Because Caroline doesn't comment on the actual sport, but on the politics of the sport, she usually over-dramatises. Patrick Smith's article,http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/opinion/post-season-probes-leave-afl-lost-in-space/story-e6frg7uo-1226506991378

sums up the hypocrisy of the AFL in going after Melbourne. The AFL plays god by allocating favourable fixturing to the entrenched clubs and by spiriting off the best players in the land to franchises with no membership, then bullies a foundation club based on the commentary of disgruntled ex-players. How there is no linkage to other similar clubs in this 'investigation' illustrates the stand-over tactics employed by the AFL whose bureaucrats would dearly love a television-driven white-bread competition of equal numbers in equal states.

  On 31/10/2012 at 09:36, Hazyshadeofgrinter said:

Any change would be an improvement.

Objection.

Scurrilous accusation.

The next AGM will be an interesting affair.

I doubt certain topics will be off limits this year....

  On 31/10/2012 at 09:49, rjay said:

I think our best option is for the AFL to step in and appoint an administrator to defuse the vindictive attacks on us and create a breathing space to allow the FD time to do what they do without all the drama that has surrounded it since they have been appointed and let the players play.

Fark me. Appoint an administrator ? No need and no right.

I've heard it all now.

  On 31/10/2012 at 10:20, FireUp said:

We need to be like Melbourne Storm fans and show that the fans remain loyal to the club. We may not like what had happened and I will never cheer a loss.

Yup. This is the mature reaction, not law suits.

  On 31/10/2012 at 10:58, Norm Smith said:

listen to the commentary in the last 2 minutes or so:

'If anyone thinks these teams werent trying they need to go and watch this last quarter'

[media=]

dont need to i was there with my tiger supporting brother , lol i was happy , he was not !

  On 31/10/2012 at 11:00, Blinkybill said:

Oh come off it. Everybody in the universe knows there were deliberate losses. The only question (and it's a crucial one) is whether the players were complicit.

Really? Do they? I don't think so.

The question is not whether the players were complicit. They weren't.

The question is not even whether the players were told to lose.

The question is whether the managers/board/coaches/etc. wanted us to finish with 4 wins or fewer, and did anything in pursuit of that goal.

I'd keep explaining, but your basic and simplistic view on things probably means your next post will be the same as your previous one.

Connolly's future at the club is now in doubt and even chief executive Schwab may not survive if his role in the tanking - if any - is established. Schwab's new three-year deal is said to have a six-month payout clause.

Pay him out and get on with it.

  On 31/10/2012 at 11:05, Blinkybill said:

Yup. This is the mature reaction, not law suits.

Law suit is immature?

Right. So if we get treated wrongly, unjustly, potentially illegally (none of this has happened yet, I'm just saying what could happen), then the answer is to not sue the AFL because that would be immature?

Bushdemon - good post. Some of the rest - utter drivel. No one has EVER SUGGESTED or shown any evidence to support an argument that any players were ever involved. Meetings about potential outcomes does not equate to hardline orders to tank. AFL and media can $%^& if they think they can make this stick...

According to Caro - caro is running the agenda at the club and the AFL investigation. Remember her track record is all Ill say.

  On 31/10/2012 at 11:05, Blinkybill said:

Yup. This is the mature reaction, not law suits.

mate the mature reaction is to make the AFL rewrite its law on tanking so that it is rock solid and not flaky. If that means going to court to fight i say Go...

if they try to compromise out access to this year's draft we could potentially lock up the whole draft with longwinded legal process.

  On 31/10/2012 at 10:57, Redleg said:

An interesting thought. What if most of the club Presidents share Eddie's view and ask the Commission to let the MFC off, to keep the lid on Pandora's Box and they refuse. Could they then with a 75% vote remove the Commission?

Unlikely of course but within their power.

they need to tread carefully do the AFL. Tic toc

Someone has a serious agenda underway and is locked into it.

Out the way train wreck imminent !

I just wrote Caroline a letter explaining how she was wrong about the picks we have and about Jack Viney.

I said alot of other things,as well along the lines of give it a rest, with some creative suggestions, on including other clubs , and perhaps what the AFL has done to encourage this sortof thing; and move on to something else unles you have any real evidence.

  On 31/10/2012 at 11:06, titan_uranus said:

Really? Do they? I don't think so.

The question is not whether the players were complicit. They weren't.

The question is not even whether the players were told to lose.

The question is whether the managers/board/coaches/etc. wanted us to finish with 4 wins or fewer, and did anything in pursuit of that goal.

I'd keep explaining, but your basic and simplistic view on things probably means your next post will be the same as your previous one.

Are you seriously suggesting the club (not the players) didn't want to lose to finish with only four wins????

Of course they did. The only question is whether they did so within the rules of the game. It's not looking good. And cut out the personal attacks.

What people dont understand is that we went didnt spend a whole season not wanting to win games.

The reality is we were very poor, which is why we lost so many games.

Towards the end of the season when we had no hope of achieving anything we rested a few and played a few out of position.

What on earth is wrong with that?

  On 31/10/2012 at 10:59, Ben-Hur said:

Terrific. Now stop making absolute statements.

I think it's a reasonable presumption that Bailey was told to lose matches. I also think its a reasonable presumption that he was being lent on by Connolly and Schwab. If so its just another reason they should be gone and Mclardy should step aside. (shite I'm starting to sound like Hazy, this club's really doing my head in)

  On 31/10/2012 at 11:16, Blinkybill said:

Are you seriously suggesting the club (not the players) didn't want to lose to finish with only four wins????

Of course they did. The only question is whether they did so within the rules of the game. It's not looking good. And cut out the personal attacks.

Your 'only question' just changed from whether the players were complicit to whether what the club did was within the rules of the game. Good stuff.

Do you have any evidence that the club wanted to lose? Or do you, like everyone else, know two things: one, that we engaged in routine things like experimentation and player management, and two, that there was potentially a meeting where we potentially discussed the ramifications of the priority pick?

I'd suggest the latter. Which is why I'd suggest you just shush for a bit.

  On 31/10/2012 at 11:03, BarnDee said:

well im a fan of calling the enemy by their surname , eg hitler , amin , gaddafi , blah blah , get it ? , i was being a lil kind , if i met her face i would probaly call it a low life scum sucking parasite , at least

Are you for real? One suspects that you might be in for a suspension. Bye Bye

It was a nothing article.

The best bit was when she acknowledged pick 4 is most likely to remain intact. But that was pretty obvious.

She then makes a string of statements that have no substance by themselves, but are supposed to have deep seated meaning.

I don't mind her, but I see where people see her as [censored] weak.

  On 31/10/2012 at 11:20, Roost It said:

I think it's a reasonable presumption that Bailey was told to lose matches.

You've been making statements as fact. You admit they're not.

Desist.

  On 31/10/2012 at 11:00, Blinkybill said:

Oh come off it. Everybody in the universe knows there were deliberate losses. The only question (and it's a crucial one) is whether the players were complicit.

You're confusing me ...

"We should confess and take our medicine without an official opportunity to state our case in front of the Commission" - there is no way that's going to happen, we'll appear before the Commission before this concludes.

And now "it's crucial whether the players were complicit" - FMD, not even Caro is suggesting that, in fact she's adamant that the opposite is the case.

You're too hungry for the noose - around someone else's neck.

I think CW was referring to our 1st and 2nd picks in the draft, not picks 1 & 2.

as stated in this new article, our legal team suspects that coercion may have been used to gain confessions. Now that gives us a pretty good legal foot to stand on, if we need to take this matter to court.

  On 31/10/2012 at 11:07, rjay said:

Connolly's future at the club is now in doubt and even chief executive Schwab may not survive if his role in the tanking - if any - is established. Schwab's new three-year deal is said to have a six-month payout clause.

Yeah I noticed that

Begs the question how does wilson know

Club leaking?