Hearing our first 2 picks gone from this yr's draft.

Source: Afl assistant coach.

Make of it what you will. Maybe incorrect, but sad if true.

Mate, don't just come in here a dribble a couple of one-liners when it's glaringly obvious that you haven't taken the time and effort to gain a minimal grasp of the situation. Do yourself a favour by reading and appreciating some of the quality postings on this and other threads before making silly comments.

Mate, don't just come in here a dribble a couple of one-liners when it's glaringly obvious that you haven't taken the time and effort to gain a minimal grasp of the situation. Do yourself a favour by reading and appreciating some of the quality postings on this and other threads before making silly comments.

Shows how much you know!

Please...

Shows how much you know!

Please...

I don't care about how much McQueen knows I want to know what makes you so sure of the words of this coach and what makes him so sure of the penalty that hasn't been decided yet as the Comission has t yet met on it.

That doesn't mean this isn't AFL kabuki theatre but spare me your sensitivity on what would have to be the most sensitive topics that has come up for this club for 16 years.

I've asked the poster in question for the "context" in which these comments were said, yet they've not responded despite a further 'contribution' in this thread.

Dismiss their comments, as they were clearly made in the context I supposed.

good one Seinfeld

yeah whatever buddy, your insight is appreciated, we can't have enough people around here saying we've done things wrong in the past, again, would like to show me your post from 2009 that said we shouldn't be getting high draft picks. I am sure you were advocating that on draft night the club should have just passed on pick 1 and 2 on the grounds that we shouldn't need them as we are building a stronger club. That would be brilliant list management wouldn't it

I'm not going to delve into the Demonland archives as:

1) I just registered here this year. (Waiting for the argument you aren't a real supporter/Demonlander)

2) I don't classify myself as a shut in who lives in a unabomber style shack and I definitely am not a shut in who pores over years of Demonland posts to win faux arguments with obsessive pointdexters like yourself.

If you must know, I was leary about the whole idea of the club bottoming out but I was willing to give it time to show some results. If the club could show some potential and upside via results on the park, win 5-7 games and get picks 1-5, I would have been just as happy. I was pretty sure that the team was pretty green and that probably wouldn't happen but if it did, great.

Your use of hyperbole kills what you say. Next time you get in front of the keyboard, lay off the red cordial. I am sure you can put forth a respectful, considered argument without resembling the St. Bernard from 'Cujo'.

I do appreciate the irony of me now being disrespectful but if you want some manners, show some yourself.

I've asked the poster in question for the "context" in which these comments were said, yet they've not responded despite a further 'contribution' in this thread.

Dismiss their comments, as they were clearly made in the context I supposed.

Ben Hur:

I asked the person their thoughts and the response was their opinion.

What they have heard from within an AFL club.

Never said it was fact, just sharing thoughts of someone that works at the inner sanctum at a club.

People can make of it what they want, not big noting just stating an opinion.

Cheers.

Ben Hur:

I asked the person their thoughts and the response was their opinion.

Ah, just as I thought.

They were simply parroting industry group think.

Thanks.

PS: next time provide the context of a discussion so the readers are better equipped to form a view of the validity. I now completely dismiss your input.

I also heard similar comments to those suggested by 'Grimes is Great' over the weekend during a dinner I had with a current senior coach and one his best mates (who is an employee of the AFL very high up the tree). Whilst there was no mention of specific penalties, it doesn't sound good. Found it interesting that both of them acknowledged the AFL system is to blame and that clubs (such as the MFC) will inherently take advantage of the rules and systems in place.

Hearing our first 2 picks gone from this yr's draft.

Source: Afl assistant coach.

Make of it what you will. Maybe incorrect, but sad if true.

Makes no sense ....... because our 2nd pick is now Viney ,,,,..... and to unravel that would certainly lead to questions about the legality of the draft.

So you go to a kid in the middle of his VCE Exams and tell him whatever he has signed and whatever plans he has made you are going to send him back to a draft and probably interstate? For this kid to read speculation along these lines over breakfast on the morning of his VCE English exam is one of Wilson's nastier little games.

Would the AFL then threaten Todd and Meaghan Viney with Todd's job - if they decided to sue on behalf of their son?

Surely the AFL wouldn't be quite so foolish. Be smarter for them to impose a blanket ban on the whole of this year's draft than to appear to pick on our father-son selection

I was leary about the whole idea of the club bottoming out

That statement has to mean that you believe we lost games on purpose. 'The idea of bottoming out' can only mean that you think it was some kind of deliberate decision, as opposed to the natural result of being a horrible side. It never ceases to amaze me how people will find ways to criticise the club, do you really think Dean Bailey was enjoying the regular beltings, beltings that ultimately cost him his gig? We played awful footy and we got high draft pick like every other club. We moved on the older players and as fas I can tell we did not make a mistake in doing that. Nobody decided to bottom-out, we just bottomed out, so don't bag the club for something they did even do.

Has Hankook issued a denial yet?

A person, being a player, coach or assistant coach, must at all times perform on their merits and must not induce, or encourage, any player, coach or assistant coach not to perform on their merits in any match – or in relation to any aspect of that match, for any reason whatsoever.

Last time I check, neither Schwab or COnnolly are a player, coach or assistant coach.

We know the players tried to win.

We know Bailey never told them to lose.

The AFL have absolutely nothing they can ping us on, and if they do then they are operating 0utside their own rules, and the law.

This whole investigation is a joke.

Has Hankook issued a denial yet?

why would they, the guys a lifelong demon, he poured millions into the club, why would he do that to the supporters, i bet it that other little racist grub.

A person, being a player, coach or assistant coach, must at all times perform on their merits ....

I'm not even sure what role the assistant coaches could have had in this. Bailey was head coach, and ultimately called the shots. If he's steadfast that he never gave instructions to lose, by whatever means, hard to see how much further down the line it could go. Presumably tanking would come about primarily through match day coaching, which was all Bailey's call.

The outcome of the enquiry seems to hinge on whether or not CC deliberately (and not as a joke) instructed the FD to lose matches.

I'm not even sure what role the assistant coaches could have had in this. Bailey was head coach, and ultimately called the shots. If he's steadfast that he never gave instructions to lose, by whatever means, hard to see how much further down the line it could go. Presumably tanking would come about primarily through match day coaching, which was all Bailey's call.

The outcome of the enquiry seems to hinge on whether or not CC deliberately (and not as a joke) instructed the FD to lose matches.

And the leaks an attempt to spook the faint hearted into some 'admission' that does not already exist.

Interesting that yesterday's Jon Ralph piece talked about interviewees protesting innocence being told that their account did not square with others.

To which any sensible person would say so what? I stand by my recollection.

And the leaks an attempt to spook the faint hearted into some 'admission' that does not already exist.

Interesting that yesterday's Jon Ralph piece talked about interviewees protesting innocence being told that their account did not square with others.

To which any sensible person would say so what? I stand by my recollection.

And if Ralph is correct in the way he's reported it (which I somehow doubt), there's already been an abuse of process because the investigators could only be basing their questioning on an assumption that one version is true and any variation from that must be false.

The entire investigation appears to be unravelling day by day with these revelations of Gestapo tactics used to frighten witnesses into changing their stories. My experience is that its rare for everyone who attended a meeting 3½ years ago to have identical impressions and versions of what went on at those meetings. I wonder if the UN interrogator hasn't considered the possibilty that the ones who provided the "vault" scenario of threats about their jobs are the wrong accounts embellished perhaps because they are being told by disgruntled ex employees who have it in for the club?

The original "vault" stories spoke of the so-called dismissal threats as the major focus of the meeting. Now we learn that it was just an aside, a small part of a larger meeting making it even more plausible that it was all a part of Connolly being facetious - that's the man's sense of humour.

In any event, after reading this latest story I'm convinced that no witness should go into a meeting with an interrogator who conducts investigations using these tactics without a lawyer in tow. Notwithstanding that, the interrogation is probably tainted already and these revelations and the leaks emanating apparently from the AFL have made the entire investigation problematic.

The entire investigation appears to be unravelling day by day with these revelations of Gestapo tactics used to frighten witnesses into changing their stories. My experience is that its rare for everyone who attended a meeting 3½ years ago to have identical impressions and versions of what went on at those meetings. I wonder if the UN interrogator hasn't considered the possibilty that the ones who provided the "vault" scenario of threats about their jobs are the wrong accounts embellished perhaps because they are being told by disgruntled ex employees who have it in for the club?

The original "vault" stories spoke of the so-called dismissal threats as the major focus of the meeting. Now we learn that it was just an aside, a small part of a larger meeting making it even more plausible that it was all a part of Connolly being facetious - that's the man's sense of humour.

In any event, after reading this latest story I'm convinced that no witness should go into a meeting with an interrogator who conducts investigations using these tactics without a lawyer in tow. Notwithstanding that the interrogation is probably tainted already and these revelations and the leaks emanating apparently from the AFL have made the entire investigation problematic.

We have to remember that the Hague has been less successful than St.Kilda over the last few years.

Anyone prosecuted in this case could quietly slip back in to Serbia and mingle among the general populace.

This spelling is acceptable in its derivation from the Ancient Greek ,emanating from the Athenians needing to leave the Island of Crete very quietly and quickly under cover of dark . DIS (as in disembark) and Crete (Greek Is.)They failed in their attempt at DISCRETION and were slaughtered by the chorus .

An intriguing etymology. I didn't think the chorus got involved until the whole thing became a play ... when they're not usually allowed to carry knives to avoid exactly this sort of thing.

Of course you don't have to go back this far. The complete Oxford gives them as alternative spellings, and includes this:

In Eng., discrete was the prevalent spelling in all senses until late in the 16th c., when on the analogy of native or early-adopted words in ee from ME. close ē, as feet, sweet, beet), the spelling discreet (occasional from 1400) became established in the popular sense, leaving discrete for the scholastic and technical sense in which the kinship to L. discrētus is more obvious: see discrete. Shakespeare (1st Folio) has always discreet.]

Sorry to come over all serious about it. The joke is excellent, Biff.

Forgot to ask, Biff, whether your tale means the Greeks had anything to do with the invention of concrete?

That statement has to mean that you believe we lost games on purpose. 'The idea of bottoming out' can only mean that you think it was some kind of deliberate decision, as opposed to the natural result of being a horrible side. It never ceases to amaze me how people will find ways to criticise the club, do you really think Dean Bailey was enjoying the regular beltings, beltings that ultimately cost him his gig? We played awful footy and we got high draft pick like every other club. We moved on the older players and as fas I can tell we did not make a mistake in doing that. Nobody decided to bottom-out, we just bottomed out, so don't bag the club for something they did even do.

The beltings you refer to from 2008-2009 weren't what cost Bailey his job. He was generally given an exemption until 2010 as far as I could tell. The reason he was sacked was the lead up to 186 and the lack of fight the players had for a coach they professed to love.

The club basically touted that it was playing kids over experienced players. Jimmy admitted that on Open Mike in 2010. He stated that a lot of the older players were better players than the kids at that stage of their respective careers but the potential improvement in blokes like Robbo (who was cited as an example) was not as great as someone who was 1-2 years into their AFL footballing life. Do I have a problem with this ethically? Goodness me no. Other clubs have done this with the noblest of intentions and on occasion it has paid off in spades (i.e. Essendon 1993, Geelong 2002 though they just barely missed the finals). Did/Do I have a problem with it on a tactical front as it pertains to our club? I sure do. It got rid of blokes who could have shown the young fellas how it was done, burnt relationships that had been built up over a decade and created a team of boys who were manhandled by the men of the AFL. If people wish to debate with me on the wisdom of Melbourne's list management strategies from 2008-2010, they can feel free. I think history has proven my position to be right.

My beef would be IF positional and selection decisions were made in order to maximize the chance of losing. The truth is proving this will be very bloody hard to do as most of what has been said has been supposed 'eyewitness accounts'. The only way the AFL would get a just conviction is if they found documentation instructing football staff they must not win more than 4 games.

Trust me, this is not something I would be jumping up and down about if it was proven.

The more I read about this, the more I think that it is becoming a media beat up as the sheer volume of crap being thrown at the club would make it difficult to refute individual claims one by one, even if the club wanted to. My frustration, as pointed out by my original post, is that club employees would be so bloody dense as to go around and say these things. We can talk about dry senses of humor, being facetious and so forth but haven't any of these people watched 'The Club'? While fiction, it was a pretty good insight into footy politics and how anything can be used against you, especially at a time when a lot of noses were being put of joint with delistings. Is the twenty seconds of satisfaction you will get from making someone potentially laugh worth getting dragged over the coals later, even when you knew back then the club was being scrutinized? I am not questioning their morality or ethics, I am questioning their common sense.

who is the sponsor?

is it energy watch?

The beltings you refer to from 2008-2009 weren't what cost Bailey his job. He was generally given an exemption until 2010 as far as I could tell. The reason he was sacked was the lead up to 186 and the lack of fight the players had for a coach they professed to love.

The club basically touted that it was playing kids over experienced players. Jimmy admitted that on Open Mike in 2010. He stated that a lot of the older players were better players than the kids at that stage of their respective careers but the potential improvement in blokes like Robbo (who was cited as an example) was not as great as someone who was 1-2 years into their AFL footballing life. Do I have a problem with this ethically? Goodness me no. Other clubs have done this with the noblest of intentions and on occasion it has paid off in spades (i.e. Essendon 1993, Geelong 2002 though they just barely missed the finals). Did/Do I have a problem with it on a tactical front as it pertains to our club? I sure do. It got rid of blokes who could have shown the young fellas how it was done, burnt relationships that had been built up over a decade and created a team of boys who were manhandled by the men of the AFL. If people wish to debate with me on the wisdom of Melbourne's list management strategies from 2008-2010, they can feel free. I think history has proven my position to be right.

My beef would be IF positional and selection decisions were made in order to maximize the chance of losing. The truth is proving this will be very bloody hard to do as most of what has been said has been supposed 'eyewitness accounts'. The only way the AFL would get a just conviction is if they found documentation instructing football staff they must not win more than 4 games.

Trust me, this is not something I would be jumping up and down about if it was proven.

The more I read about this, the more I think that it is becoming a media beat up as the sheer volume of crap being thrown at the club would make it difficult to refute individual claims one by one, even if the club wanted to. My frustration, as pointed out by my original post, is that club employees would be so bloody dense as to go around and say these things. We can talk about dry senses of humor, being facetious and so forth but haven't any of these people watched 'The Club'? While fiction, it was a pretty good insight into footy politics and how anything can be used against you, especially at a time when a lot of noses were being put of joint with delistings. Is the twenty seconds of satisfaction you will get from making someone potentially laugh worth getting dragged over the coals later, even when you knew back then the club was being scrutinized? I am not questioning their morality or ethics, I am questioning their common sense.

Good post.

As foolish as some of those statements may have they been - they didn't see the light of day for over 3 years - and then only when an unscrupulous turncoat ( McLean) stirred the pot and Wilson started to smell blood.. In context then, they may have been dense - but not completely dense ................ though I think you point is well made.

Lawrie De La Rue ?? is that our man

What if "The Age" were infact the "sponsor" that indicated to the AFL warriors that CC and CS boasted about getting draft picks. WHat if this "sponsor" was the source of the leak/s?

Wouldn't that be a twist. Investigate that ...........

The Age was and still is a "sponsor"

http://www.melbourne...41/default.aspx

Would that be a conflict of interest? Perjury?

If boasting about getting draft picks is a criminal offense then Eddie is in real trouble.