This is the post I was responding to:

What is your point?

My point is this is an AFL investigation it isn't a court of law and the chances of it going to a court of law are minimal so anyone can say whatever they want without any legal ramifications, therefore there can be no perjury.

My point is this is an AFL investigation it isn't a court of law and the chances of it going to a court of law are minimal so anyone can say whatever they want without any legal ramifications, therefore there can be no perjury.

But you read the post I was replying to though, right? I mean, I quoted it for you and everything.

Edit: Also, don't forget stat decs, etc.

Edited October 31, 201212 yr by Hazyshadeofgrinter

Gardner has never deserved the harsh treatment he gets on this forum. Like many people here, he cares deeply for the club and objects strongly to tanking.

It can't have been easy for him to have to watch his successors run the club into the ground.

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.

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.

Funny, I don't remember Gardner sacking people to give jobs to his mates and making dodgy loans with club money...

Gardner is clearly upset about the tanking that has occurred because he cares about the club, not in spite of it.

Edited October 31, 201212 yr by Hazyshadeofgrinter

...and he's right, the individuals should face the music in this case and not just scapegoats.

Yep, I'd be more than happy to see those responsible, if found guilty, to cop the whack.

Gardner's response on the AFL website is very interesting. Did not expect that one.

Maybe a punch around the head by the AFL, the main culprits replaced, the AFL rewrites the law on Tanking/match fixing can be achieved??

Brent Moloney and Brock Mclean can GAGF.

I hope we beat the [censored] out of them this year. This will probably end up in court if the dees are already seeking legal advice.

Where is your sourse.........Name it or otherwise you are just starting an unsubstainciated rumor....

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.

Funny, I don't remember Gardner sacking people to give jobs to his mates and making dodgy loans with club money...

Gardner is clearly upset about the tanking that has occurred because he cares about the club, not in spite of it.

Perhaps he would have if the club had some money to lend when he was in charge; which we all know it didn't. Yes you're right, unfortunately the incoming board ran the club in to the ground where we now have, that's right, no debt.

Care to answer my question above about your connection with the club?

Edited October 31, 201212 yr by RobbieF

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.

then it is off to court we go....

then it is off to court we go....

No, we should just take our medicine and be thankful we got off without further sanction.

Funny, I don't remember Gardner sacking people to give jobs to his mates and making dodgy loans with club money...

Gardner is clearly upset about the tanking that has occurred because he cares about the club, not in spite of it.

He mightn't have given jobs to his mates but when he left the club it was in$5 mil in debt and driven into the ground....The only decent thing he did was to leave in a bloodless coup........

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.

That is if we are found to be guilty. Don't jump the gun on that - I expect there is a lot of compelling evidence to counter the 'claims' of the 4 or so disgruntled former employees.

No, we should just take our medicine and be thankful we got off without further sanction.

Lol talk about rolling over..

Has Colthier gotten to you? Say nothing!

Lol talk about rolling over..

Has Colthier gotten to you? Say nothing!

Yeah...I wouldnt be volunteering for the firing squad. Others are most welcome

Funny, I don't remember Gardner sacking people to give jobs to his mates and making dodgy loans with club money...

Gardner is clearly upset about the tanking that has occurred because he cares about the club, not in spite of it.

Gardner's Presidency was as lacklustre as any I've witnessed. If he set out to achieve what he did then he set the bar to low, otherwise he just plain failed. Did he think his comments were going to help the club you tell us he loves so much.

Edited October 31, 201212 yr by Roost It

The actual battle WONT be fought here, or on the pages of the Aged or the Hun or anywhere other than the boardrooms of the AFL and the respective clubs.

Failing that, and given an impasse it will be off to grab the Wigs !!

No, we should just take our medicine and be thankful we got off without further sanction.

LOL yeah ok mate.

Be thankful for having our first pick taken off us because of a meeting a few individuals had, who half are not even at the club anymore.

Get F'D!

These individuals need to burn and take the full grunt of this.

Perhaps he would have if the club had some money to lend when he was in charge; which we all know it didn't. Yes you're right, unfortunately the incoming board ran the club in to the ground where we now have, that's right, no debt.

Care to answer my question above about your connection with the club?

A the risk of getting sidetracked, the financial record of the Gardner board was impressive in the circumstances. Four years of consecutive profits in far more trying circumstances than exist currently without ever resorting to unsustainable donation drives. Despite the forecast lost in his final year (off the back of large increases to football operations spending), he left the club in much better shape than he found it.

By contrast, the current mob have been lurching from disaster to disaster, financially and otherwise. I'm sure I don't need to clog the thread by elaborating on this further.

This is the post I was responding to:

What is your point?

My point is this has come from an article written by a journalist, nothing she says is gospel it is from a source. Allegedly 10 people were in a meeting, 4 have been recalled to be re-interviewed. The facts (unless you know different) are a meeting occured and team performance was discussed.

You talk about testimonies being sworn, all proper investigations have these and declarations that are part and parcel. We have no transcripts to these interviews and dare I say neither does the media.

Everything is hearsay especially the two players "we were never told to deliberatley lose" they assumed and felt it was due to players being played out of positions. That is not sufficient evidence to warrant sanctions for tanking neither is the other two witnesses saying a meeting occured.

As I said in another post 10 people in that meeting will give differing accounts of what was said, it wont be intent to deceive it is just human perception of situations. The point of the meeting may have been to discuss the games left and winning not being the priorty, this does not justify sanctions, it is covered in list management. All 10 would be subject to cross examination and are not perjuring themselves by stating their perception of what occured.

Let me finish by saying I have no allegance to any board member, I care about the MFC and it's supporters.

Your posts infer the journalists are telling the entire truth and the Footy department and board are lying. Bailey may regret his actions that does not mean he was told to deliberatley lose it is a play on words, maybe he regrets not standing up and saying I want to win every game and will pick whoever I believe gives us the best chance to do so, he played WATTS when he wasn't ready to assist with a crowd for QB maybe he regrets that, why wouldn't he it set a losing culture and ended up with 186 and him losing his job

So please don't drip feed info you have discussed them having sworn testimonies and if you know what exactly is in these testimonies please do the righty by the rest of the Dees supporters and enlighten us.

And if you have an agenda state it

My agenda is for the investigation to run it's course and be put to bed either way, so the club can move forward

http://www.afl.com.a...73/default.aspx

Wow, change of heart from Gardner

yeah, building up for a takeover probably

Well said Pennant. Can we have a bit more of the same sanity prevail on this thread.

Edited October 31, 201212 yr by iv'a worn smith

No, we should just take our medicine and be thankful we got off without further sanction.

no way mate. The courtroom will be where the MFC balls once again drop.

We have to learn how to fight standing up.

The AFL could well sanction us. But their rules are shonky at best.

"All Rise"......

A the risk of getting sidetracked, the financial record of the Gardner board was impressive in the circumstances. Four years of consecutive profits in far more trying circumstances than exist currently without ever resorting to unsustainable donation drives. Despite the forecast lost in his final year (off the back of large increases to football operations spending), he left the club in much better shape than he found it.

By contrast, the current mob have been lurching from disaster to disaster, financially and otherwise. I'm sure I don't need to clog the thread by elaborating on this further.

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.

My point is this

Hey mate, I don't want to get bogged down in whatever it is you are trying to say. I was just pointed out that you would have to be brave to perjure yourself because you were writing about "cross examinations" in courts and such.

Agenda stuff is boring and irrelevant.