Nothing in The Age today...

Have we weathered the storm for the moment?

I guess it will reemerge when the AFL is due to meet and (presumably) discuss their investigation on the 19th..?

please BB Do you really believe the AFL are shaking in fear right now?

The inside of MFC HQ will be a lot more tense i assure you.

I think you very much misunderstand the predicament the club actually faces. it either fights or capitulates. If it does that it will have rolled over so far many will be dizzy. If it rolls over many will abandon as being exactly what many claim , that being a vaccuous refuge of old boys and having little relevance to the modern game" i.e Standing for Nothing.

It would seem that those with legalese on this site and elswhere suggest that the AFL would have little to put forward or indeed defend it self with should it go to court..

In many respects the club could be at a point where it has little to lose should it decide to go all out David against the Goliath. Ego inc ( aka Vladamania ) is alerady percieved as the over bearing and unfair protaganist.. The Schoolyard Bully in this instance.

Should the AFL impose a sanction that going to be as bad as it gets.. The BEST it could get is to take them to task. Other than money theres not muchg at stake, other that the aforementioned existance issues.

To accept any penalty is to efectively admit it was of our doing. It wasnt. The climate and circumstances were all of the AFL's creation. It needs to take ownership of the malaise and fix it .It tacitly has but theres no esacaping who made this able.

I dont actually see the club shaking in fear. GOOD

I think you very much misunderstand the predicament the club actually faces. it either fights or capitulates. If it does that it will have rolled over so far many will be dizzy. If it rolls over many will abandon as being exactly what many claim , that being a vaccuous refuge of old boys and having little relevance to the modern game" i.e Standing for Nothing.

It would seem that those with legalese on this site and elswhere suggest that the AFL would have little to put forward or indeed defend it self with should it go to court..

In many respects the club could be at a point where it has little to lose should it decide to go all out David against the Goliath. Ego inc ( aka Vladamania ) is alerady percieved as the over bearing and unfair protaganist.. The Schoolyard Bully in this instance.

Should the AFL impose a sanction that going to be as bad as it gets.. The BEST it could get is to take them to task. Other than money theres not muchg at stake, other that the aforementioned existance issues.

To accept any penalty is to efectively admit it was of our doing. It wasnt. The climate and circumstances were all of the AFL's creation. It needs to take ownership of the malaise and fix it .It tacitly has but theres no esacaping who made this able.

I dont actually see the club shaking in fear. GOOD

you always write so much!!

I have ALWAYS maintained that the MFC must go to court.

But i do not for a minute think the AFL are becoming worried or shaky.

Don't know if this has already been posted (apologies if it has), but here's another article questioning the fact whether the MFC did actually break the rules (by Michael Burke of Victoria Uni News)...

https://theconversat...the-rules-10519

you always write so much!!

I have ALWAYS maintained that the MFC must go to court.

But i do not for a minute think the AFL are becoming worried or shaky.

WYL I dont for a min think the AFL are shaking, I sont suspect theyre even worried but that only goes to my point . They to a point are misreading the situaton . They ought to be concerned. THEY have the problem.

In his recent message, McLardy used the words '...certain aspects of MFC's on-field performance in the 2009 season,” not 'Tanking'. The 'T' word is not usesd. The AFL regulations do not use the 'T' word. Ipso facto, we cannot be accused of tanking.

Semantic maybe but think about it - there is no rule against tanking per se. So what can the AFL find? Also, Tanking = Cheating and AFL would not want to put that label on an AFL Club...imagine the headlines in NRL land...

I honestly think that if AD had been in Australia at the time HWSNBN (mark 11) made his comments on OTC, AD would have applied his straight bat to it and deflected it away. But his underlings let the genie out of the bottle and now...

Here is a truly independant article on the subject. Michael Bourke is an academic not a journo.

http://theconversati...the-rules-10519

I feel a lot more optimistic. Can't imagine the AFL would want to widen the investigation, after all the head of the AFL Commission is more than loosely associated with the other team that may not tried to win. The longer this goes on the longer the AFL will find a way to lessen the impact on MFC. Maybe, a position of: List management has been exercised by many clubs and therefore we absolve all of them from any wrong doing and the rules will be tightened.

Don't know if this has already been posted (apologies if it has), but here's another article questioning the fact whether the MFC did actually break the rules (by Michael Burke of Victoria Uni News)...

https://theconversat...the-rules-10519

thanks Hardtack

thats a great article

If it goes to court all arguments will be ajudicated on merit and relevance according to law. All hysteria and agenda is removed ( or highlighted lol )

The AFL has written itself in glorious 'greyness" though abtractness in its rules. The law doesnt like grey !

WYL I dont for a min think the AFL are shaking, I sont suspect theyre even worried but that only goes to my point . They to a point are misreading the situaton . They ought to be concerned. THEY have the problem.

how do you know they are misreading a situation? They haven't said anything...

Liam Jurrah's benching in 2009 game against St Kilda doesn't make sense

Now I've heard it all. This is just clutching at straws stuff. I do believe that Bruce comes on here from time to time and would love to know how he feels being dragged into this.

Now we are quoting friends of players. Perhaps the papers would let me have my say. Also disappointing that Jurrah walks out on us and now his friend feels compelled to get involved.

Now we are quoting friends of players. Perhaps the papers would let me have my say. Also disappointing that Jurrah walks out on us and now his friend feels compelled to get involved.

Isn't the first time he put the boot into us.

Now we are quoting friends of players. Perhaps the papers would let me have my say. Also disappointing that Jurrah walks out on us and now his friend feels compelled to get involved.

Masterfully understated Red !!

Have no doubt there were many other words that were your first choice

how do you know they are misreading a situation? They haven't said anything...

For mine its actually a lot about what they havent said.

we'll see

I very much doubt the AFL has leaked info about this investigation, nothing to gain in my view. I suspect CW has got all her info from people who have been interviewed and/or from people close to people who have interviewed. She than has written in a way that makes it sounds as if she knows all about the investigation.

I guess the investigators would have warned those they were interviewing to keep quiet, but given the number of people interviewed (and the fact most were ex employees with axes to grind) there was a huge chance of info leaking out. Though it is strange that appear only to have leaked to CW - perhaps that indicates only a small number of people have leaked.

I would love for the AFL to interview CW, demand to now the source of her info and when she refused remove her AFL press accreditation. Not going to happen but it makes me chuckle to think of it.

The other interesting thing relates to proof. CW said that IT specialists had gone to MFC last month to check employee emails. Well that could have been the end of October or the beginning of October (and any where in between). Either way if there was something incriminating it would have been found by now (how long would it take to search through a few thousand emails).

If incriminating evidence has been found and the AFL was leaking CW would know about it and would report it. If they found something and there was no AFL leak they would, I assume, be very keen to get on with sanctioning us so as to not unduly muck around with the draft. I reckon if we have not heard something by the end of the week from either CW or the AFL about incriminating evidence they probably don't have any. Without it they will find it very hard to sanction us if all they have is testimony from disgruntled ex employees present at the so called secret vault meeting.

I think we also have to be mindful that CW is most likely preparing in case we are found to have no case to answer.

By trying to convince the public that we are, she can then get mileage out of the "scandal" of us getting away with no sanctions for the heinous crime we have committed AND the AFL turning a blind eye on tanking because it was a murky situation of their own creation.

In her eyes, obviously.

And she hopes the eyes of the public.

Any eventual outcome can and will be twisted to make it appear that she was right all along.

She's just putting out dots that she can connect later on.

Now we are quoting friends of players. Perhaps the papers would let me have my say. Also disappointing that Jurrah walks out on us and now his friend feels compelled to get involved.

BHM has been talking behind the scenes for some time now.

Sets up interviews with EMT. I bet you he has met Mifsud before.

I wouldn't be surprised if he's one of CW's sources.

BHM has been talking behind the scenes for some time now.

Sets up interviews with EMT. I bet you he has met Mifsud before.

I wouldn't be surprised if he's one of CW's sources.

While this may be true, it is likely that the journo trawled any recent books they could find about MFC, saw or recalled that para re Jurrah and phoned the author. And what could the author say but he stands by whatever he wrote. This then gets turned into a 'new fact'.

I think we also have to be mindful that CW is most likely preparing in case we are found to have no case to answer.

By trying to convince the public that we are, she can then get mileage out of the "scandal" of us getting away with no sanctions for the heinous crime we have committed AND the AFL turning a blind eye on tanking because it was a murky situation of their own creation.

In her eyes, obviously.

And she hopes the eyes of the public.

Any eventual outcome can and will be twisted to make it appear that she was right all along.

She's just putting out dots that she can connect later on.

Wilson can/will never accept that she is wrong even if it is proven beyond any doubt, she is like KB, it must be a Richmond trait.

So we can never expect an apology unless it is Court ordered.

Edited November 5, 201212 yr by RobbieF

I maintain the view that Jurrah's book came out way to early...with these latest allegations it could easily end up as something that causes the MFC far more harm than good.

Once a book is published, it is no longer just the property of the writer..The words are out there for all to read.

I understand why the club was co-operative, but personally i would not have allowed it.

In modern day football players kick a goal, then runs 100 meters to the bench for 30 seconds of rest before running 100 meters back to their position. One wonders if the run up and back is worth the rest. As for Jurrah, he had a lousy tank and would not have by himself changed the result in any significant way. This is just bullxxxx reporting to beat up a story where none exists in this instance. The age seems to be the only paper consistently running articles on 'MFC tanking'. I would think they should clarify the point that no players have as yet admitted to having tanked or been asked to tank, so its really MFC officials not performing to their best rather than MFC tanking. but i guess MFC officials not performing to their best makes a lousy headline.

AFL would probably be pushing it to finish this investigation before draft day, so if the draft goes ahead we would still get our picks. Taking these picks away afterwards is difficult, what happens to Viney and others we picked. they sit around waiting for next year, or go into the next draft so GWS or GC can pick them up? The other clubs would be [censored] if GWS and GC were handed first shot at these. As such I would expect that all draft picks made before the results are known will be honored, future picks though maybe in jeopardy. Officials will be ex-communicated.

The problem the AFL has is that it is trying to defend an inequitable system that they built, priority picks were to go to struggling clubs, but more top clubs got them than low clubs, top clubs get prime time viewing, Anzac day, friday night, etc.. while the poorer clubs travel all over Australia playing interstate.. etc.. The AFL does not want to have to defend the inequality of their system by trying to punish Melbourne, i wonder if they will try to do a deal before hand to give Melbourne a lighter caning if they accept it meekly and say nothing so that the problem goes away quicker.

The guy came off after kicking a goal over hIs head from 40m out straight in front.

Unless you are Gary Ablett - you should get dragged.

It's laughable when this discussion turns to specific actions of 'tanking' and in is why I am confident we will get off. Not on Nov 19 mind you, I have no idea how the AFL is going to play this. Although the commission seems more level headed and not so susceptible to loud minorities and outside 'pressure.'

The Jurrah book was premature. It's a bit embarrassing.

BB we are the target make no mistake. A lot of this has waited till Jimma passed on out of "respect".

Yes other clubs did it. Is it unfair..Yep. But the reality is because of how open we were at doing it & how bad we executed it all, we are in the Gun.

I have always believed this will end in court...

And I suspect the AFL have already sat in juddgement on this, & decided guilt, & a penalty range.

enter the Age & cw, writes a savaging piece designed to ruffle our brows & raise our passive hackles.

Then by Friday or Saturday, the AFL commission have read our mood, to see if the penalty range is tolerable, or if we will take it to court if its too intolerable.

They pass on the tolerable penalty knowing it will die down.

And cw has her reputation strengthened in the eyes of the footy public.

case closed? Hmmn????

Lets see if the rumour is accurate, & the AFL & cw & the club are playing us in some pantomime? IF true, but we still get JV, then I'll wonder deeply about the schemings of all this.

This won't be popular but the supporters I was with at the G that day all believed that Jurrah came off when he was beginning to play too well. We were laughing about it at the time. It was very obvious.

That said, it's hardly definitive and it's silly to pen an article about it. It just shows how starved of footy the papers are.

This thread is racing towards a century in Gilchrist style. It makes the 'No T$ No B$ Thread' look like a Bill Lawry innings by comparison.

It's cricket season. Those cricketers know how to tank properly. MFC would be laughed out of a Karachi hotel with its amateurish attempts. News of the World wouldn't even bother with a hidden camera.

This won't be popular but the supporters I was with at the G that day all believed that Jurrah came off when he was beginning to play too well. We were laughing about it at the time. It was very obvious.

That said, it's hardly definitive and it's silly to pen an article about it. It just shows how starved of footy the papers are.

Let's not conflate supporters, despondent about the team's actual form and jokingly looking for humour about losing games with actual policy. I recall supporters joking every time a player fumbled that it was all party of 'the plan'. But clearly that player did not intend to fumble.