confused? Please do elaborate.

No.

Funny and confused.

Kettle calling the pot black much?

No.

ok. I don't really care. I was giving you a chance.

You are merely a stirrer Hazy & good at it. But it is Sad you never put up an alternative.

The past is done.

ok. I don't really care. I was giving you a chance.

You are merely a stirrer Hazy & good at it. But it is Sad you never put up an alternative.

The past is done.

Ok, now I'm confused. Don't bother explaining though, this thread isn't supposed to be about me.

It's getting boring mate.

Keep up the good work. Nice to see balance to all the headbanging and denial around here. I truly hope the club does not get punished but the exit movement at the top has to happen or we will never move forward. We have only heard half the story so far.

Ok, now I'm confused. Don't bother explaining though, this thread isn't supposed to be about me.

i am merely asking who you would prefer instead of the present representatves. Not confusing at all, unless you do not wish to answer.

Once this board is gone who fills the void?

Your boss tells you do do something clearly unethical as part of your job.

I've said that's not conclusive. Are you asserting it is ?

i am merely asking who you would prefer instead of the present representatves. Not confusing at all, unless you do not wish to answer.

Once this board is gone who fills the void?

It's a good question. Probably an AFL appointed administrator in the short term. I very much doubt that Gardner would want the gig if that is what you are trying to get at.

Agenda is written all over the media push......

I'm finding it funny how sen have been smashing us, over this issue for ages..... But now that it looks like something might happen, they are starting to say its the AFL fault and we shouldn't be punished? Pretty sure they want us punished, just not anybody else....

If we get punished, Carlton, Richmond, hawthonre Collingwood and st kilda should all be punished..... KB and his cronies know this.... They are happy to watch MFC fall for this, but not all the others.....

Terry Wallace admitted on radio that he tank games for Richmond? Fevola wrote in his book that he thought Carlton tanked? Where does it stop?

If we get punished, it doesn't stop.....

I listened to Caroline Wilson tonight and she is running a hard agenda against the MFC on this. She was flippant about other clubs doing the similar or same thing. Evidently no one has been investigated as thoroughly as Melbourne I find her position unbelievably hypocritical.

Good investigative journalist she might be but she also needs to pull her head in on giving her opinion. Hopefully the AFL can act independent of such shrillness.

It's a good question. Probably an AFL appointed administrator in the short term. I very much doubt that Gardner would want the gig if that is what you are trying to get at.

AFL admin FU%^ that im happy with the board we have thankyou.

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

In fairness, some are saying that this could be the AFL/VFL's biggest ever story. Now I consider that to be absurd, but it is being said; and I acknowledge the interest and ramifications.

I also appreciate that it makes Aaron Edwards' issues border-line irrelevant.

It's a good question. Probably an AFL appointed administrator in the short term. I very much doubt that Gardner would want the gig if that is what you are trying to get at.

no i don't expect Paul at all. That is not the gist of the question.

I had a connection to the previous board like yourself but unlike you i am not bitter.

The race was done. But who do we get in if the present board walks the plank. It is important to have a plan B.

i want Mark Neeld to be able to coach uninhibited by politics.

no i don't expect Paul at all. That is not the gist of the question.

I had a connection to the previous board like yourself but unlike you i am not bitter.

The race was done. But who do we get in if the present board walks the plank. It is important to have a plan B.

i want Mark Neeld to be able to coach uninhibited by politics.

Currently Neeld has a millstone around his neck from the ugly pre 186 politics. He bought in to Schwab's game when he removed the old player leadership and put in junior players in their place. So hairbrained that it could only be a Schwab initiiative. And we told they were elected by their peers. He's backed himself into a corner.

Edited October 31, 201212 yr by america de cali

Ok, now I'm confused. Don't bother explaining though, this thread isn't supposed to be about me.

Just tell us who you and your pals are Hazy

Then I can make sure I vote correctly for you or your mates NOT

Yeah, I know pizzing in the wind

i want Mark Neeld to be able to coach uninhibited by politics.

Agreed. Hopefully the AFL can wrap up their investigation and the whole mess can come to a conclusion at some stage between the draft and the NAB cup. I dont want a final chapter to the horror story of 2012, or to have the club start 2013 on a similar foot to last year.

Currently Neeld has a millstone around his neck from the ugly pre 186 politics. He bought in to Schwab's game when he removed the old player leadership and put in junior players in their place. So hairbrained that it could only be a Schwab initiiative. And we we told they were elected by their peers. He's backed himself into a corner.

give it a rest mate. I want constructive criticisms.

The young captains will fast track from now.

no i don't expect Paul at all. That is not the gist of the question.

I had a connection to the previous board like yourself but unlike you i am not bitter.

The race was done. But who do we get in if the present board walks the plank. It is important to have a plan B.

i want Mark Neeld to be able to coach uninhibited by politics.

I agree about the Neeld without politics bit (not that I am sold on him). The bit about me being associated with the previous board is tiresome and irrelevant.

I answered your question (even though mine go unanswered most of the time). Please start a new thread if you want to talk about me.

I agree about the Neeld without politics bit (not that I am sold on him). The bit about me being associated with the previous board is tiresome and irrelevant.

I answered your question (even mine go unanswered most of the time). Please start a new thread if you want to talk about me.

no your answer was an AFL stooge. I am talking about an elected board.

thanks Nostradamus.

got a better idea Mr. Doom?

We've been getting smashed for so long now..... When is all this going to end..... Story after story.. its got to be bad for business......... seems like there is a media linch mob, after us.....

In the past five years, 2010 was the only media positive year..... I'm so sick of the media sticking the boots in to us.....

I've said that's not conclusive. Are you asserting it is ?

No I'm presuming it is

We've been getting smashed for so long now..... When is all this going to end..... Story after story.. its got to be bad for business......... seems like there is a media linch mob, after us.....

In the past five years, 2010 was the only media positive year..... I'm so sick of the media sticking the boots in to us.....

we've got to stop giving them reasons to stick the boots into us.

Don't think we will have Wednesday Whiteboard in 2013 - think the author maybe unemployed...

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.

I’m not sure that it’s quite so simple. The AFL might be a company but it’s one that also functions in a quasi-judicial fashion (in, say, registering findings against and imposing fines on a club, player etc); a quasi-administrative (some would probably say pseudo-administrative) fashion since it administers ‘the game’; and even a quasi-governmental fashion (introducing the regulations which it then administers).

The AFL mightn’t be compelled in a strict legal sense to apply principles of natural justice/procedural fairness, but I doubt they’d get away with arguing before a court that they’re not compelled to look to those principles for guidance and can do whatever they please.

As for saying in your later post that the suggestion that ‘the club might come before an AFL commission’ mighn’t be anything more than ‘an agenda item on a board paper’, this isn’t much more than facetious avoidance of the point. The news item says the club.

Even the AFL is presumably able to spot the consequences of making decisions about the MFC and supposed tanking without allowing the club a hearing (I’ll stop short of saying a fair hearing). Which would be all about providing, or at least being seen to provide, natural justice/procedural fairness.

Currently Neeld has a millstone around his neck from the ugly pre 186 politics. He bought in to Schwab's game when he removed the old player leadership and put in junior players in their place. So hairbrained that it could only be a Schwab initiiative. And we told they were elected by their peers. He's backed himself into a corner.

Garbage. Neeld is no one's puppet. He removed the players in question because they had, as a group, clearly failed. Schwab had nothing to do with it