Gutter journalism.

It's starting to make the News of the World look like a paper of absolute integrity. That said, did you believe everything they published?

Grubby journos manipulate the 'truth' to create sensationalist 'stories'. Surely everyone knows that by now.

Keep calm team. Get behind the club - don't turn on it.

Rather, vent your anger on 'Burnouts' McLean ...

Love the bit about "Keep calm team. Get behind the club - dont turn on it." RB

Nice and would also like to add

When the going gets tough etc etc.

Easy to catch the lift to the 35th floor and jump out, or barrack for Carlton or Collingwood. Absolutely no challenge and totally sterile.

AFL regulation (19 A5) provides the definition.

"A person, being a player, coach or assistant coach, must at all times perform on their merits and must not induce, or encourage, any player, coach or assistant coach not to perform on their merits in any match - or in relation to any aspect of the match, for any reason whatsoever."

They don't need to prove the club deliberately set out to lose, they don't need to prove the players weren't trying - in this case it will be enough to prove that the coaches were not performing on their merits based on the direction of CC. If witnesses are accepted in their evidence that CC said what has been reported that he said then at the very least he would seem to be facing a ban under this rule. And as far as I'm concerned if he was stupid enough to do it he deserves it.

In order to prove that, a Coach or Assistant Coach needs to say straight out that he tanked. Whether or not he was asked or directed to do so under the rule is irrelevant. Knowing that it was wrong, that Coach must say he chose to tank. That would then according to Demetriou see him banned from the AFL for life. If it was proved he was asked or directed to do so is another matter, but has nothing to do with this rule.

If an employee is asked to break the law by his employer he has a choice, either to do so or refuse. He could not be sacked for refusing, as the reason would come out.

Have the Coach or his Assistants said they tanked? If they have said they did we face a problem. So will the tankers.

Edited October 31, 201212 yr by Redleg

There is a clear agenda going on here from someone who will show there face after Cameron Swabb and don are sent packing.

Who is this mystery person?

MFC is just back on it's feet again and some DIC&HEAD is pulling all the right strings for there own agenda.

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

Wow, change of heart from Gardner

No that's the Agenda. Get rid of the people who got rid of him. It's called revenge.

Just to cut through the 'corrections' from Wilson's first piece we should note that now the evidence is that we talked about the ramifications of winning 2 more games at a match committee meeting in a tin shed called (not codenamed) the Vault.

I have calmed down now.

What club in their right mind wouldn't talk about it?

Unless we drafted up a memo saying 'let's lose' - what is so damning that was discussed?

Conjecture train - let's get moving.

Just to cut through the 'corrections' from Wilson's first piece we should note that now the evidence is that we talked about the ramifications of winning 2 more games at a match committee meeting in a tin shed called (not codenamed) the Vault.

I have calmed down now.

What club in their right mind wouldn't talk about it?

Unless we drafted up a memo saying 'let's lose' - what is so damning that was discussed?

Conjecture train - let's get moving.

This is at least the second time you've referred to your mood. Why do you think people are interested ?

You're starting to sound like Jaded.

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.

You mean the club that he left $5million in debt, that is now debt free and with an asset worth $10million. Please someone, run my personal finances into the ground in the same way, please.

This is at least the second time you've referred to your mood. Why do you think people are interested ?

You're starting to sound like Jaded.

It has peaked your interest...

You are starting to sound like Hannabal/Tweed Pig/Lone Wolf/Trav 20.

I have no issue or problem with real journalism.

Here she isnt even checking her facts. Shes offering up innuendo and gutter whispers as supposed fact. She is morphing her words to suit.

Shes very selective about who and what she writes upon in this matter and is hardly presenting anything in a balanced and integral fashion.

Shes agenda driven and not motivated by any desire to show the truth, indeed she goes out of her way to camouflage the little truth she presents in order to sensationalise the dross she dresses up as gospel.

Maybe that is her job. I dont care for it.

Compare her to a Martin Flanagan...well actually you cant !!

Agree 100%

The big problem now is that some of those young innocents over at the Hun such John Ralph Jay Clark and so on are borrowing from her "facts" to make up their own...stories that is.

And as for Jake Naill's ridiculous piece ...

Ah well, there goes my hope that this off-season would be about how we would rise like the phoenix in 2013 and beyond - not because of this rubbish!!

Edited October 31, 201212 yr by BangkokDemon

That tells me a lot about you, big ego, bruiised and battered when the new administration didn't want you, poor little lamb.

Now you want to take it out on them by sniping wherever possible and showing them that they should never have made an enemy out of you. Well I'm glad they did and I hope we find out just who you are so we never make the mistake of voting for you in any election for any position at the Melbourne Football Club.

The wasted oportunities you talk about must include the hiring of Bailey who for all intents and purposes was a monumental flop as a coach; nice one Paul.

Yes, I certainly sounded arrogant. I don't think I sounded inaccurate though. You say you don't want to hear anything I have to say but here you are replying to me again.

Feel free to use your ignore function, I am well passed the point of caring about what people think of my online identity.

And even if all your half baked conspiracy was true - what difference would it make?

P.S. If you think employing an untried Bailey was a mistake, what did you make of the decision to extend his contract?

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.

You're funny.

Edited October 31, 201212 yr by Hazyshadeofgrinter

Sorry, that is is absolute rubbish. Of course they can't do whatever they like. They could try but they, like any other organisation are required to operate within a raft of industrial, civil and legal frameworks. If they sanctioned melbourne and we sued them they would have to demonstrate their actions were reasonable

Sorry, but I disagree.

Natural justice is required in adminstrative (ie government) and criminal law. The AFL is a public company limited by guarantee, and the same rules apply to it as any other corporation. On what basis is the AFL bound to give anybody what is being called 'natural justice'?

I'm happy to stand corrected if, for example, the licences granted to the clubs actually state this, but I don't think it is legally correct.

You are starting to sound like Hannabal/Tweed Pig/Lone Wolf/Trav 20.

Is that a [censored] slap ?

Anyway, let's not derail.

Try this, for one: http://www.afl.com.a...97/default.aspx

They're already talking about MFC appearing before a commission. That's called natural justice.

And as for the stupidity above about us not being the accused, I won't even bother.

No, the article says the club might come before an AFL commission meeting next month. That's entirely different.

That could be as simple as an agenda item on a board paper.

And in any event, choosing to establish a 'commission', even if it is to hear our 'defence', is different to being obliged to do so by some law or principle of natural justice.

Who is disputing the other matters you refer too ? I don't recall commenting on those.

The bolded line is subject to a current investigation and certainly not conclusive. But accepting what you say is true doesn't make his efforts any less ridiculous in any way.

Farcical.

Your boss tells you do do something clearly unethical as part of your job. You do it whilst 2 of your bosses minions lean on you to do the task whilst they undermine your position. You then do the said task and people say you did it poorly. Bailey is clearly caught up in this but laying the blame with him or criticizing how he lost games hardly seems fair and reasonable

Did I mention it might even be farcical.

There is a clear agenda going on here from someone who will show there face after Cameron Swabb and don are sent packing.

Who is this mystery person?

MFC is just back on it's feet again and some DIC&HEAD is pulling all the right strings for there own agenda.

There are a couple on here that clearly have an agenda and I think if you dig deeply enough you will find the leaks at the club emanate from them.

There's money, position and a certain amount of power/prestige at stake here and there are some that want to be seen as the one/ones that will guide us to the top and take credit for the work done by others.

We love the club, they love the trappings and don't be fooled by their protestations that they only have the best interest of the club at heart because they don't.

You're funny.

glad you are being entertained. I am being serious.

If you don't answer simple questions why bother posting on here. Although it is your right.

glad you are being entertained. I am being serious.

If you don't answer simple questions why bother posting on here. Although it is your right.

Funny and confused.

Yes, I certainly sounded arrogant. I don't think I sounded inaccurate though. You say you don't want to hear anything I have to say but here you are replying to me again.

Feel free to use your ignore function, I am well passed the point of caring about what people think of my online identity.

And even if all your half baked conspiracy was true - what difference would it make?

P.S. If you think employing an untried Bailey was a mistake, what did you make of the decision to extend his contract?

You're funny.

No you cracked the double, your both arrogant and inaccurate and that's been pointed out several times on here, by me and others. I guess when your that arrogant you only see what you want to see.

It's dangerous to let people like you spread your bile unchallenged, so I'll leave you on view at the moment and that way I can see what crap you're trying to pass as fact and ensure that I respond.

BTW I think the decision to renew Bailey's contract was wrong and only done because Jimmy was sick and it was expedient, he should have been terminated at the end of the year.

BTW have you ever run or are you considering running for the Board? If you have or are, then it wouldn't be a half baked idea would it, it would confirm that you are trying to poison the current board in advance of the next election.

Is it of interest to anyone where Wilson is getting her "inside information" on statements made to an investigator, in an investigation that is still unfinished.

If statements have been leaked to the media, IMO the whole investigation is flawed and corrupted. Any decision therafter is of the same quality.

Funny and confused.

confused? Please do elaborate.

Is it of interest to anyone where Wilson is getting her "inside information" on statements made to an investigator, in an investigation that is still unfinished.

If statements have been leaked to the media, IMO the whole investigation is flawed and corrupted. Any decision therafter is of the same quality.

Perhaps that question should be directed to Hazey etc., or was it already?

Is it of interest to anyone where Wilson is getting her "inside information" on statements made to an investigator, in an investigation that is still unfinished.

If statements have been leaked to the media, IMO the whole investigation is flawed and corrupted. Any decision therafter is of the same quality.

spot on. no investigation should ever leak anything.

Funny how Wilson decided to use this story to fill pages rather than discussing Aaron Edwards' escapades.

spot on. no investigation should ever leak anything.

That's in professional organisations. We're talking about the MFC here

(more)

It's getting boring mate.