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

[Goodvibes 3,596]

One quote is not a series; not that I'm aware of anyway, unless you are referring to my response to another poster TimD. Perhaps you should look at all the posts after he signed off and comment on them, not mine.

Plus your post makes absolutely no sense and seems pointless.

As soon as you start talking about us being factionalized and make references to grinding axes and bruised egos you must hold yourself up to a higher standard when you post about off-field footy matters. I actually agree with what your saying. I follow Melbourne because I'm interested in what happens on the football field. Football politics is of little interest to me. But if you're going to get on the front foot and talk about the need for all of us to be on the same page then do yourself a service and drop the personal digs. Those who are being genuinely using Demonland to be divisive (and I don't think Fan is) will disappear if they're not given airplay. Take your other sparring partner as a classic example. Talk footy and they've got nothing.

[heartbeatstrue 57]

If anyone needs further reminding of the proposition I put in my previous post, I commend them to view last week's edition on catch up TV of ABC's Offsiders programme (11/11/12) which featured Wilson as a panellist. The others were Roy Masters and Francis Leach and they were as one in their groupthink in condemning Melbourne as being guilty without charge of ... er, alleged "match fixing". It's no longer called "tanking" or "experimentation", no other AFL club was mentioned. Needless to say, no real evidence was presented but it never is when you're putting on a show trial.

Goebells and Joe McCarthy would have been proud.

The bias and bitterness towards certain MFC employees evidenced in this storm of articles in The Age is hardly quality journalism. It smacks of some personal vendetta.

Sadly it's in keeping with the "ethical standards" of journalism in general and the Sports Age in particular (Flanagan excepted).

Here from Crikey in 2009 is pretty much all the substance that there is to this:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/08/04/afl-enters-the-tank-end-of-the-season/

In 2007, Richmond coach Terry Wallace told media before the club’s round 22 match against St Kilda that he had “conflicted emotions” about winning the match. (Richmond ultimately lost the game and was able to select champion youngster, Trent Cotchin at that year’s draft). Commenting on that match in June this year, Wallace claimed that “it was a no-win situation for everyone in the coach’s box … we decided the best way to operate was just to let the players go out … I didn’t do anything. I just let the boys play. There weren’t any miracle moves in the last couple of minutes.”

And quoting Garry:

Former Melbourne champion and media personality, Garry Lyon, disagreed with Demetriou, criticizing current situation telling The Age that:

…a 13-year-old in the car, having played junior footy and you’re sort of moaning about Melbourne kicking a goal, and he’s looking at you going, “What are you dad? What are you doing?” You try and explain that to him … it’s hard to separate the dispassionate and the passionate. If you’re a passionate footy supporter, it goes against everything, or passionate football person, it’s counter to everything you believe in as a person and as a competitor, to think, “Oh jeez, I hope the side doesn’t win”.

And who is the guilty party? Can hardly expect the Sports Age to rant against Terry Wallace who "didn't do anything" to try and win the game (what hypocrisy by The Age writers!). But Crikey gets it right:

While Demetriou and the AFL celebrate the completely irrelevant defection of Rugby League player, Karmichael Hunt (who many suspect will struggle to perform at AFL level), perhaps they should focus on the game at hand, and rectify a problem that is destroying the integrity of the AFL.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

As soon as you start talking about us being factionalized and make references to grinding axes and bruised egos you must hold yourself up to a higher standard when you post about off-field footy matters. I actually agree with what your saying. I follow Melbourne because I'm interested in what happens on the football field. Football politics is of little interest to me. But if you're going to get on the front foot and talk about the need for all of us to be on the same page then do yourself a service and drop the personal digs. Those who are being genuinely using Demonland to be divisive (and I don't think Fan is) will disappear if they're not given airplay. Take your other sparring partner as a classic example. Talk footy and they've got nothing.

Fan came on here and dropped a hand grenade in to the room then, when he's created enough [censored], he want's to walk away from it, well that's not good enough he doesn't decide, nor do you, when someone can or cannot comment.

He obviously wanted to throw some [censored] at the present committee and that, in my opinion, at this point in time, is destabilising and if anyone tries to hurt the club I will have a go at them.

[Deecisive 1,651]

I think if you put any club who got priority draft picks under the microscope like they are doing with MFC then you will find much the same behavior, mixed emotions about winning, resting players, jokes about loosing, speculating about who you will get with your priority pick well in advance of the end of the season, people who have left the club complaining, etc.. Which is why i think we see no real criticism from other clubs etc other than from JKennett, because they know what they themselves did and dont really want any investigations on them. Broke Mclean opened pandora's box to not just tanking issues but general scrutinized for unfair behavior Juddies VISY deal was an obvious unfair advantage provided to Carlton. I would love investigators to start to ask about the Kruzer cup, if so I wonder how well popular Broke will be with the blues.

[Hannibal 5,814]

The line about "personal bias" is poor - and I'm being generous. "Any club interest"? Really?

While I am all for defending the club against the vindictive outside interests, I think that the club needs some serious scrutiny about its behaviours from us. You are not interested in doing that; you just dissect players. What, management a bit too big a target? You got stuck into bailey as the disasters unfolded in 2011. That was crisis stage but it didn't stop you then. What is the magic threshold for criticism of a club? We were already a laughing stock. So many of your ingredients were already present. not so relevant then for you - this crisis issue - but it is now. why? Crisis bad enough now but not bad enoguh then?

This "defend the club" guff has no basis in reason. None. If the club is strong then we can withstand it. If it is weak then the weakness needs to be addressed. To do nothing is to accept that our leaders actions are beyond scrutiny and to accept the club is too weak to even bare scrutinise on the interent fan forum. Seriously. A fan forum. As if it the MFC is that bad; as if it is that weak. The next concern is that the boogie man is going to come and get me if I think the wrong thing.

You are the fan of a right-wing conservative who rails against all sorts of stuff - including forcing people to think the politically correct line. That is exactly what you are espousing. To the letter. Don't criticise. Accept all for the betterment of the club. Disregard all external criticism. Do not doubt. And here you are, champion of the open minded man who doubts the 'experts', saying that doubt is dangerous and disloyal. FMD.

Tim, Tim, Tim...

I know Fan is revered on here and having met him and had beers with him I know why. What a fantastic personality It's hardly surprising that the same old loyal posters come scurrying to his aid. I might have once too. It's human nature. But I'm afraid his personal connections to members of the previous Board have severely clouded his thinking and decision making. the fact that he walked away from this thread rather than defend his assertions is telling.

Tim, I'm not sure if you realise this, but there's presently an investigation into the club that has yet to be concluded. That means no findings have been presented back to the club, or the AFL Commission. There's no need to sack any official, there's no need to castigate anyone, because the investigation is on-going. Tim, perhaps you and Fan have been reading Wilson's articles and have concluded in your own mind that your club is guilty and that those responsible need to be held to account. I haven't, Tim, because I'm waiting for the findings. And in the light of an age old and possibly anachronistic principle I'm defending the club and anyone associated with it with the premise that they're innocent until proven guilty. I appreciate that it's not a legal trial, but it could end up in the courts and it's a principle to be valued in a formal investigation of this nature. And unlike Fan, where Wilson has used personal bile in opinion pieces, such as "pathetic and disgusting" I shan't be saying, "Keep up the good work, Caro." Tim, the burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies. Yet you're trying to tell me how a right wing conservative should think ? Good one.

More extraordinarily Tim, you equate the club's on-field position under Bailey in 2011, which was terribly poor, to be of a crisis the equivalent of this ? Have you completely lost your mind ? This investigation is extremely serious. If found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute the sanctions could be onerous. Similar sanctions set the Carlton Football Club back a decade. They're probably still noticing the ramifications even now. Not to mention that the reputation of the club has a permanent stain. In 2011 Tim, I had evidence that Bailey was a [censored] coach. He'd been at the helm for 4 years and it was time to go. Clearly the club agreed with me, as he was sacked. So I was hardly the lone ranger. But in this instance the club is being investigated in a manner that has far greater repercussions than whether we had a decent coach. And I'm waiting to see irrefutable evidence that our club fixed matches. I'm also waiting to see what definition could be used to determine what constitutes "fixing matches". Are you able to help me out, Tim ?

But let me be clear. Your insinuation that the club's on-field predicament under a poor coach in 2011 is the equivalent to the club being investigated for possible match fixing charges that it denies is patently absurd. I'll be defending the club to the hilt until these allegations are decided. My reaction to those at the club is dependent upon findings that are yet to be handed down. You, Fan and his cheerleaders can please yourselves.

[jnrmac 18,954]

I'll have a go.

1. Interview, re interview, talk to as many people as possible, make it evident that the 'investigation' is extremely thorough and robust.

2. Make a statement that says that the evidence suggests that the MFC did not maximise their chances of winning more games than they did there is no definitive evidence that they deliberately conspired to lose - ie tanking. The statement will say something along the lines of 'however it is of great concern that a senior FD employee would make comments to a group that suggested, even in jest, that the club did not want to win any more games. Further there were some unusual positional moves and choices to bench players that appear suspect and indeed were questioned by many in the media at the time. This is not a good look but again they do not represent evidence of tanking, nor can evidence of systematic tanking be found'

3. Finalise the exit strategy with something like: 'Over a period of some years questioned have been raised about a number of scenarios and actions by clubs, We do not believe tanking - deliberately fixing games - has occurred, however we are very concerned about the perception that it is occuring. Consequently we are going to engage a panel of experts to review how we can address this perception issue. This might involve changing the rules to make it clearer what we regard to be unacceptable, when potentially suspect action occur (for example who may derive a benefit from finishing last choosing to rest most of it decent players) we will interview the club immediately and seek an explanation and finally looking at the draft system and exploring options such as a lottery to reduce the reward for finishing last.'

You've seen the report?? I think that's exactly how it will pan out.

[Demonsterative 1,917]

Fan may have dropped a bomb shell, but many others caught it, ran with it, and added fuel to the fire. Like Fan, I have not read all of this thread but I find it amazing how many people fall into the same pattern of behaviour.

Some will only add to a discussion on DL when they have a political agenda to push (all because they love football politics), now watch these people go back into the wood work until the next mine field opens up.

Whilst others have a habit of jumping into a discussion to off load their anger whilst disguising it as debate. Watch these people troll across all threads waiting to pounce.

The best defense to such people is to ignore them and move along

[hoopla 418]

I don't know who Fan is - or indeed who anyone is on this site ........ so I don't relate to these discussions about hidden agendas. I do know that individuals get hurt in the cutthroat world of AFL football - and that it is human nature to try exact some form of retribution against those who have hurt us. But at the end of the day the club is bigger than the individual - and I would expect that all of us on this site would want to see us climb the on-field and financial ladders as soon as possible.

The facts are that our club - at the instigation of a disgruntled former player - is currently the subject of an unprecedented investigation - and that a prominent journalist s using it to try to trash our brand. Whether or not we alone committed a crime in placing long-term needs ahead of short-term needs is problematical at best - yet we face penalties which could destroy the hopes of all of us.

We should all be putting aside our personal animosities and shouting from the rooftops the one incontrovertible fact in play here - that the future success of our club is under threat because the AFL is considering using a scapegoat to justify the fact that it built a process designed to encourage clubs to bottom out.

Do you want Wilson to be able to say in her next article that a number of Melbourne supporters agree with her, Do you agree that we should be that scapegoat?

We are the ONLY club being investigated at the moment - we should ALL be protesting

[Guest NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

This "defend the club" guff has no basis in reason. None.

You call defending the club against slander, innuendo and the possbility of crippling sanctions... "guff"?

GTFO you turncoat.

[rpfc 27,453]

You call defending the club against slander, innuendo and the possbility of crippling sanctions... "guff"?

GTFO you turncoat.

That's not at all what he means. So calm down.

You are all talking past each other. Tim doesn't believe we need to stop criticism entirely in the wake of this issue, but he has voiced his frustration at the seemingly endless array of people willing to contribute to the issue in the public square and former MFC officials that seem to be actively seeking reciprocity through various mediums.

Which is exactly the type of 'input' most of us are so enraged at (for lack of a better word).

[Whispering_Jack 27,971]

If anyone needs further reminding of the proposition I put in my previous post, I commend them to view last week's edition on catch up TV of ABC's Offsiders programme (11/11/12) which featured Wilson as a panellist. The others were Roy Masters and Francis Leach and they were as one in their groupthink in condemning Melbourne as being guilty without charge of ... er, alleged "match fixing". It's no longer called "tanking" or "experimentation", no other AFL club was mentioned. Needless to say, no real evidence was presented but it never is when you're putting on a show trial.

Goebells and Joe McCarthy would have been proud.

Interestingly, on today's Offsiders, Francis Leach seemed far more conciliatory towards AFL clubs that are considered to be rorting the system. This time the subject matter was the AFL's decision to put an end to dealing with Chris Judd's third party deal with Visy as being outside the salary cap. This time Leach had no trouble with that deal and instead he blamed the AFL for allowing it in the first place when we all knew that the Visy ambassadorship was a load of carp and a blatant way of circumventing the salary cap rules.

The parallel of course is that after the AFL's pronouncements about the legality of Carlton's conduct in the Kreuzer Cup season when the Blues perfected the process of experimentation to a T, Melbourne was entitled to follow suit and experiment to its heart's content. I don't understand Leach's inconsistency here.

Does anyone know which AFL club he supports?

[Biffen 12,323]

Interestingly, on today's Offsiders, Francis Leach seemed far more conciliatory towards AFL clubs that are considered to be rorting the system. This time the subject matter was the AFL's decision to put an end to dealing with Chris Judd's third party deal with Visy as being outside the salary cap. This time Leach had no trouble with that deal and instead he blamed the AFL for allowing it in the first place when we all knew that the Visy ambassadorship was a load of carp and a blatant way of circumventing the salary cap rules.

The parallel of course is that after the AFL's pronouncements about the legality of Carlton's conduct in the Kreuzer Cup season when the Blues perfected the process of experimentation to a T, Melbourne was entitled to follow suit and experiment to its heart's content. I don't understand Leach's inconsistency here.

Does anyone know which AFL club he supports?

Saints

[pantaloons 2,018]

I'm confused. Wasn't today the day the AFL Commission was supposed to meet and kick Melbourne out of the league, slip a bit of arsenic into Cameron Schwab's Ovaltine and ban any coach from ever playing someone out of position again?

[daisycutter 28,517]

I'm confused. Wasn't today the day the AFL Commission was supposed to meet and kick Melbourne out of the league, slip a bit of arsenic into Cameron Schwab's Ovaltine and ban any coach from ever playing someone out of position again?

been postponed to 2030

[beelzebub 22,225]

Leach , like the majority of the rest of the hacking lot feel a mandate to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds to suit. You an spot this type for they seek the higher moral ground when in reality theyre just scrambling out of the tar-pits.

Theres a much more commonly understood name for these types....Hypocrites !!

[old dee 22,854]

Leach , like the majority of the rest of the hacking lot feel a mandate to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds to suit. You an spot this type for they seek the higher moral ground when in reality theyre just scrambling out of the tar-pits.

Theres a much more commonly understood name for these types....Hypocrites !!

a bit acidic BB

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Leach , like the majority of the rest of the hacking lot feel a mandate to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds to suit. You an spot this type for they seek the higher moral ground when in reality theyre just scrambling out of the tar-pits.

Theres a much more commonly understood name for these types....Hypocrites !!

He has been joined by the Village Idiot, Kennett (as if I had to name him) who thinks it's outrageous that Adelaide were able to postpone their appointment and that Melbourne and Adelaide are still permitted to participate in the draft. Well, it was indicated today that the AFL postponed the meeting for one and secondly we haven't been found guilty of any wrongdoing so why shouldn't we be able to participate? Nor have Adelaide been found guilty of anything for that mater.

[beelzebub 22,225]

a bit acidic BB

good. Then i got the pH just right !!!

[dee-luded 2,958]

a bit acidic BB

what does ya expect from a tar pit, limestone?

if they're trying to acidwash us, they can do it in silks.

[waikikkamukau 62]

If true, that piece of rubbish clearly shows that the leak source is from the AFl; probably the investigators.

Where is the leak? There are no direct quotes in this article, yet again it's speculation and not worth a piece of nanny goat s#*t. She is a joke!

[angrydee 842]

Where is the leak? There are no direct quotes in this article, yet again it's speculation and not worth a piece of nanny goat s#*t. She is a joke!

Jokes are funny - she is just a pathetic caricature of a journo who must realize that she becomes less relevant with each passing moment.

[biggestred 4,296]

in her latest article Tippett legal demand to be set free, Wilson has the following to say regarding Chris Judd and Visy:-

"There has been no suggestion that Carlton wrote to Visy to set up the deal."

For someone who is meant to be an investigative journalist she is shocking at missing the obvious - which is that Carlton's president at the time, Richard Pratt, was also in charge of Visy and that even now, Mrs. Pratt is the Vice President.

Surely, Wilson can add 2+2?

[beelzebub 22,225]

Surely, Wilson can add 2+2?

its amazing how when you disect much of her work not a lot adds up !!

[Dee Fan 3,247]

its amazing how when you disect much of her work not a lot adds up !!

She's a hack and a puppet; someone's got a good hold on the strings. How in God's name can anyone support her and the crap she writes.

[Longsufferingnomore 1,463]

in her latest article Tippett legal demand to be set free, Wilson has the following to say regarding Chris Judd and Visy:-

"There has been no suggestion that Carlton wrote to Visy to set up the deal."

For someone who is meant to be an investigative journalist she is shocking at missing the obvious - which is that Carlton's president at the time, Richard Pratt, was also in charge of Visy and that even now, Mrs. Pratt is the Vice President.

Surely, Wilson can add 2+2?

Nah, 2+2=CS