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.

This is an old episode.

While the themes of what happened may give some the vapours I stand by the actions we took and are adamant that we didn't ask players to lay down and everything else is fair game.

Thanks BB.

I'd be keen to for such scheming, white anting, Judas's etc to be exposed if you and others in the know are able.

It makes it hard for the club to honestly examine itself and improve if there are some intent of bringing the club into public disrepute so that they can then arrive on their white charges.

That's called 'balance'.

Haha I thought caro and balance was an oxymoron.

Balance should have been presented earlier.

That was just a poor use of 'woops I've been a bit one sided and I dont know how to end this ill just throw in this last line that kinda contradicts my whole article and instead of leaving the reader with an informed argument I've now left them thinking well what the hell did I just read? If Demetriou backs them then is it a big issue, is it going to bet worse? And then they will be forced to read my other churnalism articles and become in a constant loop of deja vu and 20 articles later they might get whats happening'

Welcome to the caro zone...

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

BB

I don't know about McLardy, But CS & CC if anyone, certainly will be singled out.

CS was obviously told last year when they did the post season review to keep his nose out of the FD business.

CC was replaced as Football Manager and put into a marketing role, again to keep his nose out of FD business.

Apparently there is a 6 month payout clause in CS 3 year engagement.

CC would not be a loss.

Journalists don't usually reveal their sources but if there was a defamation action taken against the Age and Wilson I suggest the process of discovery might flush out the identity of her informants. The subplot to this saga could be revealed and might embarrass a few people whose obsessive hatred of Schwab, Stynes and Lyon caused them to go overboard and do damage to the club. It might also uncover the fact that some of the information supplied to journos has been embellished and twisted to suit their agenda.

Some interesting revelations will soon be forthcoming about these people.

Yes indeed it would flush them out and I hope when it does they are never allowed to set foot in the Melbourne Football Club; ever. These moral crusaders pretend that it's all in the best interests of the club but we know it's about payback and position.

Their names will come out and hopefully they will never again be able to have any say in the future of the club, ever.

There are some nasty, bitter and twisted individuals potting the club right now.

Yes indeed it would flush them out and I hope when it does they are never allowed to set foot in the Melbourne Football Club; ever. These moral crusaders pretend that it's all in the best interests of the club but we know it's about payback and position.

Their names will come out and hopefully they will never again be able to have any say in the future of the club, ever.

There are some nasty, bitter and twisted individuals potting the club right now.

Yes, and if they console themselves with the same nonsense that Gardner does with his "sanction individuals, not clubs" motif then they are delusional.

If this gets to that point, the hardest hit will be the club - the individuals will be fine, the club will bear the brunt.

How do we even know the contents of the supposed "open discussion" of tanking and its effect on draft picks?

For all anyone on the outside knows it could've been a concession that they should discuss the elephant in the room, since every 2nd journalist was asking & talking about the prospect of tanking.

I contend that the club would be derelict in its duty if there was no forward planning and discussion of the likely scenarios and subsequent picks.

How on earth could you discuss list management without acknowledging the possibility of a priority pick, but that we needed to not win over a certain amount of games to guarantee it?

There is no cold hard evidence of a conclusion and a club directive.

The details as presented are far too vague.

We also have no timeline for the supposed meeting.

Was it in preseason?

Following the Richmond win?

After the season?

Much needed context.

Shows even genius reporters like Caro don't know the AFL rules. She said we could even lose Viney if we lost picks 4 and 27.

The rules say a father/son selection will be taken with the next non compo pick that the club has, after another club has nominated him. In this case Port nominated him with pick 7 and our next live pick must be used. Unless we lose every pick in this draft he would still get to us.

Learn the bloody rules before you print further misinformation Caro. While you are at it, look up "the presumption of innocence" or in words you can understand, "innocent until proven guilty". You have clearly never heard of it before.

Edited November 1, 201212 yr by Redleg

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

Do you seriously believe that either of those accusations are inaccurate? Does anyone?

In my view the tanking was ok, the incompetence of the tanking is the worst part.

Edited November 1, 201212 yr by Hazyshadeofgrinter

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.

There were obviously some shady dealings in 2009, however to say what she is reporting is correct is way off too.

She is making snippets of info into a narrative of her choosing. Twisting the story to drive her vendettas. Absolutely no balance in what she is writing, and is sensationalising the story by releasing a rehashed versions of previous articles on a daily basis.

If she was just "reporting" on the matter she would have known the "Vault" was the name of the building, not the meetings. She would provide actual quotes not just heresay and she wouldn't put in throw away line about Brad Green being "disillusioned" without any evidence to support it.

If Melbourne are guilty then the club deserves its right whack, but she has in no way reported accurately or fairly on the matter.

I heard from someone who heard from someone that is was not Greens idea to retire and was well and truly pushed into it and again the club has [censored] off another champion of the club. Whether he would have had an impact or not who knows.

We also have no timeline for the supposed meeting.

Was it in preseason?

Following the Richmond win?

After the season?

Much needed context.

From wht Wilson gathered it was a Match Committee meeting after the Port Adelaide game.

The meeting was intended, in the original article, to be the smoking gun as she more than implied it was 'codenamed' and 'secret.'

This isn't journalism by the way, PaulRB. It's unfair extrapolation and we should be exploring legal action against The Age. I don't think we will but we should have a think about it.

"innocent until proven guilty".

She's a journo mate, not a criminal prosecutor.

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.

What sh!t stirrer.

Mate better to be rid of you. Get stuffed with your power play.

We're finally on a good course and you're trying to ride the wave like some vacuous glory hound. Get behind the Melbourne Demons or just take a walk. We'll see you on the other side of our next premiership.

I heard from someone who heard from someone that is was not Greens idea to retire and was well and truly pushed into it and again the club has [censored] off another champion of the club. Whether he would have had an impact or not who knows.

He was done.

We should have kept Junior because while his body was failing, he was a leader of significance.

The rest we have pushed out the door had it coming.

AFL is a brutal existence.

And why bring that up here?

There were obviously some shady dealings in 2009, however to say what she is reporting is correct is way off too.

So you honestly still think that the admin did not openly discuss their tanking intentions in meetings of 10+ people?

I heard from someone who heard from someone that is was not Greens idea to retire and was well and truly pushed into it and again the club has [censored] off another champion of the club. Whether he would have had an impact or not who knows.

That's all good and well but she needs to show evidence of this. A quote from Green himself confirming this would be a minimum.

Do you seriously believe that either of those accusations are inaccurate? Does anyone?

In my view the tanking was ok, the incompetence of the tanking is the worst part.

I think the Board, Admin and FD were acting in what they believed to be the best interests of the MFC for long-term success but poor implementation may have come unstuck.

Do you agree?

So you honestly still think that the admin did not openly discuss their tanking intentions in meetings of 10+ people?

So its the number of people in the room that is your issue?

'We should have discussed it with 6 people. There are 11 people here, Chris! You have crossed the rubicon, sir!'

I want to know what was said that has Clothier so excited. If he is as excited as Caroline thinks he is.

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.

Thank you for the Appeal Grounds. Go back and see the standards required for santions imposed on wrongdoers.

The civil standard is nothing more than, "I am not sure if it happened but it could have, so on the balance of probabilities I find it did."

So its the number of people in the room that is your issue?

'We should have discussed it with 6 people. There are 11 people here, Chris! You have crossed the rubicon, sir!'

I want to know what was said that has Clothier so excited. If he is as excited as Caroline thinks he is.

You sound ridiculous. Of course the number of people you discuss highly sensitive and potentially damaging information with is critical. You would have fit in well in the vault.

I think the Board, Admin and FD were acting in what they believed to be the best interests of the MFC for long-term success but poor implementation may have come unstuck.

Do you agree?

I certainly don't think they deliberately set out to ruin the club if that is what you're getting at. Be that as it may, ruining the club is what they have been doing.

I think this will develop into much more than just an investigation into Melbourne.

It be be an ongoing enquiry into several clubs and the whole so called Tanking agenda.

This could drag on another 12 months.

In the end I feel no one will be penalised, as the practice was common,and no hard evidence of teams being told to lose will eventuate.

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.

So you're happy that the AFL won't provide a running commentary, but you want officials from our club to?

You seem to be loving this; have you ever posted anything positive about the club?

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.

They must have really upset you; what was it, you were on the previous board or and employee or an official?

Where does all the bitterness come from, and if you can't answer that perhaps you should seek help?

I asked the question of your running mate Hazy etc., three times but never got a response, perhaps you'll answer the question.

Have you ever been a Board Member an Official or an Employee of the club?