then the AFL need to act. The club better stand up and fight this all the way. We can't afford to lose picks this year or next. Can you imagine if we lost pick 4 and then our first rounders next year. It doesn't bear thinking about. When this is over some resignations need to occur

Or there are other circumstances unknown to you, or me. Maybe I should guess ?

Right now I'm less concerned by who made the errors, as what is done is done. I'm more concerned by how the situation is handled from here.

I'm concerned if those who made the errors (= monumental [censored] up) are still at the helm. Lots of players gone (no complaint from me) but where's the governance renewal. Whiteboard Wednesday, anyone?

OK. I tried this before but people haven't seemed to have cottoned on, so I'll try again.

The reason why the AFL isn't currently looking at Fremantle resting it's players, or Carlton, or any other club so far, even though they all did the same things we did, is because there is one thing about us that is different. This meeting and evidence stuff.

As I've said before, the experimentation, the list management and the rehab, all that on-field stuff, is not tanking. The AFL 'investigated' it earlier, and agreed. So that is not what they care about, and that's why there aren't any other investigations into other clubs.

The reason why this is all happening is because there is, apparently, evidence to suggest that we did those things not simply because we wanted to experiment with player positions or rest players for the benefit of their health, but that we did them all with a goal to lower our competitiveness and try to end the year with a priority pick.

Whether this is true or not remains to be seen. But if the investigation concludes that we did in fact have a meeting in 2009 where senior people sat down and said 'what can we do to get the priority pick', and then we went out and did those things, then that is probably tanking. And until there is evidence about the same thing going on at Fremantle/Hawthorn/Carlton/Hawthorn/WB/Richmond, there won't be any stories about them.

Of course the folly of your argument is that, whether other clubs say it better, they were doing exactly what we were doing. They were coaching for their next premiership. So a club that doesn't actually say the words "lose" but talks about being "strategically positioned for the draft" is guilty of nothing, but a club that wants to be less competitive so as to attract a priority pick is guilty of grievous crimes? Come on. It's exactly the same things, different words.

If we have been dumb enough to be that corporate stupid to use "tanking" language in a meeting with 10 people, then we are a stupid club. It wouldn't surprise me, because I think we took the bottom out thing way too far, and it was indicative of a poor culture.

Or there are other circumstances unknown to you, or me. Maybe I should guess ?

Right now I'm less concerned by who made the errors, as what is done is done. I'm more concerned by how the situation is handled from here.

I haven't seen a squib like that since

.

Of course the folly of your argument is that, whether other clubs say it better, they were doing exactly what we were doing. They were coaching for their next premiership. So a club that doesn't actually say the words "lose" but talks about being "strategically positioned for the draft" is guilty of nothing, but a club that wants to be less competitive so as to attract a priority pick is guilty of grievous crimes? Come on. It's exactly the same things, different words.

There is a difference between 'let's do X/Y/Z to begin preparing for the 2013 season' and 'let's do X/Y/Z to deliberately attempt to get a priority draft pick'. The AFL can't stop the former, but it doesn't like, and will try to stop, the latter. But it can't do that unless there is proof that a club actually is trying to do that.

If we've had a meeting where we've sat down and looked at ways we can try to lose games (or be less competitive) to get a priority pick in that year, then that's tanking, and the AFL will punish us for it. it's insanely dumb of us, but it's tanking. If they can't find evidence of that, then we're going to be able to hide behind the shield that all clubs use, which is the legitimate purpose of preparing for future seasons.

There is a difference, though, and the reason why this investigation is back open and going full steam ahead again is, supposedly, because evidence to suggest the latter of the two approaches has been found.

Second Melbourne player comes forward to reveal coach Dean Bailey was under pressure to lose matches. This is on the herald sun website. I cant get into the article but the headline is Tanks for the Kids.

Face it we are stuffed.

Second Melbourne player comes forward to reveal coach Dean Bailey was under pressure to lose matches. This is on the herald sun website. I cant get into the article but the headline is Tanks for the Kids.

Face it we are stuffed.

Tell you what, that ****head should at least have the balls to put his name to the comments.

Don't hide behind the 'source' [censored] if you're going to say that.

Herald Sun weighs into the debate:

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/second-melbourne-player-comes-forward-to-reveal-coach-dean-bailey-was-under-pressure-to-lose-matches/story-fndv7pj3-1226506978308

And also: http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/toxic-culture-blamed-as-the-afls-tanking-probe-into-the-melbourne-demons-deepens/story-fndv7pj3-1226507008112

Caro's article tomorrow: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/secrets-from-the-vault-20121030-28hpt.html

The quotes from the unnamed player:

"It was disgusting what was going on and you felt for Bails because everyone knew he was under the pump to lose," said the player, who the Herald Sun agreed not to name.

"Players had meetings and asked him what was going on but there was nothing he could do.

"The club had a plan. They wanted the two kids, (Tom) Scully and (Jack) Trengove and you just shook your head.

"You'd work your butt off in the pre-season and hang up all these words in the gym and the change rooms or whatever and what did it all mean? Nothing.

"Players were never told to lose. They were just rested and played out of position. (Backman) Matthew Warnock would play full-forward and (forward) Paul Johnson would play full-back."

Source: http://www.heraldsun...o-1226506978308

I bet its a player that has been de listed. Couldnt imagine it being a senior player at our club. At least have the guts to name them. Dont hide behind a newspaper article. However it says the players were never told to lose. So if the un named player has said that then wouldnt that mean we didnt tank and go to lose on purpose. So I guess the blame goes to the coaching staff. Was Brian Royal there at the time. Just wondering.

I dont thiink Dean Bailey would be feeling to good right now.

I'm no troll I just don't have faith that those 3 are upto the job of leading this club back to the top.

Schwab was basically sacked prior to 186, he put us in bed with a poor quality major sponsor who we then removed, He and Connolly treated Bailey as a muppet. None of them have come out on the front foot over the tanking claims because they organised a meeting, called it the vault, broadcast the obvious to all in the room. Now if thats not utter incompetance then what is.The club is still struggling financially save a tin rattle. Our membership numbers are poor and the football community treat us like a joke.

It took intervention from a reluctant Lyon to once again select our coach.

I'm sorry if my opinion of them differs from yours but I don't have confidence in them and I'll bet I'm not alone there

I feel the same way 'Roost It' and have for a fair while now. I think Neeld and the new FD will always be pushing up hill unless changes are made, we had the chance to clean the slate after 186 and blew it by taking the easy option to sack the coach. He should have been joined by another couple at that time. Yes it would have caused a level of instability but nothing like the instability we have faced over the last year and a bit that is still not settled.

The quotes from the unnamed player:

"It was disgusting what was going on and you felt for Bails because everyone knew he was under the pump to lose," said the player, who the Herald Sun agreed not to name.

"Players had meetings and asked him what was going on but there was nothing he could do.

"The club had a plan. They wanted the two kids, (Tom) Scully and (Jack) Trengove and you just shook your head.

"You'd work your butt off in the pre-season and hang up all these words in the gym and the change rooms or whatever and what did it all mean? Nothing.

"Players were never told to lose. They were just rested and played out of position. (Backman) Matthew Warnock would play full-forward and (forward) Paul Johnson would play full-back."

Source: http://www.heraldsun...o-1226506978308

****

We're ****ed.

Did Dwayne Russell really compare JIm Stynes to Lance Armstrong on his show tonight. I just read it on demonolgy. He's a disgrace if he did.

I feel the same way 'Roost It' and have for a fair while now. I think Neeld and the new FD will always be pushing up hill unless changes are made, we had the chance to clean the slate after 186 and blew it by taking the easy option to sack the coach. He should have been joined by another couple at that time. Yes it would have caused a level of instability but nothing like the instability we have faced over the last year and a bit that is still not settled.

Agreed. Big changes are needed, and I'd be surprised if they don't follow soon after the AFL's response.

Schwab's involvement in this saga is unclear. However, it's hard to imagine him not being involved - given the rumblings of his unwelcome football department involvement early in his tenure.