I will go out on a limb here and say if Schwab was not reappointed, Brock would not have been on OTC and we would not be in the middle of this.

Slowly the nature and form of the beast appear.

I get the feeling this vendetta against the MFC is personal for CW

I also get the feeling - ex players linked to '186' who were un-happy with CC & CS are fuelling this fire. Interesting times

Yes it all goes back to 186 I agree & the events that lead up to it. Those same players who turned it up that day & played under reported protest against CS are now doing there utmost to undermine the club & seek some sort of revenge for whatever grievances they have. All this is starting to come out after certain players have left the club over the last couple of weeks. It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of the info is coming from Brent Moloney. That's my take on it anyway.

everyone please email

[email protected]

but do so with class and dignity please

Edited November 3, 201212 yr by Curry & Beer

I get the feeling this vendetta against the MFC is personal for CW

I also get the feeling - ex players linked to '186' who were un-happy with CC & CS are fuelling this fire. Interesting times

Yes,is it just a coincidence that this story gathered speed this week, after the MFC de-listed or moved 14 players from the list?

Make no mistake, we are in deep trouble here. If the investigators hand down their decision before the ND, then I believe we will lose pick 4, get fined heavily, and and probably cop further sanctions. Can the league also force changes at the board and management level - such as the removal of Schwab and McLardy? i don't know. But if we lose draft picks, then we can draw hope from our training mates the Mellbourne Storm. They became a better, tougher club after they were punished.

Yet another biased, blinkered article from Wilson that doesn't mention Richmond or the role they played in THAT game. She's like a pirate with an eyepatch over both eyes on this issue. I just hope that the league's investigation also drags Caroline's precious tigers into the mess.

Edited November 3, 201212 yr by DirtyDees DDC

Which year did we tank; was it 2009 or was it this year?

Looking at Melbourne’s performance under both Bailey and Neeld, who both tried to get the best outcome for Melbourne using the players at their disposal, let’s analyse the relative results (leaving out the Suns and Giants who were not there in 2009).

2009 (Bailey)

2012 (Neeld)

Games won

4

1 (Essendon by a goal)

Games where we were leading at the final siren.

4

1

Backmen played out of position

Frawley (for a few games)

Rivers & Garland

(for most of the season)

Forwards played up back

Nil?

Watts

(for most of the season)

Experiments with team list.

Yes

Yes

Obviously looking at the above, why isn’t Caro accusing us of ‘tanking’ this year? Neeld, playing the same opposition Clubs that Melbourne faced in 2009 under Bailey, won only a solitary match. In other words, Bailey’s performance was superior to that of Neeld by a factor of four times!

This remind me of one of the greatest cricketers of all time Muttiah Muralitharan

Even though he has proven so many times he is not a thrower, so many people still want to believe that's the case.

Muralitharan stopped being a 'chucker' when the ICC, under pressure, changed the technical definition of 'throwing' by altering the levels of permissible arm bend etc.

Tanking doesn't even have a definition. At best, it is loosely categorised as any of the following behaviours:

• Instructing the players to deliberately lose a match
  
• Using unusual tactics in matches, including improbable positional changes
  
• Resting a team's best players with minor injuries, who would probably not be rested if the team were in finals contention
  
• Conversely, resting players before finals where the result of a match is irrelevant (e.g. Fremantle)
  
• In collaboration with these, playing younger players who do not yet have much experience at AFL level.
  

Only the first behaviour is a high-level, direct attempt to 'tank' in a game itself. I still doubt there is any evidence that this is the case in the current Melbourne controversy. Caroline Wilson hasn't produced one shred of evidence that this is the case, and she and other journalists are limited to the 'other' behaviours. Most of it is still conjecture, happenstance and hearsay, but they've drawn conclusions from these and other 'coincidences'. In our case, Wilson has totally avoided any debate on the functional differences between these behaviours, just labels them all as 'disgusting'.

Take for instance, the games under question in 2009. Danny Frawley, commentating on the Melbourne-Richmond match, looks at the spent and disappointed Melbourne players after the game and specifically says 'you can't tell me they weren't trying'. Wilson and others point to the ' player resting' , 'unusual moves', 'limited rotation numbers' and 'player selection policies' in that and two other games and concludes 'they tanked'. Direct versus indirect evidence.

The indirect behaviours have been justified (for Carlton, Collingwood etc.) and distinguished as sensible player management and a development strategy for a team with no chance of playing finals. However, somehow, Wilson has made this distinction for Carlton (labelling the idea as 'rot') but rejected it for Melbourne (labelling it as 'sickening'). Well, to me, if they're 'sickening' for Melbourne, they're 'sickening' for Carlton and the others. I just can't see the distinction that she can.

I wouldn't be surprised that the AFL will find that at no stage did any Melbourne team or players 'tank' on the day i.e. receive direct instructions to lose. Is that enough to avoid a tanking penalty? Or ... like Muralitharan ... will the definition be moulded and re-defined to achieve a specific political end? Who knows at this point?

I do think it entirely plausible however that the actions of certain individuals will be scrutinised in the report or findings, and that they might be subject a rule (such as 'bringing the game into disrepute') and some heads might roll. They still have to be proved, and the 'perpetrators' clearly identified. At this stage, even that's not clear, other than Wilson being on an apparent witch-hunt for certain individuals.

PS. Our biggest and only on-field tank, when some players actually didn't try, was probably '186', but that's another fifty threads on Demonland.

everyone please email

[email protected]

but do so with class and dignity please

Don't give her the satisfaction

Which year did we tank; was it 2009 or was it this year?

Looking at Melbourne’s performance under both Bailey and Neeld, who both tried to get the best outcome for Melbourne using the players at their disposal, let’s analyse the relative results (leaving out the Suns and Giants who were not there in 2009).

Games won: 2009 (Bailey) =4 / 2012 (Neeld) = 1 (Essendon by a goal)

Games where we were leading at the final siren: 2009 (Bailey) = 5 / 2012 (Neeld) = 1

Backmen played out of position: 2009 (Bailey) = Frawley (for a few games) /

2012 (Neeld) = Rivers & Garland (for most of the season)

Forwards played up back: 2009 (Bailey) = Nil? / 2012 (Neeld) = Watts (for most of the season)

Experiments with team list: 2009 (Bailey) = Yes / 2012 (Neeld) = Yes

Obviously looking at the above, why isn’t Caro accusing us of ‘tanking’ this year? Neeld, playing the same opposition Clubs that Melbourne faced in 2009 under Bailey, won only a solitary match. In other words, Bailey’s performance was superior to that of Neeld by a factor of four times!

To quote CW at the end of her article, "If what some former players and coaches say is true then the tanking was only half of it". I have a vague suspicion to what she is talking about and have said similar here. She certainly has more information on the investigation which goes beyond tanking that is still not in the public domain. She has some ammo to back up the heavy attack on the club. The worst is yet come.

She's merely referring to the idea she tried spouting that there are or were 'factions' in the club which 186 brought to a head, and which might still be causing problems.

She's already touched on it. She has no more evidence to back it up, so she didn't go into it.

You have no more evidence, or any evidence, or even a brain. So shush.

For those movie buffs out there...

What Richard Gere says to Lisa Eilbacher in "An Officer and a Gentleman"

"Get off my plane?"

Jordan Mcmahon misses that goal and we're not having this discussion.

With it coming down to such an incredibly fine line, it's astonishing we're talking about it 3 years later.

There is 100% an agenda at play here.

Right next to Ms. wilson's so called 'article' is the rehash of the Sheedy 'I didn't get the job, they were hopeless, I'm the only one that can save them' piece by Adam Cooper. Nearly a full page of irrelevant, self serving rubbish.

Some context: there is written evidence of breaking clear rules by Adelaide, Tippett and his agents.

Tigers have serial issues with Dustin Martin, and now Edwards. Facts that could be reported and commented upon.

Please, Ms Wilson, as you troll this site (pun intended) to feel important, please note that your continued poor efforts at true journalism and allowing your bias to show serves no one. Your editors have let you down by allowing you to make a fool of yourself by publishing your vitriolic opinion. You, madam, are the Alan Jones of sports Journalism.

Please put your facts up or shut up. Report or comment on facts based stories would be a minimum standard of even high school journalists. To spend 5 days pumping your own bandwagon, hatred and attempts to damage an institution and everyone in it based purely on innuendo is really poor form.

Attacking the legacy of a dead person who had more courage, dignity and decency in a toenail clipping than you have in your whole body is reprehensible, appalling and belittles you further.

I would suggest you crawl under a rock... But the spiders and slugs may find you too repulsive.

I've emailed the subscription dept and Caroline herself.

They are in no doubt as to why I will no longer subscribe to nor read The Age.

I hope many others do the same.

Patrick Smith, in his article today, said the following:

'it has been a dogged and expansive inquiry which has unearthed damning evidence that Melbourne had made draft picks a priority ahead of victory'

So the allegation seems to be that we had draft picks as a paramount priority.

How can this be a crime? How can wanting to secure the long term viability of your football club be something the AFL wants to punish? If this is all the AFL can hang on us, then they surely can't punish us, as to do so would be to say that clubs must always take the short term view in each season.

Yes,is it just a coincidence that this story gathered speed this week, after the MFC de-listed or moved 14 players from the list?

...

Ok, so who are you implying?

Bate? Rivers? Petterd? Moloney? Martin? Jurrah? Bennell? or Green?

email sent

I will go out on a limb here and say if Schwab was not reappointed, Brock would not have been on OTC and we would not be in the middle of this.

Fair chance you are right here 'Redleg'.

It will come out in time.

So in other words you have no idea....

Otherwise you could simply say I am lead to believe that,,,,,, Or I have it on good authority that from a source I can't name that......

Otherwise anyone can make an open ended statement like that.

I know exactly what the situation with the Tippet contract is. But I wont say because it will come out in time.

Note that last line was a joke.

Ok, so who are you implying?

Bate? Rivers? Petterd? Moloney? Martin? Jurrah? Bennell? or Green?

She now has more sources formerly close to the club who no longer have an alliegance to the team. Whether they have talked..I don't know, but i'd be stunned if reporters have not tried to contact our former players to get some dirt.

They'd have called everyone.

Ben Polis, Lawrie DeLaRue, Eugene Kaspersky, and more importantly, any of their underlings.

They'd have called Kal Fried. They'd have called Joel Hocking. They'd have called the kids who did work experience at the club that year.

Sean Wellman, Bohdan Babiczuk, Ross Monaghan, Peter German, Jace Bode, Isaac Weetra, John Meesen, Shane Valenti, Paul Johnson, Rhys Healey, Cam Johnston, Tom Rockliff, Clint Stanaway...

Anyone that was in any remote way linked to the club around those years.

Then get as many words out of them as you can, and twist away.

In addition to us cancelling subscriptions, remember advertising is their revenue. I for one will never use the Age again for advertising and I will be speaking to my Real Estate mates and business friends to convince them to do the same.

Let's not make wild claims here.

Stories like this generate a tonne of publicity = a tonne of page views = good for advertising. I doubt that anyone in advertising or real estate will jump off The Age just because CW has a bee in her bonnet re MFC...

I have read most of CW's other articles on this topic thinking that where there is smoke, there must be fire - but this one is way over the top.

Edited November 3, 201212 yr by cfe

by the look of the posting time, this site needs to update its clock to account for DST.

"Even losing heart in one final game for an earlier pick seems more forgivable than systematic planning, career-ending threats and a plan which seems to have dragged on for weeks leading into months."

Terry Wallace in 2009

Edited November 3, 201212 yr by Clint Bizkit

or is it managed from Perth?