• After the Jordan McMahon game in July, 2009 Wilson appeared on Footy Calcified and was particularly aggressive towards Dean Bailey and the Melbourne Football Club over what transpired during the game which Richmond won after McMahon's 50 metre kick after the siren.

It must have irked her to write this piece on 5 August, 2009:

AFL boss backs Dees after loss

ANDREW Demetriou has offered Melbourne his support as the club withstands the fall-out from Sunday’s unusual one-point loss to Richmond.

The AFL chief executive revealed he discussed tactics with the Demons after the game, and Melbourne boss Cameron Schwab confirmed he spoke with Demetriou two days ago and reinforced his club’s position. ‘‘Andrew basically called to say: ‘Hang in there’,’’ said Schwab last night.

Demetriou reinforced his support for the priority pick and slammed suggestions that he was at odds with some AFL commissioners. He said he called Schwab on Monday to offer support.

‘‘I discussed the game with Cameron and agreed with him that some of the conjecture and commentary has been absolutely disgraceful,’’ Demetriou said.

Demetriou defended a number of the moves made by coach Dean Bailey and his team before and during the game to The Age, including Paul Johnson lining up for much of the second half on Nathan Brown.

‘‘Leigh Brown played on Jonathan Brown the previous night. No one made a big deal out of that. Was that tanking?’’ he said.

I had no idea that Colin Sylvia had carry-over points from the club’s leadership group for being suspended. Cameron [schwab] volunteered that. That’s called team discipline but suddenly it’s tanking.

• Remember that final round game of 2009 against St. Kilda that Melbourne was supposed to have tanked?

The odds for that game were: Melbourne to win $11.00 St. Kilda to win $1.02

And some people are surprised that Melbourne failed to win the game?

That is a very good get.

I think the AFL might be troubled to even find a way to charge us given Demetriou's comments to Wilson. Did she ever write an op ed in the Age expressing disagreement with his views?

Great get - I remember this at the time, part of why I am non-fussed about the current witch hunt

• After the Jordan McMahon game in July, 2009 Wilson appeared on Footy Calcified and was particularly aggressive towards Dean Bailey and the Melbourne Football Club over what transpired during the game which Richmond won after McMahon's 50 metre kick after the siren.

Did she come out swinging against Terry Wallace and the Richmond Football Club when he said that with Cotchin in prospect he wasn't particularly interested in winning that year either?

Case closed.

Great work finding that. Keep it handy and perhaps even email it to the club. Every bit of help cant hurt.

What does all this tell us about Caro? Allow me to answer my own question - she both has one and is one.

I just can't believe this saga and how it's not being dropped. It's affecting our brand and we need to take action for that. Just not acceptable. There's got to be something we don't yet know .... But that is a great article to have found, that lisping [censored] would had to write that at gun point.

Gold!!!!!

^{Of course the odds were shocking $1.02 to $11, because we were tanking!!! Everyone knew it!!!}

So will the integrity commissioner now call Vlad? Will he be charged for bringing the game into disrepute? He was complicit with the leaders at Melbourne and even defended them in the public domain!

This is the nail in the coffin for this whole thing.

What does all this tell us about Caro? Allow me to answer my own question - she both has one and is one.

That is open to debate.

More evidence for our side.

• After the Jordan McMahon game in July, 2009 Wilson appeared on Footy Calcified and was particularly aggressive towards Dean Bailey and the Melbourne Football Club over what transpired during the game which Richmond won after McMahon's 50 metre kick after the siren.

It must have irked her to write this piece on 5 August, 2009:

AFL boss backs Dees after loss

• Remember that final round game of 2009 against St. Kilda that Melbourne was supposed to have tanked?

The odds for that game were: Melbourne to win $11.00 St. Kilda to win $1.02

And some people are surprised that Melbourne failed to win the game?

Geez that was hard to read.

Our inability to Pre pare for an outcome before gameday was on show thru the game.

That is why we have been down for 40 odd years.

It shouldn't have got to the game, 'on show', for us to control that outcome.

So will the integrity commissioner now call Vlad? Will he be charged for bringing the game into disrepute? He was complicit with the leaders at Melbourne and even defended them in the public domain!

This is the nail in the coffin for this whole thing.

I'd like to agree, but there is one additional matter. When Demetriou was commenting in 2009 he (presumably) was not aware of the meeting which it is now being alleged was held with the intention of planning to lose. While everything else he said are legitimate arguments his comments might have been different if he was aware of the alleged meeting (if it indeed happened the way it has been reported). So, he still has wriggle room if he needs it.

My guess is that the AFL would like to find a solution without ever having to admit that 'tanking' occurred - whether they now believe it did or it did not. They should be using an external strategy firm to advise them (because an outside view is less likely to bury its head in the sand and shouldn't be afraid to provide both palatable and unpalatable suggestions for consideration). But I suspect they won't do that.

And they should re-frame the question away from whether tanking occurred in the past and should instead talk about reforming the draft process to get rid of any incentive which might still exist not to perform. And I would like to see (but doubt it will happen) some stricter obligations on clubs to report their intentions during a season (ie, advising if they intend to trial players in alternative roles, put players in for season ending surgery, resting players because of a rotations policy rather than pretending that they are suffering from general soreness, etc).

What does all this tell us about Caro? Allow me to answer my own question - she both has one and is one.

Totally priceless BBO

You C**t say that to her face you wouldn't know where to look.

I'd like to agree, but there is one additional matter. When Demetriou was commenting in 2009 he (presumably) was not aware of the meeting which it is now being alleged was held with the intention of planning to lose. While everything else he said are legitimate arguments his comments might have been different if he was aware of the alleged meeting (if it indeed happened the way it has been reported). So, he still has wriggle room if he needs it.

My guess is that the AFL would like to find a solution without ever having to admit that 'tanking' occurred - whether they now believe it did or it did not. They should be using an external strategy firm to advise them (because an outside view is less likely to bury its head in the sand and shouldn't be afraid to provide both palatable and unpalatable suggestions for consideration). But I suspect they won't do that.

And they should re-frame the question away from whether tanking occurred in the past and should instead talk about reforming the draft process to get rid of any incentive which might still exist not to perform. And I would like to see (but doubt it will happen) some stricter obligations on clubs to report their intentions during a season (ie, advising if they intend to trial players in alternative roles, put players in for season ending surgery, resting players because of a rotations policy rather than pretending that they are suffering from general soreness, etc).

FFS the "meeting in the Vault" was a routine weekly footy meeting. It has been speculated (there are no direct quotes alleging players being told to lose - in fact the opposite. DB has cleared the air) that an aside was made by CC about losing and getting draft picks. There is no smoking gun

Calm down everybody. It will eventually go away,

What does all this tell us about Caro? Allow me to answer my own question - she both has one and is one.

Not sure I agree with this I always believed they were useful. CW is not

I'd like to agree, but there is one additional matter. When Demetriou was commenting in 2009 he (presumably) was not aware of the meeting which it is now being alleged was held with the intention of planning to lose. While everything else he said are legitimate arguments his comments might have been different if he was aware of the alleged meeting (if it indeed happened the way it has been reported). So, he still has wriggle room if he needs it.

My guess is that the AFL would like to find a solution without ever having to admit that 'tanking' occurred - whether they now believe it did or it did not. They should be using an external strategy firm to advise them (because an outside view is less likely to bury its head in the sand and shouldn't be afraid to provide both palatable and unpalatable suggestions for consideration). But I suspect they won't do that.

And they should re-frame the question away from whether tanking occurred in the past and should instead talk about reforming the draft process to get rid of any incentive which might still exist not to perform. And I would like to see (but doubt it will happen) some stricter obligations on clubs to report their intentions during a season (ie, advising if they intend to trial players in alternative roles, put players in for season ending surgery, resting players because of a rotations policy rather than pretending that they are suffering from general soreness, etc).

I agree with most of that La Dee, but surely 'the vault' meeting has now been soundly discredited as 'proof' that our team deliberately set out to lose a game of football.

Edit: spelling

Edited November 7, 201213 yr by Deeoldfart

FFS the "meeting in the Vault" was a routine weekly footy meeting. It has been speculated (there are no direct quotes alleging players being told to lose - in fact the opposite. DB has cleared the air) that an aside was made by CC about losing and getting draft picks. There is no smoking gun

Calm down everybody. It will eventually go away,

What about "The Great Volvo Coterie" meeting in Jyndabyne and the Manuka match verses the Swans where Cale wore Goodes like a cheap suit?

Huh...

Explain how we managed that one.

^{Of course the odds were shocking $1.02 to $11, because we were tanking!!! Everyone knew it!!!}

except for the part that we'd won 4 games to that point and the saints had won 19 and were a month from just losing an epic grand final, while we were 2 days away from mad monday.

why doesn't anyone from our club have the BALLS to make a public statement with some of the FACTUAL information in this thread (and others)? Why do we always just sit back and say nothing while these scumbags attack our brand. Is it not a fact that Caroline Wilson/The Age have vastly misrepresented information purely to try and sell papers on the back of our hammered reputation? At this point we could write a 5000 word essay on all the reasons why these claims are unjust and faulty. How about somebody, ANYBODY, makes a statement to this effect, so there is at least SOME representation of the truth out there for the court of public opinion? At the moment it is US (supporters) as the only line of defence. CW could be claiming we invaded Poland and nobody would be refuting it. Even when McLean opened his dog ugly face on the couch, why didn't somebody mention when asked that perhaps a disgruntled former employee might be harbouring resentment for the way things turned out for him at Melbourne. Nope, just sit back MFC and take it. Geez.

Let's see what the AFL Commossion thinks first. No point in elevating Wilson, we will respond to actual power.

why doesn't anyone from our club have the BALLS to make a public statement with some of the FACTUAL information in this thread (and others)? Why do we always just sit back and say nothing while these scumbags attack our brand. Is it not a fact that Caroline Wilson/The Age have vastly misrepresented information purely to try and sell papers on the back of our hammered reputation? At this point we could write a 5000 word essay on all the reasons why these claims are unjust and faulty. How about somebody, ANYBODY, makes a statement to this effect, so there is at least SOME representation of the truth out there for the court of public opinion? At the moment it is US (supporters) as the only line of defence. CW could be claiming we invaded Poland and nobody would be refuting it. Even when McLean opened his dog ugly face on the couch, why didn't somebody mention when asked that perhaps a disgruntled former employee might be harbouring resentment for the way things turned out for him at Melbourne. Nope, just sit back MFC and take it. Geez.

I suspect thats what Wilson and others Media muppets want us to do. They need us to give this story oxygen, and we have denied them that. For once we have boxed clever whilst our opponents have thrown wild punches that have failed to connect.

I suspect thats what Wilson and others Media muppets want us to do. They need us to give this story oxygen, and we have denied them that. For once we have boxed clever whilst our opponents have thrown wild punches that have failed to connect.

Oh really? Why don't you stand on the Flinders Street steps tomorrow and survey 1000 people with one question 'do you think the MFC tanked?' You will find that this garbage has further damaged our already-battered brand, when the basic thrust of it is simply untrue. How can you expect anything different when there is nobody telling the truth in the public arena?