On 31/10/2012 at 22:38, Whispering_Jack said:

I suspect that's the outcome that one would expect after setting McLean up with Sheahan, Healy & co on On The Couch.

WJ who set McLean up though. Not the AFL, an individual connected to the Club either currently or previously. Do you have any idea?

  On 31/10/2012 at 14:41, bing181 said:

Unbelievable. And people think the Labour Party and their back room factions are bad ...

"But of course, it's all "for the good of the club"."

Poison.

Not sure what you are getting at here, but there is nothing back room about my post it's there for you to see.

The more and more i watch the more convinced this has more to do with Caro's ongoing war and hatred of Schwab than much else.

At every conceivable opportunity she seems to twist and mangle any juicy morsel into a convoluted 'expose' regarding the ne'er do well goings on at Schwabbyland.

Her babblings and "headlines" are reminiscent of gutter TV such as TT or ACA

I dont think she was counting on raising the ire of the likes of Eddie though for unlike her he DOES understand the big picture

Get your lollies and drinks...its just about to heat up me thinks

  On 31/10/2012 at 22:39, america de cali said:

I don't think this club can move forward until they have gone. The bitterness and divisions they have caused are cancerous. This can not be swept under the carpet anymore.

It's the political witch hunt and battle of power that is the true cancer of this club, and deep down you know it. But you couldn't give a f%$#@.

  On 31/10/2012 at 22:38, Whispering_Jack said:

I suspect that's the outcome that one would expect after setting McLean up with Sheahan, Healy & co on On The Couch.

and herein lies a 'marker' to the path of Judas.

  On 31/10/2012 at 22:46, belzebub59 said:

and herein lies a 'marker' to the path of Judas.

Does the marker lead the way to Visy Park?

  On 31/10/2012 at 22:46, belzebub59 said:

and herein lies a 'marker' to the path of Judas.

interesting - I'm no fan of CS (far too much management babble and believed his own "Whiteboard Wednesday" drivel), but if this is internicine warfare from previous / jilted execs or board members, then we're royally screwed. A pox on both their houses. Perhaps the loss of Jimmy has allowed the jilted pricks to surface and cause trouble that they never would have if he were around to deal with them?

What a mess

  On 31/10/2012 at 22:51, frankie_d said:

. Perhaps the loss of Jimmy has allowed the jilted pricks to surface and cause trouble that they never would have if he were around to deal with them?

Thats an interesting observation.

If we look back along the road of recent turbulence its littered with spent shells and discarded hides but its indeed intensified since Jim's passing.

I think Jim, along with some others knew where to gaze to see a shape behind a murky shadow. These mole come traitors certainly seem to have emboldened themselves since.. They smell a weakness perhaps or seek to fracture a unity held together by Stynes and now no longer so overseen..

A lot of barking so far, no biting yet. It might get ugly.

Down at training and overheard some Ch7 blokes (didn't see who) say they were "off to do Gardiner". Interview I guess.

Wonder what fuel he has for the fire?

  On 31/10/2012 at 11:32, Ron Burgundy said:

Paul, I think we agree on most things. But not this.

She is generating the story. These events occurred in 2009. They were investigated.

The 'Burnouts' McLean interview occurred months ago. It was boring and hopelessly contrived, by the interviewing panel at least - not by Burnouts admittedly - he was just the moron who was led to the beer barrell. And he sculled the contents of it.

We're just about to enter the pre-season to season 2013. How is this relevant or fascinating so long after the alleged events, particularly given the radical changes that the Demons have undergone since that time?

Simple. Caroline Wilson decided to enliven the issue - and, from what I've read, based on virtually no new material, certainly no new game-changing material.

Most of what she has re-hashed in recent days seems to reflect a club in a turmoil during the Bailey years and one which was characterised by some pretty poor cultural issues (eg, player dissatisfaction etc), but it does not provide any good evidence of 'tanking' - which I had thought was meant to be at the very heart of the issue.

She just seems to have thrown everything into the mix, in an unbelievably unsophisticated way, all of which she says leads to the obvious conclusion that we deliberately tanked the whole of season 2009. Her editor must be away on holiday, or drunk. Her articles on this issue have, at best, limited substantive content to them - it's all innuendo and unsubstantiated hearsay. 'New Idea' stuff.

And I want her to be accountable for that, not just the MFC. It's current a trial by (a very basic) media. That troubles me.

In short, I think her agenda is very much part of the story at the moment. There's something at play here - I just don't know what it is.

You may well be right about her agenda, issues with CS etc... and boo to her for that.

However, there is an ongoing AFL investigation into tanking at Melbourne, which CW did not instigate (thank Brock for that). Given the AFL investigation has dragged on without updates from the AFL she (being in the media) is rightfully asking questions, probing , speculating.

But she's only progressed this far through

1. the MFC running a loose ship in 2009, and

2. the MFC, as a result, being under investigation by the AFL.

I don't think we should blame the mirror if we don't like what we see, irrespective of how distorted the mirror is in this case.

We need to learn and improve from this episode, and turning our focus on CW (no matter the extent to which she may deserve it) only distracts from the core business of improving our club.

  On 31/10/2012 at 23:15, PaulRB said:

I don't think we should blame the mirror if we don't like what we see, irrespective of how distorted the mirror is in this case.

shes acting more like a projector than any looking glass.

The flick shes screening is cobbled together from random pieces. A montage she hopes others will see as meaningful.

I guess I see two fronts in this issue:

The first is the MFC's Public fight on "tanking" - is our fight to avoid sanctions from the investigation, our fight to not be punished alone for what many clubs have done. CW is wrong in honing in only on Melb, applying retrospective logic to events to craft a story (i.e. player revolt at half time...etc). But I'm less worried about this ending badly for us, especially now the Heraldsun has highlighted the actions of Carlton doing exactly the same thing in 2007 and people like Eddie coming out saying we'd have been idiots to do otherwise...

It is the second issue that concerns me more. The internal cultural issues within the MFC and whether we are building a culture as a club that will take us to a flag.

This year we've seen a purge of 15 players, over the past couple of years most of our playing leadership group from 2009 has gone. We've all seen the need and applauded Neeld for this change.

In addition, since 2009 most of the football department has been turned over, coach replaced, Chris Connelly marginalised, etc...

However, we don't seem to have publicly touched on or addressed the role the executive and board have had in the culture issues at Melbourne.

As a relative outsider to the inner sanctum at Melb I don't know who or what or why we have ended up being on the rack for alleged tanking. I don't know who or what or why we've been a basket case as a football team for the last 5 years. But if we've turned over the players, the FD, the coach, then the surely an honest look at the exec and board is warranted? And if CW's persecution of the MFC is the catalyst we need to do this, then bring it on.

Don't think I have ever seen Wilson write a positive article on anything. Old hag just writes negative sh%t about everything she can that's footy related and twists it in ridiculous ways.

The Age has lost huge amounts of credibility in my eyes this week due to having her on their books.

PaulRB - in what world is it the role of a journalist to 'speculate?'

A world where they have to milk a daily story from an industry that is dormant over the pre-season.

  On 31/10/2012 at 23:48, PaulRB said:

A world where they have to milk a daily story from an industry that is dormant over the pre-season.

But you have called her The Mirror ©...

One of those mirrors at Luna Park?

yes. I'm not justifying her bias. My point is for us to use this fiasco to focus on improving the club. The reason we're on the rack is not simply down to one woman at The Age having a grudge, and to paint it that way distracts from the lessons we need to learn from this episode.

  On 31/10/2012 at 23:40, olisik said:

Don't think I have ever seen Wilson write a positive article on anything. Old hag just writes negative sh%t about everything she can that's footy related and twists it in ridiculous ways.

The Age has lost huge amounts of credibility in my eyes this week due to having her on their books.

And is it just me or are her articles incredibly openended??

I'm reading through, waiting to get to some facts, figures, or counter arguements and then it just ends abruptly with something like 'ALF supremo... has always defended the dees'??

I've defended Caro but that last article reads a lot more like an editorial rather than reporting with cold hard facts. She makes a lot of speculative statements and as someone said above chose to twist Bailey's no comment to her advantage. Then using the departures of Brad Green (who left with honor and praise for the club), Cam Bruce (left because he was concerned about not getting a second year), Brad Miller (had no future with us), JMac (was retired BY US too early), and Jordie Gysberts (how he has anything to do with this is beyond me!) is just another example of fabricating links to this issue to fill the article.

One thing I will defend her for is the headline, as far as I know that is written by someone else.

Strangely the Age has also published articles by Bev O'Connor and Martin Flanigan defending the MFC.

The anger shown towards Wilson is understandable but misdirected. She is a vulture picking over our carcass, but it is not her fault we are in this situation.

Members of the club's admin have openly discussed their desire to tank in meetings with 10+ people (and it wasn't just the one meeting either by the way). Wilson may not have the full story and she may or may not have solid evidence but I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that she is wrong.

  On 31/10/2012 at 23:52, PJ_12345 said:

And is it just me or are her articles incredibly openended??

I'm reading through, waiting to get to some facts, figures, or counter arguements and then it just ends abruptly with something like 'ALF supremo... has always defended the dees'??

That's called 'balance'.

Paul et all. I think we have to step back a tad in order to see the real "nature' of what is going on. A group, whether a coherent association of like-twisted-minds or a more fluid band of nigglers , have set to wrest control of the MFC into what they consider their rightful hands.. Some silly maniacal types must have delusions of import , that they re the chosen ones to lead this team back to its glorious position. ergo..its EGO

What this band of fools does is enlist any mercenary or hack who has a beef to grind and can be useful to their cause as allies.. The cause being their idea of the re-establishment of the MFC ( in their image ) and the method being the destabilising of the existent board and the removal of any impediments to the "new Board"

Who must go ? it would seem Schwab, Mclardy and anyone supporting them.

The events , current and prior are the arsenal for the terrorists. The events of 186 ,debt ,sackings, etc. the 'tanking' , the various crises weve tumbled through and the regurgitation of any and all are the grenades.

Whomever is behind this understands full well there will be collateral damage, that the club may take a whack , but in their mind(s) its all for the greater good.

To some this will seem mightily contrived ; oh no, a conspiracy.!! how loony.

But is it. Since time immemorial there's always been one wishing to covert another's.. Some who cant or wont wants to deprive or thwart those who can and will.

Ive been pondering why so much seems directed at the MFC. Logic suggests and directs me to someone with a motive and the capacity to enlist others.

The motive ? Unlikely the removal of the club, more likely a time honoured prize of control and all its trinklets.

This all seems to point back within the club. There are indeed a Judas or two.

  On 31/10/2012 at 21:56, america de cali said:

People should remember. Caro's work is only reporting on the matter. If there is real dirt it is to be revealed in the yet uncompleted AFL investigations. They have said they will not be providing a running commentary. Interesting that McLardy, CS and CC are still quiet. They know they are in trouble and their ears must be burning at what the witnesses have said. I doubt we will see any legal actions despite the posturing of some here. It will be a civil matter where balance of probability will decide the outcome and not hard evidence. Plenty of witnesses will sink them. Plus all out dirty laundry sight unseen will be hung out to dry for all to see.

There is absolutely no glory in running down the club at the moment. In fact, it beggars belief as to why any 'supporter' would seek to do so at the moment.

My wife is pregnant with our first, and all I can think of is that I want the kid to share in my passion - the mighty fighting Melbourne Demons. I want this club, not only to survive, but to be strong.

And a largely irresponsible, manipulative, unethical media is threatening that at the moment. That really gets under my skin - can't they see we're trying to turn things around. And trying hard. Okay - mistakes have been made, but the club is plainly trying to remedy that.

This media frenzy is threatening our sponsorship base, our ability to attract players, the momentum that Neeld, Craig and others are trying so desperately to build. Why can't some people see that?!

So when I see the likes of you constantly running down the joint, I get annoyed. Your angle is just so bloody short-sighted and dim-witted. And not nearly as clever as you think it is.

If I were running this club, I would cancel your membership (to the extent that you have one). Immediately. Go support some other club and tweet like crazy about how clever Caroline Wilson and her cronies are, and how ordinary we are. But don't do that whilst also saying you 'support' this club.

We need to change the culture of the joint, and IMO we don't have room for 'supporters' like you.

In my head at least, you're de-listed.

  On 01/11/2012 at 00:01, Hazyshadeofgrinter said:

The anger shown towards Wilson is understandable but misdirected. She is a vulture picking over our carcass, but it is not her fault we are in this situation.

Members of the club's admin have openly discussed their desire to tank in meetings with 10+ people (and it wasn't just the one meeting either by the way). Wilson may not have the full story and she may or may not have solid evidence but I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that she is wrong.

So was the tanking wrong or the open discussion of it?