THE WILSON FILE - the arrogance at the heart of the innuendo

[mjt 640]

Mate I am one of your exceptions.

I hated losing to Richmond that day on the day and have ever since.

It will IMO go down as the worse period in the history of the MFC.

And there lies the problem, alot of people went to the G that day to see a win, now they could be punished twice.

[Macca 17,034]

no. It is a distraction that may just define the club going forward.

If the MFC roll over and accept AFL Punishment that could well be serious, this club will die.

The elusive 13 will never happen.

I don't care if this sh!t takes 2-3 years to sort out

WE the MEMBERS must demand our club fight this right to the end.

I think you may have misunderstood my post's Wyl . I said I'd prefer if it didn't go to court . Never said anything about rolling over and accepting punishment . If we go to court, we go to court (and probably win)

What I was intimating is that a deal might be done and we could ultimately cop a 'suspended' fine . Again, not an ideal settlement and certainly unpalatable but it might be a forced situation . Would you wear that scenario ?

Edited January 5, 2013 by Macca

[daisycutter 29,743]

I think you may have misunderstood my post's Wyl . I said I'd prefer if it didn't go to court . Never said anything about rolling over and accepting punishment . If we go to court, we go to court (and probably win)

What I was intimating is that a deal might be done and we ultimately cop a 'suspended' fine . Would you wear that scenario ?

yes, if it was conditional on other clubs undergoing an intensive 6 month inquiry, preferably starting with richmond then carlton

[hoopla 418]

Conveniently ignoring the fact the majority of it is misinformation?

The only question is: did she make it up, or is someone feeding her porkies to make her look silly..?

There is another question - what valid information does she miss and/or deliberately ignore?

I'm astonished that there hasn't been a prominent 'Journo' write an exposé on all the dodgy happenings over the years . Collectively the media have managed to keep the focus on our club . And many of the general public have fallen for it .

How Carlton have been kept out of things is mind boggling . If this goes to court there will be no more hiding though . A whole bunch of Clubs , Presidents and Coaches could easily be called to explain .

At the end of the day , this is what irks all of us. Would Connolly have even joked about losing games if he hadn't seen Carlton celebrating their victory in the Kreuzer Cup? Would the whole Melbourne investigation have been necessary if Wilson had picked up Libba's ( or Fev's) statement and started a media campaign to discredit Carlton for its list management practices?

After all these years of struggle, the media still enjoys feeding on us as if we are the tall poppies of 1964.

[Macca 17,034]

yes, if it was conditional on other clubs undergoing an intensive 6 month inquiry, preferably starting with richmond then carlton

Fair enough . But that Richmond/Carlton thing probably wouldn't happen 'dc' . I reckon we'd have to wear it, singularly. (if that unpalatable 'suspended fine' scenario did occur)

By the way, the obvious, preferred wish is that we get off completely . In all manner of fairness that is what should happen but sometimes ....life is unfair .

But a bit of good luck may well come our way, down the track.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Macca

[Sir Why You Little 37,134]

I think you may have misunderstood my post's Wyl . I said I'd prefer if it didn't go to court . Never said anything about rolling over and accepting punishment . If we go to court, we go to court (and probably win)

What I was intimating is that a deal might be done and we ultimately cop a 'suspended' fine . Would you wear that scenario ?

tbh mate i am not sure. I want this tanking issue smashed and buried. A suspended slap on the wrist would not do that.

And it would give the AFL the upper hand on all dealing going forward.

If this gets nasty we must fight it

On & off the field.

[daisycutter 29,743]

Fair enough . But that Richmond/Carlton thing probably wouldn't happen 'dc' . I reckon we'd have to wear it, singularly. (if that 'suspended fine' scenario did occur)

By the way, my preferred wish is that we get off completely .

Life is unfair, sometimes . But a bit of good luck may well come our way, down the track.

agree macca, it wouldn't happen which only casts a shadow of any claim the afl are interested in any form of even-handed justice.

if we become a sacrificial cow and no other club is investigated i will be furious and even a member or two of the press (if there are any journos left) may be prepared to take the afl to task

either way the public will see through the hypocrisy and the afl will not come out of it smelling of rosesl

[dee-luded 2,959]

If she went after Carlton like our club she might then be forced to go after the Tigers . That's probably why she's left the Blues alone . By keeping the focus on our club it's effectively kept all the other clubs out of it - though that is still hard to understand .

I'm astonished that there hasn't been a prominent 'Journo' write an exposé on all the dodgy happenings over the years . Collectively the media have managed to keep the focus on our club . And many of the general public have fallen for it .

How Carlton have been kept out of things is mind boggling . If this goes to court there will be no more hiding though . A whole bunch of Clubs , Presidents and Coaches could easily be called to explain .

I'd like to call the players association rep to examination. I suspect them of being a big player in the AFL's ears & a pain in their backsides.

[Macca 17,034]

tbh mate i am not sure. I want this tanking issue smashed and buried. A suspended slap on the wrist would not do that.

And it would give the AFL the upper hand on all dealing going forward.

If this gets nasty we must fight it

On & off the field.

They're always going to have the upper hand, regardless of the circumstances .

That's the way they operate

By the way, none of us know the facts as yet . It's just pure speculation from our point of view .

Edited January 5, 2013 by Macca

[dee-luded 2,959]

They're always going to have the upper hand, regardless of the circumstances .

That's the way they operate

They have an upper hand by virtue of treating us all as mushrooms.

[Sir Why You Little 37,134]

They're always going to have the upper hand, regardless of the circumstances .

That's the way they operate

By the way, none of us know the facts as yet . It's just pure speculation from our point of view .

exactly the reason the media should not have painted the picture of GUILTY months ago through the pen of Wilson.

That was her opinion not the facts.

[Macca 17,034]

exactly the reason the media should not have painted the picture of GUILTY months ago through the pen of Wilson.

That was her opinion not the facts.

Yep, it's totally unfair and has been since McLean opened his yap .

We do need to find a solution and end this rubbish once and for all . What's it, the end of January for the decision? Sometime later next week our 3 weeks will be up (to answer the 'allegations') so we'll know soon enough .

Edit : Just in relation to the unfairness of this whole situation - what if that level of unfairness continues right up until the end of January ? We've all been waiting for common sense to prevail but in 5 and a half months it still hasn't happened . I'm almost convinced that they want to find us guilty - no matter what .

Edited January 5, 2013 by Macca

[angrydee 842]

no. It is a distraction that may just define the club going forward.

If the MFC roll over and accept AFL Punishment that could well be serious, this club will die.

The elusive 13 will never happen.

I don't care if this sh!t takes 2-3 years to sort out

WE the MEMBERS must demand our club fight this right to the end.

Totally agree!

If the club are found guilty and don't fight it out in court, I will lose all respect for them.

[old dee 23,872]

Totally agree!

If the club are found guilty and don't fight it out in court, I will lose all respect for them.

You have my vote angrydee.

IMO if we don't go to court it means we are guilty as charged.

In that case heads should roll.

Not because we did anything different to other clubs but because we were so poor at the doing it.

[Hannibal 5,814]

You have my vote angrydee.

IMO if we don't go to court it means we are guilty as charged.

In that case heads should roll.

Not because we did anything different to other clubs but because we were so poor at the doing it.

What do you mean, "if we are guilty" ? We definitely didn't want to win some matches, but it's not easy to prove that we tried to lose.

Imo, our 'intent' isn't in doubt. We wanted the PP.

[old dee 23,872]

What do you mean, "if we are guilty" ? We definitely didn't want to win some matches, but it's not easy to prove that we tried to lose.

Imo, our 'intent' isn't in doubt. We wanted the PP.

BH I have always believed we were guilty.

Now that does not mean we were any different to a number of other clubs.

The MFC admitting it is another matter and I don't believe we should because we used the system the same as other clubs.

But we tanked in the Richmond game no doubt in my mind.

[Macca 17,034]

BH I have always believed we were guilty.

Now that does not mean we were any different to a number of other clubs.

The MFC admitting it is another matter and I don't believe we should because we used the system the same as other clubs.

But we tanked in the Richmond game no doubt in my mind.

The focus on that one game is where everyone seems to be looking is but that is where the argument becomes flawed .

Why no emphasis on all the other games involving various teams that could be called into question ? In my opinion there are probably over 100 individual games that are questionable (remembering that over 20 priority picks were awarded over a 10-15 year period)

If you're not looking you won't find . The Tigers were sitting at 4/4 after 8 rounds of the 2004 season . They lost their last 14 games of the season . They picked up Deledio as a priority pick . That's just one example . My Tiger mates reckon the 2nd half of the season of that year was a joke - not just because they coudn't win a game . Frawley was the coach of that team .

But who can even remember that stuff ? We weren't looking or should I say "We turned a blind eye" . Here is that 2004 season .

[old dee 23,872]

The focus on that one game is where everyone seems to be looking is but that is where the argument becomes flawed .

Why no emphasis on all the other games involving various teams that could be called into question ? In my opinion there are probably over 100 individual games that are questionable (remembering that over 20 priority picks were awarded over a 10-15 year period)

If you're not looking you won't find . The Tigers were sitting at 4/4 after 8 rounds of the 2004 season . They lost their last 14 games of the season . They picked up Deledio as a priority pick . That's just one example . My Tiger mates reckon the 2nd half of the season of that year was a joke - not just because they coudn't win a game . Frawley was the coach of that team .

But who can even remember that stuff ? We weren't looking or should I say "We turned a blind eye" . Here is that 2004 season .

Macca I don't disagree with you.

But you cannot be exempt from a crime because other people have committed the same crime.

I have said umpteen times that we we were one of many who used the system in similar ways.

I do not want the MFC penalised and we should fight it to the bitter end.

but please we did not want to win that Richmond match and it does not matter that it is only one game during 2009 IMO.

PS I wish to God I had not gone to that 2009 game.

I could then be so self righteous

But I saw what I saw!

Edited January 5, 2013 by old dee

[Macca 17,034]

Macca I don't disagree with you.

But you cannot be exempt from a crime because other people have committed the same crime.

I have said umpteen times that we we were one of many who used the system in similar ways.

I do not want the MFC penalised and we should fight it to the bitter end.

but please we did not want to win that Richmond match and it does not matter that it is only one game during 2009 IMO

Calling what we might have done or what other clubs might have done a 'crime' is a bit of a 'stretch' old dee .

There's no doubt that if this saga ends up in court then the example like the Richmond one that I've highlighted will/can be referenced . That's part of this huge can of worms that will be opened .

Can you be penalised for a misdemeanor if that same misdemeanor is 'rubber stamped' as not guilty by the authorities at the same time? It just doesn't make sense .

You can't really have 2 different rules that govern the exact or almost the exact same circumstances - the AFL would find that out if it went to court .

Edited January 6, 2013 by Macca

[Hannibal 5,814]

BH I have always believed we were guilty.

Now that does not mean we were any different to a number of other clubs.

The MFC admitting it is another matter and I don't believe we should because we used the system the same as other clubs.

But we tanked in the Richmond game no doubt in my mind.

So "heads should roll if we're found guilty and don't go to court" ? If we're found guilty and don't go to court heads will roll.

"MFC not admiting it is another matter" ? Yes, I never touched on that. Of course the club should deny any wrong doing. And to this point they have.

Apparently the growing consensus is that if we're found guilty of something then individuals and not the club will be sanctioned. Clearly that is far more palatable and the lesser of two evils. In fact, I dare say, some contributors on this forum will feel warm and fuzzy about such a notion.

[Bossdog 2,002]

Indivduals should not be singled out.....We are, after all, a club....Are we not????.....Should certain individuals be charged then we must stick by them at all costs.......Hanging them out to dry for decisions made by the CLUB, for the club to get a softer penalty, is just a cop out.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Indivduals should not be singled out.....We are, after all, a club....Are we not????.....Should certain individuals be charged then we must stick by them at all costs.......Hanging them out to dry for decisions made by the CLUB, for the club to get a softer penalty, is just a cop out.

I'm not suggesting that the club should abandon anyone and I'd want my club to fight any sanctions that may be handed down.

But just as clearly, it's a far better scenario for our club if sanctions are made against individuals and not the club. That's patently obvious I would have thought.

[Guest José Mourinho]

Indivduals should not be singled out.....We are, after all, a club....Are we not????.....Should certain individuals be charged then we must stick by them at all costs.......Hanging them out to dry for decisions made by the CLUB, for the club to get a softer penalty, is just a cop out.

Really?

How about decisions made by individuals on what they thought was best for the club?

Unless the board voted on it, making a clear decision on behalf of all the members, I'm not sure the club as a whole should be held responsible for the actions of an individual.

[Deeoldfart 8,065]

.................................................................

Apparently the growing consensus is that if we're found guilty of something then individuals and not the club will be sanctioned. Clearly that is far more palatable and the lesser of two evils. In fact, I dare say, some contributors on this forum will feel warm and fuzzy about such a notion.

The way this debate has gone, there can be little doubt about that!

[Macca 17,034]

I'm not suggesting that the club should abandon anyone and I'd want my club to fight any sanctions that may be handed down.

But just as clearly, it's a far better scenario for our club if sanctions are made against individuals and not the club. That's patently obvious I would have thought.

Sanctions handed down to individuals would still hurt the club if they weren't guilty of anything substantial .

As an example - Connolly . All we know so far are the 'jocular' comments that he allegedly made . If he were to be punished for just those comments and we didn't stand by him then we'd lose a lot of face - which in turn would damage the club .

I'm with Bossdog on this - there can be no expendables (unless they've done the wrong thing)

Those calling for individuals heads (and I'm not suggesting that you are one of them) are patently wrong at this stage . Connolly and Schwab have done nothing wrong (that we know of) .

Edited January 5, 2013 by Macca