You praise her as a journalist and then agree that she is motivated by a personal agenda against Schwab. Sure, a journalist often needs motivation to uncover the nasties (eg. Matt Peacock and Hardies). So one can sometimes say 'so what' with which you dismissed criticism of her. But before saying that, you have to examine if the motivation is distorting the journalism. Her factualizing (love the word Nutbean) and vendetta have distorted her journalism. As I said, a hatchet-job. You don't have to to a hatchet-job on a "Hitler" - the facts speak for themselves.

Very good Sue !

If she took on the AFL with the same enthusiasm and vindictiveness as she has attacked the MFC over the past month she generate some respect.

Fact is she doesn't take the AFL on in this way, because she's a bully and we are currently an easy soft target.

Nice to see you've recognized the errors in your relevant post. Thanks.

In matters of substance , I'm not sure I've recognised anything - I certainly haven't conceded anything

Any answer to my question ?

Your response to Sue's question doesn't exactly vindicate the good lady Wilson.

I've said I don't like what she's doing to us, it hurts the Club. But the main point I wanted to make is that journalists who highlight issues that exist between the AFL and stakeholders and report on and find issue that wouldn't otherwise come to light will most probably advantage us if we can get our act together. She's terrific at it.

When she takes on the AFL on an issue that hurts us everyone thinks she's terrific and a "must read". When she continues her modus operandi but the target is the MFC then she is a villain.

Anyway if you don't like her don't read or listen to her. It's a pretty simple choice. Believe me, Demonlanders are taking much more notice of her than anyone else.

Yep, Demonlanders are more concerned about the standing of our club when attacked in the way she has than anyone else. Surprising isn't it.

She is a 'villian' when she allows personal vendettas to distort her work. I'd feel the same if she was illegitimately attacking the AFL on an issue which hurt us, ie to MFC's benefit. But then, not being a supporter of the AFL administration, I wouldn't bother to complain about her journalism on the Demonland forum about it.

But then I'm a MFC supporter, not an AFL admin supporter. The world's full of crap journalists and I'm not chasing every one of them.

I trust your support for the MFC is not being distorted into support of CW's hatchet-job by some personal gripe against the current admin.

Anyway if you don't like her don't read or listen to her. It's a pretty simple choice. Believe me, Demonlanders are taking much more notice of her than anyone else.

Now I like your last sentence - and I hope you are right.

If you are right - then the general footy public knows the difference between gutter journalism and fact - which is good to know

She never attacks the AFL ,she must be their patsy.

Anyway if you don't like her don't read or listen to her. It's a pretty simple choice. Believe me, Demonlanders are taking much more notice of her than anyone else.

You seem to be blissfully unaware of the power of the press. There is nothing more dangerous than when agenda's, opinion, assumptions and postulating are presented as facts. Whilst what is going on is not exactly earth shattering compared to events on the world stage I am losing count of the conversations around footy and the tanking issue I am having where my friends are debating me with concrete FACTS - Caroline Wilson's version of concrete facts.

One word has been notoriously absent from all but her last article and that is the word "alleged/allegedly". Throws a completely different light on an article - it takes it out of the realms of fact and it becomes supposition.

Greg Denham is a goose and nobody takes him seriously - never have - never will. On the other hand Caroline Wilson is well read, is repsected and is taken notice of and it does not do justice to her or her profession for her writings to be opinions masquarading as facts.

Believe me, Demonlanders are taking much more notice of her than anyone else.

i for one am very glad that Demonlanders have disected Wilson's words with a fine tooth comb. It's what they deserve and i am sure she has read many of the responses here.

A journalist doesn't do anything but report on what others are doing. That is the job in its purest form.

Flanagan writes with a paint brush beautifully, Wilson & Sheahan do not, they do not have the talent. They write the facts per se. So when their emotions get tangled up in a story it is easy to see it.

We still have no idea what is fact and fiction within "the vault" yet. Interestingly enough the same seems to be happening from the AFL interigation officers as they interview and reinterview wittnesses.

Maybe Colonel Klink would get the job done with more efficiency.

Fan. it's interesting that you cited the Nathan Carroll sacking as an example of Wilson's journalistic bona fides. To most people on this thread it simply highlights the double standards she applies to all things MFC as opposed to her beloved Richmond. Why do her Journalistic skills fail her so frequently when the Tiogs are involved. I'm still waiting for insightful pieces on Dustin Martin and Arron Edwards and the cultural problems that exist at tigerland. Wilson's catalogue of work has been particularly erroneous over her last couple of years and has shown a considerable decline in its content and quality whilst suggesting a hint of desperation. I think that Wilson's relevance to the game is in decline and that she her self is well aware of this situation.

Now I like your last sentence - and I hope you are right.

If you are right - then the general footy public knows the difference between gutter journalism and fact - which is good to know

I would suggest Fan is wrong - anyone here who thinks Caro is not a respected journalist - think again - she is well respected and thats what makes what she is writing all the more galling.

She is taken notice of and can set the agenda through her writing.

She will shown to be a fool prone to hysterics if Melbourne emerge unscathed from this hoopla.

Respect and credibility are easily lost.

I said I hadn't read the whole thread. Seems accuracy isn't one of your strengths.

Yes, I read that article with particular interest H_T. My view is that the emotive words like "The Vault" are journalistic puff and the real story was what CC had said. People who want to discount the story on descriptions like "the Vault" miss the point IMO. But each to their own.

Is that a new way of describing a lie or journalistic incompetence?

You seem to be blissfully unaware of the power of the press. There is nothing more dangerous than when agenda's, opinion, assumptions and postulating are presented as facts. Whilst what is going on is not exactly earth shattering compared to events on the world stage I am losing count of the conversations around footy and the tanking issue I am having where my friends are debating me with concrete FACTS - Caroline Wilson's version of concrete facts.

CW is highlighting an issue and giving an opinion on what she thinks should happen. I think the AFL have so much more to think about than one journalists opinion on this issue. As has been stated many times we are being targeted for what was pretty much accepted AFL practice. Sadly we made it all too easy to identify and prove. Whether we like it or not the issue is a real one and has now thankfully been addressed by the AFL so we have largely moved past the Kreuzer cup. Wilson is part of that and I think it's a good thing.

When I talk to my friends who support other clubs they are very dismissive of Wilson. They think the tanking issue is a non issue in that it's been around for years, everybody knew and nobody really cared. They are not calling for MFC blood over the issue and in fact many have said that if MFC didn't do what it did we'd have been an even greater laughing stock. Wilson isn't swaying them and I doubt her opinions mean much to the AFL. They will be much more interested in the image of footy and the health of the competition.

If Wilson was pursuing Carlton and not Melbourne we'd all be cheering. Fortunately this issue is so complex and far reaching that the AFL will be able to fashion a result they want. But that is another issue and not related to Wilson. Unlike you Nutbean I don't think Wilson has the influence you do.

Fan. it's interesting that you cited the Nathan Carroll sacking as an example of Wilson's journalistic bona fides.

Outside Fifty I'm not commenting on what CW is not writing. I like what she offers and whilst she doesn't go the Tigers that doesn't diminish what she does say. Most are aware of CW's bias, they just adjust their "take" on the offering.

I also think that what Nathan Carroll did was significantly different to the Aaron Edwards situation. Racial vilification to a fellow workmate in a public place is a serious issue.

You can nitpick all you like. The point is there was a meeting and CC did say some very provocative things at worse or cracked a very poor joke at best.

My view on McLardy, Schwab and others is totally irrelevant to my view on Wilson but you'll struggle to see that as you do with so many issues that are not straightforward.

I doubt that is true, your view on them colours your view on her defamation of them and by association the club; the more crap she writes about them the happier you are.

There are plenty of agendas on here, yours is just another coming from a different perspective.

Actually if you weren't a Moderator on this site i reckon most would just label you as a Troll; which would be appropriate.

CW is highlighting an issue and giving an opinion on what she thinks should happen. I think the AFL have so much more to think about than one journalists opinion on this issue. As has been stated many times we are being targeted for what was pretty much accepted AFL practice. Sadly we made it all too easy to identify and prove. Whether we like it or not the issue is a real one and has now thankfully been addressed by the AFL so we have largely moved past the Kreuzer cup. Wilson is part of that and I think it's a good thing.

When I talk to my friends who support other clubs they are very dismissive of Wilson. They think the tanking issue is a non issue in that it's been around for years, everybody knew and nobody really cared. They are not calling for MFC blood over the issue and in fact many have said that if MFC didn't do what it did we'd have been an even greater laughing stock. Wilson isn't swaying them and I doubt her opinions mean much to the AFL. They will be much more interested in the image of footy and the health of the competition.

If Wilson was pursuing Carlton and not Melbourne we'd all be cheering. Fortunately this issue is so complex and far reaching that the AFL will be able to fashion a result they want. But that is another issue and not related to Wilson. Unlike you Nutbean I don't think Wilson has the influence you do.

Outside Fifty I'm not commenting on what CW is not writing. I like what she offers and whilst she doesn't go the Tigers that doesn't diminish what she does say. Most are aware of CW's bias, they just adjust their "take" on the offering.

I also think that what Nathan Carroll did was significantly different to the Aaron Edwards situation. Racial vilification to a fellow workmate in a public place is a serious issue.

First, what are you suggesting is it that if we get done it will clear all the other sides including Carlton for its tanking in the Kreuzer Cup?

Second, how can you reconcile the two highlighted statements; either she does or doesn't have any influence?

Third, you think it's ok for her to show bias or only when it's bias that suits you?

I doubt that is true, your view on them colours your view on her defamation of them and by association the club; the more crap she writes about them the happier you are.

There are plenty of agendas on here, yours is just another coming from a different perspective.

Actually if you weren't a Moderator on this site i reckon most would just label you as a Troll; which would be appropriate.

You're a terrific supporter of the club Robbie both financially (which you've told us many times) and by your participation.

You're entitled to your view but I'm quite comfortable with what I've offered the club over the years and my level of support. I do think that there should be changes in the administration which I've argued on occasions but surely I'm entitled to have and express that opinion. Believe me there have been plenty of chances to pot the admin this year where I haven't. Just look at the "Due Diligence" thread.

First, what are you suggesting is it that if we get done it will clear all the other sides including Carlton for its tanking in the Kreuzer Cup?

Second, how can you reconcile the two highlighted statements; either she does or doesn't have any influence?

Third, you think it's ok for her to show bias or only when it's bias that suits you?

Do you really want to get into a subjective debate? I'm not going to change your view and I'm not interested in explaining my position time and time again.

We differ, it won't change the world or hurt the club.

You're a terrific supporter of the club Robbie both financially (which you've told us many times) and by your participation.

You're entitled to your view but I'm quite comfortable with what I've offered the club over the years and my level of support. I do think that there should be changes in the administration which I've argued on occasions but surely I'm entitled to have and express that opinion. Believe me there have been plenty of chances to pot the admin this year where I haven't. Just look at the "Due Diligence" thread.

You've shown your level of support for the club in this thread, and it's clear for all to see. If this is any indication of what you've offered the Club over the years I'm sure they are happy you've stopped supporting them.

BTW let me know if you ever decide to run for the Board and I'll make sure I put you at the bottom of the ballot.

Do you really want to get into a subjective debate? I'm not going to change your view and I'm not interested in explaining my position time and time again.

We differ, it won't change the world or hurt the club.

You haven't explained it once from what i can see.

However, I guess the less you post the better it is for all concerned.

Sadly we made it all too easy to identify and prove.

Fan i happen to agree with many of your points.

As i've said before she was doing her job, it was a nice juicy story and any journo would have loved to run with it. I had no real issue with her articles (other than the fact they were pretty poorly written and changed in detail from day to day eg the Vault changing from a code word to the name of a tin shed!) - that is 'till the last one. Terrible article and bordering on defamatory. It is no exaggeration to say that if posted on DL by a poster they would have been howled down and almost been suspended (its attacks were personal and quite extreme).

But i can't agree with the with your point about us making it easy to identify and prove. At least not i if understand that what you are saying is that the incompetence of senior staffers were the reason for this (eg CC raising it in a large meeting and making the comments he allegedly made).

Where i differ is that as one of the very few reasonable articles about this matter (Jake Niall i think but could be wrong) noted the reason this came out was the because of how poisonous and divided our culture has been at the board and FD levels over many, many years. Indeed CW herself has noted this culture. Other, more united, clubs are less likely to leak.

My concern about CW is she is both playing on this culture and fueling it with a clear agenda of attacking CS and CC. I have concerns other people, some of whom post on DL are trying to do the same - which of course plays straight into CW's hands.

I agree with Jnr mac (at least i think it was him) that said we seem to be more united now than we have been in a long time. I hope all dees fans, whatever their allegiances can drop the agendas and focus on the unification of the club. If they can't then i hope they use the election process not the press to prosecute their case.

Look I'm afraid I don't have time to answer everything.

Couldn't agree more Sue, she clearly has it in for Schwab but so what? If the MFC were a competent organization managed efficiently then she'd have nothing to go at. We aren't so she has ammunition. I'm often accused of having an agenda, but that doesn't render a position incorrect. For the record I wish she'd get off our back but I wish even more we didn't give her the oxygen to continue to target us.

Well let see.

1. It wasn't common knowledge that Schwab had taken a loan and wasn't an issue until she reported it. It became an issue because it was so totally inappropriate and had people be aware of it it would have been an issue earlier. It was a big issue because we'd gone to the membership to raise money to eliminate debt but still saw fit to give a substantial amount to Schwab. She made an issue of it, others didn't. And it was "an issue".

2. Nathan Carroll's delisting was a result of a "mad monday" in which he punched Ben Holland and racially abused a Jewish employee. She got the story.

3. Her article on Neeld's appointment wasn't an article against Neeld, it was an article highlighting the "unusual" employment process that was instituted by Lyon, McLardy and Schwab. It was part of her agenda to highlight Schwab and his practices.

Sorry I've haven't responded to others, it's difficult to keep up.

You're a terrific supporter of the club Robbie both financially (which you've told us many times) and by your participation.

You're entitled to your view but I'm quite comfortable with what I've offered the club over the years and my level of support. I do think that there should be changes in the administration which I've argued on occasions but surely I'm entitled to have and express that opinion. Believe me there have been plenty of chances to pot the admin this year where I haven't. Just look at the "Due Diligence" thread.

MODS please stop this CW LOVE.

FAN please stop trying to be like CW were you make a story up to sell yourself and your own agenda's

Outside Fifty I'm not commenting on what CW is not writing. I like what she offers and whilst she doesn't go the Tigers that doesn't diminish what she does say. Most are aware of CW's bias, they just adjust their "take" on the offering.

I also think that what Nathan Carroll did was significantly different to the Aaron Edwards situation. Racial vilification to a fellow workmate in a public place is a serious issue.

I'm not referencing what Carroll vs Martin, Edwards or Connors actually did , just the double standard applied which you yourself agree are apparent. This to me is the point of conjecture. How can Wilson ever be considered a Journalist of respect or integrity when she demonstrates an ingrained bias. You may counter that this bias does not diminish the truth in respect to some of her analysis of the MFC, but I would suggest that a body of work that shows consistent bias can never be viewed without that intent being apparent as motivation for the article. Once a Journalist embarks on this direction their motivation will and should always be called into question.

You seem to be blissfully unaware of the power of the press. There is nothing more dangerous than when agenda's, opinion, assumptions and postulating are presented as facts. Whilst what is going on is not exactly earth shattering compared to events on the world stage I am losing count of the conversations around footy and the tanking issue I am having where my friends are debating me with concrete FACTS - Caroline Wilson's version of concrete facts.

One word has been notoriously absent from all but her last article and that is the word "alleged/allegedly". Throws a completely different light on an article - it takes it out of the realms of fact and it becomes supposition.

Greg Denham is a goose and nobody takes him seriously - never have - never will. On the other hand Caroline Wilson is well read, is repsected and is taken notice of and it does not do justice to her or her profession for her writings to be opinions masquarading as facts.

Unfortunately I share your experiences - and hence your concerns.

We can't have Melbourne supporters giving credence to this woman's destructive bias. For what is at worst a very fine line of difference between our list management strategies and those of other teams - she is advocating sanctions which could cost us millions and set us back years. Thanks to her hyperbole the football public does think we are ripe for punishment.

As I have said before the proof of the pudding must be on the field - and the salient facts are Carlton's fade out ( with Fev on the bench ) against our hard-finish in the Kruezer Cup - and our effort to come-from- behind and hit the front in time -on against Richmond in Round 18 2009.

"Tanking" has never been clearly defined. It can only ever be relative. Somehow - despite on-field evidence to the contrary - Wilson seems to have isolated us on the wrong side of what she seems to think is a very clear line

Defend journalistic rights if you must, Fan - but please don't defend the way they have been abused in this case.

Couldn't agree more Sue, she clearly has it in for Schwab but so what? If the MFC were a competent organization managed efficiently then she'd have nothing to go at. We aren't so she has ammunition.

That , if you dont mind me suggesting is a mighty big throw-away pass there..."but so what ?"

The problem for me, and many here , is that this is the fuel that drives her in just about every swipe she makes at this club. Even when writing about seemingly a world away topic she will haul it back to some snide dig at the MFC and invariably a toxic jab at Schwab. She cant help herself.

You put it out here that were all but dysfunctional at management level, so how did we manage the journey of late ? How were we able to negotiate the reefs that lurked at every turn. Somehow, by dumb luck I take it we've found an island inhabitable !! Its also lush with new facilities and personnel. Boy you can get lucky sometimes eh !I say we are not nearly as poorly run as some might suggest. Certainly not now. Maybe 5-6 years back wonky might have been apt.

The problem with Wilson for mine is , and i've only of late figured this out , is that shes not so much the wonder journo she or her employers would have us believe but more a sniping guerllia hack who at times utilizes elements of the truth as a camouflage for her own vitriol.. I emphasize elements as its seldom the whole and often rearranged to suit her cause de jour .

But back to the "so what" if I might. This is fundamental to her course, let alone cause. they arent more than often mutually independent.

Its actually the "SO" that permeates her "What". Its this pungent obsession that taints the very air she breathes.

That , if you dont mind me suggesting is a mighty big throw-away pass there..."but so what ?"

The problem for me, and many here , is that this is the fuel that drives her in just about every swipe she makes at this club. Even when writing about seemingly a world away topic she will haul it back to some snide dig at the MFC and invariably a toxic jab at Schwab. She cant help herself.

You put it out here that were all but dysfunctional at management level, so how did we manage the journey of late ? How were we able to negotiate the reefs that lurked at every turn. Somehow, by dumb luck I take it we've found an island inhabitable !! Its also lush with new facilities and personnel. Boy you can get lucky sometimes eh !I say we are not nearly as poorly run as some might suggest. Certainly not now. Maybe 5-6 years back wonky might have been apt.

The problem with Wilson for mine is , and i've only of late figured this out , is that shes not so much the wonder journo she or her employers would have us believe but more a sniping guerllia hack who at times utilizes elements of the truth as a camouflage for her own vitriol.. I emphasize elements as its seldom the whole and often rearranged to suit her cause de jour .

But back to the "so what" if I might. This is fundamental to her course, let alone cause. they arent more than often mutually independent.

Its actually the "SO" that permeates her "What". Its this pungent obsession that taints the very air she breathes.

She very obviously has a beef with CS and the MFC. She very obviously doesn't appreciate good reporting skills or writing, but so what?

That's her prerogative and she is allowed that.

Edited: Ps, I'm not condoning her journalism, but she is entitled to an opinion and prerogrative... as much as it pains me to see the end result of the two