Come on, quit this hypocrisy. Chasing these parasites legally? What does that mean--chasing Schwab and Connolly?

This site howled down anyone who protested that a decision not to pursue every game would be damaging to morale and particularly for the players. I wrote that notto attempt to win every match would be destructive of the fibre of the club

In response Beelzebub wrote a most persuasive piece designed to show how the acquisition of guns-as opposed to merely good players-- was absolutely vital to the future of the club. And he had overwhelming support.

For people on this site to look for scapegoats would be outrageous.

Thats what Ive been tryiong to explain to people. The mystery player said last week we were never told to lose. Im not sure why it taken the sun to write about Bailey. If the players said they wernt told to lose then we know Bailey didnt tell them to. It comes dwon to his coaching I guess and did he coach to lose.

Come on, quit this hypocrisy. Chasing these parasites legally? What does that mean--chasing Schwab and Connolly?

This site howled down anyone who protested that a decision not to pursue every game would be damaging to morale and particularly for the players. I wrote that notto attempt to win every match would be destructive of the fibre of the club

In response Beelzebub wrote a most persuasive piece designed to show how the acquisition of guns-as opposed to merely good players-- was absolutely vital to the future of the club. And he had overwhelming support.

For people on this site to look for scapegoats would be outrageous

Very interesting points you raise stuey

For me personally (and i have no affiliations with the current or prior boards or any other administrators) I think anyone directly linked to '186 or these allegations' (which i have no doubt are directly linked) should stand down from the club.... And the reason I say this is the MFC needs to clean up it's integrity.

We expect the players to act like professionals and equially administrators should be held accountable for their actions (I am not directy blaming anyone for this current situation but the MFC image has been tarnished forever). Anyone involved should hand in their resignations for the simple reason that their positions are now conflicted and it is inappropriate for them to continue on.

I am happy to wait for the AFL decision before any action is taken - but I beleive for the good of the MFC that anyone involved in the allegations needs to consider their positon. We as supporters expect the MFC to be run professionally - I will watch with interest the club's reaction.... Personally I feel the club has to cut ties with anyone who has jepordised the club

That's my take anyway

What I want to know is how this is all getting leaked to the media?

Its as if the AFL wants everyone to know they are trying to get to the bottom of this only to be stoped at a dead end with a statement by Baily saying he didn't ask players to lose, which they knew when they opened the case last time.

I liked the part where it said we will be given 7 days after the AFL meets to come with a case so we will still be able to keep our picks in this years draft.

I don't think anything is being leaked by the AFL at all.

They'd be happy for this to go away, so they don't need to get into a messy public to and fro with MFC over sanctions.

There'd be no need to protect the AFL's image.

And they would not want to penalise MFC, especially when they secretly know how unfair it would be to single out one club.

Caroline Wilson's info is mainly coming from interviewees.

Passing on what they know, and what they have been asked that indicates what others have said (or may not have, but the investigators are fishing).

The media is driving this, not the AFL.

Come on, quit this hypocrisy. Chasing these parasites legally? What does that mean--chasing Schwab and Connolly?

This site howled down anyone who protested that a decision not to pursue every game would be damaging to morale and particularly for the players. I wrote that notto attempt to win every match would be destructive of the fibre of the club

In response Beelzebub wrote a most persuasive piece designed to show how the acquisition of guns-as opposed to merely good players-- was absolutely vital to the future of the club. And he had overwhelming support.

For people on this site to look for scapegoats would be outrageous

I understood that being in reference to supposed "journalists" defaming the club.

Very interesting points you raise stuey

For me personally (and i have no affiliations with the current or prior boards or any other administrators) I think anyone directly linked to '186 or these allegations' (which i have no doubt are directly linked) should stand down from the club.... And the reason I say this is the MFC needs to clean up it's integrity.

We expect the players to act like professionals and equially administrators should be held accountable for their actions (I am not directy blaming anyone for this current situation but the MFC image has been tarnished forever). Anyone involved should hand in their resignations for the simple reason that their positions are now conflicted and it is inappropriate for them to continue on.

I am happy to wait for the AFL decision before any action is taken - but I beleive for the good of the MFC that anyone involved in the allegations needs to consider their positon. We as supporters expect the MFC to be run professionally - I will watch with interest the club's reaction.... Personally I feel the club has to cut ties with anyone who has jepordised the club

That's my take anyway

There is not one supporter who wanted us to miss out on two top two picks,for the sake of winning a meaningless game in a season in which we were crap.....And now you want heads to roll because of the results of that year,,,,,wether we tanked or not.......I think many supporters thought we were crap and it is stupid to think we could "arrange" which games we won and lost.....But ahve it your way.......Get the lynch mob ready....

Come on, quit this hypocrisy. Chasing these parasites legally? What does that mean--chasing Schwab and Connolly?

This site howled down anyone who protested that a decision not to pursue every game would be damaging to morale and particularly for the players. I wrote that notto attempt to win every match would be destructive of the fibre of the club

In response Beelzebub wrote a most persuasive piece designed to show how the acquisition of guns-as opposed to merely good players-- was absolutely vital to the future of the club. And he had overwhelming support.

For people on this site to look for scapegoats would be outrageous

i Think you might be not be on the same wavelength with what I was saying. Those who have been incrdibly inflammatory include Wilson, Dwayne Russell (who on Friday night accused MFC of being disgusting, fixing games and that Caroline Wilson should be awarded an AFL award for investigative journalism). Jeff Kennett etc What they have done is reprehensible in light of some pretty fllimsy evidence. I am interested to see how this pans out.

That was in an AFL run tribunal not a court of law...

Doesn't matter, we always get done no matter where it is.

Very interesting points you raise stuey

For me personally (and i have no affiliations with the current or prior boards or any other administrators) I think anyone directly linked to '186 or these allegations' (which i have no doubt are directly linked) should stand down from the club.... And the reason I say this is the MFC needs to clean up it's integrity.

We expect the players to act like professionals and equially administrators should be held accountable for their actions (I am not directy blaming anyone for this current situation but the MFC image has been tarnished forever). Anyone involved should hand in their resignations for the simple reason that their positions are now conflicted and it is inappropriate for them to continue on.

I am happy to wait for the AFL decision before any action is taken - but I beleive for the good of the MFC that anyone involved in the allegations needs to consider their positon. We as supporters expect the MFC to be run professionally - I will watch with interest the club's reaction.... Personally I feel the club has to cut ties with anyone who has jepordised the club

That's my take anyway

If anyone resigned it is tantamount to being guilty. The press would have a field day and the AFL would be forced into giving santions. Stick fat, deny everything and say very little.

Thats what Ive been tryiong to explain to people. The mystery player said last week we were never told to lose. Im not sure why it taken the sun to write about Bailey. If the players said they wernt told to lose then we know Bailey didnt tell them to.

But there was a meeting called the Vault and henceforth that enough can prove guilt B) Where is CW when you need her

Edited November 6, 201212 yr by Waltham33

There is not one supporter who wanted us to miss out on two top two picks,for the sake of winning a meaningless game in a season in which we were crap.....And now you want heads to roll because of the results of that year,,,,,wether we tanked or not.......I think many supporters thought we were crap and it is stupid to think we could "arrange" which games we won and lost.....But ahve it your way.......Get the lynch mob ready....

Almost every Melbourne supporter I saw after Round 18 cheered when Jordan McMahon's goal went through - and walked away happy. No supporter who applauded that day can reasonably turn around now and criticise the club for achieving the result they ( the supporters) wanted the club to achieve.

Let's not be like those Carlton supporters who - after cheering when Fev was dragged in the Kreuzer Cup - and mocking us after the game for losing - are now saying that "tanking" is disgusting

It is the hypocrisy that is the disgusting thing about this beat-up

Some, including Bailey, believe the Connolly statement urging the coaching staff not to maximise their high draft picks was a 30-second aside in a lengthy match committee meeting.

That it was "a 30-second aside" and not the main subject of the meeting in the vault gives it a completely different context to the one previously painted in the media. It makes it even more likely that Connolly was joking (as if there was any doubt with the comments prefaced by reference to "the cavalry") and casts great doubt not only on the story but on the credibility of the storytellers.

If we didn't pants the Swans by a record margin with a similar list then none of this would have happened.

Roos still holds a grudge from that day too .

That it was "a 30-second aside" and not the main subject of the meeting in the vault gives it a completely different context to the one previously painted in the media. It makes it more likely that Connolly was joking (as if there was any doubt with the comments prefaced by reference to "the cavalry") and casts great doubt not only on the story but on the credibility of the storytellers.

As far as I am concerned Wilson's articles have been indefensible - because she has pre-judged the enquiry and influenced public opinion before the "justice mechanisms" have been completed. Even if her scant evidence proves to be true - and even if the AFL does dish out the sort of penalties she has been advocating - she cannot be excused for her prejudicial behaviour. She has no credibility in my eyes.

As this is not ( yet) a court of law , she can probably wriggle out of the charges that she would face under a proper judicial framework - but the substance of her reprehensible behaviour does not change. As you ,WJ,have asked - what if this was the accused in the Jill Meagher trial ? Her writings with little evidence in CC"s case - and no evidence in CS's case - have significantly damaged the employment opportunities of two men whose defence has not yet been heard

It's kind of funny how to start with there was this top secret meeting called The Vault that was the result of months of planning, where Connolly told everyone they faced the sack if they didn't throw matches, and as the actual facts come to light, it was a regulation footy meeting in a building nicknamed The Vault, where Connolly made a wise crack in a 30 second aside. I wish I got paid to make up crap and have it published like Wilson and co.

There is not one supporter who wanted us to miss out on two top two picks,for the sake of winning a meaningless game in a season in which we were crap.....And now you want heads to roll because of the results of that year,,,,,wether we tanked or not.......I think many supporters thought we were crap and it is stupid to think we could "arrange" which games we won and lost.....But ahve it your way.......Get the lynch mob ready....

The issue here isn't the fact the club tanked or whatever - everyone knows the club managed the season just like WCE, HAW, COL, CAR, WB, RIC etc - no one can argue that....... but these clubs are not in question are they???

My point at no stage involves a lynch mod or throwing out the board (i support the board) - I am not ADC

My point relates to the poor management and leadership of some individuals at the club. I trust the club will make the right moves. i've been happy with the way the club has handled the situation.... If you look at successful professional organisations people who are found to de-stabilise or embarass the organisation or their personal reputations or image in question they are moved on

I simply feel the club at some stage needs to address this issue.

If AFL players are held to account for their actoins - why are not administrators?? Look at Damien Oliver - he's finally admitted to betting on a race he was riding in (reported on ch 7) - I don't understand how is allowed to continue to race - his integrity is gone

Same at this club - surely a few ppls integrity has now been destroyed

Edited November 6, 201212 yr by Unleash Hell

Got to hand it to Dean Bailey .

Loose lips sink ships.

At least he left the club with a modicum of decency and has kept it intact .

Old Deano-He's a fkn marine.

As far as I am concerned Wilson's articles have been indefensible - because she has pre-judged the enquiry and influenced public opinion before the "justice mechanisms" have been completed. Even if her scant evidence proves to be true - and even if the AFL does dish out the sort of penalties she has been advocating - she cannot be excused for her prejudicial behaviour. She has no credibility in my eyes.

As this is not ( yet) a court of law , she can probably wriggle out of the charges that she would face under a proper judicial framework - but the substance of her reprehensible behaviour does not change. As you ,WJ,have asked - what if this was the accused in the Jill Meagher trial ? Her writings with little evidence in CC"s case - and no evidence in CS's case - have significantly damaged the employment opportunities of two men whose defence has not yet been heard

As pointed out she is not in the protective enclave of Parliament. If the "charges" against CC and CW are not essentially proven by the AFL or both or one escape the AFL retribution then her remarks/comments have been made in the public domain which leaves her very open to libel suits by numerous MFC identities or the Club itself. She maybe a victim of her own prejudices or unwittingly used by others with their own agendas who escape scrutiny because they have used Caro knowing her unbridled bias against CS.

My heart is telling me she should get her just deserts but my head is telling me it may be better for the Club and us to move on. We as a Club will get over this however Caro will always have the stench left by what she created.

As the days go on it becomes clearer and clearer that Caroline Wilson was hasty and incorrect, that the 'evidence' the AFL has is still shaky, that the AFL deep down doesn't want to find tanking, and that we won't be found guilty of anything serious.

Once this is all over, the interest will then turn to what, if any, action Melbourne will take against people like Caro.

Once this is all over, the interest will then turn to what, if any, action Melbourne will take against people like Caro.

I agree, the MFC should take action against Caro - obviously once this is wound up and her claims haven't been proven

all i've heard/seen so far is just circumstantial evidence

same as for Rich/Coll/WC/Carl/Haw

what you think you know and what you can prove are different beasts

change the rules to minimise any inducements and move on

I don't think anything is being leaked by the AFL at all.

They'd be happy for this to go away, so they don't need to get into a messy public to and fro with MFC over sanctions.

There'd be no need to protect the AFL's image.

And they would not want to penalise MFC, especially when they secretly know how unfair it would be to single out one club.

Caroline Wilson's info is mainly coming from interviewees.

Passing on what they know, and what they have been asked that indicates what others have said (or may not have, but the investigators are fishing).

The media is driving this, not the AFL.

Jose I agree with you that the media is driving this but I think the AFL do have an image to protect.

The issue of tanking goes much further than us, and if they want to have a transparent game and ensure that teams are not tanking to either get priority picks, ensure home finals (see Freo 2010), or rest key players for other games then they have to do something.

Lets remember who started the initial investigation.

I agree, the MFC should take action against Caro - obviously once this is wound up and her claims haven't been proven

What would you rather:

1) The Age as a sponsor and CW not to be sued

2) CW to be sued and lose The Age as a sponsor

Remember, its CW's job to write crap like this, and after the past month in the media spotlight would the best thing be to immediately throw ourselves back into it?

I'm not condoning her actions, but sometimes you need to see the big picture.

What would be best is to get her to make a public apology in one of her articles if its found we didn't tank (which is most likely), less costly, gets us out of the medias attention, and gets the message across.

At least part of our defence to the allegation of tanking in 2009 are the results of the three seasons since.

We're still crap, so who needs to tank?

Edited November 6, 201212 yr by pitmaster

What would you rather:

1) The Age as a sponsor and CW not to be sued

2) CW to be sued and lose The Age as a sponsor

Remember, its CW's job to write crap like this, and after the past month in the media spotlight would the best thing be to immediately throw ourselves back into it?

I'm not condoning her actions, but sometimes you need to see the big picture.

What would be best is to get her to make a public apology in one of her articles if its found we didn't tank (which is most likely), less costly, gets us out of the medias attention, and gets the message across.

the bigger picture is that Wilson COULD be in a lot of strife.

She went early and very hard on what now looks to be shaky evidence.

That said. I don't think we are even near finishing this yet.

But if i was CS or CC i would keep a long memory.