Dean Bailey tells the AFL he didn't order players to lose

[Guest José Mourinho]

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.

You don;t make any bloody sense.

I know the AFL have an image to protect - I said it myself.

But if they are the ones leaking info... then it stands to reason that if they didn't leak info, they wouldn't have a problem where they need to protect their image.

The AFL image will suffer from the perception that they allowed tanking to occur.

Retrospectively handing out sanctions does little to better this image.

Sweeping it under the rug would be more their intent, but Wilson is driving this to the backpage day after day.

Who started the investigation?

You mean Brock?

Or the AFL?

Cos if you mean the AFL, who the hell else do you think would be doing an investigation??

Make sense, damn it!

Edited November 6, 2012 by José Mourinho

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Wilson is an experienced journalist who would be able to support her article from her sources/ references to what went on.

She has also aired an opinion based on the evidence she has been given by sources.

i would really doubt at this stage she is in "any strife" for being a journalist.

I leave to Redleg/Jack who are lawyers to determine any civil exposure. I am not sure I have seen any litigant issue of libel or defamation.

And its too early to tell as the investigation is still to close.

But Bailey statements are interesting. They say something but then again they dont say enough.....

[Guest José Mourinho]

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.

It is? I thought it was to report the news, not create and drive it. With inaccuracies and innuendo.

It's also her job to write opinion pieces, but not attempt to disguise them as news, and use "facts" to back up your opinion that you yourself have created through either misunderstanding of the real facts or something else more sinister.

[mjt 640]

Wilson is an experienced journalist who would be able to support her article from her sources/ references to what went on.

She has also aired an opinion based on the evidence she has been given by sources.

i would really doubt at this stage she is in "any strife" for being a journalist.

I leave to Redleg/Jack who are lawyers to determine any civil exposure. I am not sure I have seen any litigant issue of libel or defamation.

And its too early to tell as the investigation is still to close.

But Bailey statements are interesting. They say something but then again they dont say enough.....

sounds like your having an each way bet.

[BIG JIM 508]

Dean Bailey you are a good man that can walk away from our club with your head held high mate.

This guy still would love to see his young team/MFC win a flag.

[Deecisive 1,658]

sadly for Bailey he opened this can of worms when he did his exit interview with Melbourne, Broke Mcleans statements by themselves would have done nothing without Bailey's own words prior to that. He is obviously fighting the charge of tanking as even if he was given immunity this would tarnish his reputation and result in him not getting a job in football again. So he has to continue down that line of I did not tank.

Much is made of the meeting in the 'vault' this use of the term vault seems to imply secret mens business and clandestine meetings to plot, where in actual fact it appears to be the usual place they hold meetings. The meeting in question obviously needs to be seen in context was this a normal meeting where statements on draft picks were made or a special meeting to decide how to tank. I think the later would be stupid to involve half the football department in such a discussion as is being implied by CW. Also was this meeting the only time that draft picks were ever mentioned.

The AFL said that the information from Melbourne staff does not align with information provided by others, presumably disgruntled ex employees well go figure, who would have thought that people with an axe to grind may put a different inference on things mentioned and may actually leave out their own part in the process. The fact is no two people will have exactly the same recollection of any meeting and everyone will have their own interpretation of what the words actually meant. As far as Bailey goes, he was at the meeting, just because he was there does not mean that he agreed to tank. He could obviously show some signs of going along with that by experimenting with roles and making positional changes and things like that. It does not in its own right mean he was attempting to loose, he may have still talked to the players before and during the game as he expected players to do their very best and encourage them to win, as far as I can see he has done nothing significant that could be interpreted as a deliberate action that stopped the players on the field from winning and there is No evidence that he asked them to not try.

As for the other teams, I am amazed at the support and statements from some of the other clubs, including Eddie. Which kind of tells me he is trying to tell the AFL that this is sort of thing is not a big deal, meaning they did it and therefore dont see any need for any real investigation, lets just forget about it.

[Demon Stalwart 255]

In order to silence their critics the AFL along with Caroline Wilson came up with an outrageous claim that we the Melbourne Football Club had tanked.

Without evidence to back her up and without a report going to the AFL she, the AFL and the Media have conspired to run with a campaign that they claim is about honesty and accountability, where in truth the campaign was run to vilify those of the MFC and those who disagreed with them to help distract from other issues facing the AFL

We as a club have been subjected to a smear campaign without precedent with media headlines circulating without basis in fact or proof to back them up.

Just innuendos and Falsehoods aimed at damaging the MFC .

Don't kid yourself the AFL wants someone to take the fall if it's not the MFC then it will be Caroline Wilson for running a trial by media campaign . You can back one thing in the AFL will accept no responsibility no matter what the outcome ,it will not be their fault.

I hope that the MFC though once this is bought to a conclusion will not roll over but will take it the whole way to seek redress for what has occurred by whoever passes judgment and by whom is ultimately found responsible for this trial by media debacle

[rpfc 27,590]

I said in another thread that Bailey was a Demon in all this. He did what was best for the club and he did nothing illegal or outside of he rules.

You can argue the ethics and the effect on culture but not the rules. The AFL may want a patsy or they may want us to sacrifice someone but that is crap and we shouldn't take it.

We didn't tank, we did what was best for our future and the 22 that went out here every week tried their best.

We didn't tank.

[reynolds46 823]

...The fact is no two people will have exactly the same recollection of any meeting and everyone will have their own interpretation of what the words actually meant. ...

Most people can barely remember the discourse of meetings held 2 weeks ago let alone 3 years ago

[Demanding Success 298]

I had an interesting conversation this morning. I was told that a melbourne board member had a conversation with Wilson before the first article by her. After the conversation he (stupidly) mistakenly sent a text to her instead of the intended recipient mclardy. The text basically ridiculed her and mentioned that she didn't know [censored]. This I am being told is the reason she is going so hard at us.

[Guest José Mourinho]

That would actually make a bit of sense.

You'd hope they're not that stupid, though.

[Sir Why You Little 34,692]

I had an interesting conversation this morning. I was told that a melbourne board member had a conversation with Wilson before the first article by her. After the conversation he (stupidly) mistakenly sent a text to her instead of the intended recipient mclardy. The text basically ridiculed her and mentioned that she didn't know [censored]. This I am being told is the reason she is going so hard at us.

Good. Will make her look even more silly and personally driven if this is true.

[Mono 454]

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

...........

prefer:

3) sue CW and the Age

[sue 8,463]

Is it true that the MFC has only 7 days to respond to the AFL report? If so and the report is extensive (and negative), then surely 7 days is not enough time for a detailed rebuttal or whatever.

[Guest José Mourinho]

Is it true that the MFC has only 7 days to respond to the AFL report? If so and the report is extensive (and negative), then surely 7 days is not enough time for a detailed rebuttal or whatever.

It's merely a rumour in the HS.

Consider so many untruths have been told so far, I don't know why we'd be inclined to believe this before the AFL announces it.

I'd also hazard a guess that 7 days is hardly a fair amount of time to mount a decent defense.

If it's just a response, then I'd assume our response would be that we will contest all charges in due course.

[daisycutter 28,636]

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.

right-io pollyanna. get wilson to say sorry, now that is funny LOL

[TheoX 1,218]

It's merely a rumour in the HS.

Consider so many untruths have been told so far, I don't know why we'd be inclined to believe this before the AFL announces it.

I'd also hazard a guess that 7 days is hardly a fair amount of time to mount a decent defense.

If it's just a response, then I'd assume our response would be that we will contest all charges in due course.

Yeah, the mounting of a defense should be 'an ongoing process' and take 'as long as necessary'.

[Alf Stewart 73]

Wilson is an experienced journalist who would be able to support her article from her sources/ references to what went on.

She has also aired an opinion based on the evidence she has been given by sources.

i would really doubt at this stage she is in "any strife" for being a journalist.

I leave to Redleg/Jack who are lawyers to determine any civil exposure. I am not sure I have seen any litigant issue of libel or defamation.

And its too early to tell as the investigation is still to close.

But Bailey statements are interesting. They say something but then again they dont say enough.....

I am tipping the Jon Ralph has paraphrased what Bailey said. For all we know he could and probably did say much more.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

On the basis of the evidence I have seen to date, I would like Caroline Wilson stood down by The Age.

There's more than a whiff of British tabloid style 'evidence gathering' and reporting to the way in which she has approached/written about this issue in recent weeks.

It's been absolutely devoid of sophistication and balance, and the fact that, plainly, she cannot write makes it even more infuriating to deal with.

Where are the standards Fairfax?! Your football editor seems to have lost his/her red pen.

There are none, the Age has been a rag for a very long time.

[Wilson7 2,532]

sadly for Bailey he opened this can of worms when he did his exit interview with Melbourne

Agreed

[Wilson7 2,532]

Dean Bailey you are a good man that can walk away from our club with your head held high mate.

This guy still would love to see his young team/MFC win a flag.

Oh please, you honestly believe that ?

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Wilson is an experienced journalist who would be able to support her article from her sources/ references to what went on.

She has also aired an opinion based on the evidence she has been given by sources.

i would really doubt at this stage she is in "any strife" for being a journalist.

I leave to Redleg/Jack who are lawyers to determine any civil exposure. I am not sure I have seen any litigant issue of libel or defamation.

And its too early to tell as the investigation is still to close.

But Bailey statements are interesting. They say something but then again they dont say enough.....

libel [ˈlaɪb^əl]

n

1.

(Law)

Law

a.

the publication of defamatory matter in permanent form, as by a written or printed statement, picture, etc.

b.

the act of publishing such matter

2.

any defamatory or unflattering representation or statement

If Wilson is relying on witness statements/sources she will have to produce them and if the statements/sources themselves are incorrect she will have to show on what basis she considered them to be correct. I don't think the defence of "he told me it was true" will help her, particularly if it wasn't.

[Gippsland Dee 367]

With Bailey's comments you would think that the investigation should have very little to go on now as Bailey would've been the key piece in the puzzle. As he has said that he never told the players or any other coach/s to deliberately lose games this puts to rest a rule that has been set in place by the AFL, and i would think that it was the main one that they would've been going on.

And just because these meetings in the "vault" occurred, does not mean we actually acted on it, we may have just sucked (definitely).

[prymke19 42]

Its clear Caroline Wilsons attacks came because she know nobody cut cut her down. If she wrote this during the football season she would have been nailed on every football program and cut right down to size. It was gutless on her behalf because she attacked us in the offseason when most other afl commentators are holidaying. Just Gutless!

[Whispering_Jack 28,023]

I wouldn't be spending time and money on a defamation action against Wilson. Our major focus after this "tanking" issue plays itself out should be the team we put on the field and getting it to a point where it can compete with the better clubs and aim to play finals football again as soon as possible. Suing Wilson would be a distraction our club doesn't need.